Sola Scriptura and the Mail Bag

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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on Thursday, January I think it's the 7th.

Yeah, it is. There you go already starting to eat into 2010 I have been watching with some interest not a lot of focus

As far as you know making sure Every day that I read comments and things like that But especially because of the chat channel and because of what has been posted on my own blog

I have been following with some interest discussions taking place over on the called to communion blog

With a Brian cross now my understanding is that this gentleman is a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary in st.

Louis somewhere as far as we can tell somewhere around 1998 to 2000 somewhere in that area with a master's degree

He a few years later went Anglican and then finally has become a

Roman Catholic and Evidently the Purpose of the blog is to attempt to bring other reformed people over toward Rome and It is in that context that we

I think really begin to see what the real issues are and when we see what the real issues are we

See how far Rome will go to promulgate its teachings One of the recent blog articles raised the issue of the

Council of Nicaea and the deity of Christ Over the years and in fact it's interesting the very first debate that I did

Was on the subject of solo scripture at least formal debate with a man who is no longer an orthodox

Roman Catholic geromatics He would obviously argue that he's probably the most orthodox

Even more orthodox than the Pope himself from what we can tell But be as it may it was obvious to me from the very beginning that The ultimate authority of Scripture and its status as revelation from God Is at stake when we talk about Roman Catholicism it seems to me that the only other option beyond solo scriptura or against solo scriptura is

Sola Ecclesia the church and the church alone as the final authority in all things and it seems to me

That once you buy into that once you accept this idea That There has to be an authority beyond scripture to define scripture to interpret scripture

That once you have put that authority in place that in essence the actual function and role of scripture diminishes to the point of really becoming irrelevant in Fact in some old -time writings.

I recall I believe it was O 'Brien who had talked about the danger of The Bible because people can misinterpret it when they read it outside of what the church says it means

And it just strikes me That some of the most to me offensive and blasphemous comments that come from Roman Catholic apologists are when they basically say well

You know You can't you can't really prove So much of the the heart of the

Christian faith from the Bible I Mean you can't prove the Trinity you can't prove the Holy Spirit is a is a person and is divine

You're dependent upon the church for all these things see and and you Protestants Just don't realize you're you're depend upon us.

You think you can find these things in the Bible. It may explain why it is That I I get emails from Catholics that appreciate what

I do Except when I talk about Catholicism because there aren't a lot of Roman Catholics to do what we do here in the way we do it

What's more than that They you know the little old ladies sitting in the front row of my debate with Hams Abdul Malik back in 1999

They wish Roman Catholics to do that but because of their view of scripture they really can't

Maybe that's where a lot of that comes from is that it's it's really just one authoritarian authoritarian system versus another

Is is how it works? Anyway, I saw some comments and I wanted to bring them to your attention

I have wanted for a few days to write this up as a blog article But life gets in the way at times and I simply was not able to do so So I thought of the program today

Well, if we do it this way, I can put the video up eventually Takes me a long time to convert the video format, but we'll get it up there eventually and we'll put this up on on the blog and and that way we can sort of respond to it and We won't have to type is quite as much anyway

The first comment and by the way, if you're if you go to our website You will see that I asked

I asked Turretin fan to post their his one of the articles he wrote in response to Brian Cross and a comment that he made and This is just a few days ago.

Let me see here Very quickly or as quickly as my little machine here can can get it to me

There's my long article on inerrancy and preservation there's old Brit Hume and And There we go.

Arminianism is consistent with scripture. This was from January 4th Turretin fan put this up.

It is a very long article has some great citations in it And I hope you will take time to read it.

There is a fundamental difference in how as we'll see how we approach the use of the other church writings and How they are used by others, but anyway the specific

Quote that got my attention was this one? Here's a Brian Cross had written the term refute means shown an argument to be unsound

The bishops did not refute arianism. They condemned it by defying the faith by way of an extra biblical term homoousius

They were unable by scripture alone to refute arianism The Aryans could affirm every single verse of scripture.

That's precisely why the bishops had to require affirmation of the term homoousius So if the bishops had no authority by way of apostolic succession than their requirement of affirming homoousius

Would have had no more authority than its denial by the Aryans scripture alone was insufficient to resolve the dispute precisely because both sides could affirm every verse of scripture and Since the soul of scripture scripture denies the transfer of authority by way of apostolic succession therefore the

Council of Nicaea and the creed given solo scripture only have authority if you agree with its interpretation of Scripture so twice

We are told the scripture is sufficient is insufficient. It can't do it You cannot refute arianism

Just with the Bible. So in essence Brian Cross must when he deals with Jehovah's Witnesses Have this situation where he doesn't go to scripture with them.

Why do that? Because scripture is insufficient What you do is you say my ultimate authority the

Pope says you're wrong Now I've met with a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm gonna tell you something Saying the

Jehovah's Witnesses the Pope says you're wrong isn't gonna get you very far Especially because a large portion of them are former

Roman Catholics They don't buy the Pope thing. Okay, and So if if scripture is insufficient

Where are you gonna go? How are you gonna how you gonna handle this now? It has been pointed out rather Boldly and fully by turrets and fan and others that this is just simply historically naive at best and deceptive at worst

In the article posted on the blog you will find numerous citations from Athanasius and others

That demonstrate just the opposite of this conclusion That they did refute arianism and they did not refute it by saying well the

Pope says so Where does Athanasius say well the Bishop of Rome says you're wrong.

Therefore you're wrong He didn't do that He couldn't do that, especially after the

Council of Nicaea where he was just a deacon. He was not a bishop there, by the way For decades on end

He alone stood against the flood of arianism So he couldn't say well the bishop over here says this or the bishop over there says that because they had all become

Arians So it was obvious that the early church did not see and did not possess

The viewpoint of quote -unquote ecumenical councils that is to be had today and of course all the

Arian bishops likewise claim to possess apostolic authority and apostolic succession and So if you want to say well, you have to have apostolic succession to Handle the situation to resolve the situation it resolved nothing

Historically it did nothing The Council of Nicaea had to fight for acceptance on what basis an apostolic authority

No When you look at Athanasius's defense the Council of Nicaea Does he base it simply upon an appeal to the

Bishop of Rome? well, he couldn't because even the Bishop of Rome signs the Arianized Sermium Creed, so He argues from Scripture, and he believed that Scripture refuted

Arianism because it does Unless you are going to just blatantly attack the idea that there is a consistent message of Scripture The Bible condemns and refutes

Arianism saying well they could affirm Any scripture verse is not the same as they could interpret the

Bible Consistently with itself they couldn't that was Athanasius's point. That was

Augustine's point as Was demonstrated in the article on the blog? While they could affirm many words to describe

Biblical teachings see what Brian Cross has done here is he is confused the mechanism by which you would identify an

Arian With the basis upon which you refuted the Arian Homo oseous was a term used by Nicaea because the

Aryans simply couldn't affirm it It had a meaning they could not accept

But as was pointed out in the article the very term itself Only has authority because it comes from Scripture in fact

Just just just a couple of the citations just to add these in here in case you haven't read them

Alexander of Alexandria said the religious perspicuity of the ancient scriptures Caused them no shame nor the the consentient doctrine of our colleagues concerning Christ keep in check their audacity against him the perspicuity of the ancient scriptures

He didn't seem to have Brian Cross's view of things along those lines We we go down a little bit farther to some of the some well

I guess that said I can't read all of these but they are they are very very interesting but David King provided some of the the

Greek citations In regards to for example the perspicuity of the scriptures things like that That had been posted at the bottom

Since this was a long article it used the little click here to read the rest of it if you didn't do that I would

Highly recommend that you that you do so but Fabatius who died in 392 said quote

Knowing therefore this unity of substance in the Father and the Son on the authority not only of the prophets

But also of the Gospels how canst thou say that homoousian is not found in Scripture? oops

You see my experience has been that when you bring out this kind of material And for example when

I debated geriatrics, and I quoted early church fathers he would just simply dismiss them either well that wasn't an early church father or That was just a he was just speaking as a private theologian there

When the Roman Catholic cites these sources well, this is tradition This is a very mechanism by which tradition is is encapsulated and embodied and transferred

The stuff that doesn't agree with us isn't but the stuff that does agree with us is Sola Ecclesia again

When you get to define What scripture is and what it means and what tradition is and what it means you are the ultimate authority?

You're not under the control or the correction of scripture and tradition when you define The extent of both and the meaning of both it's not possible it becomes a game and That's what is going on here

The Aryans could affirm every single verse of scripture, but they could not interpret every single verse of scripture in concert with harmony with Everything else the scripture said and so the use of homoousius is not an addition to scripture.

It's not a further revelation It is a means of detecting these individuals and Excluding them from the fellowship of the church now.

It didn't really work very well historically speaking and the basis upon which the

Nicene symbol is Authoritative is it to the extent that it represents

God's revelation, but it is not the Anustos now I didn't read the I don't know how many hundreds of comments there were

It's I don't have time to keep up with that stuff There's only so many hours in a day, but I wonder if anyone asked the simple question of Brian Cross are these

Traditions the Anustos are they God breathed? I'd like to know

I've found most Roman Catholic apologists most not all but most to be rather hesitant to make that kind of an affirmation

Now a question was asked by a Turretin fan of mr.

Cross and I Asked Turretin fan in channel had he responded to this and he said that he had not

Here's the challenge quote, but here's a challenge to mr. Cross find even one Christian Non -Aryan if Roman Catholics are calling

Aryans Christians these days From Arius's birth until 100 years after Nicaea that says that the

Aryans Quote could affirm every single verse of scripture end quote or couldn't be refuted from scripture alone more positively

And this is the challenge I'd like to see the challenge is to find somewhere in that time period who appealed to Apostolic succession as such to refute the

Aryans who said that the Orthodox clergy had apostolic succession that the Aryan clergy did not

I Think mr. Cross will be hard -pressed to meet such a challenge when you when you hear this kind of argument

It is a an argument that is based upon a kind of piranic skepticism

That sounds so very strangely like what we hear from atheists The Bible's not enough.

You can't know what was originally written. You can't know what it originally means The atheist says you should just give up the faith because of that the

Catholic says you need my bishop You need the Pope in Rome now the Pope in Rome can't answer those questions

No person can read What is being put out by the magisterium of the church today go back only a hundred and fifty years the papal syllabus of errors

Go back another hundred and fifty years before that put all that stuff together and go. Oh look at the harmony

It's not harmonious there have been major changes Gerrymatics is not all wrong here

There have been major changes that have been going on and as I said at the end of my debate with Mitch Pacwa When I got out that book bag

I started piling up the Code of Canon Law and the Documents of Vatican to and the cans of decrees of the

Council of Trent I put this huge pile of books there, and I say what you're telling me is

That I need this to clarify Romans 5 1 Therefore having been justified by faith.

We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ This clarifies that without this

Romans 5 1 could lead me astray Well, I'm sorry, but there is absolutely positively

No means of arguing against the fact That that pile of books does not in any way shape or form clarify

Romans 5 1 or anything else in the scriptures So when mr.

Cross says scripture alone was insufficient to resolve the dispute is he saying the

Roman Magisterium is upon what basis What's the basis for saying that the

Roman Magisterium Just as simply because Nicaea is now just a generally accepted thing.

How did this work? While Athanasius was standing against the world how this work if you lived in Sirmium Ariminum in the decades after Nicaea, how does this authority system function in those situations?

As I've brought it many times in regards to papal infallibility there have been times where for years and years on end if you followed the advice the

Bishop of Rome you would have been a heretic and They have ways to try to dig themselves out from that now

But the historical reality is what the historical reality is and it's real nice from a long distance away to go

Oh, well, you know doesn't this sound wonderful this creates all this harmony what harmony? The harmony that has

Boston College and Notre Dame doing the things they're doing in regards to You know

Just rejecting what the current Magisterium teaches about abortion and stuff like is that the harmony that it produces?

I mean, let's face it You go to a lot of Roman Catholic Institutions today and you're gonna be told that the virgin birth and all the dogmas of Rome regarding Mary are just myths

They're symbols of things But Rome doesn't kick those people out. Why not again?

I say to all these Roman Catholics say all come to where there's all this unity when you folks start getting serious about Disciplining people who are heretics from your own perspective then at least that's not one strike against you

But the fact matter is you don't do that. And so it seems mighty insincere to me

To say, oh we have apostolic succession. Well, what's it gotten you a Lot of change

You've got you've got the Council of Constance saying one thing in Vatican to saying another where's the apostolic succession the only

Meaningful apostolic succession is an apostolic succession of truth Saying and teaching the same things that the

Apostles taught and said and it is absolutely disgusting to me to see

That when the Roman Catholic apologist is consistent with himself, he has to attack the sufficiency of Scripture He has to attack

In the very same way that the enemies of the faith attack the scriptures

Their perspicuity and their ability to communicate divine truth, so it's not overly surprising

That shortly after Brian Cross says this Frank Beckwith chimes in and he says what

Brian is saying is really Uncontroversial the Arian reading of Scripture is not obviously irrational

It is of course heretical But that does not mean that a fully informed person of goodwill with knowledge

The languages could not have come up with the Arian reading of Scripture. There you go There's dr.

Beckwith former president the Evangelical Theological Society Saying well, you know what the

Bible, you know people of goodwill knowledge of scriptures knowledge of languages

Yeah, you could read the Bible that way But aren't we glad we have Rome to tell us what the truth is except that's not actually

Rome that told us what the truth Was but anyway back Rome didn't have anything to do with it come to think of it, but as it may there's

Frank Beckwith It's probably really better to be honest with you that he's on that side of the

Tiber now rather than paddling around the middle because If he was riding around running around this side with the confusion that he has admitted in his book that he had on solo scriptura and This kind of view of Scripture.

I'm really glad that at least he's clearly identified now Because it's the people that haven't gotten back over there that have this sub -biblical view of the

Bible That's our teaching in many of our seminaries and causing so much problems in the first place

So I'm sort of glad he is where he is the Arian reading of Scripture is not obviously irrational.

What does that mean? Does that mean that you can read the text consistently you can do?

Sound exegesis you can look at all of Scripture Tota scriptura and come up with the

Arian reading. Is that what mr. Beckwith dr. Beckwith is saying I Can't read it any other way.

