Citation Error

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 welcome to the dividing line music just sort of disappeared they're not sure what that was all about This and then that and there's just a professional the

Union tell you do that It's a right -to -work state

Well, welcome to the dividing line before we get back to the Barker Wilson debate This afternoon on the program.

I wanted to talk about further evidence that yes I am a human being and I make errors

Turretin fan drew my attention to one such error this morning and He would the man's a machine.

I don't I don't know how he cranks out the amount of material that he does He must not sleep Russians are like that but anyway

You didn't know he was a Russian. I think he's Russian. We sometimes argue about you know, cuz he's you know, the unknown mystery, dude so but I've got him pegged he's definitely

Russian and Probably former KGB in hiding or something like that. But anyway, you know, even

Russians can make good Calvinist Lord can take anybody but anyhow, I pointed out to me that I Have made a mistake

In a citation of Basil of Caesarea, I have cited Philip Schaaf Summarizing what

Basil said it's almost in the exact same words, but it is Philip Schaaf and not Basil of Caesarea and specifically it is the following words got carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is

Conformable to Scripture and if not to reject it Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God all that is outside scripture is not of faith

But it's sin now that's Schaaf and he is in essence Restating what is found in a

This particular reference. This is from the aesthetical works the morals rule 8 chapter 22

Specifically what is the mark of a Christian faith working by charity? What is the mark of faith a sure conviction of the truth the inspired words?

Not to be shaken by a process of reasoning nor by the alleging of natural requirements nor by the pretenses of false piety

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in those dispositions of full acceptance on the authority the words of Scripture not venturing to reject anything nor making additions

For if all that is not of faith is sin as the Apostle says and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the

Word of God everything outside Holy Scripture not being of faith is sin likewise his commentary on rule 72

Concerning the hearers that those hearers who are instructed in the scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers receiving what is conformity with the scriptures and Rejecting what is opposed to them and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided now

I don't know how I got Schaaf mixed up with Basel. It's there's a number of different possibilities

If you're using electronic copies, sometimes it's difficult to see which is which whatever it might be.

It's an error and I note the error and admit the error. However, I want to use this to draw a distinction between How people handle things like this?

first of all, there is no question that Schaaf is appropriately and accurately

Paraphrasing and summarizing what Basel said there's no question about that Anyone who reads

Basel knows that he made that that kind of argumentation not in just these citations, but in others as well I remember having a debate with a

Roman Catholic apologist and scholar in Austin, Texas back in the early 1990s and it wasn't this part wasn't recorded because it was between the two debates, but he made a comment about Basel to me and and I said have you read the context of that and We looked into the context of it and it was pointing out that that this current this quote he had used from Basel to try to refute mine

Wasn't actually in a context that wasn't talking about dogmas talking about practices. He he as a teaching scholar had not actually looked at the context of Basel so maybe

I thought that what I had there was just a different translation of the earlier citation doesn't matter It was an error but it does not in any way impact anything that we have said concerning Basel's view of the sufficiency of Scripture and how far out of conformity with modern

Roman Catholicism his sentiments are and Unlike the history of the Roman Church Where not only was it a matter of someone making a mistake in a citation?

It was a matter of people making up not only citations, but making up entire works

Do I need to say much more than the donation of Constantine? Do I need to make reference to the pseudo is a

Dorian decretals? The fact that the large portion large portion a small portion not a few little isolated quotes

But a large portion literature upon which the entire Pretensions of the papal see were based during medieval times were completely spurious.

They were made up it wasn't oh I I quoted from the introduction rather these were completely made up and The ideas in them were not to be found in the original writers

Now look at the modern situation Look at for example the recent situation where turrets and fan has pointed out

That modern Roman Catholic apologists will throw everything, but the kitchen sink at you, and they just don't care whether it's truthful or not

You know we look at pseudo apologists like Steve Ray and there is nothing too low for Steve Ray to do or to say to promote

Romanism there just isn't and He will not defend himself when he is demonstrated to be an error

He just simply mocks those who have demonstrated his error and then runs off to Israel or Greece or wherever else

He's dragging little old ladies around and getting their money from them While showing them around saying this is where this happened.

That's what happened So we documented for example the 33 ,000 denominations myth or fable

Do you think that's gonna stop Roman Catholic apologists from using it? No of course not even though the documentations right there

It is simply a lie a bold -faced lie to accuse sola scriptura

With producing Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses or any of these others It they'll they'll continue doing it and and without any shame turns a fan pointed out the abuse of Pseudo -athanasius in regards to promoting the idea of Mary as the

Ark of the Covenant and Is there any recognition on their part of this?

No, there's wide wild -eyed Defense of these things. Well, it's possible.

It might have been this and it's possible. It might have been that and you know We just really don't know I am truly reminded of The lengths to which

Roman Catholics especially will go To find anything that is amenable to the dogmatic positions of later

Roman Catholicism The the the early church is just putty in their hands

There's there's no attempt whatsoever To honestly and accurately represent the context of any of these writers at all

Any source is good I mean They're forced into this because let's face it the especially the Marian dogmas such as those being defended by the citation of pseudo -athanasius

The Marian dogmas came from Gnosticism They're Gnostic in origin.

They're not Christian in origin and so just I think the weekend before last someone in my church dropped me a line and somebody had thrown this quotation from a 13th or 14th century

Coptic reference source that Some people believe goes back to the 3rd or 4th century about the

Dormition of Mary and You know, you've got all these questions about this and then you read all the stuff into it and you ignore the fact

It's a heretical doc document Angel Christology and Gnosticism and all the rest of the stuff, but oh look there's something about Mary here

We can push the assumption of Mary back even farther now. Oh, isn't that wonderful? Yeah, it's from heretics, but who cares?

It's there. Oh, yeah, you know and you just sit there and and you're you're in utter shock at what these people are willing to utilize as sources of information and so you compare the you know,

I think of a The Envoy magazine situation where They did the anonymous hit piece on me that we've discussed a number of times and even then they used extremely questionable resources

If you look at the Roman Catholic section on our website You'll see that I've written numerous articles where I've interacted with published materials from Karl Keating and others

Where they will use the most highly questionable sources To find anything that is amenable with their allegedly universal tradition

Why do you have to use such questionable sources when you claim to be the infallible church in the first place?

never quite figured that out, but Anyways, there you go. So I think it's instructive that at least in this situation where I have made an error

I've made an error citing someone who was summarizing Exactly what Basil Caesarea did say in regards to the sufficiency of Scripture It does not change any bit of argumentation whatsoever.

It's still a mistake, but it's a mistake that does not change the argument But when you have people who are willing to use spurious

Materials when you have a church that built its power on the basis of forged

Documents where you had to write into the early church citations and quotations that they never themselves said inserting beliefs that they never themselves held

I Remember, this is a name. I haven't used a long time Scott Butler the man who continues to hold the

Pacwa debates for a hostage He's the one who has the videotapes of the first two

Pacwa debates we did and Has hidden them away in a dark corner someplace. Maybe he's taped

Seinfeld episodes over it by now or something like that. Who knows but Still call upon Scott Butler to release those tapes the world and let everybody else see them

Of course, he admitted that the Roman Catholic side didn't win those debates So I guess that's what you do is you just suppress those videos and that happens.

But anyways, I remember Scott Butler Throwing out in the Boston College stuff

Some an Arabic version as I recall the cannons of Nicaea That had stuff added to it to try to make a point

It is just there is no stopping point as to how far people will go

Once they have wedded themselves to the authority of Rome. They just there's just There's nothing to stop anybody

Along those lines it is Truly an amazing thing to observe.

So there you go further evidence of my humanity and fallibility but once again,

I think it's it is indicative and instructive to note that what

I mistakenly ascribed to Basil of Caesarea is actually a very accurate summary of Exactly what

Basil of Caesarea said in those that those citations which are in no way Questioned as being a representative of his position

Unlike people like Steve Ray and others who just throw anything out there Hope it sticks and when challenged just simply insult the people who've exposed them and Like I said run off to Greece or Israel or whatever and we're just too busy to deal with things like that We have documented these things many many times.

I remember the the videos I posted on YouTube Hopefully they're still there and haven't been removed for copyright violations

Demonstrating that Steve Ray had grossly misused Athanasius Steve Ray's just uses secondary materials source materials anyways and and so when his understanding of those secondary materials is not overly good then he ends up blundering but That's just what happens with people like Steve Ray.

So there's there is a public recommendation and Acknowledgement of an error that doesn't change absolutely anything that we were saying about Basil in fact, it just gave us the opportunity of reemphasizing once again the fact that the view of modern

Roman Catholicism While it can be read back into anything if you want to engage in anachronism if you want to ignore

What is really there? Was not in fact the viewpoint of the early church and that to those of us who believe in the perspicuity and Authority of Scripture and reject the later innovations of the

Roman Catholic system as a perversion of the gospel Have a sound basis for so doing so with that said let's get back to the

Barker Wilson debate we were in the cross -examination period and Doug Wilson was

Had just said well, thank you for not answering that question and he was right and then we heard

Dan Barker say that he had answered the question perfectly Well, he hadn't actually he was

Dancing around a bit, but now Doug is going to press that advantage. Let's continue on Let me let me move the same situation to Oklahoma City which you brought up Why Given given the fact that there is no

God and no objective morality You've just told us that morality is relative to the situation, but there is objective basis.

I said for morality I didn't say there's no objective morality. Okay, what is that basis? It's it's nature.

It's human nature and pain We we evolved to require water. For example, what if we get evolved to require?

Something else like arsenic then this might be evil But relative to our human nature to what helps us and what's what either enhances our life or what causes harm for our life

We can say relative to our human nature. This is something that's good. There is no Objective good.

We also evolved. We also evolved a mechanism whereby we blow up our enemies So why was doing that in Oklahoma City wrong because that hurts it causes pain

Now again, I think most people are really left Stuttering when they hear

Dan Barker With with such a a paper -thin basis upon which to make his assertions.

It causes pain So I mean here is a evolutionary naturalist all of nature causes pain

Natural selection is based upon causing pain So, how can you say that's the basis of morality

I mean from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective who cares if You're causing pain to somebody else means that your genotype will predominate over their genotype in the gene pool then you win and if that's the only goal of Evolution is that your genotype?

Predominates over someone else's genotype then that makes it good, right? I mean if that's all there is and So you have this inconsistent atheism where well

I don't like pain and so that becomes my my ultimate standard and Yeah that doesn't really flow from my view of the universe at all because pain is actually a part of you know natural selection and and the survival of the fittest actually it's the promotion of the genotype of the fittest but He who has the most kids wins in essence and Pains are relevant to any of that, but you know,

I just want to just say that I'm a very caring person that's that's in essence what

I'm hearing and Of course Doug Wilson isn't letting him get away with it If you don't grasp the simple idea that morality is an issue of avoiding pain

Blowing up people in Oklahoma City was painful. It was tragic. It was hurtful Given you ought to know that there's something wrong with it

Oh, I know there's something wrong with it But I only know it because there's a God the triune God for scripture You mean you would not it would not have dawned on you without the

Bible that there's something wrong with killing I mean, you're so dumb that you couldn't have thought it through for yourself. Let me think about it.

Do we really need? But do we really need these tablets from Mount Sinai to tell us there's something wrong with causing harm

What happened what happened in Oklahoma City given your principles was nothing but the scattering of protoplasm now, he's exactly right and Barker's cheap debating point that he just got there by saying you're so stupid.

You couldn't figure that out again is based upon his borrowing our worldview long enough to define the words to make the point and Doug was not

Sidetracked by that I think most people would have been but he wasn't a stayed on on point stayed on the topic and again said okay, but what happened there was nothing but the scattering of protoplasm and If the people who did that he didn't have time to develop this but if the people who did that Thought they were causing the greater good that they were fighting a repressive government and That's these people were the loss of the life of these people would eventually lead to Betterment of life then couldn't they use that argument.

I Mean it's all just relative, isn't it? That's what that's Dan Barker's, but it's all relative

So if you can make the stronger argument that you can sacrifice a few for the better of the many Then why not do that?

Well because it causes pain well But if you don't do it, you're gonna be causing more pain over time to other people under a repressive government

So you can always there's always some way around this There is no way of making this system that Barker tries to present stick.

It just doesn't work He caused harm to protoplasm It caused harm to human beings who don't want harm caused to them

Okay, so any human being who doesn't want harm caused to him Should not have harm caused to him

Now why why are these other people these different nerve centers these different nervous systems why is their word authoritative

Their word. Yeah, why do I have to leave them alone? Because we're part of the same human race with the same organism.

We relate to each other. We're part. We're the same organism what? This is me the same guy who's gonna sit there and say that evolution is an established fact

He doesn't know much about evolution if that's what he thinks. We are not the same organism. We may be part of the same life zone and and biosphere but we're not the same organism and Look at the law of the wild folks

It does not follow that That this type of argumentation makes any sense

Because there are lots of gazelles in Africa that don't want to be eaten by lions But they get eaten by lions and the system works that way

Is that immoral because it causes pain? The whole the whole idea just makes no sense

We recognize that other human beings are part of us and we're part of the community I understand that you care I'm trying to figure out why because I'm a human being

I don't like pain And so I project that to other human beings and I know they don't like pain either So I care about them by extension

Do you think that the history of the human race reveals that one of the things that the human race likes to do besides?

Avoiding pain is that the human race likes to Give it Yeah, it's in the name of a god non sequitur cheap debating trick

You know, etc, etc. What does that matter? Because Doug Wilson would believe that in 99 % that's a name of a false god or falsely claimed by that god or whatever else

It might be As as he will demonstrate but total non -second Would you like this would you like a comparative body count between the

Spanish Inquisition and the crusades and the secularist crusades in this century now It's gonna sound for a moment like Barker's got a good comeback for this.

He gets nailed This is this listen to this Well a few millions, but what's the point?

I mean, are you trying to say that if a Political regime that's based on some kind of religious or non -religious philosophy commits immoral acts

Therefore we should completely discredit the entire regime most Christians would say don't blame Jesus for the

Inquisition, right? I don't blame Jesus for the crusades, right? They're eager to blame atheists for Stalinism.

Maybe the reason for this The reason for this and I'd like to ask you to respond to it is

When the Grand Inquisitor did what he did in the name of Jesus Christ He was saying one thing and he was standing on something else.

His premise was inconsistent with what he was doing I have been able to find no inconsistency in the worldview of Stalin.

Could you please tell me how he was inconsistent? Exactly exactamundo what the atheist regimes did in murdering millions and millions of people was

Consistent with the worldview that they were following and Anything the

Inquisition did or anything any atrocities of the crusade was inconsistent with the foundation upon which they were standing that's a given but Noticed that Barker missed it and now now listen to the this response.

It is an example of incoherence Well, he claimed to be seeking the common good and yet he caused pain

But I mean harm it may be a mistake That's inconsistent to be claiming to be seeking the common good but yet to be doing something

Was Stalin mistaken or immoral both? He was mistaken and he was immoral

Okay, and he was Immoral because he took human life, which you have absolutized.

I haven't advertised it No as a relative I said it's relative to us the way we love all the natures that we have it could have been different things could have been

Different we didn't even have to evolve. Okay now is the process of evolution whatever happens Is that is that what you're appealing to we do it happens that we have what they avoid pain

This also happens that we inflict it Why why do you choose the avoidance of pain as the standard of morality and not the inflicting of pain

Like pain, I mean, it's pretty simple, but we like inflicting it. Well, I don't think why do you choose one over the other?

I don't like inflicting pain. Well, you know, I don't but there's lots of people most of us don't There was a chap in Oklahoma City that did and what we do then is we doesn't man

We have laws and we have system of justice and we have self -defense and we have jails Those of us in society who do care about morality and stopping pain try to protect ourselves from the others who don't you?

Have you ever seen a greater example of the utter blindness of atheism? We we do these things and the whole point is but why do you do these things?

Because you were made in the image of God. That's why you're doing these things That's why we had that sign.

We carried out the atheist convention atheist creatures denying their creator. It's Seen very clearly there

One is the avoidance of pain the others the inflicting of it and you have arbitrarily ranked one over the other and I would like To know why that's called morality by definition.

That's what morality is Why if you're gonna be a moral person, that's what morality is according to according to me.

I'm a human being according to motion According to me There you go. It's all subjective.

It's just me. And so if another me comes along with a bigger gun Then that's what becomes moral.

It's just me things on this planet. We agree according to Hitler Well Hitler I was a member of the

Catholic Church in good standing That was a non -answer obviously

Anybody who would accuse Hitler of Christianity is just engaging in absurdity on an incredible level

I was a non -answer and The point again is if if it's me or the majority of me's

Then upon what objective basis do you say that what Nazi Germany did or any of the others did was wrong?

And you just can't come up with anything from an atheistic worldview I want to ask you then.

Why did God create evil? He wanted to So if God is responsible for evil, absolutely

Okay, then if God is responsible evil, he's not a good God Absolutely, not. Well, how can you be evil and good at the same time?

I didn't say he was evil I said he determined to create evil. He created evil Yes, then a person who creates evil is a good person

God freely and unalterably ordained whatsoever comes to pass So when something happens in the world, that's evil

God is Responsible for it. He created he made it He didn't create it directly when he created the world the world was good and man rebelled

But when man rebelled against God that didn't surprise God, he wasn't scrambling around yelling plan

B He knew it was going to happen. But then why did he say he created evil? Why did he say it in specific words in are you referring to the book of Amos?

I'm referring to the book of Isaiah. Jesus God the God in Isaiah said I created he said Bara which is the word for creating

Which is in Genesis in Iraq. I create evil and that's the moral evil. He's talking about not calamity

Well, now let me stop right there. Isaiah 45 7 Numerous, I don't think even translates at calamity.

I Don't know why Dan Barker thinks that he is a Bible scholar or he can just sort of throw out definitions

He's going to be doing that here for the next few minutes on other topics but and I certainly don't have any problem reading

Isaiah 45 7 as including Moral evil now in the context he is talking about the difference between Shalom and Ra It's talking about within the city and so on so forth and God is talking about the fact that he he is behind The destruction of cities and the calamity that comes with it and so on so forth now

I think that would include as we see in Isaiah chapter 10 and the Assyrians All sorts of evil that goes along with that.

There is no such thing as purposeless evil But he just threw out this it doesn't mean calamity thing

No, it does. It's just bigger than the definition. He wants to use of that particular text

And when did it become an argument for Dan Barker to announce his rebellion against God All that does is prove

Doug's point doesn't it? I refuse to respect that. Well, yeah, in fact, the

Bible says that unless God has mercy upon your soul That's exactly what your response is going to be you just proved proved our point that you are a creature and rebellion against your creator and That you don't mind standing up on your hind legs and spitting in your creator's face

Okay, is that an argument? No, it's not an argument. It's Just you know, just making a statement

We will continue with the Doug Wilson Dan Barker debate here on the dividing line right after this break

How the pilgrims progress it's not an easy way it's a journey

To the Sun Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool Which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope

Book or chapter plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences scholars your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files from your

Computer as well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available

I have used Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program

This is the program that runs 24 -7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage in Debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text for over 15 years

Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and that enables you to do one thing

Focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time

You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate The Trinity is a basic teaching of the

Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us James White's book the

Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike highly recommended

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org Hello everyone, this is

Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior We are to come before the

Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you That's The best rejoin music for the middle of the debates especially during cross -examination

Though they might have wanted to play that and sort of slowed things down a little bit Welcome back to dividing line

We're listening to the cross -examination portion in the debate between Dan Barker Heather freedom from religion

Foundation Madison, Wisconsin former quote -unquote Christian and so on so forth and Doug Wilson on Does the triune

God of Scripture live? I like that. I like that particular title Let's see what get right back to it

There are two attributes that within a world without evil in a world without sin. There would be two attributes of God that would go unglorified and those two attributes would be

God's wrath and his justice poured out on those who do evil and God's mercy on those who Have done evil and without open world without evil

There would have been no forgiveness for sinners and in a world without evil. There would have been no judgment on sinners

It sounds like a nice world to me let's have butterflies and puppy dogs Why couldn't a good

God have created a world with that why do we why does why does his ego have to be gratified? Why does he have to be thanked and cobbled as if he why does he need all this things in glory?

I mean what if I were to stand up here and to tell you I want you to worship me Catch that you barely hear it because he's being talked over but Doug said yes, because you're a creature and now he will make that even more explicit in the following statement

Yes, but no offense when we worship him he deserves it Because you have just pulled a from out of your feet because you're not supposed to judge whether God is good or not

Judge that God is good. You were appealing to a court of reason and if you appeal to a court of reason you

You're just supposed to take God's word for it You're not supposed to judge and how can you worship and admire somebody whom you do not judge to be good

You just have you just have to take my mates, right? All right, but let me go on here with some more questions. Is slavery a good moral idea?

Slavery has described human slavery. Are you talking about Hebrew slavery or Roman slavery? Either way is slavery a good idea?

And the slavery that Jesus endorsed was that a good idea the slavery of the Old Testament was a good idea and regulated by God's law according to his law and Roman slavery was a pagan system that had many abuses in it, but the

New Testament does not condemn it as a sin in itself So you agree with Jesus when he was compassionate enough to say

I don't do you get the feeling that Dan was not expecting some of Doug's responses

Because obviously Doug does not respond the way that many evangelicals would respond Who just you know, don't think about these things and go running off the cliff without thinking about what the scriptures actually teach on any particular subject and So he sort of had to go to plan

B on a number of these particular That that servant which did not do the

Lord's will and did not commit things worthy of stripes Shall be beaten with few stripes you agree that slaves should be beaten then according to Jesus Yes, you do and you think that's a good and moral.

Yes, I do. Okay You're gonna have to judge people if this is making any sense He's a good

God who endorses slavery who? Endorses and says you should be happy to dash babies against the stone a

God who admits creating evil who was glorified by people Keep going now that was of course an egregious violation of the debate rules where you stop doing cross -examination

Start making a ad populum argument to the audience that just expresses your

Lack of ability to respond to the things that are being said. It's just like well

I don't know how to respond to someone who's actually admitted all this stuff and is making a coherent argument so I'll just simply appeal the audience and that'll that'll be enough and You know on any

Official debate type foundation. He disqualified himself at that point, but when God created

Eve was she perfect Yes, and then Eve sinned, right? So there was a flaw in her right

But then what is a sin she committed a sin right right? Well, then she did something wrong

God created her with the capacity to choose Sin right and she chose wrong.

She did so something in her nature caused her to choose wrong, right? There was a flaw in her nature No, there was something in her nature that made it possible for her to choose evil

But that was not a flaw and then she chose evil rather than good, right? Correct. So why did she choose evil?

What was wrong with her? She disobeyed she was to see why did she disobey? I would ask her

You're suffering for her sin, aren't you? The Bible says that through one man sin entered the world it wasn't he was deceived

But the human race was plunged into sin by Adam sin Not but don't you see my point they blew it right something in their nature was not perfect, right?

No, yes, you've made a mistake. So I think Doug wanted to say no there because he just contradicted himself

So I think that was just the the speed of what was being said But no, he wants to make the freedom to sin

Imperfection rather than a completely sanctified state where they would not have the ability to sin It's it's an inappropriate definition that he's forcing on the discussion

When you say something in their nature was not perfect they were not complete they were not final in their their righteousness

They were in a period of probation and testing. So they weren't perfect. They were fallible But they could have they could have not sinned, right?

They were innocent There was no guilt that they had but they could have continued without sinning, right? They could have Well, it depends on how you're asking in their capacity.

Yes, but they chose but they chose not to do that God God had ordained that it go another way.

He wanted her to sin. So it was that was his decree to plan and will yes God planned he'd just sin.

Is that what you're saying? Yes, God freely and alterably ordains whatever comes to pass We are here tonight because before the world was created

God determined that we would be here and sin is an imperfection Yes, so God decreed an imperfection and God created even perfect then

Yes is what you when you said earlier that God created a perfect see the dilemma you have No, it says in Ecclesiastes that God made man upright, but he has sought out many devices now.

I'm granting your point in principle Okay, I just want to make an important distinction when God created the world it was perfect and all very good

Man sought out many devices. We rebelled against him and fell into sin I do grant the point you're driving at is that when we fell into sin this did not surprise

God in the slightest It was his purpose and plan that it happened this way Again violation of rules

Blatant inability to engage the topic therefore turn to the audience and Try to derail any thought process is going on where someone might be going

Oh, he seems to have a point He seems to understand and the atheist doesn't seem to understand because obviously Barker doesn't have any theological background

To even interact with what is being said here He he likes to pretend that he does but it really does

If Jesus bears record of himself is his record true Yes, it is Well, then why is it that Jesus said in John 5 31 if I bear witness of myself?

My witness is not true now here. This is this is a Extremely poor attempt on Barker's part to throw out an alleged biblical contradiction and you're going to hear him reading

Greek Whoo He's gonna read Greek. That means he must be really smart It really offended me tremendously because if you actually have the ability to at least pronounce the words as evidently

He clearly does Then to make this kind of argument and to ignore the thing called context is simply dishonest

What he's going to argue is that well once Jesus says in John 5 that my witness

If I alone witness then my witness is not true There's another who witnesses and as the father

They just go over John chapter 8 where Jesus says my witness is true He's gonna say see Jesus doesn't know what he's talking about.

And the reality of course of the matter is Context and in the one

Jesus is talking about the verification of witnesses In John chapter 5 he is bringing in the witness of the father

And so you have in the mouth of two or three witnesses being established there in the other context

He's talking about the fact that he has a true witness because of where he comes from. He's not from this world He's from above this world.

And so he's talking about a completely different thing. So It would be very easy to go to the various ruminations of Dan Barker posts on the

Internet and Ignore context and make Dan Barker contradict himself But that's not what rational people do

That's not what honest people do but that is what atheists do in debates with Christians No, he was expecting the people who quoted that to have read the verses above and below Jesus was talking

Jesus was talking about the requirement of the law to have two and three witnesses He was not saying if I speak this testimony, then my testimony is untrue

He was saying if I speak this testimony My testimony is unconfirmed because the Bible requires to it requires independent confirmation as the context next plane

Well, then Jesus said in John 8 14, though, though I bear witness of myself yet.

My record is true Which is it? He said it two different ways He said one way it is one way it is not which way which way was he really serious?

He was saying that he was saying his testimony is true and you need independent confirmation to know that his testimony is confirmed

Did that says that in there? I didn't Before and after I would check it again

Exactly read the context Read the context. I have the

Greek text right here. So I look it up and for a show Do we have time for that? I think you get the point.

He contradicted what Jesus says Well, John 531 a on a go martyrio peri amos to the martyrium

I'll do that Right in my witness is not true.

He says so we're not supposed to trust Jesus according to the Bible If I bear witness of myself verse 31 to catch that we're not supposed to trust

Jesus according the Bible, I mean Again, the level of absurdity of argumentation here for someone who is so clearly does possess great intelligence

And yet here you have the example of what atheism does to a person professing themselves to be wise they become fools

And and to I mean this isn't this is not a meaningful argument to anyone who can not only just read the

Greek language But the English language as well There is a context that that every word has meaning only in its context and he won't even allow for my witness is not true

There's another who bears witness of me and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true

It's the second witness confirmed. He's saying my own witness is not does not stand alone

He is not saying that the second witness whose witness is true Testifies truly of my witnesses, which is true, which it happens to be untrue

If the second witness in verse 32 is giving a true testimony of Christ, then how could Christ's testimony of himself be?

Absolutely untrue sounds like equivocation to me. No, that's not equivocation

Dan That's just letting the text speak for itself your argument stinks.

You were wrong. You're refuted move on But in John 14 and John 8 14, he says the same words

Okay, they go mark you rope hurry enough to a leafy sistine. You might hear you more My he said if my witness if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true

Let me get on here. Then you agree for it. No, she doesn't read the rest of verse, you know

For I know where I came from and where I am going But you do not know where I come from or where I am going completely different Context from the preceding one simple context if this is the best that the head of the freedom from religion foundation can do

Then they stand convicted of having absolutely no interest whatsoever in accurately representing any text of their sight

There have to be at least two or three witnesses Yes before before any like before someone's convicted of a murder before something now, this was interesting

Listen, I'm not going to interrupt this listen. Listen to this exchange. He's judicially confirmed Yes, there have to be because in the

Old Testament talks about the bite of mouth of one witness You can't send someone to death but by the mouth of two or more

So I can continue this line Let's move on with them and I do want to continue this way

I Okay, I think actually I just they go into some rebuttals at that point so There's the second cross

I did want to listen to one Part of Dan Barker's second statement here before we go to the second cross and it reminds me of The other atheists we were listening to recently

Christopher Hitchens and It is a clear example of again the hatred of the natural man for the things of God the hatred of the creature for the

Creator it is a glowing just just glowing demonstration of The truthfulness of Romans chapter 1 listen to this section

Paul said and I was a second Corinthians bring every thought into captivity into the obedience of Christ Lean not on your own understanding.

He said in Proverbs The whole idea of the Bible is to submit to bow the shaft of your wrist and so wonderful Lord How tell me what to think tell me what to do?

That's where you get in trouble That's not morality people have killed and have done horrible things in the name of a

God because people have picked up babies and dashed him against the stones because of God Supposedly told him to so here you have not only his his hatred the idea of being submitted to his own creator

He wants to be his own creator. He wants to be his own ultimate authority, but notice again. This is the same contradiction

I noted on the last program He will at one point try to say well, you know the Bible just tells you to just you know lock walk walk lock step

It's all black and white that you can't think about moral issues. You can't make application of principles anything like that But then he's gonna argue that nobody really knows what the

Bible is saying anyways, and there's all these different contradictory viewpoints He doesn't allow for the application of principles to moral moral situations

He doesn't allow for any of that kind of stuff. He wants to have his cake and eat it to all at the same time Well, let's look at the the second cross because I thought that was was quite interesting as well

To claim that the Bible is our absolute moral guide. I assume that's what you're claiming that it contains moral guidance

Yes is to me and I think even to a lot of Christians pretty meaningless because Christians Bible -believing

God -fearing Jesus loving Christians will open the Bible and come to radically different conclusions about what is right on Almost every single moral issue abortion rights and gay rights and the death penalty

Let's take the death penalty capital punishment Our state doesn't have capital just you from I'm Idaho I know does

Iowa capital punishment it sure does what does and you're happy about that? Yes, I am actually what?

Okay to Deliberate in a case of somebody that was convicted of murder.

I was actually as a matter of fact you were yeah Did you find the person guilty? I was foreman of a jury that in a murder trial and we found him guilty

He did and did you were in a position of recommending sentence? No, we were not I can tell you what

I would have recommended Well, whatever you would have been reckoned. We would have recommended the death penalty. You would have yes

Did the state seek the death penalty? I know that that was in the hands of the judge and you think according to Scripture that was a morally correct thing to do

To seek the death penalty for this murder. Yes, I do. Let me ask a question then How many witnesses were there to the murder there was there were more than?

Two or three independent lines of confirmation how many people saw the murder That testified.

Yeah, how many people testified that they saw the murder committed? There were no individuals persons who testified that they saw the murder.

So out of the mouth of zero witnesses No, there was anybody see the murder take place.

No, let me read to you the Bible verse Now we already see where he's going. And again, it's an amazingly

Facile Childish simplistic argument that well You if you don't

I mean you might have you know that the clearest evidence whatsoever Multiple independent lines of evidence that uses well stuff that wasn't around in the days of the law

Moses But hey, it doesn't matter because you can't apply the Word of God You can't think about these things because I want you to only defend a very simplistic

Christianity that could never allow these principles to be applied modern in a modern situation See, I want you to hold a simplistic view of Scripture and then

I'll mock you for holding some Scripture. Oh Amazing the more

I listen to atheists the more I You know, it's interesting people are going. Oh, he's isn't really exploding.

I saw a very interesting poll recently it put together numbers from an lengthy period of time and The people who identify with atheism the number of people even in our day.

It remains the same It's anywhere from two to six percent. It just doesn't get above that And even though there's a lot of you know, non, there's much more non -christian religiosity in our society people just know that atheism is

Fundamentally flawed they just they just know they may not They they're so busy suppressing the knowledge of God within them that they know that there's some reason why they're doing this and so Listening listening to the argumentation of atheists is a real incredible evidence the existence of God Who so killed if any person the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses?

But one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die Deuteronomy one witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin

For in any sin that he said at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established

And you said Jesus was referring to this when he talked about his witness not being chosen as a witness being true Yeah, you said you would have sentenced a man to death without any eyewitnesses to the crime

I know we're not you there were no eyewitnesses at all. Well, just to illustrate. Oh, I don't want to try

He probably was guilty. I don't care, but I just want to know about the death penalty just to illustrate When the

Bible tells us for example that we Should have a parapet around the roofs of our houses and if someone falls off and hurts himself

The owner of the house is guilty of negligence in our society We don't have people sitting on the roofs of houses very much

So I would take the general equity of the law and apply it to things like deep wells and swimming pools and so forth and say

That we ought to have fences to keep toddlers from falling into things like that Comparably the Bible requires eyewitnesses because the

Bible was given to us in a time and in a culture when you didn't have things like video cameras and forensic evidence and so forth in this particular trial that law and scripture was very much in my mind as we sat on the jury and I was

Insisting as I was going through and deliberating that there had to be two or three independent lines of confirmation

They weren't witnesses to the murder. They were witnesses, but it was an entirely circumstantial case Did the guy get the death penalty no,

I didn't but you would have recommended the death penalty Well, I'm the point I'm trying to make is that I think you contradicted yourself

I think you acted in I think the Bible tells you that there had to be two or more witnesses You went ahead and gleefully would have sentenced a man to die by your morality when there were no witnesses

I think that's inconsistent and I bet you there's Christians here tonight Who disagree with the juxtaposition on the death penalty and the point is what good is the

Bible? What good is an absolute moral guide if no two Christians can agree with it what what that actual guide is

Well first it wasn't it wasn't gleeful. It was very sober and thoughtfully considered and prayerfully considered

It wasn't gleeful at all The the thing that I would like to point out about so many

Christians with so many different interpretations We you know You're what you're arguing is when you have the Bible and you get to it, you know

Three Christians together and they start talking you'll come out with maybe five denominations that sort of thing. So it's not very absolute well,

I would like to suggest if you had five Bibles and five Christians and you put them into five different rooms and You came out they came out with five or six different interpretations of the

Bible. Where's the variable in the Bibles or in the people? What a complete non answer what a complete non answer he's exactly right the variables in the people

The difference is interpreted how many times I brought this up? I mean, this is this comes up in the debate with Tim Staples everything else.

You're blaming the Bible for the people's misinterpretations and Then for him to point that out and they go well the

Bible contradicts itself was was was again amazing Put the same

Bible into the same Bible goes into every room different people go into every room the different answers that come out of Every room is a good argument for not trusting people

And another person was reading the Bible verse where God said take up the sword and slay every man his his neighbor

And what if they read two different contradictory Bible verses that would explain why the humans can't agree because the

Bible is inherently contradictory, right? He can't answer the question. Can I ask you the question?

There are two different words in Greek for one is killing and one is murder and in the

Greek translation of the Old Testament The Prohibition in the Ten Commandments is a murder not a killing

Exodus 20 says you shall not commit murder Exodus 21 requires the death penalty if you do commit murder

Well, can you ask me that question because I haven't seen Because you were a gentleman a scholar

I would be happy to know what question would you like me? The Hebrew word there is rucksack in the

Old Testament, which is not the word for murder It is used all throughout the Old Testament for simple killing for accidental homicide for peace.

Now, let me stop right there First of all, Doug said the septuagint. He didn't say the

Hebrew he's shifting grounds Second that sock can be used of many things and again Lexical semantics tells us anyone who really knows the language knows that these words are defined by their context

And he just likes to go well, it's used of animals over there It's used of just killing over there

And so it just means whatever I want to me rather than allowing for the context to determine the meaning in any particular

Useful accidentally negligent you were wrong to suggest that the Ten Commandments prohibit murder only, okay?

You missed the point that I said I was talking about the Greek New Testament that commandment in the next is 20 is quoted in the

New Testament Greek has a word for murder and a word for killing when the Old Testament is quoted in Greek It has the word for murder out of the

Ten Commandments So the Greek do the Greek translator groups because the Hebrew scriptures does not say murder. No, you know, maybe those

Greek translators Knew something about something called Context something that clearly

Dan Barker doesn't know anything about or is unwilling to allow to enter into things

Well, there's only a few more minutes left, but it's it's a good few minutes so we're not just go over time where it will will kick off the next edition the dividing line with that and Then maybe your phone calls if you have some comments you'd like to make

I think it's been Very useful to listen to this particular encounter if I hadn't taken the first 15 minutes

We would have done it in only two programs, but hey you do what you got to do So next time on the dividing line Lord willing we'll finish up this debate take your phone calls on it move on from there

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 602 973 4602 or write us at P.

O box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 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