March 7, 2006

Broadcasting 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 at 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white That is phone number 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 a toll -free number available all across the

United States it always interests me that there are so many who behind a keyboard are so brave and And so strong and their denunciations of yours truly and other people of like -minded beliefs, but when it comes to This time on a

Tuesday morning or on a Thursday afternoon for some reason all of a sudden they they need to be taking their cats to have them their teeth lost and their their dogs need need a walk and they need to check the air pressure on their tires and Just amazing how at that particular point in time they can't find the time to pick up a phone and Dial that number especially since we have a long history of I can listen to the dividing line.

You can listen to Pierre Pierre has called in over and over and over again over the years and we've we've never put

Pierre on hold and just made and just lectured him or anything like that We have a long history of treating people who do call as rare as that might be and disagree with respect and getting things accomplished and Yet for some odd and strange reason

You get these folks and they are just so brave behind keyboards. They just you know, we'll rip and snort and they'll just really talk about how how they've got it all figured out, but Some odd reason

For a lot of folks, you know for a lot of folks who do what I do I'm one of the most easily accessible people around aren't

I I mean twice a week live call in Here we are and yet for some odd reason

They don't they don't want to it's call in and and point these things out There's a fellow who's started running around the blogosphere just recently named he calls himself

Charles Don't know who he is I've tried to look for a profile and stuff.

There's nothing there, you know, anonymous folks are easy, but you know, maybe he's Come up with something. I don't know but he has started a

Rather sad little blog. I say sad because you know, everyone has the right to put up a blog and to say what they want to say

But when you're addressing theological issues, especially when you claim to be a Christian I think personally we have a much higher standard that we need to not only hold ourselves to but it should be natural for us to to be held to a a higher a higher standard and This particular fellow, you know,

I think if you have to be anonymous that that says enough right there about where you're coming from I Would really be shocked if the phone were ever to ring and this man were to call

I just I get that after a number of years now I you start to you know, develop sort of a profile of these types of folks and He's put up a blog and I was just looking at What he posted for Saturday March 4th

James White's Eisegesis of Matthew 23 37 part 1 of 3 so we haven't gotten all of it yet.

This is just just part 1 and When you when you use Wikipedia as your source for explaining what what

I said Jesus is versus exegesis that's not a good place to start but Looking at it.

I Just I was immediately amazed Do these folks just not think that anyone is is capable of thinking through what they're saying

I I It just amazes me he

He quotes Matthew 23 37 and at least thankfully he does not do what what

Dave Hunt does regularly and what so many others do regularly in Missciting it and That's nice.

And it's not it's not found. It's actually quoted from a translation of the King James.

That's good. Good thing At least for me like I have to fight that battle in this particular context, but he calls

Matthew 23 37 He doesn't quote the rest of the chapter or anything like that. And that's alright problem is doesn't actually make reference to Where this appears and that's gonna be one of the major problems here, of course for for anonymous

Charles Charles the brave Cites it and says the verse is so simple even a child can understand it

Well, yeah That that's true. Just like a child can understand John 637. However Hopefully we would teach our children to read

Matthew 23 37 in its context and of course Matthew 23 37 is at the end of a very lengthy diatribe on the part of the

Lord and Hopefully our children we would teach them that you do not interpret the end of a lengthy diatribe without any reference to What came before it?

see and Matthew 23 is one of those passages that people today don't like a lot.

They don't like it because of the fact that It's very politically incorrect in a post

Holocaust world What Jesus says about the Jewish leadership here is? Extremely unpopular.

That's why it doesn't even appear in many modern works on the subject of first century

Judaism because it's just considered to be out of bounds and it It can't really explain anything to us as to what

What what the Jews really believed so on and so forth and so it's just dismissed and So I'd like to read the context first since Charles the brave forgot to do so Beginning at verse 13 of Matthew chapter 23

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people

For you do not enter in yourselves Nor do you allow those who are entering to go in to please just notice that just right at the beginning of the woes

What's the first woe? What is the first word of judgment that is brought against? Oh by the way?

Charles doesn't like this kind of exegesis. I guess this is what makes it ice Jesus because I'm actually Explaining the context he doesn't like the fact that you'd actually go in depth and and Talk a lot about context and things like that.

He just wants to go with the a child can understand Let's not worry about the rest of stuff stuff. So I may be you know

Missing his his mark for being a true exegete by going through this and and pointing out themes

Contexts things like that that just gives you an idea. I think of where some people are coming from but Won't you

Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people for you do not enter in yourselves

Nor do you allow those who are entering to go in? So the very first woe is one that differentiates between the scribes and Pharisees who are hypocrites and Someone else these these people these people who who are entering in The scribes and Pharisees are trying to stop them.

