Debates and Open Phones

Apostolic Defense and the Program’s Opening Announcements

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

Upcoming Debates, Open Phones, and a Brief Correction

And welcome to another jumbo edition of the dividing line 90 minutes today at the top of the hour. We will open up the phones for your phone calls haven't taken calls in quite some time. So if you want to comment on what has been said Maybe if you're that Muslim with whom I had the Twitter debate this morning before I went on my ride in the dark.

Whatever eight seven seven seven five three three, three four one is number. You will wish to call then at the top of the hour, but first first half hour we will continue with the Fernandez Comas debate on Calvinism on the five points Calvinism and Second half hour.

We will dive into the Roger Perkins Matt slick debate on Oneness in preparation for also listening to the two-day debate. I'm not sure if we'll do the second day I think we might we'll see how much time we have between now and when I head down to Brisbane for that that debate as well.

So 90 minutes. Phones will be open in an hour from now and we'll take your phone calls then a date seven seven seven five three three Three four one very quickly before we get back into the friend. It's comas debate James Anderson wrote an article.

I forgot to bring it up on my screen. I apologize for that I've I've kept it up in Chrome now for three or four days. I'll just transfer it over and I never got around to it. But basically he was taking exception to my stating that he was the Roger Perkins student.

I apologize for that I That's where my recollection of what was said in the chat channel when I was given the URLs to the various Debates I listened to and I was also since that person provided me with that information and I also heard that James Anderson was Involved in that debate with mr. Reeves as the moderator and as a UPC minister, then I just sort of put it all together.

He says he's not the student maybe the term in protege, but evidently that's not the case either. I certainly have never heard Roger Perkins utilizing Jimmy Dunn as a source and personally from my perspective I Sort of wonder what the result the long-term result will be of one this Pentecostal isn't being exposed to the kind of higher criticism that Jimmy Dunn practices.

I just don't see how the two can fit together for any lengthy period of time. But anyways, that's another that's another issue. We might get into that at some time in the future I don't know, but he wanted to correct that in regards to The topic of his relationship with Roger Perkins according to what I heard this today.

On my ride I was listening to him introducing mr. Perkins for the second day of that debate with mr. Reeves and in his introduction He said that Mr. Perkins is a moderator one of the forums on his own website.

So I know there's a close relationship I just find their arguments to be very very different from one another and their positions to be different as well on a number of Issues, but we'll get into that.

And so I wanted to make that That correction there was one other item. Oh, I did want to mention one other thing. I Was listening again to the debate between Roger Perkins and mr. Reeves. Brett Reeves, I believe is the name the Church of Christ minister and I was I Listened to an entire rebuttal period at one point today.

Well, I've listened to most of Entire day, so obviously I'd hear a whole rebuttal period but I was thinking to myself You know, I don't know that I would have said anything differently than what mr. Reeves said here I might have chosen a couple different texts, you know a few things like that, but I was very impressed with mr. Reeves Self-control there were a lot of places where he would have been I think well grounded to have.

Let's just say mr. Perkins threw a lot of fire on the flames a lot of gas on the flames I would say and He remained quite calm there a couple times and I'm gonna really suggest mr. Perkins. Don't even bother with this with me.

Where you could tell he was trying to get mr. Reeves to start talking during mr. Perkins part. That's not what a debates about you don't do that. You know, why don't you look over? Why don't you answer it?

No, you don't do that. I've had a few people do like that. That's trust me I know how to make that backfire on you very very badly. He was doing that to mr. Reeves. Mr Reeves did not give into that. So the reason I mentioned all of this is Church of Christ folks love to have them.

I think this is a four-day debate. I only heard Monday and Tuesday I don't know what the rest of it was on they had they loved to have these long. Every night, you know, I don't know what to do during the day, but there's big long debates and I'm thinking, you know, here's a guy and and during the Tuesday debate.

It was mentioned that Fact mr. Perkins says and your debates against Calvinist, you know. It all means all and he was making some point about all and so the thought crossed my mind today. You know, I think it would be a really good idea if sometime in the future.

We I've never debated Church of Christ guy on the doctrines of grace. And if we could do it, you know like a three-night debate or something like that. We could actually cover a fairly lengthy. I did debate one guy.

What there's only one night and it was only on the subject of election, but not the doctrines of grace, you know. Do the do do particular redemption do the sovereignty of God do? Perseverance the Saints or something, you know something like that or you know divided up so at least we could cover the majority of the issue.

Yeah, we'd be a Paul Barber. That was just on election. It was just it was a brief one for one night and I was coughing my head off the whole time too as I recall. So I was real sick on that trip number four eight eight.

Thank you very much rich. How many times can you put that on the screen for me four eight eight is the order number. Where I debate with Paul Barber, so we'll have to figure out maybe if We've got a lot of people listen to this program anymore and maybe someone who knows mr Reeves can contact him and drop us a note and see if we can arrange my.

I think it was down, Texas. Something like that down there. At least I go down to Texas. I can go shooting during the day and have myself some fun. It's not like going to you know, Spokane, Washington or isn't like that be a little bit different.

Returning to the Fernandez Comas Debate on Calvinism

Okay. We've taken about five minutes off of our time here. I mean, we'll just tack that on to the because that was all about the one the saying anyways. What a source shifted over there first debate to get to the Fernandez Comas debates most recent one.

I I need to find out when that other debate took place. I would like to know. Maybe someone could Google that since you came up with his name if you could find out when that debate with With Roger Perkins took place between mr. Reeves and Roger Perkins.

That would be interesting to know as well. There wasn't a date on the on the URL that I saw. But this was just last month or month before that Fernandez Comas debate. We've picked back up. We're listening to brother Fernandez in his opening.

He had just been saying that you can't tell anybody that God loves them. And we were again pointing out that our minion friends tend to miss The distinctions that we recognize in the subject of God's love the different kinds of love that God has just as human beings have different kinds of love and we how did we get that ability.

Because it reflects our Creator and I remember last week I had asked the question. You know. If you don't think God has distinctions of love if you think that he has only one kind of love for every single creature.

Not only do you have the idea that God is going to be eternally bummed for eternity. Yes, they debated twice actually, but there was supposed to be like two other days, but anyways, oh they two different separate debates.

Okay anyways, but you also would have to explain such things as how there was a disciple whom Jesus loved a Disciple who Jesus loved well all the disciples. Yeah, but what then does that mean the disciple of Jesus loved?

But that would have to mean he didn't love the others. So February of this year that wasn't all that long ago. Okay, that's uh, that's good to know nature the guy had February this year. So thank you I'm that's very up-to-date and so that also helps I knew it was after the Matt slick debate because he mentioned that and in fact interesting the day Roger Perkins said to him.

I know you've been listening to that James White debate, too. Like well, I'm glad to have been of some service somewhere along the way along the line.

The Love of God, John 3:16, and the Meaning of “World”

But all right, let's jump back into the Fernandez Comas debate. If Calvinism is true. We do not know this. The Bible clearly teaches that God loves all mankind John 3 16 to 18.

Matthew 5 for now, let me stop right there loves all mankind. Okay in what way is the love shown for John the disciple. The same as the love shown for the high priest of one of the various religious cults of the Amorites to whom no Prophets were ever sent and who were wiped out by the Israelites.

Man-woman child and beast. I think it's fair question is is that do we describe this the same love? Now if that if that high priest of that cult Was allowed to live life and to experience happiness and joy then he has received something from God's hand.

But it's not the same kind of love as John the Apostle experienced. Is it I? Think we just we you know the the subject of the love of God. Remember when Peter Lumpkins posted that edited video where I had to change my words check up with an argument remember that one and Remember what I had actually said in that in that video was that the love of God is a dangerous subject.

It's dangerous because people have such traditions and they rarely have much of a biblical foundation have rarely been challenged to even think through. The nature of the love of God and if you don't get challenged to do that.

Then it's real easy to poke holes in your views because all you gotta do is look at the reality of the world around us. This idea of a of a monochrome love of God that has no distinctions. No differences.

Just simply can't stand up to examination and I would think especially for dr. Fernandez who is an apologist. That's not something you want to do three to forty-eight.

He that that he desires that all be saved 2nd Peter 3 9. Hurt.

That's so here here. We have the big three or at least part of the big three for anything else I'm good three night. We will not get any exegesis. We will not have any response to the exegesis that I've offered in the potter's freedom and have repeated in this program over and over again.

It you if you want to disagree with the exegesis that is. You're right but once you understand that Peter for example is distinguishing between the people he's addressing and others and It's you he's addressing.

He's identified his audience. He's spoken of them. They he's not talking about them. He's made a distinction once you know that and you follow the pronouns. Then you have an antecedent for all and Any not wishing that any any of who any of you which has been distinguished from others so you can't turn into universalistic perspective, but if you're going to Then you have to answer The objections that are raised by the exegesis that has been offered.

Just simply citing passages and saying this passage teaches this and though there's counter exegesis I will not deal with it and I will not even explain to you why I think that exegesis is wrong. I will not give you counter exegesis.

That's not debating. That's not argumentation. That's not how these issues need to be addressed and So you can say why I just never heard any other interpretation well, okay, what does that tell you? These issues need to be dealt with and the exegesis that has been offered.

It's there. You can't just simply say well I'm not sure. No, I haven't turned it on yet. I'm gonna do that only for the phone calls I I'm not sure that you know, that might lead to this or that but that's not responding to exegesis.

I do not believe I have in any way shape or form been unfair with the context of Peter and Every time I hear somebody using that text. Otherwise, I ask where's their exegesis? Where is their contextual discussion of the pronouns?

Where is their contextual discussion of the audience to which Peter is right? I don't I don't find it I just see the text cited and oh, there it is. And that's that's what it means and.

That's not how you do exegesis. Timothy 2 1 2 6. 1st. Timothy 2 1 2 6.

I this is gonna come up a little bit later on again. And so maybe we'll zero in on it. But once again What is the text talking about? It is talking about the work of Jesus Christ. He's the one mediator between God and man is talking about kinds of men.

In fact, the thing is and since he just quotes it here quickly I'm gonna wait till he gets it a little bit more deeply He will recognize that talk is talking about kings and those in authority. There's the kinds of men.

It's right there types of men. You're supposed to pray for all types of men. But how you jump from that to every single human being who has ever lived that God has a salvific desire that is The equivalent of his decree to save and It's for every single person for the for the high priest the Amorite cult as as well as for John the Apostle.

They're equal. How do you get there from that and what you're left with if that's the case is that Jesus Christ intercedes for all men as well every single human being. Jesus Christ is pleading his blood before the Father and now you have a Disruption in the Godhead now, you have God the Father not decreeing to save those that the God the Son wants to save or you can get even worse if you want and Say that well, actually it's not a disruption to Godhead.

Jesus is interceding for all those people he does provide the perfect grounds for salvation, but It's not up to God whether they're saving up the Father will try the Son has provided the perfect foundation of spirit will come and bring conviction of sin, but It's not up to the trying God.

Every person the Godhead can fail in Their deepest desires all because of the almighty will of man. I Mean if that's how you if that's where you want to go That's where you got to go. So here Here again this this was one of the things really bothered me about the format of this debate is is when you make it so wide All you can really do is Say here's my point.

Here are some verses. I can't exegete any of them I'm just gonna throw them out there and You have to decide on your own whether These verses actually substantiate what I'm saying or not and I part in in a sense This is the fault of the organizers or those that agreed to do it this is just way too broad a Topic for this time frame because that's all you end up being able to do is Here's my point.

Here's my verses and is there any need for that? I mean seriously aren't there enough books that do that aren't there enough websites out there? I mean if you just want lists of verses that one's easy It's actually Demonstrating that the text substantiate what you're saying.

Yeah, it takes a little bit more work That takes a little bit more work. Indeed.

Second Peter to one there Jesus even bought and paid them, you know, I didn't get that previous verse. So.

Let's go further back than that.

All right, that's that's that's got at least get that. Jesus died for their sins. We do not know if they are of the elect. In fact since Jesus has no intention of saving Calvinism is true. It is misleading to even tell people that God loves them if Calvinism is true.

We do not know this the Bible. A2 Peter 3 9 1st Timothy 2 1 2 6 Luke 19 10. Scripture declares that Jesus died for all mankind John 1 29.

The Extent of the Atonement and the Meaning of Propitiation

All right, let's let's at least take the time that you know, slow these things down and and let's just point out that Just quoting verses doesn't necessarily mean anything. John 1 in 29 the next day He saw Jesus coming toward him and said behold Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

All right. How do we understand that? Evidently, dr. Fernandez thinks well, there it is Jesus has taken away the sin of the world. Okay. Why is anybody condemned? Well unbelief unbelief is not a sin. Either he's taken away the sin of the world and world here means every single human being or he hasn't which is it?

Is it a perpetuatory sacrifice? What is propitiation mean? Propitiation means that the sacrifice it takes away the guilt and the reason for the wrath Of God it is a full sacrifice. So if he is the propitiation The sins of every single human being is ever lived if you absolutely insist that in the in the biblical mindset.

There is a modern Western Universal individualism, which I don't believe you could ever substantiate. But that's the assumption. Well all means all that's all all means so one all drew someone out to see Jesus.

There wasn't anybody left even the doggies and the kitties came out to see Jesus, you know, I'm sorry. It's just it's just not how the people thought you can just find so many examples of where all and every in the New Testament doesn't mean what we Moderns mean by that of every single human being in a given place or given time or anything else it's just it's just obvious but when if you're gonna assume that then you have to go all the way with it and so They look at a text.

We just heard John 1 29 behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world then that means every single human beings sin has been dealt with and. What then is the ground of their condemnation?

That means the father caused the wrath. That is due to that Amorite high priest who's already dead and under his wrath in hell. Well, not in hell in Hades. That am I priest has been gone forever if all the world means all the world then the wrath that is due him.

He put on Jesus knowing full well that he was wasting That substitution because the man can no longer repent. So, is that what's being said that everyone already dead cuz aren't they a part of the world.

Or do we do we just they don't they don't get this extra kind of, you know. It's if it's this peanut butter love and everybody gets loved equally. Then what about the people before Jesus? Did you just die for them?

Or they have no chance at all. How does how does that work? I don't know how dr. Finesse is gonna answer that. Maybe we'll get a chance to ask him sometime. But the point is That man that high priest we keep using him.

He seems to be a good example today. Amorite high priest Who dies on an is Israelite sword as Moses comes into the land? Okay well, actually as Joshua comes in and God has. Do we really understand that God has placed?

The wrath that is due him even though he's been experiencing that wrath for 1200 years at least somewhere around there. He's placed the wrath due to that man's sins which are many in manifold on Jesus.

Knowing full well that the man never repented. Why would he do that? I Suppose this would open up a consistent understanding of that perspective. I Consistent understand got a little farther away from the microphone there cuz you're stretching that leg out guy.

I don't want to scream. I don't want to scream. Hey, I Had to rush a little bit after the ride today to get in on time. So I didn't get the stretch quite as well. So we're gonna stretch that leg now. Sorry about that.

So This is what has led honestly consistently to the concept of post-mortem evangelization and If you don't think that's popular. Do I just simply need to remember the name Rob Bell. Yeah, unfortunately, that's out there, too and There are other people promoting the same thing.

Clark Pinnock was big one on post-mortem evangelization. So how's all this work? Is that what we are to believe? Now I look at John 1 29 and I do not have to in any way shape or form Argue with the context or anything else.

Jesus Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. What's the world Jews and Gentiles? Anybody in this world Jew or Gentile who turns to Jesus Christ in faith repentance will find him to be the perfect sin bearer and So we can go into all the world.

I can go to Sydney and Brisbane and Germany and I was just down a few months ago in Lima Peru and and Places like that and I can say to anyone anywhere Repent and believe in Jesus Christ. But it does not follow that I then have to redefine propitiation.

I have to ignore what Romans Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 say about the specific application and the resultant perfection of those for whom Christ died and I have to do anything I can take everything the Bible has to say and So when you hear these these rapid-fire lists You just you have to keep in mind boy, you know if we went to each one of those and at least when I when I am forced by time constraints in a debate to have to go into sort of a More surface level mode, which I don't like to do but sometimes you're just stuck with it at least when I list verses and I know what the counteracts of Jesus is I will try to present in such a way as To at least acknowledge the counteracts of Jesus and provide at least some kind of response to it.

It is very rare that I hear my Arminian friends even make that attempt.

2 Peter 2:1, Particular Redemption, and Counter-Exegesis

2nd Peter 2 1. There Jesus even bought and paid the price for the false teachers who are obviously not elect.

First 2nd Peter 2 1 we have discussed a number of times on the program and once again I I don't get the feeling that brother Fernandez has. Is aware of the counter exegesis to the text, but I would just simply in passing ask him when you say bought Why is this the one place in the New Testament where no price is mentioned if this is the redeeming work of Christ?

Are you sure that our garage though here is meant in that way. And when it says Despot a sir, why is despot a C's instead of courios. If we're talking about Christ here, what's the difference between the two meanings?

What's the relationship to this to Deuteronomy chapter 32 and again entire discussion of this in the appendix of the potter's freedom. But it's this kind of just, you know, throw the verse out there assume a Interpretation do not respond to other Interpretations that are exegetically derived just throw it out there that unfortunately, like I said, it's it's it's part of.

The problem of this kind of format for the Jesus paid the price for them.

Also other passages that teach that Jesus died for all mankind 2nd Corinthians 5 15 and 19.

And when you don't read them, you know all people can do is write these down and and wonder well, what what did you mean by that and obviously the question Would be What do you believe the death of Christ what was its intention and what is the mechanism by which it accomplishes its intention, you know I just this past Sunday preached the end of Hebrews 9 the beginning of Hebrews 10 and it is just so clear that the the reason for the manifestation of the Son of God at the very climax of history was to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself to put it away to deal with it not on a Hypothetical level not on a well, you know if you do this then this.

No, this is the whole purpose second Corinthians chapter 5 Was just cited as evidence for a universal concept of the Atonement Love of Christ compels us or controls us. Seneca. Because we have concluded this That one has died for all therefore all have died and he died for all that those who live might no longer live for themselves.

But for him who for their sake died and was raised. Okay so that sounds like. Does that that's something that the Amorite high priest could save under Moses? Seriously, I mean honestly. Does the love the us the love of Christ controls us who is that?

Is that is that. Is that the Buddhist is that the the the secular atheist the love of Christ controls us really? That's the us isn't it? Because we have concluded this That one has died for all why isn't it all of us?

I mean, why just you know, well, that's every that's every single human being has ever lived. Therefore all have died really I it's isn't it the Christian confession that we have died with. With Christ have all people died with Christ.

Will will people be able to stand in the parapets of hell and say ha. Yeah, you tried to save me you I died with Christ. I've emptied the cross of its effectiveness. I'm here in hell. I've undone the work of Christ.

Ha ha ha. Is that what they'll do? I Don't believe so. I Don't believe so. There was a specific people who are united with Jesus Christ and The result of their union with Christ is his death becomes their death.

There his burial becomes their his resurrection their resurrection. Who is that that everybody? Really every single human being Ever lived ever will live was united with Christ in his death. That certainly makes a mishmash out of Romans chapter 5.

You no longer have two humanities or but they're coextensive. This is the very essence and foundation of universalism, but dr. Fernandes isn't a universalist, but why not is the question. And he died for all that those who live well.

Who's alive? Isn't it those who've been made alive in Christ those who've been raised to spiritual life? But isn't that the result of regeneration? So this couldn't be talking about unregenerate individuals.

Could it? Those who are not going to experience that in their life. That they should no longer live for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and was raised. I actually think 2nd Corinthians 5 14 through 15 is a very good argument for particular redemption.

Not for universal redemption. In the same way 2nd Corinthians 5 19 that is In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us a message of reconciliation so if Again, you take world here is every single human being individually speaking then There is no counting of their trespasses against them.

So why is anyone condemned? Remember unbelief is sin. So this would seem to mean that that God God's wrath would have no longer have any basis to fall upon all of humanity because all of humanity has already been forgiven.

By the way, could I mention something sort of in passing that's actually relevant to the next upcoming debate and we will mention it then. But just in passing. You will hear Roger Perkins More than once cite this text God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself well, sati theos ain and Christo cos mon kata las own hey alto and Every time that he cites it He looks at the word in the phrase and Christo in Christ as what's called a locative.

Now in the Greek language you have five morphological cases. Eight conceptual cases. So sometimes you'll teach people what's called the 5k system sometimes the 8k system. But but morphologically speaking there are five five cases a nominative the genitive the dative the accusative and evocative.

Each indicates a different function now. I Learned the eight case. So I had a nominative genitive ablative locative instrumental dative accusative evocative. So Mr. Perkins understands in Christo. Which is the dative in a locative sphere?

That is that God the Father as a divine person was in the Messiah in Jesus Reconciling the world to himself. I don't think that's an even slightly natural reading of the text. It may be common for English readers to take it that way because in for us frequently has that locative sense, but If if again, and this is where actually reading the language and reading it in General outside of only those texts that are under dispute is of tremendous assistance and what I mean by that is You would encounter the word n in In numerous other contexts that would not be translated as in in English.

And with the dative is very frequently. The instant the the instrumental by means of and so I Believe the best way to understand verse 19 is That God was by means of Christ Reconciling the world unto himself and Christo by means instrumental.

I Remember I'll never forget this. A Small divergence here, but I like diverging everyone's wrong and we'll make this the end of our divergence didn't get very far in in the sorry about that, but anyway, I Had the privilege of taking one class With dr. J. Niles Puckett.

Dr. J. Niles Puckett taught Greek at Grand Canyon College. Well, let's just put this way Puckett was the direct student of William Hersey Davis and William Hersey Davis is a direct student of a T Robertson and I learned in using Davis's grammar.

It's not nearly as friendly as The the grammar of Mounts, but that's you know, I'm old Dr. Puckett Had taught generations of young students the Greek language and he was a adult Sunday school teacher while I was adult Sunday school teacher at a very large Southern Baptist Church here in the Phoenix area back when I was Well much younger and One morning we had both finished teaching our adult sessions and they had broken up into groups and I was just walking down the hall to get a drink and Dr. Puckett saw me and he approached me and he said Now remember he's he's from Mississippi.

And he had a very thick, Mississippi accent still had it. Just a wonderful man. Just a southern gentleman and he comes up to me and says my ask you a question. Now that's scary when J. Niles Puckett walks up to you.

And they says it's about the Greek now. Okay. I'm about ready to faint. Okay, because I mean this guy studied under William Hersey Davis who stayed under AT Robertson. He was the one who taught my professor Mike Baird.

Okay, so it is time for a pop quiz. Here comes the pop quiz and he says How do you take in Christo in 2nd Corinthians 5 and I said well, sir I I think that would best be understood syntactically as An instrumental use of and God was by means of Christ Reconciling the world unto himself.

He goes that's how I take it. Thank you very much. He was just such a wonderful gentleman. In fact, I think it's actually named the school after him now the J. Niles Puckett School of Christian Studies or something like that I remember but anyway, I have never heard Roger Perkins Even acknowledge the possibility.

He doesn't it's just plain language plain language. Well, you know, there are things in Bible that are That are expressed in very plain language but you need to make sure that it's like the language in which it was richly written because very often our Traditions are couched in our English language understanding and we reflect our English language understanding back on to the original language and I catch myself doing that all the time and I would highly recommend To Roger Perkins that he do that.

In fact, we're gonna switch over to the Roger Perkins one. Sorry, I didn't get very far on the Fernandez Comas thing there. In fact, I think I got about 53 seconds At this rate. Oh, it's good. We're gonna have to do a lot of more jumbo DL's if we're ever gonna catch up on this one.

Especially we have open phones, which we will open the phones lines up in 25 minutes for those of you who are just itching to get in 25 minutes from now. We will we will get to that. But I do have the oneness debate queued up here and the sound quality is not nearly as good and I'm not sure why because there's a couple times when also the sound quality pops in really good and then it goes back to House sound and I'm gonna have to ask Matt slick and I'm not sure if anyone's told Matt that I'm reviewing this.

But I have to ask Matt what happened to the sound because it just it just needs it's not nearly as good as what we were just listening to but I Was I was listening and I'm not sure if we're gonna get to it, but I was listening.

I think it was this morning and I Know it was yesterday. It was yesterday. I listened to a Roger Perkins and he was using The text in Isaiah 9, which we will look at very carefully and This is a perfect example of what I mean by taking your English language traditions and forcing them onto the original language.

He was you know, one us advocates look at the word and it's a single word here aviad You have Pele awaits wonderful counselor Elgibor Mighty God and then you have aviad and then sarshalom aviad is normally translated everlasting father and they assume this is the same kind of name Identity that is revealed in the New Testament.

And so therefore since this is a prophecy of the one who's come therefore he's it's interesting Nobody in the New Testament identified Jesus that way. But anyway I think aviad has to do with Christ as creator and I'll go into that during the debate.

But what I heard him say Was and this was in the debate not with Matt slick, but with mr. Reeves. He said He said it's the everlasting father definite article. Mr. Reeves and I started thinking and I was on my bike at the time and I did not stop and I have not bothered to put a Bible program on my iPod.

I'm not even sure if there is one nor would I probably be able to see through all the sweat to be able to utilize it anyways, but I've done a lot of work on Isaiah 9. It's Isaiah 9 5 in Hebrew and and I was going There's an article there there's a need to be because of the construct state but It's not even in the English translation His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor Mighty God Everlasting Father Prince of Peace and so you wouldn't you wouldn't expect the Everlasting Father because you already have In in the language you already have the particularity of the deafness provided by the word name specifically by by the use of These are names and therefore you don't you don't need it but Even in the English translation.

It's not there. Now that was one of the only Drawbacks to the Reeves Perkins debate Was I will emphasize very strongly and we will hear it as we dive into Mr. Perkins comments this morning this afternoon.

Yeah, it is this morning whenever There is a fundamental hermeneutical disagreement between us and I I don't I don't think that it's really a disputable point. The oneness argument it's gonna be very interesting.

Like I said, this would be the second time I've done a oneness debate and a Muslim debate and both times in The past we were debating the deity of Christ. That's why I debated Hamza Abdul Malik and I did the oneness debate against Saban.