The Real Reason to be Thankful

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Thanksgiving Week, Bible Software, and the Day's Schedule

Thank you, Barry. Welcome to the dividing line on the Tuesday morning of Thanksgiving week 2011. Good to be with you. I hope you have your Bible available or you can pull it up on your on your screen.

I did notice and was very happy to see that all of tree Bible software now has a desktop Application for Mac's. You do have to have lion. Unfortunately, I tried to put it on the unit in front of me and since I haven't upgraded the lion on that I couldn't get It.

I'm not sure. It's worth upgrading the lion just to be able to have it. But it is nice on my others that has lion on it and it does sync.

With the.

IPad the notes for example, the notes that I produce to preach from in Olive tree will now sync so I can actually create them on my desktop and then sync them to my iPad and That will make things even faster.

So if you're looking at stuff like that. They're the folks that all of tree are keeping themselves competitive shall we say especially in the very usefulness category and. So you might use that you might use accordance or logos or Bible works, whatever it is you might have.

I hope you will follow along today as we look at some scriptures. I'm not sure whether we're gonna be getting the calls. I'm not really even sure how long the program's gonna last. It's a very very very very very busy week.

Wife's family is in town and therefore Much to be done on the family side of things and then I have. This Friday evening is when we're recording the Exchange on the subject of the Trinity and the deity of Christ and then I have both services on Sunday.

Hopefully be back in Hebrews chapter 10. So I have that coming up and then the next week I am in next weekend I'm in st. Louis at Covenant of Grace Church again for the 11th year in a row I'll be speaking on the King James issue and the canon of scripture and so on and so forth.

Which we haven't done there before interestingly enough shockingly, you know in 11 years. This will be the first time we've done that and Then maybe even something the very next weekend as well out of town so much much much going on and I would love to be able to try to work out extra programs during the week and things like that but there's just only so many hours to do the amount of studying that needs to be done and Preparation and things like that.

So this will probably be about the only program we can we can get to Philippians chapter 2 is where we will be this afternoon this morning. Whatever time it is where you are. Philippians Chapter 2 a text that I have addressed many many times before but not so much necessarily here on the program.

But in many other contexts especially in giving a defense of the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Philippians chapter 2 is one of the greatest Christological passages in the New Testament and as I have been Preparing for my encounter Friday evening once again listening to well, it's pretty much the same Unitarian attacks upon the Trinity.

It's fundamentally results in a in a tremendous undercutting of the purpose beauty of Scripture. You really are left with the conclusion that no one really knows what any text is saying because well there's scholars who said this and there's scholars who said that and and We just we just don't know and there's it's just there's it's tremendous theological agnosticism.

Which is funny because it's combined with Tremendous theological certitude and dogmatism because while we may not really be able to answer all the questions So one thing we know for certain it isn't the Trinity the Trinity can't be it.

It's got to be something else and I've been listening to hours and hours of this and still have hours left to go and So in that In that process I have once again as I mentioned the last program heard myself being referenced numerous times and Would like to respond to some of the things that are said and hopefully it will be educational to everyone else I want to go through the text now.

I I Generally utilize a accepted standard Bible translation when I'm preaching I Will very often translate as I as I'm going along, but if I'm making a particular case I always feel it's best to go with a a committee translated version of the Bible you can always You know the the Unitarian quote collections, which are produced every couple, you know decades By folks who just renew the ages old attacks on the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

They love to utilize Translations done by a single individual when you start.

Hearing.

Just translations you've never even heard of before done and sometime in the 1800s by somebody you've never even heard before and. And you start hearing them over and over again. You pretty much know what you're you're encountering.

I first encountered that like I said with Nelson Hurley's work back I think he produced it back in the 1970s before the Watchtower kicked him out for running ahead of the Brethren as I recall. But be that as it may I Think it's best to use those.

I I do offer my own translation of the Carmen Christie Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 through 11 but I also then in the process of exegeting and explain why I chose to render it the way that I did and I'm not seeking to say well, this is all those all those are the translations have just missed it.

No, this is just as I have worked through the text. In I forgot what year this was I think it was late 90s. I wrote an article for the CRI Journal on Philippians 2 5 through 11 the hymn to Christ as to God and.

After working through just briefly the opening sections of the text I provide my own translation of of the rest I would like to Read those however because the fact that it is Philippians chapter 2 verses 1 and following that give us the the real background of What is going on and why?

Fundamentally we can be certain of what is actually being said in verses 5 Through 11 so beginning at Philippians chapter 2 so if there is any encouragement in Christ any comfort from love any participation in the Spirit any affection and sympathy and by the way, Paul is not saying I doubt that there is.

He really, I think could be translated since there is encouragement in Christ and since there is comfort from love and participation in the Spirit and Affection and sympathy since these things are a part of what we experience in the body complete my joy by being of the same.

Mind.

Think in the same way there is. This isn't just a lockstep. You need to all be clones of one another but there needs to be a harmony and a unity of thought amongst believers in. Regards to what our purpose is what our calling is what the truth the faith is.

And.

How we are to live together in the bond of love. Complete my joy by being of the same mind having the same love being in full accord and of one mind and so. Really, you could almost say there's a there's a there's repetition here, but Paul is emphasizing the fact that that when the church is experiencing the blessing of God there is unity in The expression of the faith and the living out of the faith.

That is a blessing from God. And what can destroy that? Well, it's easy. Look at verse 3. Do nothing from rivalry or selfishness or conceit but in humility. Count others more significant than yourselves and.

So.

Paul already knew very early on. Of course, he would have known even before his conversion if you just looked around the looked around the the synagogue whenever you get somebody Who develops me itis?

You're going to have divisions in the church and in many many many situations quite honestly and don't write in and complain about this folks, but in Many evangelical churches today if you want to see where this falls apart.

Look to the music ministry. Where you have all the folks that are me me me more me. I want to hear more me and we're all going we don't want to hear more you and and You know, so many divisions have come from the people who want to be out front and seen.

But Paul's exhortation is do not do anything from selfishness or empty conceit but with humility of mind. Top on a soft rune a that that that top I know Fratuna, I think I've lost a syllable in the process of that one you the fratuna part is the the mind that top I not.

Oh the humility a humble mind and added that it's an attitude here of Humility humility of mind do what regard and Keep that word in mind because that's something that Jesus is going to do in verse 6 he is going to Give expression to the thinking that is said to be ours here regard one another is more important than yourselves and so make a make a a decision in your mind.

That even though we as believers have equality before God. Even though we as believers have quote-unquote equal rights. No one's more of a Christian than somebody else. Even though we have that status that we are to look to others in this attitude of humility and we are to voluntarily put ourselves in a lower position of Service to others a lower position of service to others.

So even though we have equal rights it is a matter of laying aside those rights and Not asserting them not being like bush here in our society all the time. I have my rights. I have my rights. Well when you have people marching through the streets constantly Talking about nothing, but their rights and no one's willing to serve anybody else.

What's what's one of the biggest problems? We have in our political systems in in the West today Politicians who aren't there to serve others but to be served. I mean, this is just this is yes, it's very true of the Christian community, but it's Has just as much application and in life itself.

So in humility of mind. Consider others more important than yourself. Not merely looking at you out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

So.

Literally, you know, what's what's the what's the the phrase that is is used in our society looking out for number one. Looking out for number one. If you don't look out for number one, no one else is gonna look out for number one.

And Yet in the Christian community what is supposed to be what we see is. We're looking out for others not for ourselves. Because we don't have to worry about ourselves. There's only one person we have to worry about as far as ourselves.

That's that's Christ and he's the one that's gonna reward us. And so we don't have to worry about that. We don't have to look out for number one. And besides that we shouldn't even be viewing ourselves as number one.

So there is a completely it's a complete antithesis of the worldly attitude this humility of mind seeking the position of servitude. Laying aside rights that are yours in the service of others. This is the path to peace in the church in the Assembly of the Saints.

And Why mention all this in talking about the deity of Christ. Because So often the key texts that reveal to us the the deep secrets the deep mysteries the deep Elements of the Revelation has been given to us in Scripture about the relationship of father and son are found in places like this.

Philippians 2 5 through 11 is a sermon illustration and And aren't the best sermon illustrations where you draw from the common experience of the people in the pew. Well, I would I would say that that's the case.

And So what you're doing here most people believe that we are in this context drawing from a.

Hymn.

Fragment of the early church and If that's the case then the early church Truly had a tremendous hymnology and it was a hymnology focused not upon mankind and not upon our feelings and things like that, but upon what God has done in Christ Jesus and So the command is given in verse 5 and Here, I'll just read through the translation.

I've provided and then we'll go through it a little bit more slowly. This is from Our our research department phoned in from and let me know that this was from 2000. The CRI Journal volume 22 number 3 is Where this was published.

You must have the same mindset among yourselves. It was in Christ Jesus Who although he eternally existed in the very form of God did not consider that equality had with God the father something to be held on to at all costs.

But instead he made himself nothing by taking on the very form of a slave by being made in human likeness and Having entered into human existence. He humbled himself by becoming obedient the point of death.

Even the death one dies on a cross. Because of this God the Father exalted him to the highest place and bestowed on him the name which is above every name. So at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus Everyone who is in heaven on earth and under the earth bows the knee and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ is Lord all to the glory of God the Father.

Now as.

I.

Provided that in the article of the CRI Journal, I Put it into poetic form because it is in fact a a poem it is it is in that form which is what has led many to the conclusion that this is a a fragment of an ancient hymn and If it was something that was sung amongst the people and there is that interesting Statement found in secular history from this time period in in Degrading the Christians and in in attacking the Christians that they would they would meet in the in the early mornings and they would sing hymns to Christ as to a God and.

And.

Might this have been one of the hymns that was heard. Maybe maybe someone came along just out of interest or they sent some spies in or whatever it might have been. Remember it was a period of persecution and You would hear these Songs about this this man this man who died under Pontius Pilate on a cross.

How how foolish I.

Mean this was a part of the scandal of the cross. The scandal the Christian faith that one who had who had died under Pontius Pilate in the most Horrible way that you could die. That these people are arising early to sing hymns of praise to this one.

This this would obviously strike people as being exceptionally strange extremely unusual and and obviously out of place. The Paul says to the Philippians You must have the same mindset among yourselves.

It was in Christ Jesus. Now. What was that mindset? Well, he's he's just been saying humility of mind humility of mind considering others is more important than yourself not self-promotion. Not holding on to what you've got.

Which seems to be what? We are so easily tempted into is I have my rights. Don't don't force me to serve you. I Have my rights. I'm not gonna lay aside something for you and yet Paul says you want to see the example of the attitude That you need to have if you're going to have peace in the church you want it one example of this.

Well, you must have the same mindset among yourselves. That was in the Messiah Jesus. Who although he eternally existed in the very form of God did not consider that equality he had with God the Father something to be held On to at all costs.

But instead he made himself nothing now immediately we see No matter how else you What other issues we we will be bringing up and we will be bringing up a lot of them. The main question that has to be asked is how?

Does any of this relate? To humility. I was listening as I mentioned in preparation for my encounter on Friday to a Lengthy discussion of this text and I have found it very interesting one of my primary Criticisms of Not only this work, but all works like it and like I said, it's there are many of them is That they they tend to approach texts in a very atomized way.

They don't tend to be very Contextually sensitive and follow overarching Messages and arguments very well at all and that was certainly the the case here. But even at that there was one point where this work attempted to say well, it certainly wouldn't be humble for Jesus to actually have been equal with God the Father and.

Yet.

If he's not equal with God the Father if he is I'm not exactly sure what this author thinks Jesus is. I mean, he's he's the Son of God, whatever that means. I. It's eternally pre-existent. I can't be eternally pre-existent.

So it's pre-existent some form. We just don't know. That's one of the things I have to find out. Is I. I you know over and over again The book says see we don't need to have all this later stuff. The the Bible is sufficient to define it for itself.

But then you ask questions. Well, what do you mean by those words. And You discover that. What you get back is post biblical theological development. It's just unorthodox post biblical theological development.

And I honestly don't think that the author is is aware that he is he is far more Enslaved to his traditions than the people he criticizes as being allegedly enslaved to Trinitarian traditions. He just doesn't realize it.

It's just blind to it. And as we have said many times before those who are blind to their traditions are the ones who are the most enslaved to their.

Traditions.

But.

If Jesus was something else he comes into existence at a point in time. He's a creature. He's not eternally existed.

Then.

How could this be an example of humility because the argument was well. It wouldn't be humble if Jesus was actually equal with the Father and.

Yet.

The only way that this could be relevant to us as believers is if there was Equality Between the father and the son and yet the son did not consider. Remember. The word consider consider others is more important.

There's same word here. The son did not consider that equality he had with God the father something to be held on to at all costs.

You see.

The Greek term harp Agamas That is used in Verse six it's in the accusative. So harp Agamas here That term can be translated either actively or passively. There's lots of more examples where it's used in the active sense of grasping hold of something Seizing something reaching out for something.

And so there people would say well, he did not give consideration to an act of seizing something That is equality with God. So there are those who say who although existing in the form of God Did not give consideration to trying to become equal with God, but Made himself of no reputation or emptied himself taking the form of a servant now while that would be a wonderful thing.

That's not humility. That's simple obedience. Because you see any created thing to even consider. The act of seizing equality with God is blasphemy pure sin. It's it's foolishness. It's it's it's idiocy.

It's the lump trying to say I'm gonna become the potter. And so are we really suggesting? That when Paul decided to give us an example of humility He decided to give us an example of humility that actually isn't humility at all.

It would have absolutely no connection to us whatsoever. If there is if I know it's a theo Does not mean that the equality he had with God the Father was something he already possessed and Did not give consideration to grasping it or holding on to it if that's not how we interpret it.

We have no example of humility here. It's just not there and I was just amazed as I sat here listening to this. I don't remember if it was the author or or a quotation Of someone else at this point. It sound like it was a quotation of somebody else.

But the statement being made oh, well, it's certainly Jesus could not have possessed this equality With the father or or that would just that would not be humble at all. Completely missing the whole point.

Those first four verses especially verses three and four are so important because you have their consider others as more important. So are they more important to God than you are? No, we have equality.

But the path of peace and the path to be exalted by God is to lay aside Those equal rights and to serve others. And if you want the greatest example you look to Jesus. Now I said Eternally existing the form of God and there are many people there's no eternally there.

Well, they're right. There is no eternally there. That is an interpretation. Based upon the time frame and the syntax of the language. Specifically the phrase is has and more faith a you who park own who park own is a participle a present participle of existence and Yet it's placed into the past.

Now. There are some Robert Raymond was one of them Who actually try to transport this text into? The human life of Jesus. I do not see how that is how you can even begin to do so. Because the act of emptying of verse 7 is is accomplished by two sub clauses.

Two participial sub clauses taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men and You can try I suppose to say well, you know on the night of his betrayal Jesus took the form of a servant as if he hadn't done that before and That's that's what we're talking about here.

But.

It doesn't make any sense to look at Taking the form of a servant and being made like and being found in likeness as a man. All of that is Incarnational language. It's not mere service language. It just it just doesn't work.

And I think this author that I was reading I think I pretty much agreed with that. At least that's how I was hearing what I was listening to in any case.

Who.

Existing in the form of God if this is in the past then what is the form of God? And why do I say eternally existing? Well The present would not point us to any point of origin. Where he begins to exist in the form of God, which if you are a Unitarian, you know, whatever your belief is about whether Jesus did or did not as a person pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem.

Whatever that might be I you know, I don't know. I Cannot determine from this book exactly where this person is. It seems that he believes in some kind of pre-existence, but But it's clear. The Sun is not eternal.

There was a time when the Sun was not. The Sun came into existence at a point in time. This does not use a form the language that points us to a point of origin instead it's describing an ongoing condition of Jesus existing in the form of God.

Now I am criticized in in this book For allegedly misrepresenting what morphe means I would like to demonstrate that our author is once again in error in his accusations and and Does not seem to have a very firm grasp on Greek lexicography syntax and the translation of the language let alone my own position when I address the issue of morphe.

And its meaning I would like to.

Read.

Specifically what I said in my CRI journal article, which is my fullest discussion of This particular subject. I said most of discussion. This passage has focused upon what it means that Christ existed in the form of God.

Paul's term is morphe. Translated literally as form. The NIV renders a phrase being in very nature God. The NLT Oversimplifies as the NLT always does. That's not in the article, by the way. Though he was God.

But the majority of translations render it being in the form of God. When we refer to the form of God. What do we mean. Is this saying nothing more than Jesus was a spirit? Or is there more to the word?

Part of the answer is found. The word existing Paul does not say came to exist or entered into existence but uses the present tense to indicate indicate ongoing existence and. Since the time frame the passage is clearly eternity past the beginning.

Assertion. Is that the one we know is Jesus Christ eternally existed in the very form of God that which communicates the inner reality? To the outer senses. The form of God is not merely a category of existence like spirits or creatures.

The form of God presents a direct correspondence to reality itself. That which exists in the form of God is truly deity. Warfield that's Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield the great Princeton scholar back when Princeton was still a Christian school primarily Warfield was correct when he said.

Quote. Paul does not say simply he was God. He says he was in the form of God. Employing eternal speech with throws emphasis upon our Lord's possession of the specific quality of God. Form is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is.

When our Lord is said to be in the form of God therefore He is declared in the most express manner possible to be all that God is to possess the whole fullness of attributes Which make God?

God.

The idea of and then I that's the end of his quote and then I went on with the commentary. The idea of Temporarily existing in this form is inconceivable. Which only emphasizes the continuous existing that we just mentioned?

Paul makes it plain. The pre-incarnate son who did not consider equality with God something to be held on to at all costs. Made the decision to make himself nothing while existing in the very form of deity itself and.

So.

When I Address the term morphe. I recognize its literal usage. But then I also recognize common lexical errors on the part of those who Frequently attack the faith. Let me read specifically what is said in.

The book.

By Patrick novice, it's na VAS by the way. For those interested and. This is on page 341 of the edition that I have in his book on the Trinity. Dr White proposes a twofold definition for morphe that apparently seeks to accord with its true lexical meaning While at the same time retaining the desired meaning often advanced by Trinitarian apologists.

I've stopped the quotation for just a moment to say that the book is filled.

With.

Accusations that Trinitarian apologists and scholars are Slaves their presuppositions that they are Non-reflective on their on their biases and their traditions and that we are constantly Basically twisting the data.

And of course, it's only the completely unbiased and free from tradition biblical Unitarians that are speaking the truth. I Continue with the quotation according to white quote the Greek term form means the outward display of the inner reality or substance end quote.

Continuing actually the quote. Sorry. However, dr White's proposal of this exclusive sense for morphe is shown to be highly improbable. Not only when we consult the definition given in the standard dictionaries But also when we take into account how a word derived from morphe is used by Paul and other places throughout the New Testament.

Let me just stop for a moment. Let me grab the the Discussion here in in the Forgotten Trinity and.

And.

There we go, I it's footnote number six, but that doesn't come up very easily here and I would assume that. Yeah page 123 of the Forgotten Trinity. What does it mean to exist in the form of God. The range of translation shows that the term can express a wide variety of?

Things. The Greek term for morphe means the outward display of the inner reality or substance. Here it refers to the outward display of the divine substance. I eat the divinity the pre-existence of Christ in the display of his glory as being an image of the Father.

Now what's ironic here is that that is a quote and Unfortunately, mr. Novice didn't note that that was a a quote in his citation. So he Attributes this to me when actually I am quoting someone else. And so if he has a problem with this And he does directly attribute to me trying to sort of fudge the information here.

He should actually recognize that's a quotation from Fritz Reinecker a linguistic key to the Greek New Testament edited by Cleon Rogers, jr.

Page.

550 of the 1980 edition so It's not my proposal. I was quoting a recognized lexical source. So there is a rather glaring error of research right there. That's would probably need to be dealt with but be that as it may the linguistic key likewise is Giving you information based upon the usage of the term in a given context and That's the argument that I make because I continue on after quoting that.

This is why a number of translations render the term nature. God's nature would refer to the state of being God. This would not merely be referring to existence as a spirit but to divine existence. It is hard to get away from the fact that Paul is plainly presenting the deity of the pre-existent Christ.

We shall see in a moment that in fact a later comment by the Apostle leaves us with no doubt about this so that is the statement that I made in the Forgotten Trinity and My quotation of Warfield in my full article on the text Likewise demonstrates That what we're talking about here is allowing Paul's Context to determine how we read his words.

But what does mr. Novice do? Does he respond to my? actual Argumentation from the text and the flow of the text and the syntax of the text. No, he jumps to second Timothy and Talks about Lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God holding to a form a Morphosis of godliness, although they have denied his power.

And so he takes that which is completely different context. Which many of the people he cites as authorities would say is a completely different author by the way. But I won't raise that the moment but a completely different context.

It's not talking about Morphe. It's not talking about Morphe connected with who park own it's not even slightly contextually grammatically or syntactically parallel and yet He will quote that and say Here the point made is clear.

There would be those in the last days who would hold to a form or outward appearance of godliness. But who were in reality ungodly if one to accept dr. White's definition of Morphe, which by the way wasn't mine it was a Lexical source that he didn't recognize was a lexical source and didn't see the quote or something.

I don't know. This would mean in effect that such people would hold to an outward display of godliness Which would reflect the inner reality or substance within and yet they still somehow denied the power of godless.

Well, that's a great way of arguing as long as you don't really care about the truth and I'm not trying to accurately represent someone because there is no parallel between the two and you've taken a form of The root in a different context and different usage and tried to read it back in and this is just this is not scholarship this is very poor argumentation and It's it's it stands as its own refutation.

It really does. I never suggested and no serious scholar would ever suggest that the definition of a term In one context can then be plugged into every Semi-related term in every other context in the New Testament that was one of the things remember just last week week for last whenever it was that I was reviewing the Calvinist versus independent fundamentalist Baptist King James only the list goes on and on landmark, etc, folks and What did we hear from?

From those IFB fellows. They have this weird exegetical idea that you define a word Normally when it first appears in the Bible and then you just cram that meaning into every other occurrence it's ever found Old or New Testament the result is a Hodgepodge mishmash of of insanity.

It just doesn't you it's it's not how you do language. And so no one would suggest I would never suggest and it isn't a grossly invalid argument against my position to suggest That every root with morph in it has exactly the same meaning in exact in in any Context that is used.

So again, this is the kind of thing, you know, we get people coming to channel all the time. We get people calling the ministry. We get people sending in emails and they're confused because they've encountered somebody on YouTube or someone out in the internet that says well look, the Greek here is dot the dot the dot and In the vast majority of instances it is this kind of very very poor Non-scholarly argumentation.

That is being that is being used and it's it's a shame, but it is is very very Common for this kind of thing to be to be argued. And I don't know how many pages here. I'm on the third page just scrolling through here Three four pages.

It's like I said, this is a huge book.

If.

If there was an a an editor and B if if the if the material was actually limited to.

The.

Material that would be relevant to the case. It would be shorter than my book was. But it's not and and so I'm you know working through all that. So Going back to what the form of God means. Here you have one who Does not exist as an angel that's the form of an angel the form of God is not just merely spiritual.

Remember the term morphe is going to be used more than once in this particular text and. So obviously if that term is used more than once it would be a good idea to see how else it is used. And it's used in verse 7.