They're trying to hinder them Notice, that's the very first woe Keep that in mind

Won't you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites because you devour widows houses and for a pretense you make long prayers

Therefore you receive greater condemnation sexual variant there Won't you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites because you travel around on sea and land to make one

Proselyte and when he comes becomes one you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves Mm -hmm

Won't you blind guides who say whoever swears by the temple that is nothing But whoever swears by the gold the temple is obligated you fools and blind men which is more important the gold of the temple that sanctified the gold and Whoever swears by the altar that is nothing but whoever swears by the offering on it

He is obligated you blind men, which is more important the offering of the altar that sanctifies the offering notice what he's doing

He is clearly making reference to common Statements common assertions of the scribes and the

Pharisees in their teaching of the people and he is demonstrating the foolishness of this type of thinking therefore whoever swears by the altar swears both by the altar and by everything on it and whoever swears by the temple swears both by the temple and by him who dwells within it and whoever swells swears by heaven swears

Both by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it Won't you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites for you tithe mint and Dylan come in and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law

Justice and mercy and faithfulness and these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others You blind guides you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites for you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish But inside they're full of robbery and self -indulgence you blind

Pharisee First clean the inside of the cup and of the dish so at the outside of it may become clean Also, woe to you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites for you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside appear beautiful But inside they're full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness now, of course again these would be extremely offensive words because these were people who prided themselves and they're in their scrupulosity in in their scruples of keeping every little bit of the law of Washing the hand and one hand going over the other hand at the right time and in the right way in the right order and all these things and to say that you're full of dead men's bones, which of course go back to the

Old Testament law and You discover that those who for example were defiled by the touching of the dead body or By the touching of bones would be put outside the camp for a period of time, etc

So what they're saying is even though you've made the outside look very very good You're very scrupulous in your observation of the law yet Inwardly you're actually defiled absolutely defiled

What do you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, I'm sorry back up verse 28 so you to outwardly appear righteous to men but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous and Say if we had been living in the days of our fathers

We would not have been partners with them and sharing the blood of the prophets Please note just in passing that in the context leading up to verse 37 these

Jewish leaders scribes and Pharisees These individuals are said

Here's here's the here's the context something about the blood of the prophets shedding the blood of the prophets the the prophets had been sent and They say we wouldn't have been involved in killing them

But Jesus says so you testify against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets Fill up then the measure of the guilt of your father's you serpents you brood of vipers.

How will you escape the sentence of hell? Therefore behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes

Who is this being sent to? The brood of vipers right the leaders. Okay.

There's a reason why I'm emphasizing this It's something that Charles the brave missed in his own

Quote -unquote exegesis of the text and we'll see that when we look at what he said

Therefore behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes some of them You will kill and crucify and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth from the blood of Righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barakaya Who we murdered between the temple and the altar and if you look at at that particular passage

It's one of those important passages in regards to Old Testament canon issues and all the rest that stuff We won't get into right now but that would basically be

Genesis to second Chronicles which was The canon of the time second Chronicles being the last in the

Hebrew order of the canon Truly truly I say to you truly I say to you all these things will come upon this generation

And so here's there's the context. There's what leads up to Matthew 23 37. There's what wasn't found anywhere in Charles's first section he makes reference to my book

The Potter's Freedom and he and he does better thankfully then then

Dr. Geisler did in that he gives the right page numbers in the Potter's Freedom as to where this appears

So if you may not be aware of what I'm referring to there But I was referring to the fact that in the appendix provided by Somebody I to this day do not believe that it was written by Norman Geisler it he's responsible for it

Of course in his book, but I don't believe was written by Norman Geisler. I believe was written by undergraduate students It was quotations from undergraduate papers that were sort of sewn together into one mess of things that make

Gail Ripplinger's writings look coherent and I went through all that a number of years ago

You can still I imagine get the dividing lines where I did that and of course there's an article on the website that Documents all of this if you think those are harsh words

Wait till you actually read the fact that the majority of the page references in the appendix aren't even correct

It's just amazing. I've never honestly seen anything Put out in any way shape or form that was that bad.

It was just that bad Yes, that's the exact same appendix that dr. Kainer has been recommending to folks.

It's just like okay you recommend it There's gonna be some of those folks that are gonna take the time to read my response and go.

Oh my goodness And that's all the documentation. I sent to dr. Kainer, which he has always ignored and never responded well, anyways, he gets the pages right pages 136 through 139 and What are some of the things that I point out in this this section

I Said the first fact to ask chain examining a passage scripture is its context which we just did

This passage comes in the midst of the proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews, I think we've established that Matthew 23 contains the strongest enunciations of scribes and Pharisees and all the

Gospels And I don't think there's anyone who would argue that point either Who then is Jerusalem in the text

Jerusalem Jerusalem kills the prophets and stones those who were sent to her? How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings and you were unwilling who then is

Jerusalem is assumed by our minion writers and Maybe by a few Armenians too, but pretty much just by our minion writers that Jerusalem represents individual

Jews Who are therefore capable of resisting the work and the will of Christ and is that not the normal utilization of the text

It is the normal utilization of the text. You just quote it you skip the children part You skip the context you skip the fact that this is the end of a lengthy condemnation and you just read into it

Well, actually I'm going to assume that the gathering here means gathering for eternal salvation

I'm going to assume that even though the context is not a Soteriological context in regards to the cross or faith or you know, like John 6 or John 8 or John 10 or John 3?

I'm gonna ignore all of that I'm going to assume these contexts and I'm just going to cite this verse out of its context and this proves to use the words of Charles the brave here

This verse annihilates Annihilates the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace and unconditional election annihilates both of them

Now, of course, we might stop a second to say How does it annihilate unconditional election?

I? Mean if it was God who chose these people and maybe he didn't choose these people and they were not

I mean, it doesn't really doesn't really actually directly address that but Charles is a little confused on a lot of things like that.

And So anyways, it annihilates the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace and unconditional election.

That's we're being told and so Raise the question who is

Jerusalem? But upon what warrant I ask Do we leap from Jerusalem to individual

Jews the context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be Taken in a universal sense

Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders and is to them that he refers here. This is clearly seen in that One it is to the leaders that God sent prophets.

Is that not what we read? Is that not what verse 37 says then we backed up in the context and it was the leaders who were saying?

Oh, we wouldn't have killed the prophets We wouldn't have killed the prophets and yet does not Jesus say you testify against yourselves the context established that right?

Yeah Okay Number two, it was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and those sent to them

Yep, that's that's true. Number three. Jesus speaks of your children differentiating those to whom he is speaking from those of the

Lord desired to gather together and Number four the context refers the Jewish leaders scribes and Pharisees.

None of these are actually really I think questionable issues But I will be taken to task out of context, of course

And we'll see that in just a moment when we expose Charles's misuse and misreading of things So I continue to say a vitally important point

To make here is that the ones who the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who were not willing

Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they the leaders would not allow him to gather

Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders But their children this one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the

Arminian seeking to establish free will ism The children of the leaders would be the Jews who were hindered by the

Jewish leaders from hearing Christ The you would not then is referring to the same men indicated by the context the

Jewish leaders who were Unwilling to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of the

Christ This verse then is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23 13. And what is

Matthew 23 13? That's the beginning of the woes So what do we have here?

We have something called book ending. It's very common John uses it in the prologue for example where you have a statement the beginning and Then you restate it in another way at the end and this sums up your discourse.

And what was Matthew 23 13? But woe to you scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people for you do not enter in yourselves

Nor do you allow those who are entering to go in? So this is this is the commentary that I offered in the chapter on the big three

Matthew 23 37 1st, Timothy 2 4 2nd Peter 3 9 so let's go to to Charles the brave and He Talks about to Gil's comments on this and 1 ,500 words that Gil used and that's nice and of course utterly irrelevant

But anyway, Gil and white argue that Jerusalem Jerusalem refers not to all of Jerusalem, but only to the

Jewish leaders The children were not unwilling only the leaders of Jerusalem were unwilling Jesus is condemning the

Jewish leaders and is not speaking to all of Jerusalem. Well, yes He clearly is differentiating between those

Jewish leaders Scribes Pharisees and hypocrites beginning at verse 13 all the way to verse 37.

That's the context And of course if that's going to be attacked Then we're going to have to deal with the entirety of the context now here is

Here is the first bit of refutation approving of my Eisegesis reading into the text their reasoning white gives four points.

We'll examine the first point today and look at the others at a later date White's reason number one. It is to the leaders that God sent prophets now

Let me back up the truck here and remind you of what I had actually said so you can examine for yourself and see

Exactly how these folks work What I wrote at the end of bottom page 137 beginning page 138 the context would not lead us to conclude that this that the

Thought how do you make the leap? But upon what warrant do we leap from Jerusalem to individual

Jews the context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be Taken in the universal sense Jesus is condemning the

Jewish leaders and it is to them that he refers here This is clearly seen in that number one.

It is to the leaders that God sent prophets now stop Did I say that there was never any time in the

Old Testament where prophets were sent to anybody but Jewish leaders? And is there anyone who would think

I was saying that if you read the text in context not only my context But is it not clear what

I'm referring to if you read Matthew 23 how many times in the preceding verses

Do you have the reference to? Prophets being sent to these individuals and they being held accountable for their blood

It's right there. There's there's entire verses right in the immediate context, but Charles doesn't read the immediate context the immediate context is irrelevant at this point see

You just got it you just got to defend the world against Calvinism And so we you know how we would normally treat the text on any other subject becomes irrelevant

So listen to what Charles says he quotes just that one reason and there were four that I gave these are all

Contextually it is to the leaders of God sent prophets. That's the immediate conversation right before this read it yourself

Number two it was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and those sent to them number three Jesus speaks of your children

Differentiating those to whom you speaking of those Lord desire to gather together and number four the context refers to Jewish leaders scribes and Pharisees Okay Nothing really controversial there unless you just don't want to hear what the text is saying and so here's

Charles's commentary when I read This I almost fell off my chair laughing I'm sorry fell out of my chair laughing white says that God sent the prophets the leaders and not to the people

The Bible says otherwise now wait a minute I never said that Why says that God sent the prophets to the leaders and not the people no

I didn't say that I said in this context The Lord was talking about his having sent prophets to the leaders

He's not talking about any other Ministry of prophets here there is one context the context of his holding the leaders accountable for the blood

Shed from Abel to Zechariah son of Barakaya, and he is saying that these

Jewish leaders These Jewish leaders will be held accountable is that not the text says is that not the context and So what does he do he takes that?

misrepresents what I said assumes something that no logical or rational person would have thought that I would have said and Then starts quoting from Ezekiel 33 or Jeremiah 19 or Daniel da da da da da and Closes with white should put away

John Gill and read the Old Testament He might learn something James white color him Old Testament handicapped, and that's it.

There's the end of it That's that's the demonstration of Eisegesis on on the part of Charles Charles the brave Now I would invite

Charles to call. I would I would open invitation Charles I'm going to invite you to call this program.

We'll do an entire program to God. I'm leaving tomorrow I'm going to be ministering down in in Alabama near the

University of Auburn He's speaking on the uniqueness the resurrection of Jesus Christ for for a this you know some folks there that have been invited and I'm gonna be talking about the

Da Vinci Code and Much stuff that over the course is next week down there in Alabama And I apologize that I haven't put that up on the blog

The way I needed to but we were still putting stuff together right to the last moment And I think it's a grace heritage church org

I think I'll try to get something up just in case some of you would like to try to make some of that Be preaching

Sunday. They're the church there, so I won't be here Thursday, but I'll Lord willing back and hopefully in one piece on On next

Tuesday and Charles I would love to have you on the program

To dialogue Directly about Matthew 23 37 I would like I Would like to give you that you can say to everybody

All the people listening here's a wonderful opportunity for you to Prove your point to be able to demonstrate that I can't respond to this this compelling

Argumentation about your falling out of your chair laughing and my being Old Testament handicapped.

Let's find out Maybe you'll be one of the very first these folks who as I said are so Brave behind the keyboard just so willing to to throw this stuff out there and get a few little followers

But for some reason when it comes to my offering you the opportunity of actually interacting with me

For some reason people won't do it. I wonder why that is could it be that you lack the courage of your convictions?

Could it be you know? That you can't answer the questions that would be asked of you Could it could it be you know these things if so, then why are you doing what you're doing?

It's dishonest Amazing amazing point Looking at the comments here real quickly

Someone patted Charles in the back excellent post He says and This is by the way,

I like your point about James White being Old Testament handicapped. That's the problem with Calvinist They don't seem to meditate on the entire book of Scripture You know it's been my experience actually

That it's it's Reformed churches that tend to actually Spend the most time with the

Old Testament. I I Think it's it's my church that that reads through The entirety of the

Old Testament on Sunday evenings and and in fact preaches In fact right now if I recall correctly

I believe we're preaching through the book of numbers Yes numbers in in the evenings.

We still have evening services by the way at our church and So yeah, that's that that's that's very interesting

So hmm Applies to both Testaments and the Calvinist has a real problem with Genesis in Genesis with Cain We can clear it we clearly see

God seeking out a lost man They call tank Cain totally depraved which is not a

Bible term. Do you think they know that? Sort of hard to Wow Oh James what is a bully nice blog can't wait for parts two or three

James why is a bully glad to see you see him Taking him on I guess that was Werner Schmidt that said that I guess if you um,

I guess if you Suggest to people that they might want to actually dialogue and you know

Debate and actually, you know have things going back and forth to where you actually have to answer direct questions based on the text

That that makes you a bully interesting Well reading that some of this stuff is very very very interesting.

No, no two ways about it Hmm White skills is a

Jesus It's gonna be interesting. There's it's nice to at least See somebody trying to interact because when they do interact

When they when they actually say well, you know, let's let's look at the text Doesn't the text continually demonstrate its truthfulness.

Are we not able to demonstrate over and over again the reality? What the text is saying it and it only clarifies it.

That's that's a good thing. That's that's a nice thing to see Well, anyway, so someone might want to say to Charles eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

There's a phone number That's the number you can call and we'll be we'll be waiting for you Charles and we'll be waiting for these now, of course if if you

Want to try to repair this first one that might be a good Might want to be a good idea

Before going on the second one Because you need a little something more than just simply saying you you fell out of your chair and a few little snide personal remarks

That's not exegesis Charles that doesn't help you any really what you might want to try to do is is go back and now

Demonstrate where I said anything like what you said I said That would be the first thing you need to do and then you need to deal with the context you need to deal with the immediate context and Then we can we can move on from there

But you're really you've you start off in the wrong foot. You've sort of fallen over right at the start So you might want to go back and fix that Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

We'll take your phone calls right after this break. We'll be right back Nothing 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 recommend it

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together

They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many

Evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing

This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book the

Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.

They cannot be ignored Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org

Completed looking at a blog entry by Charles the brave we did use his real name

But he's one of those anonymous type guys. So we're just referred to him as Charles the brave. He started spamming various blogs a couple weeks ago and so now he started his own little his own little little blog and At least you know, like I said, he he he quoted

Matthew 2337 correctly And I think that's a step Wow boy when that's something it's good

You know that you're dealing with some some difficult things eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number and that's the number that I guess

Pierre heard me mention him and had been a while Pierre, but You called it anyways

Yeah, I was fine to call you anyway before you Brought up my name. Oh, well, there you go because of the conversation left

On what subject was that? Oh, I think that was the one on with Dave hunt. Oh, yes good old

Dave and his other gentleman Anyway, well, oh see a

McMahon. Yeah, McMahon. Yes Yeah I'm really not sure that that the Dave would would be overly excited by the fact that that He keeps causing an

LDS fellow to call in I think I think he would never talk to Dave I never have I'm sure he would not but I guess it's an interest of my mind and Particularly since I really feel that you know, you have misunderstood the scriptures

I've been called Not that I haven't although I did at first any idea that I'm going to somehow convert you

Oh Well, we just sort of let the listeners decide who's who's handling the scriptures correctly and who isn't and I think

Pierre most the time We end up going back to the fact that the scriptures aren't your final authority.

I mean you have other scriptures. I think that the Yes, I would well,

I mean the scriptures certainly are an authority I think that they're not your final authority the final authority of course for us as Latter -day

Saints is The living oracles of God the Prophet Without question right and so fundamentally exegesis is

Not going to lead to the true meaning of the text the true meaning the text for you is going to be determined by whatever

The current prophet and apostles say it is even if that changes over time That's that's why I said that fundamentally when you get right down to it.

That's why we always end up disagreeing I I I can show you all the reasons in the world why your interpretation violates the context

But since that's not your final authority I'm not really relying on that. I'm not even looking at what the

Apostles and prophets that I'm just looking actually at just the Text of the scriptures as they've presented to us and it has to do with the way you decide

What has what certain words mean to you and of course? You're a blogger that you quoted on your on your own blog.

I guess he was he was sending you emails yes, putting the Having the cart pull the horse type thing which is which

I think is what actually I'm not sure what you're referring to Pierre. I'm sorry which which Couple of days ago he made a statement that basically what you're doing is you're putting the cart for the horse meaning to say that you you have decided that you that that Calvinism is true and therefore whenever you run into a

Scripture that runs contrary. Okay. Yeah, this is this is a way to word things

So that it changes the meaning of scripture what you have in essence is an isogenic contortion of scripture, right?

Right, which the only way to prove that actually is for people to to interact and that way

I can challenge them and say, okay If that's what you're accusing me of. All right, here are the lexical sources.

Here's the grammatical issues Here's the syntactical issues show me where I'm wrong and Pierre. That's what I don't get from folks

That's what I can't get folks to do when I say. All right, if you say that I'm wrong about the meaning of Something in John 644, let's look at the text.

Well, well now that's you're looking too closely at stuff here We need to go over and look at this first. I can't get folks to do that And so I understand that it's very easy for people.

It's very easy for me to say to Mormons you are Grossly disrupting the text because you allow this this external authority to determine things

I can say that but then I have to back it up And if you're gonna say it about me then then you have to back up and that's what dialogue is all about And that's why

I'm sitting here the toll -free phone number and Charles the brave is anonymous. That's the difference between us well, that's one of the reason

I was calling is I wanted to point out that I think that The idea that number one the prophets you seem to imply and I maybe don't say it as such but you seem to imply that The prophets were sent only to the leaders

That's clearly wrong. The prophets were sent to all the people Well, what I'm saying up here is in the context of Matthew chapter 23

Which is the only text that we're looking at today in the immediate just just the very sentences that come before that Verses 30 through 36, which has to be the immediate context that determines verse 37.

There is a specific Accusation being made against the scribes and the

Pharisees So you testify against yourselves verse 31 that you are sons of those who murder prophets

Who is that addressed to is that addressed to them or to their children? It's addressed to the

Pharisees and in the Scribes and Pharisees.

All right fill up then the measure of the guilt of your father's you serpents you brood of vipers How will you escape the sentence of hell?

Is that the scribes and Pharisees again? I would think so Yeah, verse 34. Therefore behold. I am sending you

Prophets and wise men and scribes who is you you were the scribes and Pharisees?

Okay. I just established my point That's that's the exact that's the exact context that is the there is only one sentence that separates the you of that verse from the

You of verse 37 and that's verse 36. It says truly I say to you all these things will come upon this generation

So unless you're going to somehow come up with a distinction and say well see that's where everything changed right there in verse 37 isn't connected and there's and even though the words the same and it's the same section

It's it's a repeat of verse 13 as far as the concepts all that's irrelevant Then I've established the logical consistency found in the

Lord's own words where he says How often I wanted to gather your children together

But you were unwilling now, does he not make a differentiation there? If I said

I wanted to Witness to your children Pierre, but you were unwilling.

Who do I want to witness to you or your children? Children, okay. I Put my arms up in the air and go

I can't get any simpler than that. That's all I said So why would you think that he's accurate in saying that I have been

I'm denying somehow that there's ever been a time in history Ever been a time in the Old Testament where prophets were sent to all the people

Of course they were but that's not what Jesus is talking about here and nor nor did I ever say it I didn't insinuate it didn't suggest it and it's not relevant to my argument.

I just demonstrated my argument and I think I demonstrated to the point where any

Person who is even semi unbiased is gonna say okay. Yeah in this context

Jesus makes a differentiation He differentiates between you and you are and yeah This probably isn't the best verse to try to be using to prove some sort of Universal salvific will because that's not what

Jesus is talking about. Anyways, let's move on from there. That's That's my point a word in edgewise.

Sure First of all, I think that you're mistaken that he's just talking to the leaders right there the term

Pharisees and scribes Are not just leaders Pharisees with the sect just like Baptist or Presbyterian or Catholic or whatever

It was a group, you know, it was a sect a different denomination of Judaism. Well, there was more than that You know when we're talking about Scribes and the

Pharisees we're talking about, you know, it's like saying like I said the

Baptists and No, no, I'm sorry. You're wrong about that in Jerusalem It was there there is no parallel to Baptist Presbyterians and Methodists in in Judaism The Pharisees and the scribes and the

Sadducees These were not only these were not just Baptist over against some other group that would be called

Methodist These were the Jewish leaders These were the people who had through the Sadducees had control the temple politically the

Pharisees had control of the people in the synagogues Religiously and there wasn't any competition for them

There wasn't I mean you've got the Qumran sect that went out in the out in the desert But as far as within within Jerusalem, no, these were the people who had control.

These were people who could send Guards to arrest Jesus nobody else could do that. So no,

I'm sorry. You're you are you are misunderstanding the the old test of the Intertestamental period and the background of the

New Testament text is to the role the scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem with this period of time We're not talking

Baptist Methodist. No, you're wrong. Sorry All right. Now that's the other point that I wanted to make is that the same verse

Is used or the same wording is used in Luke? And if you look at that context different context

That's exactly right a totally different context and that tells you something Matthew is not putting these words in the context that Luke put these words in And and the real and so now with if you look at the preceding verses in in in Luke chapter 13

He's just talking in more general terms referring to the people in general So that when he says though Jerusalem Jerusalem thou which killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto thee how often

I would Have gathered thy children together as the hen gathers her brood. This would be very similar to Referring now

Jerusalem does not refer just to the leaders. It refers to the nation Israel It would be a very similar to saying, you know,

Oh America America how often I would have gathered by citizens together Okay, and since Jesus makes the exact same differentiation between you and your children in Luke 13 34

Why do you insist upon ignoring the differentiation if it if it if there can be no differentiation here?

And this is all of this is the only reason that we have we have put this Issue out there is because of the is a jeticle

Contact context less groundless use this text to say that see God can desire the salvation of individual

X An individual X can frustrate God's salvation of that person. That's why it's been put out there

Neither Luke 13 34 nor Matthew 23 37 has anything to do with that context a

Secondly it makes a Differentiation between the ones that are gathered a desire to be gathered and those who are not willing both make that Differentiation if you make it some universalistic thing where there is no differentiation

Then you're doing so directly against the words Lord Jesus if you want to say Jerusalem Jerusalem is all the

Jewish nation Okay, then who are the children? Well the children finish here that the children are of course the citizens of the nation

Israel I thought that was Jerusalem Jerusalem is a

Term that reflects the nation as a whole the children are individual members or individual people within that nation

So there's no difference between Jerusalem and your children. They all mean the same thing in a sense yeah Yeah, I would say that yeah, okay, and I and I say and I say logically you're wrong

And I leave it to any unbiased person to just sit there and go oh well Yeah, when

I talk about me or my children I'm always mean the same thing and it's just so obvious to me Pierre It really is it just it's just so clear that that's what

I appreciate about these conversations is that the Word of God clarifies itself when you can just ask these questions you've had to say

Jerusalem and their children same thing and I say to you no and when you allow the context in Matthew 23

Which is the fullest context you're right Luke is just giving this as a saying and so it doesn't have the full context when you

Take the full context of Matthew 23 substantiates the point very very clearly. That's what exegesis does there it is

There is you don't want it to have the context because previous context has to do with with the general

Salvation of the people in general as mentioned beforehand of those who are going to be punished For for disobeying, and that's why he goes on to say

Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem You know because he mourns the fact that the people in general are rejecting

His words he desires to save them and he would not the ye here refers not to the leaders

But to the children the children would not be saved And that's not what it says

Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem the city that kills the prophets of stones those sent to her how often I wanted to gather your children together just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings and You would not have it not your children would not have it you would not have it

In reference to the Jewish leaders look at even even in Luke nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow in the next day for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem it's still the context of Jerusalem killing those sent to her by God's Context with the exact same conclusion verse 35 behold your house is left to you desolate

I'm sorry, but every single time you try to take this back to the text the text refutes you okay

Don't you see that no, I don't you know that so you and your children same thing okay, all right well

Pierre I appreciate the call and I've Very quickly we've got another caller. Okay.

All right. No all right. Thank you very much. God bless. Bye. Bye Okay Let's talk with Chris hi

Chris. How are you? Hi James? It's always a pleasure to get to speak with you and You know

That when people don't understand that God is sovereign in everything and in all things that he does

They just do not understand the scripture clearly well, and you know in Pierre situation

We've got something obvious going on we have Pierce LDS and so Pierre has other authorities and and it's one thing to see that With Pierre because Pierre believes that there are still prophets alive today and Believes that God was an exalted man lives on other planets and the

Jesus the spirit brother of Lucifer and the men could become gods That's that's understandable that someone in that situation struggles with with XG in the text of Scripture What to me just makes my heart grieve is when

I hear people who claim to be evangelicals using the exact same

Isogenical errors that a Mormon would use to get around The proclamation of the freedom of God and salvation.

That's where you just start going. Oh It's it's just so so difficult to listen to it really is and you know

Jesus seemed to be Extremely interested in children. I mean Even told his own disciples, you know suffer not the little children to come to me for such as the kingdom

God He had a heart for children even the children of the the Pharisees and the rulers of Israel The question

I wanted to pose to you. Dr. White is You know, we believe that man's heart is is in its unregenerate state is helpless and that It cannot come to God until and does not desire to come to God No, and it takes grace to change that desire

But the question I wanted to ask you is concerning 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2 and It talks in the verse 11 about God sending those who do not love the truth strong delusion that they should believe the lie that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness and I was wondering if you might expound a little bit

On that passage of Scripture and I guess what I'm thinking is that if man's heart

Is hard and I believe it is and that it has no desire for God What exactly does this mean why does

God need to send anyone a strong delusion? Well, I think it really helps to back up to verse 10.

I I preached on this passage actually at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley.

It's a John MacArthur's Church about two years ago Because it is such a sobering text

And I think it is the previous phrase that I think gives the proper light and color to verses 11 and 12 that you're referring to especially that the appearance of the the phrase those who are perishing and If you follow that particular

Form through the The writings of Paul you'll see in 1st

Corinthians 1 18 from 2nd Corinthians 2 15 2nd Corinthians 4 3 This is a term that he will use in contrast to the ones who are being saved

So the ones who are perishing the ones who are being saved and in 1st Corinthians chapter 1 that's the exact same distinction that makes a difference as to Whether we see the gospel as the power of God or whether we see it as the weakness and foolishness of God or whether We see it in it the wisdom of God or whether we see it the foolishness of God all depends on whether we are in that particular

Which particular group we're in if we're amongst those who are perishing then That has an impact upon the way that we even see and hear the gospel

So it is in that context he says for those who perish because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved they

I've said this many times and it's very very odd today to say this and it even strikes me as odd when

I say it But I I see no Reason why this is not biblically true and that is our attitude toward truth is not an amoral issue

It is immoral to love Untruth it is amoral to suppress

God's truth. It is amoral to believe in heresy It's not it's not something that's morally neutral.

We we consider belief issues to be somehow morally neutral. That's that's not the case and These people are described as peeping as people who rejected love of the truth.

They were not truth lovers and Since they're not truth lovers Something has to fill that vacuum we have been created in the image of God and We have been created to live in such a way that is consistent with the image of God when we suppress that knowledge going back to Romans chapter 1 when we are expending effort to suppress the knowledge of God the truth of God something else is going to rush into that void something's going to take that place and If we do not love the truth

Then God is under no obligation to Continue extending to us grace to where that truth will always be available to us

Instead just as in Romans chapter 1 you have this that oppa did to me. He gives them up.

He gives them up He gives them what they desire what they desire They desire falsehood that is our the suppression of the knowledge of God that is our a twisted creation

That is our improper relationship with God So he gives them up to all of those things which then becomes manifest in Homosexuality lesbianism the worshiping of of the creation rather than the creator, etc, etc, etc

And so I think that's the same thing that we have here in shorter space Is this for this reason

God will send upon them a deluding influence a? strong delusion it's it's literally a a power of error with the result that they believe in the lie and So if you are going to refuse to love the truth

Then God is under no Under no obligation to remain neutral to you instead judgment comes and there is this sending of a of a

Strong force. I think the question you're asking is why would he have to bother do so? I don't think it's a matter of him having to bother to do so.

I think it is it is There is a specific lie that is in view here and hence instead of just simply men wandering about the

Philosophical landscape picking and choosing what they are. They're not going to believe there is a unity in believing a lie here in other words there's a there's a force extended that that directs these people toward a

Particular kind of lie and the Gatien of the truth not just simply a a broad You know nebulous concept, but I think there there may be in the context here, especially if we look at it

That's got a logically. However, we figured that part out So in other words that the lie is going to be that the coming of the lawless one

That's right. That's why I'd be focused on they're going to believe this individual if it is an individual, right? And and as a group,

I understand now, thank you very much. Yeah. Yeah, most definitely and I think that's why there There's no God does not have to expend any effort to get people to do these things

But if he has a particular purpose, for example, we look at we look at Pharaoh. He had a particular purpose in Hardening his heart in a particular direction

He could have hardened his heart in many other directions But he had a particular purpose and that was that that he was going to despoil the gods of Egypt and so there is a particular hardening that takes place always within the context of individuals who have shown a disdain for a willingness to to disbelieve the truth and Like I said, that's one of the that text is is so sobering to me

I I like to turn it around and even though I'm not sure it's a perfectly contextual utilization I think

I'm speaking the truth when I say to Christians do not play around with the truth

Do not take it lightly Do not treat the

Word of God as as something that you'll always have do There's there needs to be something that demonstrates that we are lovers of truth.

That's why we are to have a higher standard That's why we are to not misrepresent other people That's why even when it would be more effective quote -unquote from the world's perspective to engage in poor forms of argumentation that we shouldn't do it because we should be people who love the truth that should mark our lives and God takes it very very seriously and it's demonstrated there in that in that very important text

I appreciate you bringing that up. I appreciate your your answer. That's very enlightening and I want to tell you something else

I appreciate I read your dialogue with the Ergon Kanner and when I read the words of dr

Caner and you know, you've already mentioned this but man, I'll tell you I got the

Impression that he was almost hostile And now like if you know, you guys have been been face to face, you could probably square it off, you know

Well, I would hope that wouldn't be the charity and your graciousness to him despite that Yeah, well,

I think it's the only way you can address these issues. My desire is still for a dr Caner to engage in debate on these issues because as This entire program demonstrated when you can allow both sides to speak you get the greatest clarity on these issues

That's what it's all about. And so I very much appreciate we get the opportunity. So thank you very much for your calls

Okay. All right. God bless. All right yes, well, that's Goodness gracious, that was a fast -moving hour

But like I said, it accomplished what we wanted to accomplish and that is when you

I you know Charles the Brave wasn't brave enough to call in but you know at least we had the opportunity of working through what he said and Pierre took up his cause for him and I'm very very comfortable leaving it to those listening as to Who was handling the context of the

Word of God correctly and who wasn't I? Leave that up to you to determine. Like I said not here

Thursday. I will be in Auburn, Alabama But we'll be back next Tuesday for the dividing line.

Talk to you then. God bless It's 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 o min org

That's a o min dot org where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks