July 13, 2006

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 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line. I should have known it would be an interesting day.

I spent a fair amount of time yesterday afternoon putting together an email to Ergin and Ymir Kanner.

As most of you know who listen to the program, we had taken a little time off, to be quite honest with you.

It had become just such a source of frustration and amazing behavior that I felt it was important to take some time off.

I was headed to the United Kingdom. I had other ministry responsibilities and just wanted to let things calm down, let the dust settle a little bit.

And so I had planned for quite some time in talking with Tom Askell to get back to it when

I got back from the United Kingdom and to attempt as best

I could to calmly, rationally ask that we look at this situation again and that we do so in a meaningful fashion.

I wrote the letter last night. I sent it to Tom. Tom said,

I only wish I could hope for a positive response. And of course, Tom, as normal, was correct.

I posted the letter this morning on my website and on the blog, and we've already gotten a number of people who have commented on it.

And once again, I thought to do what was best and right.

I thought to do so to benefit the people of God. I believe this subject is a very important subject.

It needs to be addressed. As I travel, especially as I engage in apologetic debate,

I see more and more how important this issue is. I'm passionate about it.

It is not my only issue, but since it is such a foundational issue, since it's an issue that touches upon how we view

God, it touches upon how we view the gospel, how we present the gospel, and especially

I am firmly convinced that it determines how one engages in apologetics.

There is a fundamental apologetic difference between a person who believes in the autonomy of the human will and the subjection of God's will to the autonomous human will.

There's a completely different way of apologetics. This could be practiced by that person, a person who believes in the sovereignty of God's will and the dependency of man and the deadness of man in sin.

And so I sought to reason with Ergin and Ymir Kanter on the basis of let's do what's best for the people who are going to be watching.

Let's do this for the church. Interestingly enough, and I will be posting everything on the blog this afternoon, in fact,

I got the last response to this flurry just a few moments before the program started. And in fact,

I don't think anybody, nobody in the vast studio audience has even heard the last hour's worth or read the last hour's worth of emails that have gone back and forth.

So they'll be hearing this for the first time. Interestingly enough, the first two responses, one came within 90 minutes,

I would say, of my sending out the email this morning and posting on the blog came from Ymir, not from Ergin.

And that's been somewhat unusual. I thought maybe Ergin was out of town, something like that. But then I started getting emails from Ergin as well.

To make a long story short, I had to keep asking, are you all saying that there's no reason to discuss these things?

There's no reason to seek negotiation. There's no reason to to discuss what's best for the audience.

This is just simply the way that it needs to be done.

And we're going to insist upon this and that's how it's going to be. That's how it's going to happen. And I had to become very poignant and say, look,

I'm looking for a yes or no answer. Are you saying it's our way or the highway? This is all there is to it.

And about an hour, hour and a half, maybe at most ago,

I received the following email from Ergin Kanner.

Dear James, for the last time, are you trying to weasel out of a debate for which we have already agreed?

For the last time, all caps, are you trying to change the agreed format and rules? For the last time, all caps, for the sake of clarity, are you backing out, running away or trying to change in midstream a debate for which all parties have already settled?

We are preparing to upload your response and the National Liberty Journal readers, almost 500 ,000, want to know.

We stand without fear and without flinching. We are ready. As this discussion,

I am done, I shall be there on Monday, October 16th, either to debate the topic or lament the fact that your side could not debate without trying to manipulate the proceedings.

But the records show Emir and I are still ready to debate, as promised. Jill, please upload this, the

LTS website copy to Dr. Falwell and my website as well, EMC. Well, let me just read you my response.

This is what I sent back. Incredible, simply incredible. You honestly have no idea how you are behaving, do you, sir?

You have no concept of how childish and immature your bullying tactics are. Is there no one arrogant at Liberty who can take you aside and help you?

This is simply incredible. It truly is. It is a sad, sad day for Liberty University that a man who could be so completely beyond reason, so deaf to the most basic appeals for mature interaction can be, quote, in charge, end quote.

Dr. Cantor, you fear debating me directly. That has come out clearly in our correspondence.

You know you could never survive a scholarly exchange with me on the level of text. You are acting with all this bluster because you know this to be true.

This is why you avoid a one on one debate. This is why you avoid a clear thesis.

This is why especially this is especially why you avoid cross examination. I know this.

You know this. And the fair minded reader of our exchanges knows this. Your failure to engage any level of conversation since February makes this painfully clear.

Briefly, number one, it is untrue that we have agreed to the format and rules to say otherwise is a documented lie.

Number two, it is untrue that all parties have settled these issues to say otherwise is a documented lie.

Number three, I remind you, sir, that I have a standing challenge you to face me one on one in front of each of your classes to discuss from the text of scripture, its specific teaching on election and predestination.

Anyone standing by that challenge is hard hardly backing out or running away. Any honest minded person can read our exchanges and see the facts.

You have acted dishonestly and I call upon you to repent of your actions. Now, as to the debate, since you do not engage in reasoned dialogue, but instead operate on the

I don't care what you said, you will do as I say model. Here's the story. Number one.

I will be there October 16th. Number two, Dr. Askel will not. He has no intention of being treated like dirt on your shoe, and I have no intention of asking him to endure such childish retorts and dishonesty.

When I asked him to join me, I believed I was dealing with men of integrity who would behave as Christians. If I had had any idea of the level to which you would stoop,

I would never have invited anyone at all to endure such behavior. We had agreed a few weeks ago that if you did not show some signs of actually being willing to engage in adult and scholarly conversation at this point, he would not be involved in the debate.

Since then, other issues have arisen, noted on his blog, which only confirmed the wisdom of that decision.

Number three, I will debate you both. You have no reason to complain.

You have been trying to tell folks I want to back out and run away for weeks. That's called wishful thinking. Ergon, the fact is, you know better.

I will be there to demonstrate your thesis is heretical, that your denial of to God of the capacity of love with discernment is unbiblical and illogical, and that God is free and sovereign.

The matter of human salvation. I have debated in less friendly situations, so it is settled.

James White versus the Cantor brothers, Thomas Road Baptist Church, October 16th parliamentary procedure thesis is the unintelligible mess you insist upon and which

I will use as a springboard to demonstrate the incoherence of synergism and the clarity of God's truth in Scripture.

The two sides get completely equal time. Don't think you get twice as much just because I will be upholding biblical monergism by myself.

I will be keeping very careful track of time to ensure fairness, as will others.

Please forward the name of the person responsible for the facilities. Richard Pierce will need to begin discussions regarding videotaping and providing redundancy so as to preclude any mishaps.

Signed James response at 625 p .m.

his time. I guess that would be 325 my time, which was about just a little over half an hour ago.

Dear Dr. White. Good. I'm glad to see we shall have the debate. See you then. E .M

.C. So there you go. I'm still processing a lot of this myself.

In the sense that. I honestly, honestly, never, ever thought that someone in Argon Cantor's position could ever engage in this level of simple dishonesty.

Just just just total incapacity to engage in any type of meaningful conversation, no matter how you treat the man, no matter how kindly you approach him, no matter how often you put up with his his his insults and his arrogant dismissal of you, it just doesn't matter.

You're going to get treated this way. And so I am I'm very thankful.

That's that Dr. Askel is not going to be exposed to this kind of. This kind of situation.

Like I said, I've I've stood outside the the gates, the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, I've stood out in Mesa, I've stood outside the district conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I've debated in situations where I was, as far as I knew, the only Protestant in the room, except for one Episcopalian down front.

And so I I'm an apologist. This is I'll never forget driving my 1974

Volkswagen bug to Salt Lake City alone one year.

And as I got into Provo, I turned on the radio to the radio station. I was going to be on the next evening alone discussing

Mormonism, live calling in Salt Lake City. And they had a promo running about the program.

And they said that tomorrow night we're going to have an anti -Mormon fundamentalist Baptist on the program who's coming up to the conference to pass out literature, telling us

Mormons about how we're going to hell. Let's give him a warm Utah welcome. I don't think

Tom's ever, ever really wanted to do anything like that or done anything like that. So you know what?

Sadly, if Eric and Cantor wants to act like like Mormons or like Roman Catholics or like other enemies of the faith, if he wants to act like them, if he wants to act like Roberts and Genis acted before our mass debate where he was just Mr.

Nasty, as we've documented on the website, you can read the emails there. That's his privilege. You'll notice

I'm not referring to him as Brother Cantor anymore because he doesn't behave like my brother.

If that's how he wants to act, fine, go for it. But the fact of the matter is there's going to be a whole bunch of folks there.

And I'm going to have half that time. And I have seen

God's spirit apply God's word, especially when

God's sovereignty is being exalted in so many situations and so many times.

Let the enemies rage. Let God's word speak. So I'm going to do it.

I'm going to do it. And there we'll go. So this will all be up on the blog this evening.

I'll get it. I'll get it. Well, OK, it'll be on the blog by tomorrow. I will try to get up by this evening, but I should learn not to make promises because, you know, somebody's tire goes flat or something who, you know, you can't guarantee such things.

So we will we will put that on the blog and you can read it for yourself. It is it's sad and it's amazing.

It's sad and it's amazing that my email this morning could be responded to in such a fashion. Just if you are a supporter of Liberty University, look to your school.

You have got problems. You've got problems there, folks. You really do.

So, you know, some people are saying, well, there's nothing to let you speak.

I can't imagine that happening. I mean, that would be such a complete meltdown, such a complete.

Abandonment and recognition that, you know what, we cannot we cannot debate this, we cannot even even allow you to speak.

If that were to happen, that would be the most amazing videotape of of Armenians gone wild.

It'd just be amazing. Well, the format that they've thrown out, at least you have a time frame where you are supposed to speak.

The only question is this exchange in the middle of parliamentary or is the whole thing supposed to be parliamentary?

No, no, there's you're allowed to to have interrogative questions.

And I have we just we determined what an interactive question is.

That's just it. I asked the moderator for his rulebook and he said his rulebook was fairness. That's why you'll see.

So so guys behaving the other guys behaving like the British parliament heckling you the whole time is not fair and fair.

No interrogatives. There are rules as to how many can be asked and of what nature and whether you want to or not want to accept them.

See, the problem is they may want to say the rulebook I'm going to use is fairness. There is at least four books on parliamentary procedure sitting on my desk right now.

And I will, in my opening statement, make reference to it and we'll hold them accountable to that those published standards.

And the fact matter is a whole lot more experience than they do at debate.

And so if I've got the rulebooks right there, I'll know it inside and out before October 16th. And if they're not if they're if they're not prepared, they're going to have be at a disadvantage because they're not going to the system as well as I do.

So maybe we should have Bill Shishko sitting down front. Oh, I would love to have Bill Shishko there, to be perfectly honest with you.

There's no no question about it. I I would like to have Bill there and I would like to have him involved because he would he would be an excellent person to have involved in that.

And the irony is I'll be debating him three days later, but I'm sure he'd have no problem in going over.

And I will speak to him about this. Well, I'll talk with Bill about the parliamentary procedure and get his his inputs on it and things like that.

So, yeah, we'll we'll see what happens with that. But anyway, so there's there's a situation.

And, you know, for those who are concerned that, you know,

I'm just going to be beaten to death by crazed Liberty students. You got to remember, since this is being put out to all of Liberty supporters and stuff, they have a very vested interest in at least trying to make it look like they're behaving like Christians.

Canner doesn't think that any of his supporters will ever see the emails, but they will see the debate. And if you want to see a change in attitude as far as that goes, that's when it's going to happen.

So that's that's the situation as it as it stands right now. And I give you my word right now, as soon as I come back with those tapes,

I am going to fight like crazy to have DVDs at the conference in Florida.

Right. Right. And I'll be the first place they'll be available. I want to remind everybody what I said last time, and that is

I am not asking people to to go to Lynchburg.

You say, oh, but we want to be there to support you. I appreciate that. Support us in prayer, support us financially, support us by coming to the

Orlando conference for us, by going on the cruise for us, especially by coming to the debate against a very, very lenient against Barry Lynd and Time Warp, also known as John Shelby Spong.

That's where we're going to need you, because, you know, I would much rather be in front of a

Liberty group and in a minority than in front of a homosexual audience in a minority.

So please, that that would be that'd be very, very good.

But yeah, support us by being there and then we will try to find room in the in the conference now for me to discuss the situation.

And Lord willing, Tom can join me in the sense of discussing the whole thing that has led up to it to this particular point.

And and I hope that we'll have the support of Tom and his church and stuff as well in regards to doing the debate.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. And I have more of the questions and answers for Drs.

Patterson and Moeller to go over. But we also have a number of phone calls since it's been a little while since we actually took any phone calls here on the dividing line.

And so let's start with Tommy in Sacramento.

Hi, Tommy. Hey, James, how's it going? Going good. Hey, at the end of the month here, we've got an

LDS temple opening up here in Sacramento. And I was planning on spending some time out on the street during the event and was wondering what literature exactly it was that you used to pass out when you do a

Mormon event. And also any other tips you might have? Well, we used to have a extremely wide selection of LDS literature.

I don't believe that we do at the moment. A lot of our LDS literature is currently out of print.

And but we've it sort of depends on what you expect your audience to be.

Most the time anymore with LDS temple openings, they arrange it in such a way that you're not going to be able to get to a whole lot of folks.

It's not like Salt Lake City used to be where everybody walked through three gates on the

Temple Square. So you had access to almost everybody. And you could pass out tracts to LDS apostles if you if you really wanted to.

It's something where they recognize they're going to be people there. And unfortunately, if you know about this temple opening, what will probably take place is you're going to have protesters there.

Maybe some of the King James only fundamentalist Baptist protesters that have destroyed our outreach in Salt Lake City and have tried to do so in Mesa as well might show up.

And then you're really going to have problems because these people are hate mongers. They yell and scream.

And they think that preaching is yelling, it shouldn't be Mormon, it should be moron.

Seriously, I've heard them do that. So, you know, they they think that getting people mad at them is a sign of godliness and it's it's a real mess.

So if they show up, it may not matter what you distribute as far as that goes. But if you're trying to reach people who are not

LDS, but who are being, shall we say, drawn toward it or are in danger of being deceived, that it's a

Christian faith, or something like that, then obviously tracks that provide a sound, fair comparison between the two sides are best.

We had a track called Is Mormonism Christian? We had a track What the Mormon Church Teaches About Jesus Christ.

These would provide sort of a warning to the Christians. If you're primarily trying to reach the

LDS people, well, then there's a whole bunch of stuff. I think we still have First Vision tracks available someplace.

Yeah, we do have some of the First Vision tracks available that I think is, especially for the serious minded

Mormon, really provides a challenge to their faith. You might want to go for tracks written on a specific theological issue that you want to focus on.

For example, we have a track called One God or Many. I'm not sure if we again know it's gone. Like I said, we right now, we basically don't have any

LDS tracks I can address you to other than maybe the First Vision track or what else. We're trying to get them all redone, redone and reprint them.

So, yeah, but the Sacramento opening is in a couple of weeks. So that's there's there's no possible way that that printing press is going to be doing anything between now.

That's true. There's there's one that I use in that's distributed by Evangelism Explosion called

I Bear You My Testimony. Is that Jim Walker's? I believe so. He's a former

Mormon and he kind of lays out the the differences on a big issue.

I think it's James Walker's one. I honestly haven't read it. I would whatever you distribute, make sure that you've read it thoroughly.

And sometimes people are passing out tracks they've never even actually read. And that's always not a not a good idea.

But when we when we go out and witness, we very much emphasize having a particular subject that you want to address and a means by which you are going to get there in witnessing to anyone,

Mormons or otherwise. If you don't have a goal, if you don't have a destination, then you're just going to wander around.

It's just like when you get in the car, if you don't have a destination, you just go drive around the block and maybe over here, over there, meander all over the place.

And if you don't have a destination you're trying to get to in a witnessing situation with a Mormon, you will meander through polygamy and false prophecies and little

Egyptology and, you know, a little polytheism and then back through polygamy again.

And by the time you get done talking with somebody, you've really accomplished absolutely positively nothing at all and feel very frustrated.

So you need to have a goal you're going to maybe tied to the track, spend some time thinking about the track and how you could use it as a jumping off point to get to where you want to go.

There's a number of things along those lines that you can do to make sure that you've got a direction to go. But if you scouted the area, then you need to need to think, am

I really even going to have an opportunity to talk to anybody? Because if there's no foot traffic and if they've got all on -site parking, you ain't getting on the property,

I can assure you of that. You're going to be standing outside and if people are just driving by you and you're standing there with tracks, what good is that going to do?

Now, if they don't have on -site parking or that's not open yet or something like that and people are having to park elsewhere and walk, well, then you got a shot.

But quite honestly, you've got to take a look at it and find out the cost -benefit ratio, shall we say, because otherwise you sort of have to stand there with a sign or something.

And Mormons especially just don't respond overly well to that. With Jehovah's Witnesses, that may be one of the only ways you can do it because they ain't going to talk to you anyhow.

So you've got to sort of look at the audience you're trying to deal with at that point. I think my goals would be to just be a warning to non -Mormons and hopefully use that as a springboard to doing evangelism.

And I wouldn't be opposed to talking to Mormons as well. Right, right. Yeah, well, unfortunately, a lot of folks would come up to you and ask you why you're so hateful, why you're so nasty, why would you be out here picking on these people?

And so you're going to need to think through. We do have a tract online called Why Do You Do This?

I think it's in the LDS section and you might want to at least maybe print it out or read through it because providing a compelling biblical foundation for why you would be trying to warn people about Mormonism is really necessary because, sadly, many of the people who will ask you, whether they're

LDS or any more evangelicals, have no concept of such things like false religions and the necessity of doing apologetics and the glorification of God and the proclamation of truth and so on and so forth.

So you've got to be ready. You can't be in those situations. If you want to be frustrated, then depend upon written sources that you have to sort of get out and look stuff up.

You've got to have this stuff on your tongue. If you slow down, if you stop talking, somebody else will start talking and you're not going to be in control of the conversation.

So you need to have thought these things through beforehand. If someone says this, how am I going to respond?

What's the best way to respond? How can I maintain control of the conversation and do so in such ways to communicate truth to them?

So that's the direction to go there. Okay. All right. Well, thanks for your time and the heads up.

All righty. Well, God bless. Have a good day. Thank you. Bye. 877 -753 -3341.

Let's go ahead and talk with John. Hi, John. Hi, James. How are you?

Doing all right. Good. I called maybe a month and a half or two months ago.

I was talking about inerrancy. You recall that call? I seem to recall something about it.

Yes. Okay. Yeah. I'm just calling to follow up on that. We were kind of cut short because I called at the end of the show and you had to skedaddle.

So I thought I'd just call and then follow up on that a little. If you remember, I talked about a couple of biblical problems.

My goal was you had had Dennis McKenzie on your show, and I listened to those and I was kind of disappointed with the way he presented himself as being a person that believes the

Bible is errant. So I thought I'd call you up and give you a couple of examples that I thought were better than what he had done. And I talked about two problems.

One was a Mary Magdalene problem that related to when did Mary Magdalene first meet

Jesus? Matthew seems to indicate she met him on the way. Just after going to the tomb, she met him.

And and whereas the Gospel of John indicates she went left the tomb, met the disciples and then went back and saw him at that time.

That was one that I discussed. And I was just you you apparently weren't familiar with it, which is fine.

I mean, there's a lot of issues in the Bible, but I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on it. Actually, my recollection of our conversation is a little bit different.

I seem to recall having pointed out that you were making a number of assumptions regarding the text and that you would you would disagree.

But it had to do with the construction of your chronology precluding any possibility of harmonization and that there was no basis for the construction of the chronology that you would that you would come up with.

So I do recall that conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that was you kind of speculated.

I didn't think you were affirmed that you were sure my chronology was wrong. It is covered by Gleason Archer. I have his book and he does cover it.

And he has an explanation that I mean, I can tell you what his explanation is. He he says that Mary Magdalene got confused, she says, because of all the events and stuff like that.

So he doesn't regard the chronology as being mistaken. And there's another another explanation that I've heard.

Also, basically, we're confused about what? She was she he believes

Gleason Archer's explanation. Mary Magdalene did, in fact, meet Jesus and then sort of forgot and then kind of went back and saw him again and kind of because of all the events going on and the confusion of the whole thing, that that's his explanation.

I think that's kind of I just don't buy that. But I don't have the book to be able to even begin to understand what you're suggesting.

I mean, when you say you're telling me that you don't think my chronology is right, I'm saying there are

Christians that do offer explanations for this text and they don't dispute the chronology that I've offered.

Well, without Gleason Archer in front of me, I there is clearly the only thing that would make sense in regards to Mary is there is a point in time in which she does not recognize the

Lord. But the idea of forgetting the Lord, that I would have a hard time believing that's what he said.

That's why I'm. Oh, well, I don't want to read it for me, but you know what? I recently moved and my book is in a box, but you know, you can check that out.

Or I'll you know, I can check that out and I don't remember the exact word. And the other the other issue that I discussed was

Matthew 16, where Jesus says, some standing here will not taste death before they see the son of man come into his kingdom.

And you offered as an explanation that he was talking about the Transfiguration, which is the very next verse.

Yeah, I was I have to admit, I was very nervous on the phone, so I wasn't thinking clearly.

But there's I gave two I gave one reason why I didn't think that was a good explanation. And that was that I thought he was talking about the kingdom.

He's talking about what I thought was the judgment. And you say, man, not necessarily because, you know, you read the verses preceding it.

You said, you know, maybe that's not what he's talking about. Maybe he's talking about Transfiguration. But the main reason that I would give for why

I don't believe your explanation is because he says some of you standing here will not taste death.

That's the key phrase. Because if you if you have a phrase like that, you're talking about events.

It doesn't you don't say that if you're talking about events that will occur in one week. And that's what it says in the next passage.

It says in that you I believe it says six days later, he was transfigured. And Luke, it says eight days later, he was transfigured or vice versa.

And so, like, if I were to say, I love talking to you, James White, and I'm going to call back next week and some of you and your staff will still be alive when

I call back next week, you know, you'd say, what are you talking about? That's that doesn't make any sense.

You're talking about I'm talking when you say some standing here will not taste death. You're talking about events that will occur in the future, but years in the future, not next week.

So do you understand? Yeah. And again, I'm going to have to repeat the same thing I mentioned to you last time.

And as I recall, I was trying to ask you, you know, really what your your purposes are in trying to, you know, exactly what is the word of God says that is so bothersome to you that you're trying to find ways around what it says.

But in Matthew chapter 16, when this whole discussion is beginning, says that the son of man is going to come in the glory of his father and his angels and will then repay every man according to his deeds.

Truly, I say to you, there's some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.

And there are no chapter divisions in in the original writings. And the very next words, there were no verse divisions, chapter divisions, et cetera, et cetera, is six days later,

Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. Now, some people who hold a particular eschatology would actually interpret this somewhat differently in the sense that they view the coming of of Christ as including believers deaths, but not taking that particular perspective, because I think, you know, there's some issues with that.

I'm not going to argue eschatology with anybody, but still, the author's original intention has to be what overrides, not, well,

I wouldn't talk to you that way today. Well, but what did Jewish people, how did Jewish people talk in that particular day?

What did they believe about judgment? What did they believe about who the son of man was?

What did they believe about kingship? These are all issues that go into this, not, well, if I called your office,

I don't I wouldn't talk like this to you. Actually, there's a whole bunch of things in the New Testament that we wouldn't talk like that because it's an ancient it's an ancient situation.

So the fact the matter is, you have to assume a certain meaning of what you think anyways, what the son of man coming in his kingdom means.

And what do you know? What do you what do you why do you assume a certain meaning for that? It doesn't start there. OK, I'm not

I'm I'm saying that if a person says some of you standing here will not taste death before certain events occur, he's not talking about events that will occur within a week.

Now, if you're if you unless they had a particular understanding of what that indicated, what that OK, OK, is there any evidence that they would understand that to mean events that could occur in a week?

It doesn't sound I mean, if that's if that's what it is, then I have to say, man, when I read the Bible, I don't know what it's talking about, because that to me looks, you know, well, it sounds like what it would mean really seems to me that you have in fact, as I recall, when you call before, didn't you say you're like a former believer or something?

Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. And it seems what do you not believe that? Well, I you certainly may have professed the faith, but as the scriptures say, they went out from us.

So it might be demonstrated they're not truly of us. So you may well have professed the faith and but you don't think

I really was a true Christian. No, certainly not. You know, I just listened to your debate with John Dominic Crosby, which, by the way,

I'm actually a big fan of yours. I think let's not let's not let's not play that card because you cannot be a fan of someone when you believe that what they're saying and doing is misleading people.

And that's not what I believe, though. Well, how can you say otherwise? I think you are a true believer in the

Bible. And I like that you go on the radio and you take calls from people like me. You're not afraid of that because you really believe it.

And I really did believe it, too. I I was ready to put my faith up against the best that would that would challenge it.

And I think that's what you are. And I respect that you take the Bible seriously. Well, yeah,

OK, but there's a whole lot more here than than what you're saying. What do you mean?

Well, there's there's clearly something more here that has not come out in our conversation, because when

I attempt to address any particular issue, when it when it comes to when it comes to people who say they were once believers, my universal experience has been that when we really start getting into the issues and I say, no,

OK, no, wait a minute. You don't see, for example, in the transfiguration of Christ, his his exaltedness and his kingship.

And well, no, I just don't you know, I just don't think that that's what it would be. And I and I and I go, well, why?

Why? OK, there's one. Let's put that one aside. And now we look at this one over here. Well, I just don't think it would be this.

And we could go to another one over here. And well, I don't think it would be that. And I just step back and I go, it's not a matter of thinking.

It's a matter of every single turn. There is an unwillingness to allow for any other response than one that would allow you to, in essence, abandon your previous confession that the word of God binds your conscience and your behavior.

An unwillingness? Yes. I mean, you know what I think? I think that's that doesn't bother me that you say that, because I think your theology is very consistent and that's you would have to believe that God is just than an honest person can't look at the

Bible and believe. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm I'm saying there's something else involved.

There is some there's it's not a matter of an honest person.

What is something else involved? There is a there is a presupposition involved that has yet to be stated.

Well, an exam. And I'm going to cross him in his debate with you, I think, in his closing statement.

He says he says, you know, I know people and they come up and they say, you know, in an age of fables and wonder where people thought that miracles were happening all the time.

I look at this claim that Jesus walked on the water and I just cannot believe that it literally happened.

I just think that the people at the time were gullible and likely to believe things.

And he says, these people, we cannot dismiss them as people that just want to live a sinful lifestyle.

And he said that. And I thought that is a you know, that's me. I mean, that's this is something that ended for me very painfully and very miserably and through tears and sobbing and misery.

But it was just something that as I let me ask you something, let me ask you something. If that's the case, why are you on the telephone to me?

Because let me explain that I've encountered a number of people and the reason they do what they're doing right now is they're seeking to justify the actions that they have taken.

Honestly, if this was if this was just some sort of a of a situation where, well, you know,

I've just come to the conclusion that's not for me. From whence comes the the desire to engage in this kind of activity of calling a calling of a program like this?

Well, it might have it might partly have something to do with what you described to your previous caller about Mormons and how they'll say you're mean and stuff like that.

You know, one, I think truth is important. And so that's one reason.

The other reason is I don't really have anybody that is willing to discuss this with me that is knowledgeable.

And I have knowledgeable friends about the Bible and they are not interested in having a conversation with me.

And so, you know, I'd like to. But wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Why do you want to have the conversation is what

I want to know. What what what what are you getting out of that? That's why I'm that's why I find

I find that I really enjoy studying the Bible. And but why, if it's not true, what's what's what's what's the use?

Because it's it's fascinating to to learn about it. And and I don't think, you know, it's not all bad, but it's just very interesting to me having been

I was raised I mean, I've been a Christian for 31 now. I was a Christian for 30 years.

I mean, if you count money, I didn't become a Christian until I was five or whatever. And so I'm immersed in it. And I still find it to be fascinating.

And I love to get knowledgeable criticisms of any arguments that I have. And what is what would be fascinating about a religious system that's not true, that that precludes people from enjoying their lives?

Because I get are you as are you a secular atheist now? What are you? I am actually a deist, a deist.

Yeah, that's my conclusion. It's the best I can come up with at this time. I'm trying to figure out what I what

I think about God as best I can. And I'm realizing that I thought I had all the answers as a

Christian. I thought I had God's nature figured out and his actions figured out and how he saves people. I thought I had that all figured out.

And I'm now realizing that the Bible is mistaken, that I didn't know what I thought I knew. And I'm fairly ignorant about what

God is like and what he does. But I'm I'm fascinated by it all still. OK, so let me ask you, if you're a deist, then

God made you with the capacity to communicate, but he somehow hasn't communicated with us clearly enough.

You'd actually know anything about him. He may have communicated to somebody. He hasn't communicated to me.

Oh, and yeah, I mean, that's that's just the reality of the situation. But I trust

God knows what he's doing. But, you know, I mean, that was true for most people for most of history who didn't have access to the

Bible. There's nothing wrong with that. Here's by the way, I while we've been talking,

I thankfully and I want to have a bookcase in here because this is what I was going to be putting in here.

But thankfully, Rich found the book for me and I I managed to track down the pages for one of the things you raised, which was

Gleason Archer's comments about Mary Magdalene. And it says here on page three, forty eight,

Mary Magdalene took pains to seek out Peter and John first of all, and she breathlessly blurred out to them. They have taken the

Lord away from the tomb. We don't know where they have laid him. John 20, verse two, she apparently had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her that the

Lord had risen again and that he was alive in her confusion and amazement. All she could think of with the body was not there and she did not know what to become of it.

Where could that body now be? It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back there and see what they could find out.

So there's nothing here about her forgetting a previous encounter or anything along the lines.

So I'm sorry, but the way you represented Gleason Archer, it's it's not even close.

Well, I wouldn't say it's not close. It was a long time ago when I read it and I said she got confused, which is words he used.

He apparently ignored the text in that view where it talks about how she on the way from the tomb meets

Jesus and clasped his feet and then proceeds to meet Peter and so forth and then says, they've taken my

Lord and I don't know where they're going. They've stolen the body, which is all the more, you know, obviously, I mean, I think it's actually he doesn't actually he doesn't ignore that.

He doesn't say that there were two meetings. I'm just you know, I'm just sitting here looking at it trying to write.

He ignored the meeting in Matthew. That's what I just said. No, actually, he quotes that in the preceding.

In the preceding paragraph. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you read his full answer. Well, not the only place where he mentions confusion and amazement is is at that particular point in time.

And obviously, I'm just going to discuss that she met him in class to be starting at three forty nine.

Yeah. Okay. So it says and that's yeah. And that's not. It has nothing to do with that has nothing to do with confusion and amazement or forgetting about a previous encounter or anything else.

The only thing he says is that she does not know where the body is, even though the angel had said that he will meet you, which is understandable given that someone might not understand exactly what in the world that would mean as far as the resurrection is concerned.

But I wasn't I mean, I don't think what I did. I mean, like I said, it was maybe a year ago when

I read it. You know, I I'm not trying to misrepresent police in our turn. I don't think I did. So. All that dramatically, if you want to call that a misrepresentation,

I just you know, he said she got confused. He said she she, you know, had it explained to her that, you know, and she recalled these things.

But then she in her confusion blurred it out. They've taken my Lord and I don't know where the blame is still on the body.

That's that's kind of what I was trying to say. That doesn't change anything. It's still it's still, in my mind, contradictory.

And it's not because that's what I want or because I'm unwilling. No, I think there's there the approach that I'm hearing as we as we look at things,

I imagine if we started looking at synoptic issues and things like that, we'd we'd see the same thing over and over again.

A person who believed and who is now not believing, who at each point and turn all of a explanations that seem to make perfect sense, especially given the fact that we're reading an ancient document and in other words, seems to engage in the guilty until proven innocent routine, which is normally what you have, especially in the synoptic issues.

There's there's something else there. There's there's there's a reason there. I don't know what it is.

I'm not going to try to I'm not going to try to analyze your soul over the over the phone or anything along those lines.

I'm just simply stating that in my experience, every time that I've had the opportunity and it's been fairly rare to do so, but every time

I've had the opportunity of learning the whole story, getting the background, those things came out.

There was something else involved. And it's just it's just been my universal experience. Now, my experience is, you know, my experience is not is not so wide that that I can say every single time that's exactly what what what it is.

But something tells me that if we were to sit down and chat that eventually, you know, if I were to chat with your former pastor or your church or, you know, wherever else might be, eventually

I'd run across something that might get me to the point of going, ah, OK, there's there's what we're dealing with now, just really quickly as a deist, how do you deal with the with the realities of the disciples and the story of the resurrection?

Are these dishonest men? Did they just make this up to try to save face? So what did you hear?

OK, I. I'm not sure on all of that stuff, what this is my tentative belief right now, my tentative belief is that the

Apostle Paul does not regard Jesus as actually being a person who actually walked the earth.

Did you did you see that film? Is that where you're getting this stuff? I did see that film, but not not this stuff.

The arguments this is interesting. I listen to a lot of debates and Christians will talk about the Jesus myth theory and they'll say this is dismissed even by liberal scholarship, which it is.

But that at the time was good enough reason for me to not consider it. And I didn't. But but after I abandoned

Christianity, some of some of the like there's a couple of historians. There's a guy named Robert Price.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, I know. You know, Robert. Oh, yes, I do. I, I. Oh, my goodness.

I mean, do you do you have any idea how poor that man's work is? No, I mean, on a document, on a documentary, this man actually would go so far as to state that that that Luke did not believe in the virgin birth based upon, he says, a single

Latin manuscript. When you actually look at it, he got confused between B and beta. And the one he's actually referring to doesn't start until after that point in the

Gospel of Luke. I mean, that's the kind of level of scholarship we're talking about here. It's shocking to me.

Well, shocking. The argument to me is not one that I got from him. But there's another guy by the name of Richard Carrier, who's also, in my opinion, he's a very intelligent.

He's he has a degree in ancient history and makes some very worthwhile reading arguments that infills that arc.

He he read a guy named Earl Daugherty's book called Jesus Puzzle. And I've got it. You've got that book.

I do not. I do not have it. And begrudgingly, he had to concede that Daugherty's argument, though he's not saying it is proof, he's saying it is substantive.

It is very substantive and definitely worth a response. And so that's what I found when I went and looked at that, as I said, man, this is pretty, pretty substantive.

And I'm not saying it's pure hypothetical silliness, substantive, you know, the argument.

Yes. I mean, oh, you read you read Daugherty's book. Look, I'm frustrated because because someone honestly, honestly,

John, someone who can look at the text and there is a clear contextual argument falls.

Well, I don't think so. And then turn around and look at this stuff and go, hmm, seems substantive to me. There's a clear example of me to me of this filter where this filter came from.

I don't know. But where is filter came from? It's clearly functioning, because if you were to apply the same standards, you'd be looking at these folks and going, wow, you know,

I'm going to stay a deist because these folks are clearly just out selling books. This this this doesn't make any sense.

No, with all due respect, I don't think you've really responded. I think my my my understanding of those texts,

I'm standing here will not taste death. And the Mary Magdalene is is more rational than yours. You offer explanations as as possibilities, which

Mormons can do all day long with problems in the Book of Mormon. And I know you just made a big mistake.

You just made a big mistake. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You're now on hold because this is my program, not yours.

You just made a huge mistake. I'm going to demonstrate why you can listen if you'd like to. But this is my program, not yours.

We're paying the bill. And this is a this is a monarchy, not a democracy. OK, let me let me explain why you just demonstrated that I've been right all along about what you're saying.

Mormons can make excuses for the Book of Mormon all day long. Now, the very fact that you could make the statement demonstrates that you are not fairly dealing with the data, because, first of all, a

Mormon cannot place his book in history. He cannot play. We're talking about Jerusalem.

We know where Jerusalem is. We know where the Mount of Olives is. We can place these events in history.

We can demonstrate that the people and the language and the times are consistent with the people, language and times.

The Book of Mormon has no geographical foundation upon which to stand. We cannot find these cultures.

There is no evidence of this book before the before 1830. We have manuscripts of these documents going all the way back to the second generation after the time in which they took place.

They're consistent with the culture, the dress, the language, all of the geopolitical situations going on.

So to even make the comparison is to shoot your credibility in the head.

And it is not just simply a matter of making excuses. It is simply stating, look, when we are dealing with, for example, synoptic issues or the synoptics with John, we are dealing with ancient documents that only give us a certain amount of information and therefore to assume that they are going to be contradictory to one another at the start when we're the ones lacking the information to be able to put them in their full context in regards to every single little bit of behavior that goes on or every single event that takes place.

You would never do that with modern individuals who are recording an event that took place.

You could take that and go to 9 -11 and go to the eyewitnesses of people who saw things happening to the

Twin Towers and come to the conclusion that it never happened. So I'm simply asking for consistency in the standards that are being utilized and especially to make a comment about the

Book of Mormon in that way. I'm sorry that that just totally out of bounds. So thank you very much.

I appreciate that. OK. All right. Am I on? Yes, you are. OK. That's what

I like about you, too, is you just you you take these people on and you're not afraid to go. I called Carl Keating when

I was a Protestant and I was quickly scurried off the off the lines.

Can you imagine how fast I would be scurried off the line? I called him about Galileo, which was well, you know, you know, you know that Jimmy Akin called my program a few weeks ago.

I heard it. I listened. I listened to that program. And I'm sometimes over his blog, sometimes chiming in.

And I do. Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah. And I do think that you're you'll find

I defend you. I mean, I told you I'm a fan of yours. You can go back and look and I'm defending you.

But anyway, yeah, your your arguments against Catholicism, I'm very much persuaded that the

Protestant view is the more biblical view, even though Catholics are right on a few things, maybe. But anyway, my point, what

I'm trying to say with the with the Jehovah's Witness thing is not to compare the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Jehovah's Witness or the

Book of Mormon, Jehovah's Witness. I made the comment last time and I said the same thing, which

I just said, and that is Jehovah's Witness and make excuses for their 1914 prophecy all day long.

And you said, no, no, no, John, that's where you blew it. You know, there's no way that, you know, I can use that. I can document where where they made that claim, that prophecy.

And it didn't come true. But that is not the point. The point is, I had Jehovah's Witness come to my house and I told him that very thing.

And you know what they said to me? They said Jesus did come in 1914, but it was a spiritual return.

Well, of course. John, I don't think you understand either what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, nor why

I would have said what I said. OK, what I'm saying is I can document from their own writings in their own context with full information as to what they were saying.

Their original teaching about Christ turning in 1874 and then returning in 1914. And then they're changing that to 1914 spiritual coming.

And the fact that right now they're trying to get rid of 1914. You can't parallel that to your assumption that,

A, you know what Son of Man coming in his kingdom means. You're assuming that you have a knowledge of that.

You're assuming. See, I don't have to assume anything about what Jehovah's Witnesses taught because they published entire books about it.

It's it's a black and white. Forty years ago, 50 years ago, the the evidence is right there.

There is no parallel between that and your particular interpretation of a text written 2000 years ago and saying, well,

I think it means this, this and this, and therefore it's wrong, rather than allowing for, well, it says this.

And if we're going to assume that this writer is not a complete idiot and that he's writing long and he's writing after these events took place, if this is if that's the case.

And in fact, let's let me turn this on you. If you're going to use Price and those guys, if you're going to date Matthew as far back as they do, why would you put this in here?

There would be insanity for you to put this in here if Price and those others are right in the dating of these things.

What they say is that a later interpolator and I'm not saying I don't know anything about the dates.

You know, I'm not saying I buy into any of their claims on any particular thing. I mean, I agree with them or something, but they think that an interpolator put in the transfiguration as a means of remedying

Matthew 16 to make it appear this is the fulfillment. So it aligns with your explanation, but they regarded

I don't think it aligns well enough because of the six days later problem. But they think that that was the reason that was interpolated.

And they have what proof of that? I wouldn't. I don't remember. Yeah, that's just it there.

There is. I mean, there's a lot of details, you know, I can't say I can't claim to know every single. No, but John, my point is, when

I ask them that that's the same response I get. It's real easy to speculate as long as you don't have to come up with actual hard facts.

But you see, the problem is if there was a gospel of Matthew that didn't have that in it to begin with,

OK, then there would be some evidence of its existence somewhere down the road. Well, wait a minute, not necessarily.

So now we can come up with mythical texts that have any form that we want, and they're not going to leave any physical evidence of their existence entirely in the case of the

Bible, which with the New Testament, which clearly shows signs of modification by various people who made copies and the first copies we have,

I believe, are what, third century? No, they're no, they're not. Well, John, you've been given some really bad information.

And unfortunately, that's also the end of the hour. We gave you most that time. Thank you for your call. Sorry we didn't get to Frederick, but we'll get to Frederick another time in the future.

I'm going to try. I'm going to try to do the dividing line next week alone.

So maybe I'll be here Tuesday morning. Maybe you'll only hear someone scurrying about going, did that work?

Did that work? I don't know. We'll find out. Talk to you then. God bless. We need to do reformation 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 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at AOMIN .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.