Open Phones, Live from Founder's Conference in Lynchburg, VA

Well, good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White, and I'm coming to you live from Lynchburg, Virginia today, actually, via the miracle of modern technology and the nice little cellular phone here.

And I'm actually in our chat room at the same time on my laptop, the whole nine yards.

This is a lot of fun, and it's truly amazing what you can do these days.

But anyways, we're live, and we'd like to invite you to call at 866 -854 -6763, sort of open it up to you today if you have certain questions and issues that you would like to raise.

I have already spoken, let me see, one, two, three, four times so far.

I have four more times to go here in Lynchburg, so my brain is a bit on the frazzled side to begin with.

So it would be good if any of you who are listening today or maybe those in the chat room would like to join in and ask some questions.

Can't guarantee that I'll be able to give a coherent answer, but we can take a shot at it anyways.

And I just finished speaking, actually, at the Mid -Atlantic

Founders Conference. The Founders Ministries, of course, is the group of Southern Baptists who are reformed in their superiority.

And the name of the ministry, of course, goes back to the fact that the founders of the

Southern Baptist Convention were reformed in their superiority as well. And obviously the majority of the convention has moved away from that particular perspective over the course of the 130, 140 years, whatever it might be, obviously, during the 1900s.

There was a movement away from that perspective toward a more Arminian and evangelical viewpoint.

And the founders are attempting to call the Southern Baptist Convention back to its roots.

And so I've been speaking. The subject of the particular conference

I've been speaking at is the doctrine of God. And it just wrapped up.

I'm going to be speaking at Old Forest Road Baptist Church tomorrow and then some other things on Monday before I head back home.

And the speakers were Andy Davis, who is the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church in Durham. And he has a

Ph .D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Then Mark Deaver is the Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D .C.

And his Ph .D. is from Cambridge. And then Dr. Bruce Ware, many of you are familiar with Dr.

Ware, because of his book and his role in responding to open theism.

In fact, I was sort of giving his book, God's Lesser Glory, the Diminished God of Open Theism, away to a lot of friends a number of months ago.

And he was another one of the speakers. And he speaks, he teaches at, he's the

Senior Associate Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

And interestingly enough, he earned his Ph .D. from Fuller Theological Seminary, where I got my M .A.

And so we were the four speakers, and we spoke on a number of different subjects, but all related to the sovereignty of God.

And the specific thing that I was asked to speak on was the potter's freedom and issues related to that.

So the sovereignty of God in the subject of his freedom, then the sovereignty of God in salvation, and then today the sovereignty of God and the will of man.

And so today I spoke from the context of Genesis Chapter 50,

Isaiah Chapter 10, and Acts Chapter 4. And so it's been really neat.

I have not been out, well, it's the first time I've been to Virginia. My parents reminded me that we drove through the tip of western

Virginia. If you look at a map, there's a little spike of western Virginia that goes up toward Pennsylvania. And we drove through that once, and that's the only part of any kind of Virginia I've ever been through.

So it's a beautiful country out here, I'll have to admit. The Rolling Hills, the,

I started off one of my talks by saying, you know, I'm from Phoenix, and I'm afraid that as we drove in today,

I've discovered that you all have a problem around here. It seems all your trees are dying. They're changing colors, and the leaves are falling off.

They got a good laugh out of that, because I then said, now the only thing that changed color in Arizona, with the change of seasons, and of course we only have summer, fall, and spring, we basically schedule winter in for about January 14th or so, but the only thing that changes color in Phoenix are

Phoenicians, brown, less brown, brown, less brown. And those of us who are still stupid enough to have grass rather than a rock lawn, and that's pretty much the same thing.

Brown, less brown, brown, less brown. And so they got a kick out of that.

But I've not been back here, and someone didn't like that particular comment.

But anyways, I get back here, and there's all sorts of stuff.

No, grass is not cool. I don't think Josh Linkrath is cool. But anyways, I get back here, and lo and behold, there's a number of students from Southern Seminary that are attending, and just a lot of folks that have been looking at our material, looking at my books for quite some time, that have been very blessed by them.

And so it's just been really neat having folks come up to me the whole weekend, the whole conference.

Cumberland Valley Books had brought a bunch of Potter's Freedom and God's Sovereign Grace.

They sold out of, not God's Sovereign Grace, God is Justified. They sold out all of those, and so the church had had a little stash, so they brought those out.

And there was a lot of talk about Norman Geisler and Southern Evangelical Seminary, obviously, since we're not all that far away, and all sorts of interest in the topic.

And it's just been really neat meeting folks back here since I haven't had the opportunity of coming out here before and talking with folks.

So I get that beautiful area, really, really neat people. And it's been very, very exciting, very, very encouraging.

So that's what's going on out here. Next weekend, I'm not sure where I'm going to be at this time on Saturday, because I honestly don't even know when

I'm leaving yet. But sometime toward this next weekend, I'm heading for Nashville, and I'll be speaking at the church that Steve Camp is a member at.

And I'm really looking forward to seeing whether or not I can actually preach well after Steve Camp sings.

I would assume that in reality that's going to help me out a lot, and I need all the help that I can get.

So that's coming up the next weekend. And then finally after that, I'll be over in California, for those of you in that direction, in Escondido, that's right,

I can think, in Escondido at the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies Convocation there, discussing the subject of evangelism from a

Reformed Baptist perspective. They're primarily looking at having me discuss the outreach that we do and dealing with the

Mormons and so on and so forth. And look,

I'm not trying to name drop, actually, Mooney Goon. It just happens to be

I don't know the name of the church. I only happen to know that Steve Camp goes there and he's going to be singing.

And there might be some guy named Derek Webb that might do that too, but that's not name dropping either.

So just, you know, I can't help it. It's just the way things are. Anyways, you really need to be in the chat room sometimes during some of these programs, especially when

I'm looking for folks to give us a call at 866 -854 -6763 and help me along as I am a tad bit on the bush side.

In fact, I just got back from getting a workout in, and I'm physically tired and mentally tired all at the same time.

And so, in fact, for those who are always constantly trying to take shots at me, this would be a really good time to take shots at me because I might be somewhat defenseless.

But anyways, we'll be speaking on the subject of evangelism over there, and I believe that is

November 12th and 13th, November 12th and 13th. Somebody clean out

Brando's ears, okay? He seems to have the teenage problem. He can't hear what's being said, 866 -854 -6763.

Anyways, so that's what's coming up. And then I guess I should mention this. I need to start mentioning it again.

Yes, I am babbling wonky. Thank you very much. At least I'm not misspelling my babbling as I go along.

Anyways, December, well, all I know is I'm flying back on my birthday, so it's probably the weekend of, like, the 15th.

Oh, wait a minute. I have December 14th, 15th, and 16th. There it is. I just realized I have a calendar on my desktop.

December 14th, 15th, and 16th, I will be in Raleigh, North Carolina, at the

Grace Reformed Baptist Church. Everyone down here calls it Raleigh Durham or something along that line.

And we'll be at the Colin Smith Church there, Lord willing, and I live, because I was supposed to be there back in September.

Of course, it was the weekend after, and I have to admit

I'm getting tired of hearing people talk about the tragedy. It was the attack that took place on September 11th, and the flights were all messed up, of course, and that's what happened there.

Yes, I am using my new laptop. I'm sitting here watching the chat channel on this wonderful little machine.

So, anyways, that's what's coming up, and so if you're in any of those areas, that's where I'm going to be traveling, and then after December there's going to be something in January.

He makes fun of me on the air and doesn't even repeat the number. I did repeat that number. Good grief. 866 -854 -6763.

That's nice and slow. Even folks in Utah should be able to get that. It's going to be a weird program.

I'm not sure if we want to archive this one, if you really want my opinion. Anyhow, the subject of the conference has been very interesting.

Oh, I wanted to definitely make an announcement, and I wish there was some way we could hold the

PNR publication. I'd really like to be able to offer it, and I'm not sure that we have like an account with PNR or whatever it is, but it would be a good book to help promote and to get out there.

In fact, Dr. Deaver stood up in front of everybody and held the book up, and we just absolutely ran through the entire amount of material.

They sold out immediately the entire stock that they had.

John Frame has the – well, someone asked why not call it a tragedy, because it wasn't a tragedy.

It was an attack. A tragedy is when a bridge collapses, that type of thing.

You don't call Pearl Harbor a tragedy, or you call it a massacre. You call it an attack.

It's just a matter of using language in a consistent manner. A new book just came out by John Frame.

Some of you know who John Frame is from Presenteering Reform, and some good endorsements on the back from Roger Nicole, John Piper, D .A.

Carson, Bruce Ware, Robert Strimple, and it's entitled No Other God, A Response to Open Theism.

So now there are two excellent responses out there to open theism.

Dr. Ware's fine book that I mentioned earlier, God's Lesser Glory, The Diminished God of Open Theism, and now

John Frame's No Other God, A Response to Open Theism. It's wonderful to have both of these resources now available, and I think that anyone who is concerned about the inroads that this heretical movement is making in evangelical churches will want to avail themselves of this.

If you're familiar with maybe some people in your own fellowship that are promoting it, whatever else it might be, you'll want to get hold of these two books, one by Bruce Ware and one by John Frame, on the subject of open theism.

For those of you who don't know, a bridge collapsing, what about a World Trade Center collapsing?

Well, the problem is, Nathesh, that the World Trade Center collapsed because it was attacked, not because it simply fell apart.

It was the result of purposeful attack, military attack, on the part of a foreign power, and that's not what you call a tragedy.

That's a massacre. It's an attack. So, anyways, yes, and CDF has arrived in the chat channel.

Colin Smith has arrived, and that's what I was talking about earlier when

I said December. That's a really small print on my screen from this distance.

14th, 15th, and 16th. December 14th, 15th, and 16th, I'll be in North Carolina.

In fact, I was at the Dulles Airport in Washington. I flew there from Phoenix and then took one of those wonderful little 19 -seat commuter planes, the prop -driven type things that, you know, just make you almost deaf.

Thankfully, I brought earplugs after my first particular experience with that. And they always throw you down the end of a particular, that's semantics, yeah, well, that's what language is.

They always put you down at another end of the airport and make you walk out these little teeny tiny planes.

And these planes are so small that, unfortunately, I can barely fit in this seat.

I mean, I'm sort of almost out in the aisle, sort of having to balance myself in this little teeny tiny seat on this aircraft.

But, anyways, there was a flight going into Raleigh, Durham, and they were loading it.

And I thought, you know, there's the flight that would take me right over to where I'm going to be in December, and we could go visit with Silly Britt and everything else, but then

I would probably be stranded there forever, and that would be a really bad thing. So I didn't try to get on that flight.

And I don't think they would let me anyways, of course, because security was just a little bit tighter than it normally has been.

Yes, wonky, I'm babbling, babbling, babbling. If you'd like to pick up the phone and dial 866 -854 -6763 and ask a question, then

I would stop babbling and actually maybe answer the question. But until then, you all were just sitting there listening.

And, of course, the weird thing is I sit here and watch it, and I say something, and then 30 seconds or more later, all of a sudden there's responses.

So, you know, you try having a conversation like that. And besides, you just misspelled y 'all.

Hey, I think my daughter just joined the channel. Hi, Summer. Someone tell her that I'm talking about her, and maybe she'll listen to the thing.

I'm not sure she can listen to the thing that I think about it. Oh, it's Shoe Freak. Hey, that's my wife.

Hi, hon. How are you doing? Nice to see you. I'm not sure if she can hear that or not.

Maybe someone in the control tower there can let her know to hit the intercom.

There you go. Very good, very good. That's good. So I can say hi.

Hey, this is sort of cool. I can say hi to my wife and all at the same time. It's sort of the speaker is on here.

Oh, that's so sweet. I miss you, honey. Anyways, what was I talking about? I have no idea what I was talking about, but that's what's coming up in the future.

So I know that the silly Brit hasn't called in to talk about what we're going to be doing in December, which is fine if he doesn't want.

Free advertising, I don't have to talk to him about the fact that there were students here from Raleigh who, yes, major digression, who, for example, received the flyers that Ig the

Bold had put out that had my picture in a muffled shirt with my sunglasses on that was titled,

Theology is not for wimps and all the rest of that kind of stuff. I don't have to mention that.

So if he doesn't want to. Lexi just joined. Who gave the dog a laptop?

That's what I want to know. My dog just joined. Oh, that's somebody else here in Philadelphia. I'm sorry. Never mind that.

Okay, well, let's go ahead and take a phone call. Hey, I called in September. Well, I did a program back in September too,

Bucko, so that doesn't really help out a whole lot now, does it? You've got to stay with the present.

And so, you know, anyways, let's go ahead and take our first phone call at 866 -854 -6763, which eventually

Brando figured out and must have turned up the volume far enough to have heard. And we'll find out if we can even do this.

We've done it before, but, you know, there's always that possibility that it won't work this time.

So let's see if we can talk to Brando. Hi, Brando. Hi, Brando.

I'm not hearing nothing. Do -do -do -do -do. Keep trying, man.

Oh, there it is. I heard something. You heard something? Ah, there you are. Hey, what's going on?

Well, just trying to get you to figure out how to dial a phone number. Hey, I figured it out.

I'm here. Yeah, you made it. Isn't that all that matters? I was a little bit concerned that maybe you had been, you know, totally destroyed by the government educational system or something.

Oh, no. No? No, I'm very resourceful. I looked it up on the website. I repeated it twice.

I know you did, and I missed it twice. Oh, okay. I probably missed it three or four times since the first of the show.

Well, yes, I have repeated it often because I'm going to need you all to help me through today because my brain is not overly functional at this particular moment because they've been having us speak for about 10 or 15 minutes longer than you normally do in a sermon.

And then when you do a conference like this, you basically start talking to people when you walk in, and you stop talking to people, like, when you go to bed.

So, like, yesterday I'm trying to get something to eat. And so, hey, Jack Chick just joined. That's great.

Anyways, I even went to lunch yesterday. I had just spoken.

I'm trying to get lunch, and there's literally a line of people waiting to sit in the one chair next to me while I'm trying to eat.

I got one bite of a piece of cold chicken, four spoonfuls of beans, and a handful of Lay's potato chips.

That was lunch yesterday. You know, that sounds like I'm complaining.

I'm not. But that's what happens at conferences. You don't really get to ever rest or do anything like that at all.

So it's a lot more work than just simply the hour that you stand there and speak.

And when you start doing conferences, Brando, I'm sure you'll discover that that's a lot more than you thought.

So what causes you to pick up the phone today? Oh, my usual LDS friends.

Oh, okay. LDS friends. Yes. Well, what's up? Now, are these

Roger Keller LDS friends or Daniel Peterson LDS friends or et cetera?

I don't know. There's just as many. Since September 11th, there's just as many people here as upset and going wild.

But here, it might even be worse than this American holding hand religion that these people,

I mean, I don't know. I've talked to so many that they think this is it, that this is like, you know, this is the end.

You mean, is it worse up there because of Mormonism or because of the Olympics or what?

Well, the Olympics scare, you know, it's just another thing that goes on to it.

But, I mean, in general, I've been talking to a lot of people that think this is going to turn into a lot more than it already has.

Like this has started something really huge and their whole end time theme of going back to Missouri.

You know what I'm talking about? Yes, I do. And it does make sense in light of LDS belief that the, hey,

Jimmy JoJ is trying to get ahold of me by VCC chat. Isn't that funny? Maybe he wants to call in. Anyways, their whole view of the

Constitution hanging by a thread and the church stepping in and saving it and all the rest of that stuff feeds directly into this concept, this idea that, wow, you know, the end is near.

I don't claim to be an expert on LDS eschatology, but the few times

I've actually taken the time to look into it and, you know, you can't help but read the

Book of Mormon and run across sections of it. And when you read Joseph E. Smith and Bruce R.

McConkie and all the rest of that stuff... I think it would be hard to say because even if you could nail down a specific

LDS eschatology, the majority of the LDS people I've talked to have basically built up their own mountainous worldview based on this passage and that passage.

And when you take it out of context like that, you can just build the bricks any way you want them. Basically, that's exactly what's going on and, of course, you can never have a specific

LDS eschatology because it's always subject to change on the basis of modern -day revelation, even though I guess there really isn't any modern -day revelation either.

Oh, I don't know. It gets confusing after a while, doesn't it? It's just modern -day guidance. I'm sorry?

It's just modern -day guidance. Modern -day guidance, yeah. That seems to be the new perspective.

And if you don't happen to like that guidance, like when Bruce R. McConkie writes the definition of grace in the LDS Bible Dictionary that's published by the

First Presidency of the Church, Jesus Christ, Latter -day Saints, you can just dismiss it. So, yeah, that makes it pretty difficult.

I'm sorry? My real question was, how do you let our LDS friends know that even in times like this, that way is not the answer, that this just isn't?

What is not the answer? You know what I'm saying? No, I didn't catch all of it.

How do we let them know that what was not the answer? How do you let the LDS friend know that this eschatology of theirs isn't the answer, that it isn't the way, even in times like this?

Well, basically, if a Mormon friend was talking to you and was saying, hey, I think this is the end of the world, so on and so forth, really, at that point, one of the inconsistencies, from my perspective, of a

Mormon addressing issues like that is that their God, who is not sovereign over all things, can't really possibly have knowledge of future events anyways.

And so that leads to, basically, an ability to ask them, okay, given your theology of God, and of course they may not have much of a theology of God, but given your theology of God, what confidence do you have that your

God is going to be able to work this through, work this out?

And I'm always looking for a way to get back to the fundamentals. And it's interesting,

I think you'll find this interesting as well. There was a tremendous amount of interest here in Lynchburg from the people who were attending about Mormonism.

It looks like the church is making inroads back here, and everybody and their uncle was asking me questions about Mormonism.

And there was an interest on the part of about, I'd say about eight college and seminary students from Louisville to come out in April to the conference in Salt Lake City.

Even the pastor of the church talked about coming out to the conference. So there's a real interest in it.

I'm always looking to find a way to get it back to the issue of the doctrine of God itself, because the more and more

I think about it, the more I'm convinced that you can't really discuss the topic of grace if you don't have the

God of the Bible as the foundation of that. So I think that's how

I'd probably handle it if someone raised that particular issue. Oh yeah, that's great. That gives me some new perspectives on it.

Great, Superman. I appreciate it. Thanks for calling. Yep, you bet. Alright man, God bless. Bye -bye.

866 -854 -6763 is the number you too can call in today.

You too can listen to me babble, as Wonky wants to put it. You too can demonstrate that Philly Brit is a chicken because he won't call in to talk about what we're going to be doing in his own church.

And that's okay. In fact, I could have even talked with Philly Brit about the fact that down in the restaurant here at the hotel, there were a bunch of guys that were speaking in his own language.

But anyways, we'll take a break and be right back. And welcome back to The Dividing Line.

My name is James White, and we are stumbling and fumbling our way through the program today because I'm coming to you live from Lynchburg, Virginia, where I can look out.

So actually, when I look out my window, I see downtown Lynchburg. And there isn't a whole lot to downtown Lynchburg, actually.

I discovered that Lynchburg is about the size of Glendale, and that's

Glendale, Arizona, which is not really all that big.

I think there's a building that I can see that looks like it's about 15 stories maybe, maybe 20 stories.

I think that's about as big as it gets. I'm really not sure. But if I look the other direction, if I get over closer to the window and look out, then

I can see these rolling hills filled with big old honkin' trees with pretty, pretty leaves on them.

So it's very, very nice out here in the mornings. It's really nippy, you know, like 32, 36 degrees and all the rest of that stuff.

So it's been really nice. I understand that it's still rather hot back where I live. So it's nice to get a chance to go outside and sort of stand there and freeze to death for a while.

But anyways, we're coming to you live from Lynchburg. I just finished speaking at the 2001

Mid -Atlantic Founders Conference with Dr. Bruce Ware and Dr. Mark Deaver.

And it's quite a privilege to get a chance to listen to Dr.

Ware speak. He did a wonderful job in analyzing the inherent errors of open theism, the concept that God knows perfectly the present and the past, but he does not know the future.

And allegedly people like Greg Boyd and others argue that Clark Pinnock argued that this is the best way to deal with issues like evil, to deal with issues like the free will of man and all the rest of these things.

But Dr. Ware did an excellent job in demonstrating that in fact this heresy is absolutely destructive of the most foundational elements of our belief in God.

And I made the statement that in reality it wipes out the very foundation of the gospel itself.

And so since this is a movement that is becoming very popular in evangelical churches, and that shouldn't surprise us much.

It really should not surprise us a whole lot that in evangelical churches there would be a willingness to embrace a concept that in essence says that God is like us in that his knowledge is limited to the past and the present, that the future does not yet exist for him anymore than it does for us.

Now it's fascinating to think of the fundamental premises of open theism and to realize that while they want to affirm the idea of God's omniscience, they do so only at the expense of the definition of the word.

That is, God knows everything that's happened, God knows everything that is happening, but God does not know what is going to happen.

Now he can predict it obviously if you know the present exhaustively, you can predict the future with a tremendous amount of accuracy.

But you still could not predict the future with 100 % accuracy.

Now those of you who are thinking with me are going, well wait a minute, the very test of a prophet of God is that he has 100 % accuracy in his prophecies.

How could God inspire a prophet to give that kind of information if he himself does not know?

Well, that's just one of the many, many, many problems. And I don't know how the finite

God position, the sense of open theism, and I say finite because I'd say they're placing limitations upon God's knowledge.

I don't know how they get away from that. I don't know how they answer the question, well wait a minute, if God is unaware of the future, he does not know the content of the future, does it not follow then that he is growing and changing?

And see, one of the things that open theists want to avoid being called is process theologians.

Process theology is this concept that says that, well in essence, the universe goes in and out of existence in discrete time packets, they're very short time packets.

I once knew the exact amount of time it was in the hundred thousandth of a second or something along those lines.

But the universe goes in and out of existence in these discrete packets, and as it's coming into existence,

God exercises persuasive power upon everything that exists in the universe.

And he is attempting to persuade everything that exists in the universe to be the best that it can be in that next time packet.

And that goes all the way down to the molecular and even atomic level.

So that means God is persuading molecules and cockroaches and rocks and people to be the best that they can be.

And then in that particular moment of time, as it goes out of existence,

God absorbs the good that came out of that particular instant and sloughs off the bad so that God becomes better with each passing point in time.

God has no coercive power whatsoever in process theology.

He has no coercive power. He cannot change what is going on at all.

And obviously the open theist would disagree with that element. Open theism doesn't include this concept of discrete time packets, and they would not say that God does not have coercive power if he chose to do so.

However, the problem is that the fundamental issue with process theology is this growing and improving

God. Well, how can it not be said that God is growing, discovering new things, and learning new things in open theism?

Well, actually there are open theists who directly embrace that. They like the idea that God is surprised.

They like the idea that God has taken a risk in creating this universe.

God does not know how it's going to come out. So we need to help God. I mean,

I guess it's easier to, I don't know, in some way get people pumped up and excited if you say, we need to help

God out. We need to make it really work well. So we need to cooperate with God and all the rest of that stuff.

And so I just don't see how they avoid this charge that their

God is growing and changing and evolving and learning and all the rest of that kind of stuff. He obviously is.

And as such, for example, some of them will openly assert God was surprised when

Adam fell. He was shocked. I mean, given all the things that he had provided for Adam, it's amazing that he would have fallen.

And you say, you mean people in evangelical churches are embracing this? Yes, and it shouldn't surprise us.

Why? Well, are we not all aware of the fact that the study of theology, especially the doctrine of God, has fallen on hard times in evangelical churches?

It was my thesis in The Forgotten Trinity, my book on the Trinity, that this whole subject has become, in essence, an irrelevancy in so much of the evangelical church because we are so focused upon man, man's needs, that worship is only defined as what we do rather than defined by the object of worship.

So, it shouldn't surprise us much, this kind of movement is having so much impact and so much headway.

And let me again recommend to you Dr. Bruce Ware's work,

God Bless Her Glory, and then the new book from PNR by John Frame, No Other God. I think you will want to read these.

I really believe that this movement is one of the issues that we're going to be dealing with more and more in the future as more and more people in the professing church are deeply impacted by the humanism of our society.

Because the one thing that is absolutely certain is that a person who is a humanist, a person who thinks that the freedom of man is far more important than the freedom of God, will find this kind of belief in theology to be something that's very attractive to them.

866 -854 -6763, that's the phone number that Paul in North Hollywood, California called.

Unlike silly Brits or anyone else in the chat room, fine, thank you very much people. But Paul in North Hollywood, California has called that and has a question on an issue that is in no way, shape, or form disputed or controversial at all.

This will be an easy one. Hi Paul. How are you doing? I'm doing okay. Good. First of all,

I wanted to thank you for your ministry. I'm new to Reformed theology, I've been introduced to it, and right now

I'm just trying to study it and learn what it's all about. I got your book, Potter's Freedom, I have

Norman Geisler's book and R .C. Sproul's book, so I'm learning about all that. And anyways,

I was just curious as to what the Reformed position was on speaking in tongues.

What is the Reformed position on speaking in tongues? Well, the folks in the chat room would like the control there,

I would like you to speak up a little bit if you can when we talk back and forth. We're having a little difficulty balancing the two of us together with two phone lines going, but there isn't a monolithic position, there is a general position.

Generally, Reformed people are cessationists, but of different stripes.

I myself only learned a couple years ago that I'm not as much of a cessationist as other people are, so obviously you wouldn't think that cessationism would have ended in the apostolic age, because they had a specific purpose that was relevant to that time.

That has been fulfilled. Or they can be what

I guess I'd have to call, from my perspective I would call it extreme cessationism, or others would just call it full cessationism,

I don't know. But there are some who go so far as to say that there are no gifts at all, in the sense that even such things as discernment, encouragement, that an elder in a church, for example, could not be gifted by the

Holy Spirit to be able to open the Word of God. That that's not a work of the

Holy Spirit, a gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to communicate or to explain Scripture, or things like that.

Obviously that wasn't the view of someone like Luther. I mean, think of a mighty fortress is our

God. The last verse talks about the Spirit and the gifts are ours.

And so obviously he was not that level of cessationist, but I know of one pastor in a particular very conservative

Reformed denomination that was brought up on charges of heresy, because he held that there were still these,

I'm not sure if it was actually heresy, but was brought up on some sort of charges, maybe just not holding to their particular view or something.

But anyway, there was a big brouhaha, and he was convicted for believing that God does gift elders to have discernment and to be able to communicate and stuff like that.

And I just, you know, I reject that. I think that's, I don't know how in the world you get that out of Ephesians and things like that.

But as far as miracle gifts, sign gifts, especially normally the argument is tongues are presented in 1

Corinthians 14 as a sign of judgment upon the people of Israel. That judgment has been completed in the structure of Jerusalem in AD 70, and therefore the purpose of that particular sign gift has been fulfilled, and therefore it has passed away.

The other gifts that are for the edification of the body and the building up of the body, they're discussed elsewhere, continue on and will continue on throughout the history of the church until the consummation and the conclusion of all things.

So that's, I have met what I would call charismatic Calvinists.

I believe there's a fellow in the net by the name of Matt Flick, I think is the name, if I'm recalling that correctly.

People in the chat room within 30 seconds will correct me one way or the other. I believe Matt Flick is

Reformed and argues for the continuing charismatic and things like that, but they are primarily a minority group within the broad spectrum of Reformed theology today.

For me the question is kind of a no -brainer because... Crank it up real loud if you can.

I'm really talking as loud as I can. I don't know if it's the connection or what. Can you hear me now?

Well, it's just a matter of the fact that we're both on at the same time. Go ahead, I can hear you. For me it's really a no -brainer because I have the gift of tongues, and I was just wondering how,

I don't know if you have any friends that speak in tongues, or I was just wondering how do you deal with the fact that there are

Christians who are not, you know, I know some people say it's a psychological thing or whatever, but how do you deal with the fact that there are

Christians like, I don't know, Chuck Smith or others that speak in tongues and believe in the gifts?

I mean, and you can maybe go into a church and hear this.

Do you just say that all of these Christians are just psychologically deceived? How do you explain the phenomenon?

Well, I would explain the phenomenon as being a part of a tradition that is passed on.

Individuals are taught that this is a gift of the Holy Spirit of God. I think that there are certain individuals that find it extremely attractive on an emotional level, that it's something that they need.

But I would strongly assert that because someone says they have a gift, that gift doesn't necessarily, from a biblical perspective, provide much in the way of argumentation because there are

Mormons who speak in tongues, there are Buddhists who speak in tongues, there are Roman Catholics who are fully and completely heretical in their doctrine of the gospel who speak in tongues.

And so I guess I'd have to turn that around and say, how do you explain these individuals who honestly believe that they too have this gift and yet it can't be coming from the

Holy Spirit of God because of the fact that they deny the very truth and fact will go so far as to say that the spirit that gives them that gift testifies to them that heresies are true.

So the first thing would be, well, what basis do we determine this on? And when you say it's a no -brainer, that would say to me that you're determining the issue on the basis of your experience rather than on the basis of, well, is what

I've said concerning the sign gifts in 1 Corinthians 14, especially tongues, true or false?

How is your gift of tongues a demonstration to the Jewish nation that the gospel has come to the

Gentiles? How would that be relevant today? And then if they say, well, that was a different gift of tongues because there are some who say, well, there is one gift of tongues as a sign gift and there's a second gift of tongues as a prayer language and it depends on what kind of perspective or viewpoint somebody is taking.

But if you then do that, then again we have to go back to the Scriptures and say, okay, if these particular passages are not relevant because that's the other gift of tongues, then what passages do present this personal version of it?

And where did that come from? And we just keep having to bring it back to the Bible. You bring it back to what we know is directly from the

Spirit of God himself because of the fact that that kind of experience is not limited merely to Orthodox Christians.

There are those who practice it who are not Orthodox Christians and therefore that means it's not in and of itself an infallible sign that this is from the

Holy Spirit of God. In fact, I was just watching, okay, someone says you're trying to say something.

Once I start talking, I can't hear something, so I'll shut up for a second and let you respond to that.

I was just saying that I realize that there are other people who speak in tongues from cults.

And I don't think that really all that would say would be that they can obviously get that.

I wouldn't have a problem saying that they can get that from a satanic source or that it's not of God.

But my thing is when you have a Christian, maybe if you even have a friend who you know is a solid

Christian believer and he tells you that he speaks in tongues, it seems to me that you would have to just, even knowing that he is a solid believer, you'd have to explain this experience of his by saying that, well, you must be psychologically deceived or that it's a counterfeit in some way.

And I'm just wondering, would you feel comfortable saying that to someone you know is not off the wall?

I know a lot of charismatics are, but I'm talking about solid believers. You mentioned, well, there may be a reformed charismatic person.

How would you explain it? What would you say to them? Well, first of all,

I would have no problem whatsoever saying that even solid believers have emotional issues.

They have emotional needs. When you say solid believer, I don't know what solid believer means, but you're saying, well, someone who is orthodox in their beliefs and they're not off the wall, things like that, but they speak in tongues.

I would, again, say, let's go to Scripture and see if that's true. I would do that with any person on any basis, on any subject whatsoever.

When someone would say to me, I'm a solid believer, but I believe X, Y, or Z, I mean, there are people who have really good theologies up to a certain point.

There are people who bring into the church beliefs that they got someplace else.

They got rid of almost all their bad beliefs, but there are still other issues that need to be dealt with. So I say you test everything by that which is certain.

And if I had a friend who said, well, for example, that particular individual I mentioned has come into our chat room, and we have gone to the

Scriptures to attempt to find out if what was being said, if what was being asserted on his part or my part was biblical.

And so that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Okay. But from your view, since you believe that tongues do not exist, the alternative in your view would be that this is some kind of psychological phenomenon, that the believer has deceived himself into speaking like this?

I would believe that for many people it's very much an emotional thing. When I watch people who are accustomed to that kind of worship rocking back and forth, raising their hands, closing their eyes, speaking as they claim in some sort of tongue or whatever, again, you have to take it to Scripture.

And that's what you do. Do you see anything wrong with worshiping by closing your eyes and raising your hands?

I'm talking about when they start talking in tongues and things like that, when they, if that is the milieu of worship out of which they have come, then, again, you ask the question about tongues, and that's what

I'm addressing, that in that particular situation I would, again, say, hey, that may mean much to you, but we have to bring it to Scripture.

And I would point out that since I don't have any, there's no investment on my part, because we're talking about solid believers here, so a solid believer would never say, well, you have to do this as well.

Since I don't have any investment here, and the other person does, and very much an emotional investment, that the difficulty is actually having a person who has spoken in tongues to be able to actually honestly examine it without emotion, or at least in a fair way on the basis of Scripture.

And I know I'm sitting here looking at the chat room, and there's I don't know how many people in here who are former

Charismatics who all spoke in tongues. And they agree today that what they were doing was primarily an emotional thing that they were taught to do.

Wow, that's hard for me to understand. But, okay, can

I ask... Why would it be hard for you to understand? Well, I guess it's just because, for example, you know, we've both been born again, and so we've experienced

God. He's changed our hearts. And it would be, whatever we would approach would come from that perspective.

You can't really be unbiased. And if someone were to say to us, well, your experience was just psychological,

I think instinctively we would say, no, this is real. You know, God has changed my heart.

This is a miraculous thing. So in that sense, since I have experienced this gift where I can speak in tongues where I could not before, and I don't consider myself to be...

I know you see the Charismatics on TBN, and you've pretty much come away with this opinion that they're just silly.

I just find it hard to believe that it's a psychological,

I don't know... Well, I don't see a parallel whatsoever between being born again and speaking in tongues.

Being born again is a biblical teaching. We can recognize exactly what its parameters are, what's involved with it, the object of faith and everything else.

There's very little, outside of 1 Corinthians, there's very little discussion of tongues at all.

You've got 1 Corinthians and Acts, and that's about it. I mean, I don't see any type of parallel there.

Are you saying that you could not experience an emotional phenomenon in your life?

No, but you're asking me why it was hard for me to believe that it wasn't so. I was just saying that because the experience is so real to me, just as it was when

I was born again, I'm just trying to make the parallel that once you experience something like that, that is so real, like being born again, it does make it...

that's what makes it harder to believe that this is not real. That's all

I was saying. Now, whether or not it's biblical, I think, is up for debate when you say that...

Well, I think the main thing I want to emphasize here is that you need to make sure that the foundation of your faith, even in regards to what it means to be born again, is not because of an experience, but because of the faithfulness of the one who promises, and because of the nature of the biblical revelation concerning what regeneration is.

And you see, that's one of the issues here, is it sounds like you're saying, well, if I could question my being born again, then

I could question my speaking in tongues. The foundation and ground of the two is not the same. And if the foundation of your faith in your regeneration is your experience, and not the conviction of the scriptures, then that's a foundation that can be very easily undermined.

Sure. Can I ask how we view, then, 1

Corinthians 12, when tongues is put in with other gifts? It just seems a little inconsistent, or a little difficult, to pull out tongues from all of these other gifts and say, well, tongues have stopped, or miracles have stopped, but the gifts of administration or the gifts of encouragement, they continue.

That seems, how can you just pull out the ones that are supernatural, and leave in the ones that aren't, if they're in the same passage?

Well, because the text does, because in 1 Corinthians 14, those sign gifts are put off by themselves into another category.

The sign gifts themselves had a specific purpose that had a historical grounding to it.

Signs of administration or encouragement did not. And so it's not a matter of saying, well, you know, since tongues is listed in 1

Corinthians 12 as the work of the Holy Spirit, then that means it's always going to be the work of the Holy Spirit. The issue is, does the scripture elsewhere reveal to us that there is a specific time and context that is relevant to each one of these gifts?

And that's how you respond, I think, to that. So, you know, there's various sundry folks, if you wanted to, right now, who are in the chat room.

For example, Colin Smith just mentioned that there's a series on the modern tongues movement by Greg Bonson, the late

Greg Bonson, on straightgate .com. And there's resources there.

There's folks in channel who have dealt with this particular issue who, some of them, as I said, were once a part of it.

And, you know, you'd be welcome to talk to them and to find out from them, you know, well, why were you once a part of it and you're not any longer?

So feel free to, if you can, I don't know if you have access in that way. I have the web, but I don't have the,

I think you have to download certain software to get into the chat room. Well, I believe there is a way to do it through your browser.

It's a Java chat type thing. People do that. And I'm not sure, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe somebody could real quickly here give me the website for our server,

Starlink. Someone could put up the URL for Starlink. There is a Java connection there that normally works really well.

But then the chat software that I use, MIRC, MIRC, is shareware, and it's the best there is, and almost everybody in there is using it except for the

Mac heads who have other goofy programs. But people who have Macs are just weird anyways. But I'm going to get some interesting comments on that.

But there's full instructions on the website if you go to the section on the chat room.

And like I said, there's folks in there right now, and they're listening to us talking, and they're making comments and saying, yeah, come on in.

We'd be glad to talk about it. Okay, http, it's starlinkirc .org.

So it's starlink, F -T -A -R -L -I -N -K, dash, I -R -C, dot org.

If you go to that, you can find the, I believe, a

Java connection there. And the problem is I think you probably need to know the name of our channel.

I'm not sure if that's the case. But the name of our channel is on our website. It's not something that most people just automatically know how to pronounce or how to spell.

But take advantage of that, and maybe that will be something that will be helpful to you. Thanks.

Can I do that real quick? Thanks for calling. God bless. 866 -854 -6763, 866 -854 -6763.

Went a little long there. Let's go ahead and take our, can we still take our last break? There's the music.

We'll be taking our break and listening to your calls right after this. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name is James White coming to you live from Lynchburg, Virginia. Yes, the metropolitan place of Lynchburg.

Anyways, it looks like we actually have a caller who is from Virginia.

And actually, I'm not sure where Centerville, Virginia is, but that's probably closer to where I am than it is to Phoenix.

There's a good guess. How's that for being brilliant today? Let's quickly talk to Pierre in Centerville, Virginia.

Hello. Hi. Hi, how are you doing? I don't know if you can hear me or not. I can hear you.

Okay, because your voice sounds pretty far on my end. Yeah, I'm having to listen closely, but we should be able to make it through.

Okay, my question had to do with my listening to your program last week,

I believe it was, where you reported on your visit to Salt Lake City. Was that last week or the week before?

Right, yeah, that would have been last week, I think. Last week, yeah. Anyway, I was just curious about why you seem to have such a focus on Mormons, that you would travel to their conference and, in essence, sort of picket them.

I was wondering if you do that. Well, first of all, we don't picket them. Well, are they handing out tracts?

Well, that's a big difference. That would be like saying that the Mormon missionaries are picketing when they go door -to -door.

They're not. So I think there's a big difference. I know what you're doing, but I'm not there. I'm just saying that I know you guys are there.

But anyway, I was just wondering about why you're focused on Mormons as opposed to any other group, because as a

Calvinist, I would imagine that it wouldn't make any difference, one group versus another, since it appears, as I understand your doctrine, that the whole matter of salvation is already determined.

No one is going to lose their salvation. Well, that's a very common misunderstanding. Two answers.

First of all, we've dealt with Mormonism for almost 20 years now, at least

I have, and that's because we have a burden for the LDS people. You say in opposition to any other groups, we deal with many other groups as well.

We've stood outside district conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses. Obviously, we actually probably on a percentage basis spend more time dealing with Roman Catholicism than we do with Mormonism.

I've certainly done far more debates on that particular subject than I have on Mormonism. A number of my books, only two books on Mormonism, most are on other subjects.

So it's not a matter that it's just focused upon Mormonism. It is just one of the groups, and it is a group that I have studied in depth, and therefore

I have the ability to communicate the Gospel to them. The second answer is that evidently you do not understand

Calvinism in any way, shape, or form, because while God does have His elect people,

He has His elect people in many different groups. He has His elect people who have no religious background.

He has elect people, I believe, even within Mormonism who are simply waiting to hear the true

Gospel. And as such, we believe that we have to share the

Gospel. God ordains the ends and the means. It is our great privilege to share the

Gospel with all people, as long as they do not have the Gospel themselves, then we have the privilege of sharing it with them.

But we do not have to try to make it, quote -unquote, appealing by shaving off the rough edges or anything.

We can trust that God will make His truth to come alive in the hearts of His people, and that's why we go to a salt -like city and share with the people there.

And we have seen that particular work there in Salt Lake or out in Mesa at the

Easter pageant, Bear Fruit, that God has honored His word and has drawn

His elect unto Himself, even those who were once members of the LDS Church. So, you know, why send missionaries to an

Islamic country or to a Buddhist country or to a Hindu country? They've already got their religion, too.

Well, because Calvinists believe that Jesus commands us to go. He commands us to preach the

Gospel. That's our privilege. And then He uses that as the means by which

He draws His elect people unto Himself. Okay. Well, I guess I was not aware that you went to any other groups.

I mean, I knew about your debates with the Roman Catholics, which is certainly understandable, given the history of the

Protestant Church. But I would expect you to be… I don't follow what you mean.

That's certainly understandable. I mean, because there's always been dialogue and debate between the two sides.

Protestantism came out of Roman Catholicism. There was the, you know, during the Reformation… I can barely hear you.

Is it possible for you to speak up just a little bit? Protestants came out of the Reformation. Right.

It's natural that there would be this desire to justify one's position, particularly against the

Roman Catholics, since that's where Protestants came from, evolved from.

Well, of course, I would say that the truths that brought about the Reformation are biblical truths, and the

Reformation was a rejection and a shedding of unbiblical traditions and authorities that had been added to the revelation of God that is found in Scripture.

And so the issues of that time, sola scriptura, sola fide, sola deo gloria, remain relevant to this day.

And there are a number of parallels as far as authority issues and scriptural issues that have parallels between Roman Catholicism and Mormonism as well.

So it is interesting, the crossover in some of the study that we do on those subjects.

Okay. The other question that I would have along this line is, do you or your companions who go there, do you ever listen to the conference?

Listen to the conference only on the way back. We listen to sections of the conferences.

We were driving back this time. We used to do that all the time when we drove, but we've flown for quite some time.

And a number of times that we've gone up there, no. We get the end sign, and if there's anything that is interesting, or very, very rarely is there anything of, shall we say, doctrinal relevance that is announced at the conference these days that was different back when

Brigham Young was around. But generally we've found the conference, when we have watched it, to be primarily an exhortation to moral living and following the prophets and things like that, and not overly rich in theological discussions.

One I did find interesting recently, which I did hear, was when Gordon Hinckley explained the comments that he made on the

Larry King show, where he, in essence, downplayed the emphasis upon exaltation to godhood and what used to be, anyway, the primary emphasis of the

LDS Church in regards to celestial marriage resulting in exaltation, all the rest of that stuff.

And he explained to people, hey, I do understand what we believe about that, and there was laughing and chuckling and so on and so forth.

But anyway, that's... But no, we're not there to listen to a conference.

We're there to share with folks and to have conversations about who God is, the fact that God is not an exalted man, and that a

God who is of our species is not the one who can save us. And that's the message we have for the

LDS people. Okay. Well, I was glad to hear that in your comments earlier today that there are people in Lynchburg who were interested in going to the conference and listening to it, because I think that that is the way people really should learn about the

Latter -day Saints, is directly from them, rather than from us. Well, I think you misunderstood me.

They want to go with us to pass out tracts at conferences. Okay. I thought maybe they were interested in actually listening to...

Well, the best way to find out about Mormonism, of course, is to study it and to talk to the missionaries, to read the

Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. I don't know that one would actually really learn about Mormon theology by going to conference.

There's really... When was the last time you heard a conference talk that discussed God's exaltation to Godhood, that discussed the relationship of the

Father and the Son in the Council of the Gods, or any of the rest of that stuff?

That's just not what you hear at conferences, is it? No, it's not.

And I think the reason for that is that that kind of understanding is actually less important than...

I'm sorry, you're totally breaking up on me here. I'm sorry. To me, that kind of knowledge that you just talked about is actually less important than learning how to live your life so that you can ultimately be exalted.

So that's what conference is all about, is teaching us to live Christlike lives, which is more important than the subtle nuances of doctrine.

Well, I would disagree with you by 180 degrees.

You cannot... Basically, what I'm hearing you saying is that it is less important to know who

God is than it is to live a particular way of life. I say that, biblically, the reason we live the kind of life that we live is because we know who

God is and we want to be like Him. I don't believe that you could substantiate what you just said biblically.

In fact, it's backwards from Paul's normal presentation where he begins with theology and then applies that theology practically in the lives of people afterwards on the basis of what he's already taught.

But my whole point was that going to conference was not going to teach somebody what

Mormonism teaches about who God is. And these students are college students and seminary students.

They're Christians who have a burden to share the gospel with LDS people.

It's a gospel that is not how we can become gods or how we can improve ourselves.

It's a gospel about how we can be saved from the wrath of God that abides upon us because of our sin.

So when we talk about going to conference, I'm not talking about going and sitting and listening and getting tickets and standing in line and doing stuff like that.

When we talk about going to conference, I'm talking about actually standing outside the facility there in Salt Lake City and sharing with folks and having conversations and doing the things that we do.

We don't stand there with signs. We're not picketing. We're not protesting. We're not trying to keep people from going in or anything of the kind.

We want to have opportunities of sharing with them, and that's what we're doing up there.

Okay? Well, I didn't mean to indicate, by the way, from my earlier comment that I don't believe that knowing who

God is and his nature and have a correct understanding of him is not important. But ultimately,

I don't believe that a Latter -day Saint will lose his exaltation simply because he didn't have a full and correct understanding of who

God is in terms of his nature. What is important is that he can lose and will lose his salvation if he doesn't live the commandments and does the things which are necessary for salvation.

Certainly a correct understanding of deity helps us to understand how to properly worship him and to also know what our ultimate destiny is.

Well, of course, I would say that the Latter -day Saint needs to know what the gospel is to gain salvation, and that the gospel that Mormonism teaches is not the gospel of Christ.

There is nothing that we can do to gain salvation, as you just put it, because Jesus Christ did everything that can be done to, quote -unquote, gain salvation.

The issue is, is his work sufficient for us, or are there things we have to do to add to it?

And, of course, when we're talking about salvation here, I'm not talking about the LDS concept of general salvation or universal salvation, that is, resurrection.

I'm using the term in the biblical sense that transcends merely resurrection to the point of eternal life, justification, sanctification, adoption, the family of God, all the highest things that God has to give to us.

And that differs tremendously from the LDS perspective. We do not believe that the gospel of Mormonism can save, that it is under the condemnation of Galatians chapter 1, and we strongly encourage

Mormon people to recognize that the God that they have been given is a God they cannot save.

You can worship an exalted man who lives on a planet that circles a star named Kolob, but that's not going to save you.

And that God simply doesn't exist, which is why. And as Isaiah 29, 16 puts it, you turn things upside down because you think that the potter is like the clay.

And in Mormonism, God is of our species, and that's the very kind of teaching that the

Bible condemns. And so that's the main reason that we go up there. That's why we drive all that distance this last time and used to do that.

That's why we have flown up there. That's why we stand there and share with people. Well, I've, you know, listened to the, of course, the reasonings that you have brought forth and many others like you.

For instance, I've listened to Hank Hanegraaff many times. Okay, you're breaking up on me again. I'm sorry. I've listened to you a number of times, and I've listened to Hank Hanegraaff and Ron Rhodes and many others who have, you know, tried to bring forth what they thought were strong reasonings.

But I've looked at these passages, many of the passages that you have, and when

I say you, I mean all those who put forth that kind of apologetics against the

LDS Church, and I have yet to find a passage in the Bible which, when properly understood in its context, not only in its immediate context, but in the context of the whole of Scripture, that militates against the teachings of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. That's amazing. Do you believe

Jehovah and Elohim are separate and distinct gods? I'm sorry, can you speak up a little bit? Do you believe

Jehovah and Elohim are separate and distinct gods? Oh, absolutely. I think that's fairly clear in Scripture.

So then could you explain to me how in Deuteronomy 4 .35 we are told that Jehovah, He is

Elohim, there is none besides Him? Well, again, the word there would mean

God. Jehovah is God, and there is none besides Him. It says Jehovah, He is

Elohim, Ha -Elohim, The Elohim, there is none besides Him.

How can, if there are two gods, how can Jehovah Elohim, and then there's another Elohim, is that what you're saying?

Well, the word Elohim means God, right? Yes. And so I think that's basically what it's saying, that Jehovah is

God. Okay. From an LDS standpoint, at least from my perspective,

Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ, is our mediator between God and man, and therefore

He represents God to us all, and therefore He takes on the title of God, because He, in essence, represents

God to us, and He represents us to God. And so He takes on the title of God, and we have, as Latter -day

Saints, no problem with the fact that... And what does it mean, there is none else besides Him? Isn't there another

God besides Him? Not for us, no. Who is the Father, then? Well, again, we have

God, we have Jehovah, in essence, being God, representing

God in all things. And so, again, I don't see that as a problematic verse at all.

Well, I would like to suggest that you just explained it away, you didn't deal with the passage, saying, the passage says

Jehovah, He is Elohim. So you're telling me, well, Elohim and Jehovah are separate and distinct gods, but in this passage,

Elohim means something other than Elohim, it just simply means God, because He's the mediator, He represents us, and when it says there's none else besides Him, even though in that context it was saying that Jehovah, Elohim, is the only true

God, that's not really what it means, because Jehovah represents us, and Elohim is the only

God for us, and there's none of that anywhere in the text. Well, where did you...

Nothing that you said about Jesus being mediator, and by the way, He's the mediator only of the elect, and He's the mediator based upon His sacrificial death, not the way that you put it, but none of that's in Deuteronomy 4 .35.

So when you say that you've examined all these passages and nothing in context notates against it,

I would say you just demonstrated that context is not what you're looking at in the first place. So, you know, that intrigued me when you made that statement, and I would be fascinated to find out how you would then explain how

Jehovah is the one who creates the spirits of men in Zechariah 12 .1 or any of these tremendous other passages where Jehovah says if your

God did not create, not just organize, but create the heavens and the earth and they are not the true

God. I would suggest that in reality what's going on here is you have a foreign context provided by the

Doctrine and Covenants primarily that you're then forcing upon the Scriptures. I don't have that foreign context.

I can allow the text and the passages to mean what they mean and say what they say, but you have an external authority that determines how you have to interpret that.

And so, anyways, Pierre, thank you very much for listening. We're about out of time for today, and we really haven't done much on Mormonism in a long time.

Maybe we need to go back and address these issues from a biblical perspective. I hope you'll take a look at...

If you have not taken a look at the book, Is the Mormon My Brother? If you would do so, I think you would find it to be most challenging on that particular level.

So thank you for calling today, and thanks for everybody listening to the program today. It's been fun watching the chat channel and watching folks making comments and so on and so forth.

Almost like being at home, but not exactly that way. And seeing comments from my wife and CDS and everybody else, that's been a lot of fun.

So thanks for listening in today, and next week I'm not certain what the situation is going to be.

I don't know what my schedule is going to be like on Saturday afternoon yet.

I have not been provided a schedule. So maybe we'll be here next week, maybe we won't.

If I'm not here, we're going to play an old radio program, maybe a debate or so, so hey, a best -of type thing.

Just be here and listen anyways. Thanks for joining us, and God bless. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org. That's A -O -M -I -N .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.