October 28, 2003

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 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.

Scheduling Notes and a Reformation Day Broadcast

And good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line. It is Tuesday, the 28th of October, 11 a .m. in the only place where it matters. If you are confused about the time, it's not my fault. Like I said so many times, don't play with your clocks and all will be well.

Then again, most of you don't have that option, but hey, you know, that's how it works. And so here we are at the exact same time that we always are here. However, since the rest of you do play with your clocks, we do have a problem Thursday evening.

This coming Thursday evening, the problem now is that 4 o 'clock in Phoenix is 3 o 'clock Pacific Time, which makes this fit, unfortunately, in the exact same time slot as the Bible Answer Man broadcast.

And I'd rather not compete for the 12 or 13 people that we have to listen. And so, no, it's more than that. But anyways, and especially this Thursday evening, I am more than happy to advertise the Bible Answer Man this week because our friend Bill Webster will be on the program.

It will be a Reformation Day theme. And, of course, Bill Webster, co-author with David King on the Holy Scripture three-volume set. We've had both on the program before. You may all recall the Robertson-Genis Mr. X debacle and how that all turned out.

And so we've had Bill Webster on the program before to discuss Sola Scriptura. And he will be on the Bible Answer Man broadcast. So if you can spread the word, the more the merrier as far as that goes.

And you'll want to be listening. So I'm not sure what we'll do Thursday. We'll either go earlier or later or something. But we're not going to go head-to-head with the Bible Answer Man this Thursday because we want to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity of hearing Bill Webster live.

So I'm not sure how anybody's going to know what we're going to do, but we'll do something so that that won't run into that problem. 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. I was reading Carl Keating's e-letter this week, and I found it very interesting.

He had a section called Braininess, Good but Not Sufficient. And I thought you all would find this if you don't happen to be on Carl Keating's e-letter list. I thought you'd find it to be interesting.

Especially because this obviously shows that Carl Keating knows that there is a whole spectrum of Protestantism out there that his book and his work does not even begin to address. I've said many times that Catholicism and fundamentalism is aimed at a spectrum of the response to Catholicism that is not particularly compelling.

And when it spends time talking about Jimmy Swaggart as being relevant and Jack Chick and people like that, that's not what we need to be responding to. And that his book really does not provide any type of response to those of us who would agree with the fundamentals but are especially reformed in our perspective.

Well, this demonstrates he knows we're out here. It just doesn't seem to feel any compelling desire to respond to what we say. For example, I read from Carl Keating's e-letter, Modern Reformation is a bimonthly magazine published by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Its editor is Michael Horton. Among its advisors and contributors are W. Robert Godfrey, Rod Rosenblatt, R .C. Sproul, Timothy George, Douglas Grutheis, Carl F .H. Henry, and John Warwick Montgomery. Speak from the depth.

If you read the more scholarly evangelical journals, you'll recognize some of those names. In other words, they just publish articles. It can be from people in the past and stuff like that. Anyways, once upon a time, I love this.

This is really funny. Once upon a time, Christianity today was the intellectual center of evangelicalism. But CT long ago ceased to devote its pages to serious writing. Today it represents evangelicalism lite.

Not a liberal version of evangelicalism, but an intellectually lite-late version. Sorry, the context is funny. Modern Reformation, which is a dozen years old, has filled much of the gap. A recent issue was devoted to the theme, We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.

And these evangelicals do, but it is one thing to believe in something and another thing to locate it. I admire the seriousness that infuses the articles in this special issue, and I wince in sympathy at the lack of success in finding that one holy catholic and apostolic church.

For those of you who are confused, Carl Keating, of course, is a Roman Catholic. I assume most people listening to this program are aware of that. In his contribution, Michael Horton tries to define what is meant when one says the Christian church is Catholic.

At one end of the spectrum are Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and specific Protestant bodies that often claim simply to be the Catholic Church, without remainder. This won't do, he says, because the real church is not mainly a visible body, and these churches are all visible.

I didn't read that issue, but I somehow wince at that summary. Anyways, on the other end are most evangelical and Pentecostal groups that, in their non-denominational denominationalism, understand the church as simply the sum total of individuals who are truly born again.

But that won't do either. The answer is to be found among the churches of the Reformation, Horton says. They reflect a somewhat mediating position. They have visible elements, such as faithful preaching and right administration, but they also take into account that the true church is present wherever the gospel is preached.

These reformed, Calvinist churches thus are one step up from the atomism of non-denominationalism, but one step down from the rigor of the pre-Reformation churches of the East and West. And having given that summary, he then goes on to make the following comment here, if I can get this one box out of the way.

As I said, I wince when I read such arguments. I wince because the arguments are so unconvincing, as splitting the difference arguments usually are. I don't want to pick on Michael Horton. Those writing in modern Reformation and the three other marks of the church are in the same predicament.

Then he talks a little bit about them. And then he says, Some Catholics think that Protestantism, being a truncated form of Christianity, must appeal only to people of restricted intelligence. Sure, there are many fine people in Protestantism, but those with brains move elsewhere.

It's not as simple as that. I know many highly intelligent Protestants, including several of the men whose names are listed above, and their remaining Protestant is not a matter of a lack of brains. Why do they seem convinced by arguments such as those in this issue of modern Reformation, when I and others think the arguments are so weak that, in a way, they prove the opposite of what they are intended to prove?

That is, they prove the necessity of joining the real Catholic Church, I mean the one headed by the Pope? Why are these intelligent people happy with arguments that others find flawed, and not just flawed on the periphery, but flawed in their core?

I have no answer for that. The situation may be something like that famous line drawing of a vase. Squint your eyes just so, and the image becomes two faces. Squint again, it's back to a vase. So near, yet so far.

Now isn't that fascinating? There's a bunch of things there that immediately caught my attention. Some Catholics think that Protestantism, being a truncated form of Christianity, I don't view, not only do I not view it that way, but I don't view it the opposite direction.

In other words, I don't see Catholicism as simply an ornate version of Christianity with too much clutter. And I think that's one of the issues that I think some people have today. Especially Protestants who are flirting with Rome and going, well, you know, there's stuff we can learn from, you know, just looking at this and looking at that, and let's compare our traditions, and let's sit around and have ecumenical dialogue and all the rest of this stuff.

You'd have to sort of view Catholicism as just simply, you guys, we're all on the same page, but you guys have just, you know, gone a little bit too far. I don't see that at all. There is a fundamental, foundational difference.

And it goes back to the nature of grace and the freedom of God and the clarity of truth. It's not just this continuum. Unfortunately, the reason that that is getting a lot of foothold, a lot of traction, I guess is the term that's used in the media today, a lot of traction amongst quote-unquote evangelicals and even Reformed folks today is because that comes directly out of the worldview of the world around us, and it's especially common within scholastic circles, within scholarship, to view things in this way, and seeing this continuum of things, and Rome's just sort of down there someplace, and a hesitation to make a clear break and say, no, in reality, Rome has gone so far as to cease to be a part of the continuum.

They've jumped the track, and they're on a completely different plane, a different level, a different place now. And so I just simply, you know, that caught my idea, the idea of, you know, some Catholics think the Protestant being a truncated form of Christianity.

I don't see it the other direction there at all. And then it is fascinating to listen to Keating going, so how can they be so intelligent and yet hold such bad arguments? And I sit there and I read Keating talking about Mary as the one through whom God has chosen to distribute all graces, and the absolutely surface-level exegesis, not even exegesis, it's, you know, and I just, you have to sit there and go, you think that their arguments are weak?

But the funniest thing, though, not funny, but the most unusual thing, I don't have an answer. Why are these intelligent, I'm reading it, why are these intelligent people happy with arguments that others find flawed, and not just flawed on the periphery, but flawed in their core?

I have no answer for that. Well, let me tell you something. From my perspective, I do have a clear answer for why the opposite is true. I do have a clear answer for why the most muddled, incoherent, inconsistent argumentation is compelling, and I'm not just talking about historical arguments of the papacy, or Mary, or purgatory, and Roman Catholicism, but we can expand this out.

Why are there so many intelligent LDS people who believe God lives on a plant that circles a star named Kolob? Why are there intelligent people in all of these groups? Because it's not an issue of intelligence, it's an issue of the spirit, it's an issue of judgment, it's an issue of, if you don't love the truth, God causes you to love a lie.

The Bible addresses this, but, see, Keating is at least in step with the current magisterium, unlike many of the Catholic apologists today, who are more Catholic than Romans, in the sense of being more conservative than the current magisterium.

Keating has to buy into the separated brethren, inclusivisms becoming more and more popular type of perspective, and so he can't answer the way that I would answer, and say, it's false doctrine, it's heresy, it's the judgment of God coming upon individuals who don't love the truth, and yes, they're extremely intelligent, but they're holding to beliefs that will damn their souls.

Well, Keating really can't say that, in light of the current viewpoint of the magisterium. And so it ends up, at least he's being consistent at that point, but he has to be consistent in saying, I don't know, I have no answer for that.

That's a direct quote from the e-letter. So that's a fascinating little aspect of it. I don't see any little lights lighting up over there, so I do have a clip that I downloaded just prior to the program I was going to play for you, and I also have some, you know, we'll just get to what we get to, and if we get callers, we get callers.

That's just sort of how it works. Someone was mentioning, I don't know if it was last night or this morning, that's what I like about the program. It's so unprofessional. I think what they meant by it, I don't think they used, I think they said free-flowing or something like that, or I forget what it was, but it was somewhat hilarious.

Sort of smack across the face. I like your program because you guys really screw up once in a while, you know. I guess that's a good thing. Hey, at least we're not pretentious, you know. We do have, oh, well, I didn't see it because I didn't have the window thing open, and it just scrolls on by.

So finally I got that, and that was the window that popped up and was messing up what I was reading and all the rest of that stuff. It was because somebody was playing with the volume of my headphones.

It was going up and down. It distracted me. So it's, I don't know who's in control of such things, but anyhow. Let's go ahead and take our first call then, and then if we get back to the clip, then we can get back to the clip.

And if we don't, that's fine too. Let's talk with Stephen. Oh, well, Stephen's in Toronto, aren't you?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you, Stephen.

Okay. Dr. White, I want to, first of all, thank you so much because of how you've helped me to embrace the doctrines of grace. It's really, your help in Omega Ministries has been a real blessing to me.

So I just want to thank you, first of all, for that.

Well, you're most welcome.

And the other thing is, you've also piqued my interest in talking to Mormons, and I've been acquainted with two young men who are coming to my house. And one of the questions they've asked me is basically the passages where Jesus is, in Hebrews 1 -3, where he sits down on the right hand of God the Father, and they're trying to argue that you have two separate beings.

And I was just wondering how I could address that with them and some of the passages that are relevant to that. They also point out to the one in Acts where Stephen sees Jesus at the right hand of God the Father.

Well, one thing that you might want to obtain, because we still have them available, is a book entitled Letters to a Mormon Elder. And in that particular book you will find letters written to an LDS missionary.

And what I did when I wrote that, and eventually we will be making that available in electronic form. I should have remembered to have asked some questions about that when I was in Minneapolis, and I didn't.

But in fact, we have a Canadian, you'll be glad to know, a Canadian fellow who wishes to help us to put that book into a format that you could read on your PalmPilot and things like that. So be looking for that.

But anyway, in the fourth letter of that particular book, I include the answer to the very question that you just asked, because that's very common in talking to Mormon missionaries. I mean, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, as many people have been in reading the book, that, boy, this is exactly what these guys, you know, this is the stuff they raise.

And so, for example, let's just start about page 65. I'll just read you just a couple of paragraphs here, and you'll see exactly what I'm referring to. Another passage that is frequently presented is from Acts 7 .55 -56, which reads, But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens open, the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.

Often I have heard LDS people say, See, Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. God then must have a right hand at which Jesus can stand. Even some LDS have gone so far as to make this a literal right hand, which it seems Jesus was standing upon.

In reply, let me note a few items. If we take this passage in the same way that many LDS take Acts 7 .55 -56, we have to be consistent and say that God not only has a hand big enough for Jesus to stand on it, and that's a big hand, but he also has wings and feathers.

In Hebrews we are told that our God is a consuming fire, so should we need to somehow fit a blast furnace into the whole anthropomorphic picture we are making here? No, of course not. God is spirit, and a spirit does not have flesh and bones, John 4 .24, Luke 24 .39.

So what does right hand mean? The right hand is a common idiomatic expression in Semitic thinking, and it refers to the position of power and authority. But you don't need to take my word for it. Look these up for yourself, and then I have an entire list.

I'll just read them off here, and you can scribble a few of them down. Exodus 15 .6, 15 .12, Deuteronomy 33 .2, Job 40 .14, Psalm 16 .8, 11. There's probably 20 of them here. Proverbs 3 .16, Ecclesiastes 10 .2, etc., etc.

There's, like I said, a whole list here. Where it is specifically the right hand of power there in Matthew 26 .64 is listed as well. The vast majority of the rest of the times it is used, it refers simply to a direction, or is used in the phrase, do not turn to the right hand or the left in following God's law.

And then I stop there. So I gave them a full listing of all the passages where you have this phrase right hand used, and demonstrated that it is a position of power and authority, not a physical location, indicating that there are two separate beings, that they have physical bodies, and that they are separated from one another by these physical bodies, which, of course, is what Doctrine and Covenants section 130 verse 22 says, that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as any man's.

The Son also, the Spirit has not a body of flesh and bones, etc., etc. So that's how I responded to that particular point.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And the Latin Trinity, and again, that was so helpful. And I was trying to explain to them the difference between person and being, and at this point in time, they just don't seem to get it.

Well, a part of it is, you know, there's two questions as to how Mormons can understand that. They make the same distinctions. I try to emphasize, because part of the issue in dealing with a Mormon is, they may not want to get it.

They may not even be seeking to get it. They may want to avoid getting it. So I try to point to them and say, look, we make this distinction every day, and in fact, you make this distinction in your own theology.

They recognize the difference between being and person. They recognize there's a difference between human beings as a class and each individual within that class, and that while we share human being, that we are individuals.

They recognize that. They make that kind of distinction. They don't think that, well, some Mormons, actually I have to take one part of that back, some Mormons do believe that rocks and things like that do have a personality or even a spirit, but they recognize the difference between an impersonal object that has being and a being that has personhood.

So they make those types of distinctions themselves. But part of it is, many Mormons simply don't believe, and it sort of depends on whether they're raised this way, if they're Utah Mormons, or if they're more of a newer kind of Mormon that wasn't raised in it, or a convert, or they live outside of Utah.

It's getting more and more complex to sort of nail down where the missionaries are coming from. Twenty years ago, it was a lot easier to say, this is what Mormons believe, and this is how a missionary is going to respond to you.

Mormonism is changing. It's mainstreaming, and therefore, you have differences like this. But many Mormons have a problem with the idea that you would have any role or any ability to teach them any truth anyways.

In other words, a good Utah Mormon believes that the priesthood is necessary to really know the truth anyway, and so there would be a natural hesitation on their part to really put much effort forth in listening to what you're saying anyhow.

One of the ways to get around that on just a practical level is to explain to them or to demonstrate to them that you know what they believe. You've taken the time to learn what they believe.

Yeah, I have tried to do that, actually.

Yeah, that's very difficult in brief meetings, but if they keep coming back, it's possible. Eventually, though, they will start changing the people that are showing up.

I just want to know, dealing with two particular individuals, is there a cutoff point where you have to realize that it's just becoming a waste of time?

Well, the only way really to determine that is by the responses you're getting from them. Most of us can tell if someone's really listening to what we're saying. Most of us can tell if someone is really responding or if they're just simply giving us the same position without really interacting with what we're saying.

I've encountered folks that I gave up on fairly quickly because it was very clear that they were not listening. They were just simply mouthing things back. But especially some of these young guys, you show a love for the truth.

You show that you're kind to them, that you're not just simply there to run them through with a theological sword. You can establish a much longer-term conversation and discussion with them than the Mormon Church would like you to.

Let's put it that way. When they start going to their mission president and asking questions, and I've had that happen a number of times in conversations I've had with LDS missionaries, boy, it's not going to be long until they're not going to be coming to visit you at all.

But you might run into them later. I mean, I just had someone in Channel within the past week, two weeks, mention one of the very first missionaries I ever talked to. They had just been sharing with him.

And he mentioned me. And we spoke, oh, I'd say 19, 20 years ago. So you never know. And most people looking at the outside of at least the first night of our conversation would have said, wow, that's a bad one because this guy got in my face, he was yelling at me, he was towering over me.

He's a big, tall guy. And he was yelling and screaming. And he literally said out loud so everybody could hear, someday I'm going to be a god and you're going to worship me. I mean, most folks would not consider that to be a very pleasant conversation.

But the guy's not even really a Mormon anymore. And one of the first people that really stood up to him and showed him things was myself standing up on a street corner in Mesa, Arizona, almost two decades ago.

So you never know. And to my knowledge, he has yet to confess faith in Christ and the truth, but he's certainly talking to folks in a way that he hadn't before. So you never know.

Well, I just wanted to say that I'm trying to show some kindness, and I have spent a number of hours trying to discover what Mormons believe so I can talk intelligently with them, not like those street preachers that you run into.

Well, that's quite true. You know, I should have mentioned, Letters to a Mormon Elder is also available on the net.

Yeah, I've actually read parts of that on the net.

That's really, as far as getting a resource for responding to where these guys are coming from, that's the best thing I can aim you at right now. Like I said, I don't know, it's easier to read things frequently and hold it in your hand than when you're staring at a screen.

Could you also tell me what's happening with Jerry Madetich?

Oh, as far as being on the program?

Yes.

Right now, and I haven't heard, I've heard back from Eric, but I'm still waiting to hear back from Jerry. I sent out an email last week, I mentioned this Thursday evening, and I heard back from Eric that he's a go for November 4th, but I haven't heard back from Jerry, but he did say that he was going to be gone this week.

So hopefully at the end of this week, over this weekend, I'll get the confirmation from Jerry that he will join us on November 4th, and it'll be Eric and I and Jerry Madetich, and I don't know about Eric, but I know I'm really looking forward to that.

A lot of us are.

Oh, I bet you are. You know, there's far too much glee in your voice at that point. Hey, thanks for calling today.

Okay, thank you very much.

God bless. Okay, bye. Bye-bye. Yep, yep, yep, yep. I've looked at the Ron Tichelli article that Jerry made reference to during the debate that just wipes out Eric's research on, it's so painfully obvious that Tichelli has not even read Svensson.

So it's going to be very, very enjoyable. We all love the truth, and so we just want to I'm telling you, folks, I read it for you last week. He's the one that is alleging cowardice on my part if we don't have him on.

So don't anybody say, oh, you shouldn't do this, or you're just beating up on the guy. Hey, I read you. I read you. This is what he said. So what can I say? 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. Before we play the clip I was talking about, or take your phone calls, depending on whether you have phone calls coming over the break, let's go ahead and take our break, if we can, a little bit early today so that we can get this entire clip played during the second half.

And I've also got some other stuff that we can read and work on during the second part of the program as well. I've at least got a few things lined up. So if you want to get in, don't do this, wait until five minutes before the program thing and then call in with a question that's 14 minutes long.

I'm not sure why people do that. But 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back.

Justification by Faith and the Reformed Gospel

Save your soul from death. It's all worth righteousness, you know. Can I manufacture grace myself tonight?

The history of the Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture text on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute, James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. Jay Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading.

There is solid meat throughout. An outstanding contribution in every sense of the words. The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at AOMN .org. Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God.

James White in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .AOMN .org. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free?

A New Cult? Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded.

Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture.

The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

No, you did not hear me singing with that. But yeah, you know one of the most common questions I keep getting in the chat channel recently? What's the name of that song Steve Camp sings at the beginning of your program?

Well, that's called Run to the Battle. That one's called Here I Stand, if you couldn't figure that one out. I'm not sure, do we use Cornerstone? I don't know if we use Cornerstone. The other one's Wittenberg's Door.

The one at the end is Wittenberg's Door. And they all come from the CD Abandoned to God, as I recall. Well, Run to the Battle doesn't. Run to the Battle is an earlier one. You can get that off the Best of Doing My Best.

Is that on there? Yep, Run to the Battle, very first one on Steve Camp's Doing My Best CD too. So I just put that back where it belongs. So those of you who want to get that, that's where you can get it.

Well, I took the time today, once we got the Internet back up. Boy, you know, once you've had high-speed Internet, dial-up really stinks. It's just like, I don't want to do this. It's going to take me how long to download that thing?

Anyways, we got the Internet back up, and I did a little surfing for some new quotes from our friend Dave Hunt. Yes, and I sort of had the sneaking hunch, don't ask me why, that maybe, possibly, just maybe, that on the Bree and Call radio show, that there would be some commentary about Calvinism.

And, of course, the question crossed my mind. After all this time, after doing radio programs and debating Dr. Piper and all the responses to his book, and then writing the book with me, in which I specifically respond to all the misrepresentations that are a part of Dave's stuff, and try to get him to discuss that, after all of that, is there any change?

Is there any acknowledgement? Well, let's find out. Let's listen to a recent Bree and Call question from listeners.

This question goes, I have a friend who turned his back on God after his third year in a conservative evangelical seminary. He was taught that God has already decided who will be saved and who will spend eternity in hell, who will have good things happen to him in life, and who will have bad.

Can you help me to help him? They can pick up some strange things in seminaries. Although, conservative evangelical, you'd think, oh, no, that can't happen.

Well, I think he's misidentified the seminary. It would be a Calvinist seminary. This is what Calvinism teaches. So these people would have to be Calvinists. You could find it at some places that we have thought were evangelical seminaries, non-Calvinists.

It could be a Calvinist professor that slipped in, or it could be there's a number of them that are really turning more and more Calvinistic.

Wow.

So Calvinists are not actually evangelicals, and they just sneak into them, their evangelical seminaries, and they pollute them. Okay, so Calvinism is inconsistent with evangelicalism now, according to Dave Hunt.

So we continue on.

This really plays into the hands of the atheist, and you can see why it would cause him to renounce his faith. You want me to believe in a God who doesn't love everyone and who has predestined some people to go to hell, and there's nothing they can do about it?

Now remember, haven't we heard this somewhere before? I mean, isn't this starting to sound a little bit like, well, you know, it's funny. I installed a turntable in my office this week. Now some of you young folks are going, what in the world is a turntable?

I even invited my daughter over so she could see it, because she had no recollection of ever having seen a record player. And let's face it, there are a lot of folks these days, they're getting up to voting age, and they've never seen a record player, let alone an 8-track tape player.

Anyway, so they would have no idea, because CDs don't work quite the same way. CDs can skip if they get damaged, but records, those old, big, huge vinyl things, if they get scratched in such a way, it can just simply keep repeating itself.

I mean, that was the scourge. I was a radio announcer for many years, and we were at an old radio station and played oldies, and long after everybody else had gone to carts and CD, and finally now today everything's digital, it's just MP3s and things like that, we were still playing records.