He's dead wrong if that is what he's saying, but again Doesn't really matter to him for the simple reason that he has an authority above Scripture now

It says that does not mean that a fully informed person of goodwill

What is a fully informed person of goodwill who's an Arian Well there again comes out the non reformed view of man that is part and parcel

He went on to say what is being played out here on this blog is the legacy of nominalism and enlightenment epistemology

Both of which focus on the thinking self as the locust and meaning of my encounter with the world assuming there is one

Thus short of a pure clear and distinct idea i .e. a solo scriptura untouched by man or church

It could all very well be a ruse of Descartes evil demon This is why by the way various versions of the

Cartesian circle keep popping up in the comm box the Protestant wants his indubitable Starting point, but he's trapped in an appalling loop if he appeals to solo scriptura that requires a book consisting of over five dozen books

But the book appears in time and not all at once but incrementally and this requires someone to sift through the competing text to determine

Which of them belongs in the book since the book itself does not yet exist as a whole though Its parts are found here and there in the

Christian world And if it did the whole does not contain in any of its parts the list of what books should be in the book so He thinks that by establishing an authority outside of Scripture that you can avoid the recognition that God is the author of Scripture and That God is the one that determines the canon of Scripture via inspiration.

No, it's us Well historically again that causes all sorts of problems Which I just haven't seen any evidence.

He's even bothered to think through and like many of those before him He's just happily going along with the

Roman answers Rather than actually dealing with such questions is well, dr.

Beckwith exactly How did the believing person the believing Jew 50 years before Christ know that Isaiah and 2nd

Chronicles were Scripture? Like to know how that works We've been down this road many many times it's sad to see a

You know the repetition of the same old tired arguments that have been refuted over and over again but again, it's all

Rome has I mean when when Patrick Madrid can post an article just yesterday on Calvinist and The two articles that he quotes are from 1993

Nothing more than that Nothing new nothing up -to -date nothing fresh. It's just you know rehash the same old things over and over again, and don't get me wrong

It's one thing to Be consistent in what you're focused upon as far as its truth goes

It's another thing to keep up with what the other side is saying and to respond to them and to provide fresh and meaningful and insightful

Refutations of their current versions of their arguments. That's what the Roman apologists just refused to do

Of course it in the same article he referred folks to Dave Armstrong's Attempted interaction with with John Calvin, and I'm sorry

But like I said Dave Armstrong is the perfect example of why the older forms of canon law prohibited layman from being involved in religious disputation

It's it's just a sad thing to watch him attempting to interact with stuff that's just so obviously so far beyond his pale, but he doesn't even understand what he's doing and But hey if if the big boys the big pop apologists

That's that seems to be one of Patrick Madrid's favorite favorite terms are gonna refer to these things say hey

This is this is ably done. Well, okay, then then we'll make we'll make reference to it the fact is folks the dividing line

The dividing line will always be on Whether you believe that God has spoken in such a way that we can be held accountable to what he said and All the religions of men will do everything in their power to substitute for God's revelation their own authority and their own revelations

Some of them do it by putting an authority above the Bible say oh we believe the Bible we believe in Jesus and all the rest that stuff and then they'll create this external authority system that allows them to Believe in the

Bible what they want to believe and then remove other things Or they come up with their new revel own new revelations

Or they'll just attack the whole idea of revelation and you know be a secular materialist doesn't matter

It's always an attack that goes back to the garden. Yay hath God said

Yay hath God said and Over and over and over again.

You will find that to be the theme of the religious the secular It does not matter.

They go after the Word of God and the same is true of the

Romanists the Romanists go after the Word of God just as virulently as anyone else does they may be more subtle and They they may get away with it because well

We'll we'll talk about early church fathers and the fact the matter is a lot of folks don't know anything about it they couldn't put

Irenaeus in the right century if they tried and That makes it that gives it an air of authority.

Well, you know what some of us long time ago decided to start looking at those claims And found out that you know by cherry -picking those writings you can come up with anything you want to But there's just so much there that allows us to go toe -to -toe

And let me mention one other thing before we I've got a bunch of mailbag stuff that I can get to today

And so it's gonna take me a long time. So we're probably just even skip the break But let me mention one thing about about church history these individuals who

Go to church history and they say well Augustine said this and Augustine said that how many times but I'm gonna mention again because we have new folks that the tune in One side can allow the early church writers to be the early church writers

The other side has to turn them into a reflection of their own image You will see

Augustine being cited over and over again and I can look at Augustine and I can cite him in defense of many of my beliefs but so can the

Roman Catholic and I've done entire seminars on why that is the Donatus controversy the plaguing controversy how these things impacted his views of the church and and And I've Repeated many times

Warfield statement that the Reformation inwardly considered is nothing more than the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church

We can allow the early church fathers to be what they were. They were not debating all the same issues that we are and to import into Their words all of our concerns is to abuse them

But I submit to you that the vast majority of the abuse of the early church fathers is done by Roman Catholic apologists

There's no question of that They think that the these writers belong to them and they will anachronistically read into them every kind of modern

Roman Catholic belief Imaginable even when there is no reason to think that the original writer was thinking about anything like that They will abuse them up one side and down the other in the service of Mother Rome And that's what drives them nuts

About series of books like the Holy Scripture by Webster and King. Oh, we've refuted that.

Oh, we don't need to look at that I mean you can just see the fear. Oh, don't look at that. Oh, those are just Protestants.

You can just tell That they don't want people look at that and going. I didn't know they how come we don't mention these things

Why don't we mention these quotes? Why is it there that Augustine? really wouldn't have been a

Sound dogmatic Roman Catholic. I Mean he in fact he denied

Certain beliefs that we now consider to be dogma and yet we quote him for all these other things Why is that you see I can look at that and I can accept the places where Augustine?

Disagreed with me and I can take him to the scriptures and I know there are

Protestants Oh, man, look at look at how Dave Hunt just destroys the early church fathers in a different way

He doesn't have prejudice the Catholics do it out of dogmatic demand by their own communion

Their own communion is told them Oh, this has always been what's believed remember back when the Pope died for days on end every

Catholic apologist around got his 15 minutes of fame on Fox News and What was the constant thing?

Well, this has been the church for 2 ,000 years Everyone's always believed this baloney

It's ridiculously easy to demonstrate that that's not the case Roman Catholic scholarship knows that Roman Catholic apologists discreetly ignore that and So when you see somebody quoting an early church writer

Don't don't be overwhelmed look it up Look it up not in their quote books not in jurgens these little snippets, but look up the context for yourself and Most of the time you'll find out that anachronism reading into something

Meaning the original author would never have understood not a part of their context Is to blame for what's going on there now got a bunch of stuff in the mailbag and I have to be quick and it's

A wide range of stuff, but this is probably the fastest way to get through this I just can't respond to everything that's sent in.

It's just not it's not humanly possible First we have Carlos has written in and Carlos says of mr.

What I've heard I've read and heard your arguments against Roman Catholicism I am a Roman Catholic and will never change my faith because I'm convinced the fullness of my faith

Well, I'm not really sure I'm reading this in light of that However, I'd like to know what you have against Roman Catholicism in general

You're someone who is obviously well taught well read and have done your homework But I feel as though you have a personal agenda and going after the

Catholic Church end quote No doubt you understand the Catholic point of view, but why not let it be and accept it

I'm not saying to believe in it become Catholic, but why not just accept that we have an interpretation and you have your own

Mmm post -modernism there. There are 30 ,000 plus denominations Carlos there aren't that's a lie

Everybody who repeats it is a liar We have we have documented this over and over again, but I know you keep hearing it

Because it has been emblazoned upon the EWTN network You have to say it if you're if you're gonna be on there, but it's a lie.

LIE. It's untrue It's a documented falsehood. But anyway, there are 30 ,000 plus denominations yet.

You don't go after each one. So why the ancient Catholic Church? knows knows that Each of those

Protestant denominations think they have the correct interpretation of Scripture as you have yours and does the Catholic Church in all humility

What makes you think that you have the 100 % infallible interpretation over all other denominations?

Why not rejoice as a brother in Christ, Mr White you're a good man. I've prayed for you I pray for more devout defenders the cap of the

Christian faith such as yourself in these difficult times. Well Carlos. Thank you for writing But in general what

I have against Roman Catholicism is that it does not have the gospel of Jesus Christ It is a false religious system that has replaced the gospel of Jesus Christ with a message of human accomplishment and sacramental forgiveness

It undercuts the authority of the Word of God. It presents a false gospel and a false authority system

It does not bring anyone peace There are not 30 ,000 plus denominations and I do not claim that I have the 100 % infallible interpretation

I do not claim infallibility and anyone who does is self -deceived even when they claim it for someone else

Rejoice as a brother in Christ. Well Carlos, I would suggest you look at the history of The relationship between your church and my own and what your church and even magisterial churches did to my forefathers

And discover that they didn't think we were brothers in Christ And you know what? I I know a lot of Roman Catholics today who don't think that I am their brother in Christ even a separated brother in Christ The only way that we can be brothers in Christ Carlos is if we have the same gospel

Unfortunately, we do not Sean wrote in and said I've read some of your books.

I appreciate many of your apologetic contributions and you're obviously bright intellect However, you do seem willing to mischaracterize

Arminian beliefs even as you decry some Arminians misrepresentation of Calvinist theology You state that Arminians are far more interested in the freedom of the creature than the freedom of God Quoting a

YouTube video they're saying that the Arminian system is very much man -centered very much focused on the abilities of man the power Of man, that's

Arminianism Since you didn't wink or even crack a smile. You must have won people think you are serious

I am an Arminian because I believe that although God could have created a deterministic world This is not the world we experience and more importantly

It is not the world described in the Bible to say that God has in some sense freed the will of his depraved image bearers

Preserves for him all the glory he deserves and deprives man of any boast as you must know classical

Arminian classical Arminianism Not one of the modern corrupted versions Which should remain distinct from it is thoroughly

God -centered and no less obsessed with God's glory than deterministic Calvinism You make reference to your opponents having to answer to God for his comments.

You do realize that Calvinists do not get a pass, right? well Sean yes,

I I do and Obviously your position seems to be that Arminianism is as you say

Just as God -centered and no less obsessed with God's glory than deterministic Calvinism. Well, obviously

I disagree Now you may feel that you're the only real Arminian left on earth because you do make a reference to these

Modern corrupted versions, so I guess you have the non modern non corrupted version But the fact the matter is that on the key issue of who is can in control and salvation the

Arminian very plainly says that it is man and I'm sorry if I was actually talking about the modern expressions of Arminianism and you're in Ancient Arminian or something like that, but I don't care what system it is

When it takes the glory for salvation and places it in the hands of man so that God is attempting to save but is incapable of doing so I stand by my comments and I will allow

God to judge me for the comments that I made Gerald wrote in and said until recently

I didn't know anything at all about Calvinism In fact, I hadn't even heard of it or of Arminianism I then stumbled upon Jim McClarty's salvation by grace website and suddenly through Jim's clear teaching

I began seeing things in the text where I hadn't seen before So now I tend to hold the

Calvinist viewpoint. However, I recently came across some anti -Calvinist videos on YouTube Wow, do you think there might be some and They then on Calvinist seem to have a point when it comes to Romans 518 so I'm writing to ask what your answer to this and and So I am asking so I'm writing to ask what would be your answer this and be your take on Romans 518

I decided to ask you before asking Jim MC as you are more expert in Greek Hoping you'll respond to this and it won't go ignored as I'd really love to know the answer

Well, we've discussed Romans 518 in the past So as so then as through one transgression there is all the kind of nation all men even so through one act of righteousness

There is all the justification of life to all men and as I point out at the time This is not a text that be relevant to an

Arminian. This would be a text relevant to a universalist Because if you're going to miss the context and say well all men just simply means all men

Then everyone's justified then the only position you can hold here is to be a universalist.

Everyone's gonna be saved So I'm not sure who these anti -Calvinists were I didn't bother taking a look, but it wasn't more than six months ago

I know that I went through all of Romans 5. I forget who it was. I was responding to I have a feeling it was that Let's see

Where'd that go it was the the book by the I'm looking at all my anti -Calvinism books down there, but I don't see it

Maybe I put back in the other room, but it wasn't Olson. It was the Church of Christ fellow.

What was his name? That I did II did II he wrote he wrote against surely not sure

Yeah, she wrote against Shirley MacLaine out on a broken limb is the book that he wrote anyways, I don't remember the name of the gentleman, but I Think it was in response to his comments

That I went through Romans 5 and demonstrate that what Romans 5 is talking about is to humanities There is the humanity that is in Adam which can receive from Adam only death and the humanity that is in Christ Which receives from Christ that which is life

And so when it says that through one transgression the result in condemnation to all men, that's all men who are in Adam Yes, they receive condemnation even so through one act of righteousness

There is all justification life to all men. That is the all the men that are in Christ They receive justification if you don't back up the preceding verses and just isolate this verse

You'll have a verse that is going to do nothing more than teach universalism Not that is going to have anything to do with Calvinism whatsoever.

That's not what the discussion is about David wrote and Said this isn't the first time

I've heard about this hero pattern Non -christians have used this one against me before that Jesus isn't the first of his kind that many made -up characters in history

Follow the same pattern as Jesus Can you give the facts regarding Horace Christian of Buddha? And I think he meant

Mithra along the lines of these apparent similarities It would be nice to be equipped to say something like no actually Christian was not baptized

But actually just fell into a puddle or something along those lines. Well again

The the only way to deal with this is to deal with this in a presuppositional manner That is there's no end to the number of people you can dig up and no one is going to ever have time

To go and become an expert in the lives of every single person in history The reality is that if you look at just just look at the list here

Horace Christian of Buddha and Mithra massive difference Between each of these in the teachings that have come

From these individuals massive difference in context no connection whatsoever to the

Old Testament the context of Jesus's life is the

Old Testament and first century Judaism none of these people have any connection there and It is so easy to create false parallels that ignore the differences

I mean, let's face it folks. We all got up this morning We all put on I think almost every guy in the audience right now

Has underwear and a shirt on and socks and shoes maybe just sandals, but I bet you they're quite similar

I Bet you each one of us have eaten something today. I Bet you each one of us has maybe used

Transportation today got into something and went somewhere It's so easy to create false parallels remember the

Barker debate where he went through and well Jesus got into a boat and this hero got into a boat too and and There was weather while they're on the boat and and then they landed someplace else and talk to people

Wow, that's unique. No, it's not it happens every single day

It happens every single day. I mean, I got on a boat just a few a few weeks ago and There was weather on the boat and there was wind and Then I got back off the boat and I talked to people after I got off the boat.

I Must be making this up to be a parallel to to Jesus in the Gospels, right? No, I went on a cruise for crying out loud.

I mean you just have to think about these things and There are inscrupulous people who want to make money

By publishing books that create false parallels that ignore the fundamental differences that exist between these things

So many of these stories are not placed in history They do not tell us that a person went from such -and -such a place to such -and -such a place during the reign of such -and -such a person and did such -and -such a thing and Wrote those things down during the time when people could confirm or deny that Totally different and that's what we need to know about the history of our text

Continuing F. Lagarde Smith. Thank you very much. Who said that? Algo, I was wondering what was taking algo so long

I mean, I could have googled it faster out. The algo engine is definitely slowing down. That is a real problem

We need to we need to possibly Get an upgrade It wasn't algo.

Who was it? Who Oh Paul okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Paul Paul So the algo engine completely failed that's terrible that we're gonna have to maybe upgrade on the algo processor or something

That's that. Oh, he says he's eating ha Okay, let's let's go to Google put something into Google and say

I'll get one back with that later cuz I'm eating Look I'll go if you want to be the algo search engine eating is not

That's not it's you can't go there. Sorry. That's all there is to it So I'll go fail today fail day for algo.

All right Vince wrote in And I'm not gonna read this one all the way through because it's a little bit too specific

I don't want to get anybody in trouble. He's currently attending a particular church Where a particular person is his pastor

Says I stay in communication with some of the staff there and have been attending for about two years recently in our conversations They have asked me what resources

I'm using for discipleship what I listened to I said RC Sproul James White, etc John MacArthur, they say he

John MacArthur is a good teacher But his Lordship salvation is completely unbiblical and they emphatically say that to me.

I had never heard of Lordship salvation But as I read the

Bible it says that you will know them by their fruits Not work salvation, but sanctification by the

Holy Spirit It seems that my church and Dallas Theological Seminary in general believe that it is unbiblical.

What is Lordship salvation? Do you have any debates I can listen to what would you advise me to do? Well, we do actually happen to have a debate for you to listen to Because the anti Lordship position the easy believism or as I call it the false gospel of non -repentance salvation preached by Certain dr.

Wilkin is available on our website and I believe that if you will search under Wilkin and please remember in our store if you do a search and it comes up With nothing go to the advanced search and click the little button

I think this should be default and if we could fix it I would like to have it fixed because I have to do this all the time.

It should be default to search Everything not just the titles including the subtitles, but there's a little thing there a little checkbox to check it to search the subtitles

But you will find the debate between Myself and dr. Wilkin on this very subject

That took place Where was that Nash Nash? No, no, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City Was that 2005 somewhere around that general area?

And so Vince you would find the salvation there What is

Lordship salvation it's a simple fact that Jesus Christ saves people to the glory of God the

Father and therefore it is God's purpose to conform us to the image of Christ and What we should be asking is what is non

Lordship salvation because you can't be saved by Jesus who is not your Lord and It is unfortunate that there is a stream.

It's number 444 If you wish to look in the store on the website, there is a stream

That has infected evangelicalism that basically says that you can be a Christian without being changed by the

Spirit of God You can be a Christian without repentance You can be a Christian without growth and grace. All you have to do is just simply acknowledge that Jesus is

Lord and It's called the perseverance debate You can just acknowledge Jesus Lord and boom you've your tickets punched

You can go become an atheist whatever it is and and you're saved they call that sola fide. That is never What the

Reformation believed? sola fide was We have always believed that saving faith is a divine faith.

There's a faith born of the Spirit of God and includes repentance from sin But Hodges and Wilkins and others

I Openly identify them as false teachers. I know there are people go. Oh, it was a really nice guy.

I don't care You the first words out of Jesus's mouth recorded for us we're not from his cradle they were repent and believe and When you take repentance out you make that well, that's for super Christians.

That's where people want to be disciples Then you have radically misunderstood radically misunderstood and radically

Perverted the message in the New Testament. That's not a a matter of opinion issue

That is a dividing line. What would you advise me to do? I'll be perfectly honest with you

I'm sorry, but I would suggest you find a better church because a church that is not calling for repentance a

Church denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the salvation of sinners is not a place where you want to be so Last one a special request from Sam Shamoon Unfortunately, I have a very short amount of time in which deal this with this.

He sent me to Nick Norelli's website I'll answer and say that I don't think this is

I'm reading. I guess this is Nick Norelli I'll answer and say that I don't think an inspired document has to be an errant by virtue of its inspiration

Then he gives this quote as a as a foundationist. Paul Seely makes this point when he says quote

Many evangelicals expect biblical history to be in accord with the actual facts simply because it is inspired by God The scriptures teach however that inspiration is not the same thing as revelation and as far as I know all evangelical theologians acknowledge this

This distinction is partly relevant to biblical history because biblical historians never claimed to have received their historical facts by revelation

Biblical history is always presented as based on human sources not divine revelation Which is in contrast to the claims the prophets biblical historians often refer to their human sources

Such as the book of Jasher or the book of the Chronicles the kings of Israel or of Judah Luke's preface to his gospel is a prime example of this accordingly if a human source

Which a biblical historian is using has a mistake in it Such as the

Septuagint's mistranslation of Matah bed in Genesis 47 31 as staff

We see from Hebrews 11 21 that the resulting historical Misrepresentation of the facts will not necessarily be corrected by the inspired writer the idea that inspiration will correct or avoid all factual errors in a biblical historians sources is not taught in scripture nor borne out by the phenomena of Scripture and that's a quotation from Concord ism and a biblical alternative an examination of Hugh Ross's perspective in PSCF 59 2007 pages 37 through 45 specifically that is page 42

Now Why did that oh It would help if I typed correctly.

All right a couple things I think a distinction that is being missed here.

There is a distinction made in recognizing. It's an appropriate distinction that a

Writer and I'm not going to use the term inspired writer Because that's a misunderstanding of what inspiration itself is

That the writer Who is writing something that is inspired because that's the assertion all scripture is inspired not merely

Writers are inspired That they can use non inspired sources that are themselves errant they're not inspired we would assume they'd be errant and so it is perfectly right to recognize the use of sources

Luke Says he interviews people There have been compilations that he's examined

And it is true anyone who's ever dealt with the Mormons knows the Mormons are always bringing up But where is the book of Jasher and where is the book of the

Chronicles of the Kings? It's not the Chronicles that we have and so on so forth Assuming that because the

Bible makes reference these and says if you want to read more about this particular King Then you can go and look at such -and -so, okay

Hopefully we all recognize that the mere Recognition of the existence of external writings does not

Communicate those writings inspiration or inerrancy and So just simply on that level

No one has to believe that The book of Jasher was an inspired revelation even though the

Bible makes reference to it. No question about that But what it seems to be saying is that it's missing where inspiration and inerrancy relate to one another and That is it seems to be saying that even after the inerrant revelation is given

That which is they honest us that that which is they honest us can make a presentation or represent as factual something that is not and And the problem is of course that the spirit who gives us this revelation knows absolutely inherently

What is and what is not true in any statement that he might have a writer?

right in the process of inspiration and So it was interesting to me.

The only example that was given was not an example of anything historical at all The example it was given was a difference between the

Hebrew text and the Septuagint text where this where the writer

Writing to people using the Septuagint quotes from the Septuagint which of course would be what they were reading in the first place

So I don't see how that has anything to do with the idea of biblical history or Somehow the citation of a historical event where the historical event is untrue

So I sort of feel like it completely it says here resulting in the resulting historical misrepresentation of the facts and All it is if you've looked at if you probably looked up Genesis 47 31

And and it's it's quoted in Hebrews 11 by faith Jacob as he was dying

Blessed each of the sons of Joseph and worshipped leaning on the top of his staff Well, that's a direct quotation from the

Septuagint. The Septuagint is rendering Mata as staff rather than as bed

But this isn't talking about some You know a king that came down and did something

I'm not I'm not sure what the issue is He is obviously quoting from the version of the

Old Testament that would be familiar to the people to whom he was writing and they would be familiar with the story in that form reminds me a little bit of the fact that Augusta narrates that when

Jerome's version of the Jerome's Greek translation the Old Testament I'm sorry

Latin translation which replaced the Greek translation the Old Testament Septuagint was read for the first time in Carthage There was a near riot because he used a different word for the castor oil plant

And they almost had an a riot because it was not what they were familiar with What the people to whom the writer of Hebrews would be familiar with would be the

Septuagint version of that text Not the Hebrew version of that text So that's an interesting area to discuss but I don't see how it's relevant to the preceding discussion

The preceding discussion was about well if you're using the book of Jasher and The book of Jasher has errors in it

Then evidently what this writer is saying is that the Holy Spirit will allow you to Recreate historical errors, but just speak spiritual truths from the historical errors or something like that.

I guess is what being is what is being said and Without a relevant example, it would be hard to know exactly how to respond to that other than saying well

How is that overly different from the Roman Catholics saying that the arguments that lead to papal infallibility can be completely fouled up But the resultant definition is still infallible and the

Pope's infallible How do you avoid that that kind of application? I'm not sure.

So anyway, there we go got through the mailbag sort of quickly, but that's the

That's fast way to do it. I think and it also it's the other thing. It's When people come into channel new folks coming to channel, they'll always private message me.

Oh, can I ask you a question? Most of the time I say no and I say is there a reason why this is private?

Well, no Well, at least if I answer your question in the channel It helps other people and that's one of the reasons

I did this this way Is it hopefully answering some of these questions in a more public way helps other people that are in the same position?

That's just simply using time. I think in a good way. Thanks for listening. We Will blog about what we're gonna be back on again in the future

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 -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks