February 11, 2010

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 And good afternoon welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon the last dividing line for a while because I I was thinking that I headed for London on Wednesday and I head for London on Tuesday So won't be doing the dividing line on Tuesday, unfortunately

Because I need to go to the airport and fly across the United States and get another plane and fly across the

Atlantic So that's gonna be a long day. So I Suppose, you know when

I get over there, we'll think about it I might actually be able to work something out from over there

Depending on what kind of internet access I have at the hotel, which we haven't bothered to look at yet to find out

We we got that place, but I don't know that we even looked at internet stuff so I really don't think trying to do the dividing line over my

Blackberry would be a really good idea, but You know, who knows but anyway, very very thankful that since we were last together a certain thing called a visa was inserted into my

Passport and sent back to me and it is in my possession And so we are going to London the debate with Abdullah on the

Lucy I was listening to our encounter on the unbelievable radio program just today while riding and Then gonna be on unbelievable haven't heard back from Revelation TV yet.

Hopeful. Hopefully you'll be on there looking forward to a lot of wonderful and exciting stuff there going on in the

UK so a good chance to get back and Be with the Saints there at Trinity Road Chapel in upper tooting of London I can guarantee you in almost any

United States city that name would have been changed long long ago, but this is the UK so anyway

Had lots and lots and lots of I've learned something When I render video out of iTunes

HD the old version, I'm sorry I movie HD I render it as an FLV not as mp4

That will go straight up to YouTube and work just fine. I Wasted I don't know how much bandwidth and hours on that today, but Finally this morning around 1130 or so.

We got the video up that I've been working on pretty much all day yesterday and I Have posted that it is a response to Eric and Kanner I had encountered a

Discussion between an interview between Eric and Kanner and Brian Broderson isn't that weird the same

Calvary Chapel guys we've been talking about and I was just taken aback by by what

Eric and Kanner said about himself and So I just just to remind you if you have not heard it

And you have not taken the time to listen to the just under 32 minute video That I posted just this morning on the blog

Here is the section from the interview. Let's listen to what? Eric and Kanner says in response to a question about debates debates are an important thing and Here's what he said you are you doing you're doing debates?

Occasionally I would imagine with imams or Muslim clerics or leaders or whatever You going on to university campuses and community colleges, and then

I like very informal ones Formal debates have been taken over a lot by um

Myopic reformed guys they try to turn it into these little Show ponies it's like the

Jerry Springer show basically and there's really not any real discussion going on. It's rolling of eyes It's huffing and passive -aggressive garbage

Now I just realized I put theirs instead of its so I'll have to maybe fix that but on that I provide a good transcription of those comments

Myopic reformed guys have taken over the formal debates as if Ergon had been doing formal debates before that the fact the matter is man doesn't do formal debates and Talking to a

Muslim student in the quad at a community college is not a debate and Yet if you will, but go to his own website if you'll go to Ergon Kanner .com

slash biography As of today it says a public speaker and apologist

Kanner has debated Buddhists Muslims Hindus and other religious leaders in 13 countries and 35 states

Now the irony is I looked back because I had looked at this before I looked back in October of this year remember we had a little bit of an encounter there and Back, then he said 11 countries in 40 states, so he's lost five states.

He's not debated in five states. He's made him before oh My Well the members of my church sent me some links and I didn't queue him up But you can go online and you can you can find

Ergon Kanner at one point saying that he was born in Istanbul and Then in the next link he will say he was born in Sweden Now Istanbul and Sweden are ways away from another

I mean there are a couple things I You know sometimes I say

I was born in Minnesota sometimes. I say I was born in Minneapolis. I was actually born in a suburb But no one would have any problem with any of that That's like saying you know people born in Peoria might say they were born in in Phoenix just because Phoenix is a major city, but Istanbul and Sweden Not even in the same continent.

No not not not going there. Yeah, so Just just just fascinating stuff. I just I can't begin to understand

Why Ergon Kanner has to say the things that he does? But that's that's just the way it is so I posted that and hopefully you will find it to be useful

I did have some theological conversation toward the end Where I responded to Statements that he made in in reference to The doctrine of particular redemption and I Do want to play one of the section if you want to hear an introduction

To Ergon Kanner here here is an introduction he got At a youth thing and then just just listen to what again what he says about himself to you and It sounds like you're pretty excited about it he is the president of the

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary He has the number one podcast that debates all kinds of people in the religious realm

Arenas of life in different belief systems and He is very smart

He's very funny And he's very he's very Powerful might be and the thing that I know he's most proud of is this is powerful

He's got a wife and two boys his wife and one of his boys is here tonight Ladies and gentlemen, please help me.

Welcome back. Well another year to this stage. Mr. Ergon can

I bet you didn't like the mister part? He comes out wearing a hoodie with a towel over his shoulder and jeans

Hey Hey, man,

I love you guys. This is huge. I Am a former Muslim Turkish immigrant and None of that matters to me.

I Am a born -again blood -bought believer in Jesus Christ. I Am I am a follower of Jesus?

Unapologetic People's telling you about my debates. I debate anyone I Have a standing order that I will debate anyone anytime anyplace.

Mm -hmm. Usually it's in universities and colleges The amazing thing is this was recorded after 2006

After the most elaborate attempt to save face while bailing out of the debate at Liberty University Still has has the temerity to to say these things.

It is it is truly I don't know you know what I'm talking about the

Community colleges state universities a Campus crusade group will have me in and I will debate anyone any

Buddhist Every type of Muslim Sunni Shia Alawite Druze Hobby, I've never debated on hobby, but just about all of them

Taoists Shintoists colonists Confucianists anybody Because I believe the

Christianity has nothing to fear from any other world religion. We are not a religion We are followers of Jesus Christ.

I believe that Jesus Christ alone is Lord and Savior Now that may offend some of you in this room Now again, that sounds great.

That sounds wonderful. If it were all true I mean if you actually, you know lived up to his own hype, but that's what bothers me about this people

Say why are you picking on Eric and Cantor? because there's such a thing as You know meaning need to be truthful in the apologetic realm especially in the apologetic realm and When you say

I've done X Y or Z It's a good thing to have done X Y or Z because someone might actually, you know

Look up and find out whether you did or didn't it's pretty easy folks to look up You know what books

I've written the people I've debated since the evidence is out there and available for everybody, but dr.

Cantor is trying to get people to enroll in his seminary and attend his global apologetics program and So that's why on the his website

He says he's done all these debates and then when you ask about it what it is is well, you know I once asked a

Wiccan student at Greenville Community College on the quad about his religion.

Is that really what you think is being said on his website? I don't think that's what's being said when you go to my website and you go to my bio

You will find the specific names and dates and locations and topics of almost 90 moderated public debates

When they happen what the subject was who it was with and where it was located And you will not find anything like that for Eric and Cantor Now I'm not the head of a theological seminary.

I teach at one but I'm not the head of a theological seminary so maybe there's a difference but that's what bothers me and When they then when dr.

Cantor is then just simply dishonest as he was on the Calvary Chapel program Just dishonest about the reality.

This is why I don't like those formal debates because those myopic reform guys They've taken it all over and they act like Jerry Springer He's the one who acts like Jerry Springer.

That's why I put the clip in there showing him getting tased in the Liberty Chapel Yeah, that's a great thing to be doing in Chapel getting tased

Coming out in his hoodie, which what's Jerry Springer who's who's really doing the

Jerry Springer routine? Here is what I would like to know So I'd love to hear what what dr.

Cantor has to say, but I really doubt that I mean he's blocked me from Twitter So I'm not expecting any

Any major contact anytime soon from from dr. Cantor. We got a lot of things to get to today.

I need to I For some reason was thinking I'd have today and Tuesday to look at the

Anthony buzzer stuff I'm not gonna have a chance to I'll get to some of it today, but I'm not gonna get the most important stuff and It's almost like because I was waiting on that visa

London seemed like it was farther away And now that I've gotten it, it's like boom. It's Packed stuff up now get ready to go ma 'am.

So we're gonna go ahead and take our first phone call and Then I need to get back to the Anthony buzzer stuff.

Let's talk with Aaron. Hi Aaron. Hi, dr. White I was just calling really quickly to to kind of bounce something off of you an observation

I made during the the Michael Brown debate you recently had I thought it was a great place for you to start

To really locate the the crux of the issue at the divine decree and the extent of the decree and the nature of the decree and And I'm glad that you spent

I know I guess a lot of people want the red meat stuff of the the atonement issues

And and Romans 9 hit him with Romans Yeah, a lot of you know that that's that But I was really appreciative that you that you went to that issue and stress that first But one thing that I've noticed that comes up when when that happens, and I I heard it happen in In the debate with with dr.

Brown, and I was wondering if maybe You know you have a another opportunity possibly coming up to talk with him

And maybe we're gonna have him on the program here great great Maybe this maybe this could be touched on or or cleared up clarified a little bit

But there's a there's a persistent equivocation that that happens when you start talking about the decree and causality on the part of the

Armenian so So someone who would who would deny a reformed understanding of God's sovereignty and his decree

Will equate the Calvinist position of a decree with a what what we would call second cause second causality or second causation and And you heard it.

I think in the in the debate with dr. Brown when he You know would say things like talking about Joseph in in in Genesis with the brothers and that You know that God you mean that God God caused this to happen through his decree and and It just seems to me that that that There's a point of which the the reformed people are talking past the

Armenians and vice versa because that that Equivocation never really gets cleared up and and my personal opinion is that the critics of reformed theology who

Don't understand what the Westminster divine is meant by you know, the

The decree being the grounds upon which God establishes human freedom.

I'm not exactly sure the exact phrase there, but That that unless you understand what what reformed people mean by that It's it's it's kind of an empty criticism to say well, then

God, you know, how could God cause this? thing to happen and not and and still hold humans responsible or not become

You know culpable of the evil act himself Yeah, I uh,

I wrote dr. Brown. We're gonna have him on the program. I Just didn't think it was worthwhile to do it between that time and and heading to to England So probably next month when when he can work it out.

I mean, he's got a debate with Ermin coming up He's got a lot of stuff and and of course I did those two debates the day before debating

Tim Staples so I didn't exactly schedule things real well myself, but we're gonna have him on the program and So I wrote to him and I said, you know, let's pick some some text to look at.

However What I really think is is a problem here is I don't yet really understand what you believe

Concerning your statements that God is sovereign and yet God does not have a decree and You say that God will accomplish all his holy will but I don't know

What you mean by what his will is how extensive is that? What what does it mean?

Can you know does that does that how does that relate to? Human beings there's just all sorts of stuff here that I I don't know where you're coming from And so I said for example,

I would in a theodicy situation in this situation I could point you to various books if you want to look at Robert Raymond's discussion of these things in His systematic theology or something like that.

I could point you to Material that would represent my understanding. Could you do the same thing for me?

Could you give me a systematic theology a work on theodicy divine decrees something?

That I could you know bite into and hold you to that Because it's pretty obvious what

I'm saying, but I don't get the feeling it's really obvious what you're saying and He said he would look for something like that because he honestly admitted

He off top of his head. He wasn't aware of anything like that that he would necessarily say well this particular systematic theology gives my my viewpoint here and So hopefully

I'll be able to get something like that and and we need to discuss that first that needs to be the first area of discussion and then we can go the text, but yeah,

I that's why I kept going there is because I wasn't getting the kind of clarity that I needed to get on that subject and My criticisms of his responses when he was then alone was he was saying no, it's not what he means it means this

But then there weren't specifics as to why he was saying that I don't have the framework

To fit the statements into to be able to determine consistency And that's that's what we need to do

So hopefully we will we will Have that kind of information before we schedule those programs and then

I'm just gonna throw it out to I need to I need to blog on this, but basically we need to find a

Pretty large church somewhere in the United States that would say yeah, we would like to host maybe one or two debates

Maybe a two -night situation Where we would split it up between let's say sovereign decree

Depravity and election one night and atonement and and irresistible grace the next night something like that And do some some real major debating in public because he wants to do that.

I want to do that as well but we need to have a Fairly decent location to have that happen

So if there are any elders of fairly decent sized Churches out there that would be interested in hosting something like that.

Let us know because I think that dr Brown would be quite interested in scheduling that Great.

Well, I just really appreciate your your approach in that in that debate with him And we'd love to see some of those things flushed out a little bit more

With him, so I'm looking forward to that. Okay. Thanks Aaron. Great. Thank you. All right. God bless my back Yeah, I was

I was oh I was listening to Dr.

Brown dealing with the Kermit czar Lee and with Anthony buzzard and And again,

I you know Dr. Brown I would make an interesting traveling debate team

Because there are a number of subjects where he and I could be a two -man debate team against somebody else

Where we could debate we could defend the Trinity and the deity of Christ and the resurrection and things like that but then we could also then turn around and illustrate how to debate other issues particularly this one and Of course my hope and desire over time would be that we wouldn't be able to do it anymore because eventually

Michael go man, of course, it's right there and We make a great

Great team doing that but I really like Michael Brown and You know,

I do hear his his frustration when he talks about Arrogant Calvinists and in fact,

I got an email from somebody who was sort of beating on that particular drum

I've seen arrogant people who believe every kind of theology in the world But there is no theology in the world that should be more inconsistent for someone to hold in the midst of their arrogance than reformed theology and That's why

I highly recommend to people if you have not read Albert Martin's Wonderful.

It's a it's a booklet. It's not a full -size book. It's a booklet published of a banner of truth And as soon as I said that the practical implications of Calvinism is what's called the practical implications of Calvinism If you haven't read that and you have embraced reformed theology, please read it

So that you know, I I'm not sure if I coined it, but I certainly have used it. There is a term that I use in reference to Young people who embrace the reformed faith and tend to be overzealous it's called the cage stage and that is those people who quite simply

Lack the Maturity to handle the subjects that they're addressing and they want to get on their pony and ride off and convert everybody to Calvinism Without recognizing that especially, you know that subject requires the work the

Spirit of God to open someone's heart and to and to quell the the rebellion that remains there

That causes us to dislike God's sovereignty and you can't shove that down someone's throat.

You can defend it You can teach it as I have done many many times But you can't shove it down somebody's throat and you got to be very very careful

When you get to the point where you start saying well if someone doesn't agree with me on this I'm just simply gonna assume that they're not a

Christian Be very very careful when you start demanding perfection of theology on every single point as the definition of what it means to be a

Christian Yes, these are important issues relating to the gospel But it takes real maturity and balance to not

Turn a perfect understanding of these things into a requirement for someone to be a Christian Just be very very careful about that.

Well, we're never get anywhere if I don't stop preaching on this particular subject. We are picking up With Sir Anthony buzzards comments.

I doubt we're gonna get to the key issues We're get to some important issues But I doubt we're gonna get to the key issue

I wanted to get to which means that if Sir Anthony is listening and I think he probably is Then he's just gonna have to hear this when we we might get to Psalm 110 one today.

I don't know. We'll see But I did not queue up The specific statements that Sir Anthony makes on Hebrews 110 and if Sir Anthony is listening

We're gonna go there on the unbelievable radio program. We have to go there. I really think if we do hear the

Psalm 110 thing That's that's extremely important. So let's pick back up where we were This was quite a while ago now if you weren't listening before but let's listen to Sir Anthony buzzards subordination

God is always Superior to Jesus. He's the head of Jesus. Jesus is the son of God's all sons are younger than their fathers

Again, I have to make an extraordinary language leap to believe that a son Is the same age as eternal as the father?

An extraordinary language leap. Well, I think applying any human language to God requires an extraordinary language leap

There is so much any language of God's activity in time is is going to stress human language

There are so many basic things of God's existence that we struggle to express even in human language that to say that human language should have an easy time a simplistic time in Discussing the highest level of God's revelation strikes me as a very very odd thing

Notice beget means to bring into existence among creatures Yes But basically you need to hear what's being said here

Is that we cannot use any of this language of anything but creatures?

That's what in essence is being said And and as a result you are basically left saying well, even if God were to condescend to give us information

Concerning the eternal state that which even existed before creation then we just have to close our mouths and we just have to close our eyes and not listen to what

God says because there's a danger see that we might be foolish enough to Insist upon inserting into that human language creaturely categories rather than recognizing

That we need to be thinking in divine categories and That's just Again it

I think because Sir Anthony speaks a wonderful British accent people just allow that to go flying by rather than saying wait a minute

Why are you assuming these things you've really got to satisfy yourself that eternal begetting is a genuine biblical idea in order to get the

Trinity started because and I would Eternal begetting simply is talking about the relationship that has existed between the

Father and the Son and that it is a relationship that reveals to us a means by which we can differentiate between the divine persons in other words in the economic

Trinity that is how the divine persons have chosen in the eternal covenant redemption to act and what roles they've taken in the self glorification of God the redemption of a particular people in Jesus Christ That's one way that we recognize the difference between father son and spirit is

Economically by what they do the son does not do the exact same thing the spirit that the that the spirit does the same thing

The father does The son has a very unique role the spirit has a very unique role the father has a unique role and they differ from one

Another there are things the son does this the father's never done the spirits never done But when we talk about for example begetting

We're no longer talking about the economic Trinity in the sense of what they are doing that we can see in creation we're now talking about the actual internal relationships of The Father Son Holy Spirit, and how they are differentiated from one another without that there really is no

Trinity And I'm rather impressed in and I do recommend it if you're taking this study seriously

In the months ahead you really should get the book by Millard Erickson Who is evangelical isms?

splendid Proponents of Trinitarianism he really works at it very hard and very thoroughly

And he says in that book in that book that he doesn't believe in the eternal generation of the

Sun he can't find that He believes in the Trinity still so he believes in three pre -existent

Somethings, but it isn't the Sun that's generated apparently he's given up that argument That's a considerable move in the direction of Unitarian theology

I have a feeling that Millard Erickson would not appreciate The spin that Sir Anthony puts upon such things to be honest with you

I Think that and I haven't read Millard Erickson's comments on this particular subject, but my assumption would be

That he is talking about Not trying to prove this in a biblical sense saying that it's a biblical revelation

But that it's a descriptive issue. That's my assumption is what he would be saying But I I don't think that he would in any way shape or form appreciate someone stating.

Oh, this is a move toward Unitarianism That that that that that that strikes me as something he would chafe under just a little bit

Said I find this idea of an eternal generation of the Sun very dangerous and anti -scriptural

Because to generate needs to bring into existence And of course when we recognize that's not what we mean by it

Then it doesn't and you're going to talk about generation of the Sun you are immediately giving up the Trinity because it means that one

Has been brought into existence and was not brought was not in existence before that time So these are major have you noticed that there's crickets in the background of this now either they were outside or You know like like in a amphitheater or something,

I don't know Or or maybe that's something that the the pro Maybe somebody's using a program to record this it inserts that because you didn't register it or something.

I Don't know but I I know that the first time I was listening to it was listening to it while riding

And I'm outside and got wind noise and stuff like that, but everyone's why I go really sounds like there are crickets out there

Sort of wonder why that is we're gonna go ahead and skip the Skip the break because I I'm gonna get a little enough of this in As it is

Now another point is this that if you read the synoptic Gospels Matthew Mark You certainly could not mount

Much of an argument if any for the Trinity in Matthew Mark I've already suggested you can't mount any argument from the elders and many scholars would agree with that part

There's our many scholars quote I Matthew Mark and Luke Here's where again.

We have a book in the in the library library in the bookstore that you really need to get called The Lord of Glory by B .B.

Warfield. He really takes this kind of argument apart he really really does and In fact,

I just noticed and I again We got to get somebody in here. It actually works. I have not blogged

The fact that we now have R .C. Sproul's commentary on John in he also wrote us a second commentary.

Did we look at that one? Okay but R .C. Sproul's It's not

It's an expository commentary similar to John MacArthur's materials Rather than an exegetical commentary, but R .C.

Sproul's put out R .C. is just a great writer And so people who want to you know catch this stuff

And prefer that kind of writing will find us to be very useful. Yeah, we're working on getting it into the bookstore We haven't set that up just I thought we had cuz

I saw him on the close They just came in and then we need you to do a commercial for them in your best

British accent. Oh, okay Well, I'll wait till I come back and I will have been amongst the

Brits and it always Results in an improvement because right now the last people

I was amongst were the the Aussies Yeah, and so it could be really ugly if I if I tried to do that right now, but that's true

But we have learned that theology Sounds so much higher. Yes, it does a

British accent. It does. There's no question about that. I don't know what it is, but That's I mean,

I would I'm gonna be at a real disadvantage In London because I'm just the yank and sir, sir,

Anthony. I mean, he's got a hereditary title So I'm gonna have to call him sir Anthony during the unbelievable radio program.

So I'm gonna disadvantage from every which direction So Don't think that's actually got me worried at all, but anyway

No, I mean aside from those references messianic references of the deity of Christ things like that Let me mention once again emphasize

When is the Trinity revealed is revealed in the incarnation of the Sun and the outpouring of the

Spirit when does that happen between the Testaments between the Testaments and That's why the

New Testament is such a Trinitarian document. That's why it is so Soaked in Trinitarian language because its authors are experiential

Trinitarians. They have experience think of Peter He has heard the father speak in the mouth transfiguration.

He's seen the Sun transfigured. He's now in dwelt by the Holy Spirit. He knows Those divine persons.

He's an experiential Trinitarian. That's why they can speak so easily in Trinitarian categories You have the

Trinitarian benediction in 2nd Corinthians You have this language just it soaks the entirety of the

New Testament because they are experiential Trinitarian But if you look at the synoptics you'll find that Gabriel Is quite precise in this issue of the

Son of God in Luke 135 He says to Mary Holy Spirit will come over you

Mariam and the power of the highest will overshadow you and for Reason precisely your son will be the

Son of God. Did you hear that? Now notice what he did there now. I'm I I Could roll this back, but it's a little bit difficult in this program to do

I could roll this back. I think he said Holy Spirit will overcome you not the

Holy Spirit Maybe I just missed it But he doesn't believe the Holy Spirit's a divine person. So that would sound like the

Jehovah's Witness Holy Spirit God's act of power So that would be interesting to discover

I would imagine that that is the case because he is a Sassanian But then notice that the what was what was said there

The angel answered said to her the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you and For that reason the

Holy Child shall be called the Son of God now He said for this very reason and he's trying to say this is this is why he is

The Son of God is because of his supernatural birth not Because of this the

Holy Child shall be called the Son of God because remember for him This is this is where Jesus comes into existence.

He does not exist prior to his birth in Bethlehem. He's but a plan He's not even a he it is a plan that's why he emphasizes in John 1 1 that should be all things are made through it instead of him

This becomes the the plan then becomes a man Which raises all sorts of problems because he loves to go to John 17 3 as well as all

Unitarians do but I've never heard him go to John 17 5 9. I need to look at his book I'm gonna have to drag that along with me.

I imagine across the pond, but I would like to see how each attempts to respond to John 17 5

Because it is so plain and so clear in its assertion of the pre -existence of Jesus So I'm sure it's addressed there

But you would think every time John 17 3 was mentioned that he would he would mention that but that isn't for that reason precisely consequence upon This miraculous event in the womb

Mary. That's why he's the Son of God That's what is miracle about Jesus he shall be called the

Son of God Not that's what makes him the Son of God's a huge leap From saying to be called something means that that's what constituted you as the

Son of God That's why we can speak of his divinity if you like The fact that he's been miraculously conceived.

That's what Gabriel said And I would put it to you that Gabriel was not a Trinitarian He knew nothing about the pre -existing

Son as if you can even Come up with any of that From these words of Gabriel.

There's nothing here about the the pre -existence issue at all I mean, that's you're inserting something in here

Obviously if the of all the biblical texts that clearly present the pre -existence of Christ mean what they say

Then Gabriel well knew the identity, but that's not what he was addressing So to try to force that into this text again is a tremendous example of is

Jesus Dr. Sanders in our discussion before we began So right when he said this is really an argument about the nature of the son.

We're all agreed that the father is God No disagreement on that, but we're going to get as we move into it into the rest of our debate

We're going to be talking more obviously about the nature of the son I'm suggesting to you then the son comes into existence in the womb of his mother

Luke 135 and the parallel text Matthew 120 and finish with this Joseph is told that which is forgotten in her

Is from the Holy Spirit that is which is brought into existence There's no pre -existing son here and most scholars would agree with that.

So you could take that into your Into the data that you feed into the arguments as you make up your mind

Yeah, I this this most scholars would agree thing really gets boring after a while personally

Do not fear to take Mary as your wife for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit That so so again notice the assumption the assumption is that there is nothing before this and That this is just a natural birth in the sense of a creature

Who has been created at this point in time? But if Jesus pre -existed, how would the angel said anything differently?

Because that which was conceived in her is human and Our assertion is the humanity of Jesus didn't pre -exist.

So you see how that wasn't even an argument. It's actually not even relevant It sounds like an argument and people go. Oh, I know and thought about that until you stop for a moment go

Well, wait a minute Then what he's actually arguing Would have to require me to believe

That the flesh of Jesus pre -existed his birth and we don't believe that So the text is not addressing the issue at all.

This is Classical this isn't so much. I said Jesus as it is sort of tricky unfair argumentation and I've said many many times when you listen to one this

Pentecostals when you listen to Muslims when you listen to so Sinian's as few of them as there are and Sir, Anthony buzzard being probably the most popular or well -known today

You are listening to people who assume Unitarianism they never prove it same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to your door

They're gonna pull the same stunts or all the subordination is they're all gonna do the same thing.

They are going to assume Unitarianism and then use that as a bat over which to beat you with the over with with which to beat you over the head

And you must challenge it over and over and over again, it's really Involves handling the text of Scripture, but also recognizing forms of argumentation and where they are foundationally flawed in other words logic and That's why these people get away with so much of what they get away with because people generally do not think logically

They don't recognize bad argumentation, which is why so many of the people who get elected get elected in our country

Because they are swayed by emotional arguments and bad arguments and they're just not discerning in examining these things

All right, let's go Rich was giving a golf clap in the other room. Thank you very much going to the next portion

A lot of current comment on these very critical issues about pre -existence. This is a debate about the nature of pre -existence

If you have a son of God that is God the son I'm not prepared to make that switch. There's a vast difference between those two terms

But if you've got a son of God who is God the son clearly you have a totally different proposition On your hands and if you have a son who begins in the womb of his mother

I just want to reiterate my point that I think that Luke 135 requires that you believe the son began

To be I would recommend you read Raymond Brown's massive account Now I find this fascinating This again was what was so interesting about?

His debate with Shabir Ali, which wasn't debate. I mean, I'm not sure what they were debating But once again

We have a situation where Someone who's trying to hold to what would in some areas,

I mean he I've heard him say he believes in substitutionary atonement Which is a very which requires a very conservative

Viewpoint of Scripture and yet when it comes these things he's not quoting any of the

Princeton scholars He's not quoting a Machen or a Warfield or a Hodge He's always going for liberals he has to because they draw their conclusions

Based upon atomizing the text they can look at any one text. They don't have to worry about Consistency with the rest of the text and then come to conclusions that create all sorts of contradiction within the text of Scripture But he's not presenting the

Bible in that way. So why go to people like Raymond Brown? who are

Significantly less than conservative when you end up trying to present what you think is a conservative perspective.

It's that old inconsistency thing Calling authorities is for this purpose

But you and I are not smart enough always by ourselves. We need help from people who spend a lifetime studying the

Bible Raymond Brown's piece on the birth narratives He keeps repeating this fact that neither

Luke nor Matthew knew anything about the incarnation. Did you read their language fairly? I think that's a very significant point and I want to repeat what

Gabriel said here when Mary was told she would have this child Gabriel said

I want you to understand that the reason For this child being the Son of God is the miracle in your womb

Now that would not be true. If in fact that Son of God had existed from eternity Would not be the same proposition at all.

There's a direct causal relationship between the sonship and the miracle That's what leads the vast majority of New Testament scholars not to find any majority alert because there's no pre -existent

Sun I've suggested that there's no pre -existent Sun in the Old Testament either. That's 75 % of your

Bible now You have Matthew Mark and Luke three Corroborating reports of the account of the birth and the teaching and death and resurrection of Jesus.

There's no Trinity there Very few New Testament scholars would argue for a trinity in the synoptic gospel again

Matthew 120 that which is begotten in her slightly veiled in your translation by the word conceived

It doesn't say that that which is begotten in her Who would forget now means to bring into existence?

What was not in existence before that time? So and which particular lexical source demands that creaturely application?

I would like to know Why can it not be used in a relation sense and why does it only have to be used in a time sense?

See, there's these are just assertions that are designed to Create a particular result.

They're not really solid argument That's one of the things that Sir Anthony I was always saying is you

Trinitarians have to use all this unbiblical language and yet if you listen carefully Especially when he has to start trying to deal with pre -existence passages where he says well

There's there's one Lord God and there's one Lord Christ. There's actually two Lords even though the New Testament says only one Lord He has two

Lords And when you start digging into it you discover he's using all sorts of unbiblical language

But that's okay for him. It's just That if Trinitarians in seeking to answer questions couched on biblical language use language that can actually

Meaningfully respond to such questions. They're somehow demonstrating an error in their position again, much of this is just simply bad argumentation, but it needs to be recognized on the fact that it's functioning presuppositionally and We need to recognize

It's not there in the Bible eternal generation and others say you have to wrestle and as he said earlier days

Dr. MacArthur has put out an article out. It's been at least 15 years now, I think Affirming the fact that the

Sun is eternal existed as the Sun not simply as a second person in Trinity, but That's why I said earlier days.

So why in the world he'd bring this up again I I he seems to have a real tendency to want to do the

Name -dropping thing, which I really think detracts from The argument

I think it really really does When we get to John 1 we have also to be a little bit careful that we look deeply into what said there

Are we saying in the beginning was? the Sun and The Sun was with God and presumably that would mean the father would not

The Sun according to terms they don't have to be in the father. So are we saying in the beginning? Was the

Sun and the Sun was with the father and the Sun was the father? No, obviously not.

No one even suggests such a thing He spends a tremendous amount of time an entire presentation on his website

On this subject of the error of reading John one was in the beginning was the

Sun But the fact of matter is it is the gospel of John John one one is the prologue to a gospel Does the gospel of John?

Indicate to us that the author of John intended us to understand that the Logos Personally pre -existed and is the

Son of God sent by the Father into the world. There is no question of that none Absolutely positively none.

This is the same gospel where Jesus constantly speaks himself as the one sent By the

Father the one who has come down out of heaven. It is the gospel that will end with the climax of the confession of Thomas Who identifies

Jesus as a courteous moo -kai hath a awesome? my lord and my

God This is the same text that will have the ego

I mean arguments This is the same text that will have John 17 where Jesus will specifically speak of his personal existence in the presence of the

Father Before creation itself not as a mere plan but as one who shared the very glory of the

Father and so John one one Speaks of the word because John's writing to Greek speaking people

They would have known what the Logos was the Logos was a rational ordering principle in the universe. He personalizes this

It's not all things were made through it This is personal agency just as we have in Colossians 1

Hebrews 1 John 1 Hebrews 1 Colossians 1 Jesus is the creator in each one of these and So in the beginning was the word means the word eternally existed as far back as you push that beginning the word is existed and The word was with God prost on they on Now you should hear the lengthy attempt that sir

Anthony produces And it really smacks of a tremendous amount of special pleading To make that into well your word is something that's with you

So this is a plan that's with God is all that's being said here Then why does the next verse and he really the next phrase and he really struggles here

He sort of tries to skip over it. He doesn't want to go here because this doesn't make any sense If this is just a plan

God's plan his his purpose was with him Then why say in the third clause that the nature of this plan is deity?

The word was as to his nature deity Why Why make that that statement?

It makes no sense the words nature Would not be that of deity instead we have a distinction between the

OS and the logos in this text and They are it is a personal distinction and it is a personal distinction that is eternal in its application

So I just wanted We're good probably get to this later on but I wanted to address that at some point and I'm not sure.

We're gonna get too much farther here as time is failing us No one's saying the

Sun was the father Even he recognizes that the position of the predicate nominative there is not one of identity.

It is one of description and He recognized that is that in other places? This is just one of those really bad arguments

That that you just shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Sometimes you get away with it, especially in a debate well, there's so many things to address another person when

I get to it, but still I just I find to be very poor argumentation

English translations of the Bible before the King James about eight of them and we read the following in the beginning was the word small letter would not account

That's an editorial edition and I went to propose to you that Trinitarianism has a lot invested in the translations

But that's the massively popular view Yeah, he likes try to come up with all sorts of and I've found this to be a standard approach that basically when

When when you have your own unique heresy you want to promote You're gonna need to come up with your own versions of the

Bible asked the Jehovah's Witnesses. They just went the whole whole hog with it but Citing translations done by a particular individual just one individual

You know that I'm not saying it's never right to make reference something like that but in general one of the reasons you don't hear me doing that with any kind of regular at all is because a conference or a a group produced translation

With the plurality of editors Functions to filter out personal bias and Jehovah's Witnesses for years have made reference to off -center idiosyncratic translations to try to support their own off -center idiosyncratic translation and Sir, Anthony does that on a number of texts himself beginning was a small letter word

God's plan God's utterance Your word is the very essence of what you are what you think

In the beginning there was that word that word was with God in the Hebrew Bible you find many occurrences of The notion of your word being with you as a plan as a decree

How you don't use that kind of language when was your word last with you makes no sense But you probe the

Hebrew very Hebrew atmosphere of John's gospel you'll find there. It's quite possible To understand this to me, let's catch up the very

Hebrew atmosphere of John's gospel well That's a joint of people recognize that the primary influence upon John's gospel is

Greek not Hebrew Not only is it clearly written in Greek, but it is written to a

Greek speaking audience, and it's written to an audience outside of Palestine itself and so To use his own terminology the vast majority of scholars would recognize

That he's borrowing language that Greek speakers would first and foremost understand, and this is one of the problems that I have with Sir Anthony is that the same thing comes up in his favorite text psalm 110 which he uses over and over and over again and then in his amazingly

Gymnastic mechanism of escaping the identification of Jesus Yahweh in the

Hebrews chapter 1 verse 10 He takes the exact opposite view of the text in Hebrews 1 10 that he does in Psalm 1

Hebrews 1 verse 10 that he does in Psalm 1 10

Which is very very interesting, but doesn't look like we're gonna be running into that in just the next three minutes They ask without the article a slightly adjectival sense

The nose he just said they asked slightly adjectival sense. That's what we were just saying so why in the world this straw man before beforehand and The son was the father

So what why why even go there? That's why I don't understand about if you only if you only have a certain amount of time to make your presentation

Then why not? Pack it with all the good stuff rather than these arguments that really are arguments against Rahman The expressive quality of God became a man

Excuse me isn't the same man saying that Trinitarians are the ones constantly using non -biblical categories

Um this sounds about as unbiblical as it can possibly be Where where is this?

How is this biblical language? How are these biblical categories? That's what I was talking about earlier In a six -foot

Palestinian The closest thing to God you can get but a creature who has not eternally existed yeah, that's that's the that's the difference between supernatural

Christianity and the rationalism of Sassanianism is It's it's one thing to even he affirms the virgin birth of Christ, and that's pretty unusual for Sassanians on that level but you still have to keep him on this side of the chasm between created and Creator that's

That's the difference right there six -foot tall human being he says if you've seen me you've seen God The wonder if this is he is a human being the problem is that he's not if he begins by not being a human being

He really never is one How can you be before you are? What is pre -existence all about how can you be before you are?

Are we looking well if you're the God man it means that That which is deity as eternally existed, and then he entered into human existence and that human

Person comes into existence that time the flesh of Jesus did not eternally pre -exist But obviously the

Sun has eternally pre -existed because I love that one text of Paul Though he was rich he became poor

What does that mean if he was but a plan well? He was a very rich plan come on, but We're destroying the meaning of language

When when you get to that point, and that's what sassanianism has to do on Every one of these texts that so plainly present

Not only the eternal nature the pre -existence of of Jesus as a divine person.

It's it's right there in the text We didn't get too much of the rest of it, maybe we'll when we get back or Maybe we'll have covered it all on the unbelievable radio program.

Who knows we will we will find out But I am very much looking forward to this. I've been spending a lot of time preparing

Listening to his lectures and also preparing to deal with Abdullah Al -Andalusi

Really looking forward to seeing the Saints there in England I'll try to find some way if there's some way we can work something out

We've done dividing lines from England before and if I've got a good stable connection there might be a way to try to work something out

Maybe for Thursday morning or something like that if I could do it in Thursday afternoon I I'm not a hundred percent certain of my schedule on that day, so we'll see it might be able to work something out depending on Those those factors, so we'll find out thanks for listening to dividing line pray for us as we head over to the

United Kingdom for the Debates the encounters. Thanks for listening. God bless we need

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 nine seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o.

Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona Eight five zero six nine you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks