More Calls Today: Calvinism, Catholicism, Greek, Exegesis

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. Well, good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line, four o 'clock in the

Mountain West. Beautiful day, about seven degrees outside, breezy. Gorgeous here in Phoenix, Arizona, which truly is a desert metropolis that is growing and growing and it's a whole lot bigger when

I moved here, that's for sure. I was looking at my itinerary for England and was very pleasantly surprised at what

I saw. I was sharing this in channel and there was some really cool stuff that I'm going to get a chance to be doing and seeing and things like that.

But there is an opportunity. I'm going to do the best I can. There is an opportunity.

Where did that go? Well, I think I put it in my personal stuff here and it's not there.

Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Where did it go? Oh, there it is.

I wonder why it didn't show up before. Anyways, it looks like the possibility would be that we could do a

British Dividing Line. Yes? Straight from the great world of that place there.

And it would be Thursday night. Why is Word flashing at me? Why don't, why doesn't it open the thing?

Okay, you hit that and then you hit that again. And okay, Word cannot open the existing. And there's nothing behind that.

Fine. Then don't open the existing. Open something else. All right. It looks like Thursday the 24th.

Thursday the 24th. Now what that's going to mean, I'll try to communicate. I hopefully will be able to get online once in a while while I'm over there.

And send Rich some emails or something. I speak at Days Lane Baptist in Kent at 730 on Thursday evening.

And it's approximately one hour drive from where I'll be staying. And so the question is when we get back in time, what time is it right now?

It is midnight, isn't it? Or is it 11? I think it's 11 right now. Yeah, I think it's 11.

I think we're seven hours different than England right now. Where's Jason when you need him, you know?

I think it's 11 o 'clock there. And so I don't care if we have to start an hour later.

I don't care if we have to start a half hour later. What's Greenwich Mean Time? Isn't that London?

I think London is. Yeah, I think London is. So it would be seven hours. Seven hours difference. Seven hour difference. Yeah. Yeah. So no, that will not be.

Then again, it's Arizona. It could be a 8. It could be anything. Or a 6. It could be half an hour difference.

You know, you don't know. Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen. Well, I do remember back in high school that the hippy -dippy weatherman on SNL, the clocks would be like half an hour apart from each other and stuff, and that was part of the funny thing.

Of course, I didn't watch it, but I heard about it. Anyway, no, people are saying, well, you're going to be jet lagged.

No, this is the 24th. I leave the next day. So I will have just been in Inverness and Glasgow and Edinburgh.

So I will have my Scottish accent given. So it would be perfect.

In fact, Roger even says here, looks like the only possible night to do dividing line, if we can get back home in time, at least you'll be able to use your newly acquired

Scottish accent as well. I'm looking forward to that.

And if you're wondering, it is going to be Friday the 18th.

So two weeks from tomorrow, I will be in the

British Museum and the British Library. And Lord willing, casting my

LASIK -corrected eyes upon Codex Sinaiticus, which all of you have been learning a lot about on the blog of late.

And tomorrow morning's blog article, by the way, was sort of fun to write. It's nice and short, but the resource that our

Muslim friends were using did a face plant. Just completely blew it.

Just not even close to being right. It was it was it was fun. But anyways, that'll be that'll be posting tomorrow morning.

So I'm hoping to be looking at that on Friday the 18th. That's the day after I arrive.

I leave Wednesday the 16th. What time is this? Two o 'clock my time? No. Yes.

Two o 'clock my time. I arrive London Heathrow at 10 a .m. the next morning.

Hey, that's going to be that's going to be fun. But anyway, hey, it's first time over there for me.

I know for other folks, it's a it's a yawner, but not for me. I'm looking forward to I will be preaching

Sunday morning, the 20th in the morning. But then in the evening, I will be visiting the services.

At Metropolitan Tabernacles, Spurgeon's Church for their evening service. So I'll hopefully be able to report on that as well, as well as getting a chance to bum around Edinburgh and Glasgow and places like that.

So it's going to be it's going to be enjoyable. I am not looking past, however, the the fact that next week

I will be in the St. Louis area for the Founders Conference, speaking on the sufficiency of scriptures and for various things, for life and godliness, for missions and evangelism, for preaching, and the information for that is on the website as well.

So eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one. While I'm going over there, Roger sent me a book.

My host over there, I'll probably drag him on the phone or something. It's eleven. There's Jace there. Hey, you showed up there.

You know, it's eleven oh seven p .m. That's what I thought. So that's just not fair, because I won't be able to understand any of you.

It won't matter. I doubt that I doubt

Roger would sound a whole lot different than Jace. Jason does. And we can understand him. It's just they they put the accent on the wrong syllable all the time.

That's all. Emphasis, emphasis, emphasis, whatever it is. Yeah. Emphasis, emphasis.

Yes. Had Jace been there the whole time or did he just join? I didn't

I wasn't watching that. See, he joined at four or six. I said, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Hi, Jason. I wonder if Jason, I could be seeing you anytime while I'm there.

You should you should let me know one way or the other. Anyway, he sent me a book. And it's sort of a a it's not just King James only, but it's it's a critical assessment of ESV, a new

King James version, three modern versions. And I'm going to begin to have dinner with the author at some point. And that'll be fun.

And I just happened to just pop it open and was just looking, you know, sort of looking down the the page at various and sundry things.

And I ran across the following. And of course, I pulled a piece of paper out and good luck finding exactly what it was

I was looking at now. Oh, there it is. Page 77. Jason says he hopes so.

OK, good. They've got a real nice PDF of the Saturday presentations

I'm doing on Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and all sorts of stuff. I hope I don't violate some hate crimes or something while I'm over there, end up in jail or something.

But on page 77 of this this book. It reads in Second John seven, the authorized version renders the verse for many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ has come to flesh.

This is a deceiver and an antichrist. However, the New King James Version, this is a section where the

New King James is being criticized. The New King James Version once again follows the Westcott and Hort text by rendering the first part of the verse for many deceivers have gone out into the world.

This suggests that these deceivers were in the church and have now left it. The AVs received text tells us that these deceivers are entered into the world with the danger they may either attract people out of a church which preaches the true gospel or they will seek to come into sound churches.

They come in like wolves in sheep's clothing, having a form of godliness, yet denying the truth of Christ coming to flesh.

And they enter with the hope of turning the whole congregation away from the truth. We see once again the strange reluctance the

NKJV to stick to the received text. Now, when you hear something like that, you go, well, you know, why is there a difference?

And for those of you who have the BibleWorks program,

I didn't check this out. It may pre -exist 6 .0. I'm not certain.

It may pre -exist 6 .0. I'm using 6 .0 and I didn't, you know, exactly go back to look for 5 .0

or whatever else, see if it's there. But if you have BibleWorks 6 .0, what you can do with this, this is a little bit of a techie talk here, but Dale Valente in channel pointed this out to me.

There's lots of stuff this program can do that I haven't even taken the time to find out about, actually. It has the ability to compare texts.

And I have mine set up to compare the Nestle on 27th edition with the

Stephanos text. And I could also have it compare it with other texts and show the variations between all of them.

So I could have it with the Robinson Pierpont to majority text, if you're a majority text advocate and you don't want to use a

TR version or something like that, which, you know, makes sense. And if you look at 2 John 1 .7,

the New American Standard says, from any deceivers have gone out into the world. And that's because the

Nestle -Aland text, upon which the NIV and the NASB and basically all modern translations and Toto are based, the verb that is used there, that's the proper translation, ex aethon, is to go out into.

Now, interestingly enough, the Stephanos text, which would reflect in the vast majority of instances, the text that underlies the

King James version, it's not exactly. In fact, what I should have instead of having Stephanos, I just realized this,

I'll fix that later, is I should have a Scrivener because Scrivener's Greek text actually reflects the textual choices made by the

King James version. It's actually a Greek text based upon English translation, which is rather odd and interesting.

But anyway, in 2 John 1 .7, I've got some main channel says,

I have a question on John 6, 44 through 45. Well, it's 877 -753 -3341.

We've talked about that verse of those verses a few times before. So why don't you give us a call? 2 John 1 .7 in Stephanos has ais aethon, and that's ais instead of ex, and so best translated as entered into the world.

Now, I would point out immediately that part of the objection raised by the author here is theological, based upon an interpretation of what the differences between ex aethon and ais aethon would be.

The problem is ais aethon, going into the world, could also mean that they were in the church and now they've gone into the world.

It doesn't exclude the understanding of 2

John 1 .7 in the Nessie -Alan text. It does not exclude the idea that these people were in the church and they've gone into the world.

It's just simply that the use of ex aethon tells you that they had been in the church and now they've gone into the world.

Now, as soon as I read this explanation, I was sort of caught off guard a little bit by it because I said, well, wait a minute.

Okay, there's a textual variant there, so you look at the textual variant, but isn't it very obvious that the same false teachers who deny that Jesus Christ has come into the world are referred to by the same writer in 1

John 2 .19? They went out from us, but they were not really of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us, but they went out, so it might be shown they were all not of us.

The false teachers who deny Jesus coming to flesh, the antichrists, in 1

John 2, were people who came out of the church. And when you look at the verb that's used there, it's the same one in both the synopsis or in the received text.

Well, there's a slight difference in the spelling, but it's the same verb. And so, the

King James says they went out in 1 John 2 .19, so if it's proper in 1

John 2 .19, why wouldn't it be proper in 2

John 1 .7? That's just one of the many issues.

It sounds good when you first read it, but then when you start thinking about it, you go, well, wait a minute, that's assuming something.

And of course, when we've talked about the King James only position and things like that in the past, that's been something we keep coming back to, is that fundamentally, you start with the supremacy of the

King James version and or the received text, and then you move from there. So, that's one of the really useful things about having

Bible works. Now, of course, I will admit, if you don't read the original language, having various words in the

Greek highlighted for you may not do a lot for you, but you can just put your cursor over it and you can see at least the differences in the meanings, the roots.

And if you've got at least a little facility with the language, you can tell exactly what the variants are between them as well, which is really useful.

Now, I had told Hermeneutica, which produces Bible works, a long, long time ago, a number of years ago, we talked with Hermeneutica about various things, and they asked me, what would you like to see in Bible works?

And I said, well, I realize that I'm probably in a small group here, but what would make

Bible works just awesome, in my opinion, was if you had the textual data, the variations, the materials found at the bottom of the page in either the

UBS 4 or more likely the Nestle Allen 27, and that was accessible on screen.

That would just be awesome. Well, they didn't do that. They did put out Tischendorf, because Tischendorf is obviously beyond copyrights.

They did put out in Bible works, you can look at an older, still valuable, but older textual apparatus.

It's available in Bible works 6 .0. If you've not looked for that yet and you have it, you might want to look for it. You can pull that up and you can see some of the variants there.

But the folks that have now grabbed that, as I've mentioned on my blog in the past, is the Libronics folks,

Logos folks. And in fact, it's actually a German thing, the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible, which has the textual data in it.

Of course, you can also find the proto version of the Nestle Allen 28 edition online with textual data attached to it as well.

So that's all out there as well. I just realized I lost my bookmark to that when

I redid Windows. I lost all my bookmarks. I forgot to export my bookmarks file, and I'm not happy about that.

But I'm sure I can track that down again. So lots of material here as I've been going through the citation of Bentley's book about Sinaiticus being used by Muslims.

It's been very useful to be able to, you know, I've had all this stuff in written form.

But I'm having to try to transfer it into a blog format. And the best way to do that is to have it electronically so you can cut and paste and do things like that instead of having to, you know, figure out all the different font issues and all that kind of stuff.

So it's been very, very, very useful. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

And that is the phone number that Tim called up on the left coast in Oregon.

Hi, Tim. How are you doing? Doing pretty good. OK, you just remind me of that guy in the

Volkswagen commercial where they accelerate to the corner and he starts laughing and then just sort of laughs really insanely.

And it's sort of scary. Yeah, that's me. OK. I've been talking to a

Lutheran pastor about John 6, 44 and 45. Well, that's probably one of your first mistakes, but go ahead.

Basically, he's trying to make a distinction between the hymn that is drawn and the hymn that comes in those verses and the hymn that has heard from the

Father and the hymn that is learned, basically saying that, you know, we have a choice. Not everyone that is drawn will come, even though everyone will be drawn, apparently, or something like that.

Now, obviously, in like verse 37, John 6, you know, context to say that's not that doesn't really hold water.

But right. Is there any grammatical reason why the hymn would be the same? Well, well, actually, the proper question would be, is there any grammatical reason and specifically verse 44, why the hymn would be different?

I mean, when you have a sentence and I'll try to put in as close to Greek word order as possible here.

No one is able to come to me except the Father, the one who sent me draws him and I will raise him on the last day.

So there are exactly two words, kago, which is a contraction, putting together kai and ego, and anastaso,

I will raise up, though there's two words between the two occurrences of auton, which is the word hymn.

Now, the hymn. Now, here's the question. Maybe this is the one way, because honestly,

I'm really, really seriously putting together material as best I can for to put together a book on John 6 with all the exegetical information

I can gather on it. And so I have tried to do with John 6 what I do with debates.

And when I go into a debate, one of the things I try to do is as I make my presentation,

I want to think like my opponent and I want to go, all right, what would be the best possible response that could possibly be raised against what

I'm saying? What's the best case that my opponent could ever throw at me here?

And so I'm doing the same thing with John 6. And I look at this and I go, all right, if I was going to try to say that the hymn who was raised up on the last day is a different hymn than the one who's drawn by the

Father, how could I come up with this? And the only thing I've heard was someone said once, well, look, the hymn that is drawn is the hymn that comes because it says no one is able to come to me unless the

Father send me draws him. And so the hymn there is the coming hymn.

And so there could be drawn hymns and coming hymns, but they're not necessarily the same one.

That's what the guy's saying. OK, that that is the only way I can come up with something. There's one problem with that.

To come in John 6 .44 is an infinitive.

And it is a part of a phrase. No one is able. Dunati is followed by an infinitive, not able to do something.

Now, Alton is an accusative masculine singular. And it is not the object of Elfine.

It's not the object of come. It's the object of how to say that is to draw.

And so though I came up with the exact same argument that your friend did,

I also immediately realized grammatically it's not possible. The one who is drawn is the one who is raised up.

The connection between the two is is unquestionable. There's there's nothing in the text whatsoever that would allow you to go.

Well, that and doesn't really mean. And because Jesus is saying, unless the father sent me draws him and I will raise him up.

He's talking about the two things that the father and the son are going to do. And is that not what we're seeing all the way through John six is this this this cooperation, this this unity which flowing straight out of John five between the father and the son and what the father does in drawing him.

The result of the father's drawing is twofold. Yes, that person does come.

There's no question. Everyone who is drawn will come. There's there's that's clearly what John six is saying.

John six, 37. But beyond that, then the son has the exact same audience in his raising up on the last day, which also is seen in John six, 38 and 39.

So there's perfect unity in Jesus's teaching. And all of these attempts made by the various denominations of men to get around what the text says end up creating disharmony and confusion.

And you end up having people saying, well, you know, maybe just no one really knows the text is saying and all the rest of this kind of stuff, which just isn't the case.

There is simply nothing in the grammar that would give any indication. There's nothing in the context.

There's nothing in the syntax that give any indication that there is a different audience of view, that the hymn changes at all.

And what we need to keep in mind is when someone says it is different, they need to show us.

And in my experience, the only way anyone ever tries to show us the difference between those two words is by leaving this text.

They have to go someplace else. They have to jump to John 12. They have to go somewhere and they have to abandon this text and say, well, it has to be different because of my traditional understanding of this thing over there.

See, and that's how that happens all the time. All righty.

Very good. OK, well, thanks for calling in on that. Thank you, sir. Have a good day. God bless. Bye bye.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number that Tim had called.

And again, I just want to emphasize that there is, interestingly enough,

I just and because I had BibleWorks up and had that thing going. In fact,

I'm going to pull this up just to see if just just to double check here before I say something here.

Let's put Scrivener up here. All right, there's Scrivener. And OK, if you're looking at the

King James or the Textus Receptus, you're going to have three words between the two outtons, not two, because in the

King James and the not the King James, it's an English translation, but in the Textus Receptus underlies the

King James. Kago, which is a crassus, it is a putting together of two words, kai and ago, is spelled as two separate words, kai and ago.

Just I'd mentioned that in case you're sitting there trying to count the words are going that doesn't look like, you know, how

I've got it set up. So just so that you you are aware of that, I don't want anyone to be going, hey, you're wrong with that.

Well, I was looking at the Nestle -Aland text at that point, and I was not looking at the

Scrivener or the Stephanus text at that particular point in time. Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one.

Let's put Adam on the air. Adam's up in Wisconsin. Hi, Adam. Hi, how are you doing,

Dr. White? Doing good. I had a real quick question and a question about Roman Catholic apologists.

I was wondering, I saw on your website that you had a radio discussion with Jerry Thornburg. Yes.

And I was wondering about that, especially considering what the Thornburgs, why you would agree to something like that, especially considering what happened in 2000 with them.

I have no idea. I have no earthly idea who Jerry Thornburg is. He was filling in for Al on Tim and Al in the mornings on KJSL in St.

Louis. You don't remember what happened with Dan Korner? I remember

Dan Korner. I don't know. Is this the guy that had a program on at midnight or something?

Yeah, this was the guy who said that you had said that Dan Korner had some extenuating circumstances and couldn't make it.

I don't remember. I don't invest brain cells in remembering people like that, so I made no connection there.

I knew a Bob Thornburg in Phoenix once, but I didn't figure it was the same guy. Actually, Tim is passing on a message to him that I would be happy to come on his program, which is now,

I think, at 8 o 'clock on Thursday nights. And I suggested that we just actually stick with the text of Scripture for once, because I threw

John 6, John 8, 1 John 5, 1. I was throwing all these texts at him, and he wasn't able to answer any of those.

And then I kept catching him misciting. He again miscited Matthew 23, 37.

He did the exact same thing that Dave Hunt did in skipping from, I would have drawn you, but you were not willing, and he skipped your children part.

And he eventually just stopped responding. He just became quiet and didn't say anything the last about,

I don't know, seven or eight minutes of the program. I was just responding to the callers at that point, and probably because,

I assume, he got to be on the next hour anyways and rip and shred and do whatever he wanted to do without having to worry about having someone who could keep him honest at that point.

But so I have no clue who the guy is. All I know is when

I came in yesterday morning, someone came in channel and said, this Jerry Thornburg guy is ripping on Calvinism.

Here's what he's saying. So he was on the hour before me. I mean, this is what's really funny. Dave Hunt's on the day before, because Dave Hunt will not go on the air with me.

Dave Hunt has forced Multnomah Publishers in trying to promote debating

Calvinism to talk radio stations into doing two separate interviews, because he will not come on with me.

And if I were if I were Dave Hunt, and I had made the mistakes Dave Hunt has made, and I had absolutely obliterated my credibility the way

Dave Hunt has, I wouldn't want to be on with anybody either. So he he will only come on alone. So he's on the day before.

They don't have any special guests in to oppose him. He gets to do say whatever he wants the day before.

Then when I come on the next day, the hour before, they've got an anti -Calvinist in to poison the well. While I'm on, he gets to go back and forth with me and take half of my time.

And then he's on for an hour after I'm gone. Talk about, you think you folks are a little bit nervous about something?

No kidding. Talk about a little fairness here. You know, that's unbelievable. It was it was something else.

But no, I hadn't remembered the name of I knew there was I knew that his I thought his wife had called in.

Right. His wife called into the program. Yeah, well, let's just say both times.

They have very well helped me to make my points for me. OK, that's just the only way to put it.

I appreciate them, you know, helping, helping along the way. So I appreciate that information.

Oh, you had a question about you had a question about Roman Catholicism. I'm going to put you on hold because we need to take our break and then we'll pick up your question on Roman Catholicism on the far side.

I can work for you. OK, hold on just one second and we're going to take our break.

Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one. We'll be right back. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The Same Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality.

Get your copy in the bookstore at almen .org. Alaska, the unspoiled land of nature and immensity, both in its realities and its possibilities.

Alaska can stir our hearts and minds like no other place on Earth. Join us this summer for the 2005

Alpha and Omega Ministries Alaskan Cruise as we cruise the inside passage to the great land of Alaska with Dr.

James White and Christian recording artist Steve Camp as they explore the great doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

For our guests, the journey north is an odyssey of glorious landscapes and majestic wildlife as we sail on the luxury five -star

Sun Princess by towering glaciers into some of the most remarkable points on Earth. All this, and at prices beginning at $624 per person, plus port taxes and fees, half the price of other offerings to Alaska with other groups.

Contact us today at almen .org or at 877 -SOV -CRUISE.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed queen of heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer, is fresh insight into the woman the

Bible calls blessed among women and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at almen .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org,

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Colin, you think it would work now? Yeah, it'd work. It'd work? It'd work. Because let me tell you something, it was bad. But choosing the first day that we put the

Gettner in to decide to do something like that was... You know why I did that? Because someone kept telling me how good they were.

I see, okay. You know, you sound terrible. Yeah, I know. I don't know what's going on here. Can you start talking about things?

Hang on just a second. Is that better? A little technical adjustment?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. My dad... Let me go in the back and get a hammer. I'll be right back. Okay. All right. Well, I'll let you do that.

My dad was chief engineer at WHP AMFM and television back in Harrisburg in the bygone days.

I remember walking the towers with my dad. We'd be going out to each of the towers and taking the readings and stuff.

And there was this big old... This was back in the... This was before solid state. This was back prior to the transistor age.

And there's these... Cutting it out. Hello, quit playing around in there.

Now you're cutting me in and out. Let's not do that. That hammer doesn't work very well. No, let's leave bad enough alone.

And so there's this big old transmitter. And I remember him looking in it to take some reading, then stepping back and just lifting his leg and wham, just kicks the bottom of the thing and looks in, shakes his head and says, technical adjustment.

That's how they kept it working right. He just kicked it. It was great. Anyways, 877 -753 -3341 is the number that Adam called.

And he had a question about Roman Catholicism. Go ahead, Adam. Yes, I'm getting really into the discussions with Roman Catholics.

And I had sort of a general question. I was discussing with a guy on a forum on the internet a long time ago.

He was a physician, actually, but he is a friend of Mark Shea, a famous Roman Catholic apologist.

And he kept on bringing up the tradition passages on Sola Scriptura, like 2

Thessalonians 2 -15, the canon arguments, and always pushing the

Church Fathers. No one before the Reformation ever had said this. Was he a little bit on the acerbic side?

Well, he was. That's one of the things that was really odd. Named Dr. Art Sippo?

I don't know. You see, he had a nick. It's an anonymous place. You can't give your name. What was the nick?

J -G -J -G -A -U -D -I -N -O. Sounds like Art Sippo.

But anyways, I was reading through it. I was pointing out these errors.

The heiress in 2 Thessalonians said you can't do the canon and tradition and so on. And all of a sudden,

I didn't even bring you up, but he starts going in on you, and now you have a nasty temper.

And he said that you were made to look like a fool because your sister converted to Catholicism.

And I'm just sitting here like, man, I didn't even bring him up. Why is he doing this? But one of the guys, and I just told him,

I said, look, I'm not going to go into this. I said, this is personal stuff. Dr. White has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that we're doing.

And I said, so don't bring him up again. But I went to the church fathers, and someone told me, don't be afraid, even though you don't have as much knowledge as, say, a professor.

He said, most of these people have never read it. Right. So I picked up the Webster King book, and I read through the first large amount of the he goes through the various periods of what tradition means.

And my whole thesis was that in the quote that he was using from the fathers, he was doing what

D .A. Carson calls semantic anachronism. He was reading a later meaning of tradition back into those fathers, and I posted it up, and I think

I spent like all day reading it until like four o 'clock in the morning, posting. And it was interesting because the guy never came back to channel.

Again, he never came back to post. But I was just, you know, the whole notion, you know, and that's what

I'm finding. I'm finding as I go up, and the more famous these Roman Catholic apologists are that I'm dialoguing with, the more it becomes personal.

And I want to know, how do you handle, you know, when it becomes personal like that, when they start attacking you on that basis, rather than dealing with the subject?

Well, Adam, you got to realize, and I didn't,

I wasn't trained to do this. This has just simply been the way I am since the first debate

I did against Jerry Matatix in August of 1990. When I see my opponent getting personal, when

I see my opponent engaging in that kind of argumentation, it actually makes, inwardly, yes, the heart rate goes up.

You know, I'm a human being like anybody else, and when

I'm insulted or my family's insulted or something like that, sure, but when

I'm in a situation where I'm in a debate, that tells me this person has already lost the debate. To any person who's observing this, who is observing behavior and is observing argumentation, this person is demonstrating they do not have a strong argument to begin with.

And so I give them more rope. I mean, it makes me calmer in my presentation as my opponent gets even more nasty.

I'll never forget, one of the couple of nastiest debates I've been in, have been with Tim Staples in 1996, and then about 1999 or so,

I think it was, with Roberts and Jenitz. And I recognize that the people that I'm most concerned about in the audience are able to see that this person is simply losing it.

They are using argumentation when someone brings up my sister or something, and I've addressed that subject.

I've been very open about it. There's articles on my website. I've explained everything there is to know about that.

Anybody who thinks that, you know, I would absolutely feel so horrible about myself if it ever even crossed my mind to invest my time in digging into the family histories of Roman Catholic apologists or Mormon.

It never crosses my mind. I cannot even begin to imagine what kind of a worldview a person has that would be doing this kind of thing.

I just don't care about that kind of thing. That's not honoring the truth one way or the other.

And so, you know, I hear that kind of thing. I go, look, you know what? If you'd like to deal with the issues, then let's deal with the issues.

But from my perspective, when they start doing what they did to you, A, they're assuming that you're getting, they're assuming

I'm almost ubiquitous. That I'm almost everywhere. That I'm somehow behind this. And I wasn't. I mean, we've,

I don't, do I know you? I mean, I honestly don't know. I mean, maybe I've corresponded to you.

Maybe I don't, I don't know. But I'm not behind all this stuff. People can do their own reading. And so,

A, that makes me feel good that they think that I have so much time that I can be everywhere posting on every web board on the planet, which

I don't have time to do. And secondly, if they actually had meaningful argumentation against the rather large body of published material that I've produced on a wide variety of apologetic subjects,

I would think they'd be addressing that, not the personal aspect. But they, since they can't, that tends to tell me that the body of material

I've produced is pretty solid. And so, I take that as a positive thing. And I go home and hug my wife, and enjoy my kids, and lift some weights, and talk with all the fine folks in the channel, and realize that eternity is right around the corner.

And there's no reason to get all upset about it. Because you know what? It's all going to come out in the wash at the end.

It's all going to be, the justice is going to be done. And if people want to rip and shred on me, and call me every name under the planet.

And, you know, it's funny. I don't know if you've heard any of the debates we've done on Long Island. But they almost didn't, that whole series almost didn't take place.

Because Chris Arnzen, my good friend Chris Arnzen, at the time wasn't my good friend, because we didn't know each other. He almost would not contact me, because he had read in a

Catholic magazine, that I was this mean, terrible, horrible, nasty guy. And so he skipped calling me, and he called

Bill Webster. And Bill Webster said, well, look, if you want to do a debate, the guy to have do that is

James White. And he said to Bill Webster, Chris said to Bill Webster, well, I've heard he's pretty nasty. And Bill Webster said, where'd you hear that?

And he said, well, in a Catholic magazine. And Bill said, and you believe them? And he said, well, okay.

But the funny thing was, he then called me. Bill gave my number. We had just changed my phone number two days earlier.

Because I kept getting nasty phone calls from a particular Catholic apologist, I won't mention. And so this was the first phone call that had come through from someone

I didn't know. So when Chris Arntzen calls me up and says, hi, I'm Chris Arntzen from da -da -da -da -da, and we'd like to do this debate.

My first words to my good friend Chris Arntzen, who's now my good friend, was, how'd you get this number? So it didn't exactly help him get over his concern that I was going to be a horrible, nasty person.

But after the debate started with Gerry Matitix, then it's been all uphill or downhill, depending on how

Chris looks at it from there. So, you know, I just have to go, you know what? The people who know me, they know that I'm just a regular guy.

And in fact, I've got a pretty decent sense of humor and can have... Oh yeah, I met you,

I already met you in person, and I just couldn't believe how silly you were at certain times.

I mean, you were cracking jokes before you even started talking. You know, you think of somebody who takes as much as you take from all these various groups.

You know, it wouldn't be that way. But it's really neat how you're able to, you know, put all that aside.

Well, that's not... It's real simple. I saw, I watched a man,

I've watched a few men, but I'm thinking about one particular man years ago who was involved in apologetics.

I saw him really, in essence, melt down because he came to really believe that everybody was dependent upon him.

If he didn't get enough money, if he wasn't on the radio, then the whole

Christian church would come to a screeching halt. I am expendable, okay?

I don't matter. And so, since I realize that the truth was true before I came along, it's to be true after I'm gone,

I am not some special person, then you know what? I don't have anything invested there. I don't have to worry about them climbing all over me, big deal.

They're missing the point. These folks are at a big disadvantage because they don't understand why

I do what I do. And since they don't understand it, that's why they keep missing the boat on how to debate me most effectively, because they just don't understand.

So, hey, anyways, Adam, we've got a bunch of folks on hold here. I need to get to them. Thanks for your call today. All right. Thank you. All right.

God bless. Bye -bye. All right. 877. I'm not even gonna say that because I don't think we'll get through all of them we got here.

Let's try to go to... Okay, there we go.

Caesar. Hi, Caesar. Hello, Dr. White. Yes, sir. What can we do for you? I just had a question.

First of all, I want to say sorry about when I called on Tuesday. Yeah. I was listening back to try to make sure

I got down what you said. I didn't know I mumbled so much. We never...

Trust me, Caesar. No one... Well, okay, I'll take this back. I have met a few people who do like to listen to themselves on tape or on recording.

I don't. I detest hearing my own voice. Yeah, me too. It doesn't sound like what you hear, and so it sounds freaky.

Yeah, I fully understand. But yeah, I really wanted to thank you for clarifying that issue for me. Sure. And I wanted to thank who was...

Who's the one that usually picks up the phone? That's Rich. Okay. Yeah, I wanted to thank him for taking my call too.

Well, he takes all the calls, whether it's a dividing line or Alpha Omega, whatever it is. And if you ever get a package in the mail, if you get a

DVD, a CD, a book, a tract, anything, he's the one that sent it to you. So that's how it works.

Yeah, because I just got some books too today. There you go. Yeah. Thank you, Rich. But oh, yeah,

I just had a quick question about the way, I guess, the way you use apologetics, in a sense.

Okay. I've seen, like, I've read most of the articles on your website. Right. And I see that you refer a lot to like the

Greek grammar. So, like, drive home a point when it comes to some certain issue, whether it's

Catholicism or anything. And I was wondering, like, when I tried talking with other people,

I mean, I don't know Greek. So, like, I was wondering what kind of Greek books would you, like, would you recommend, like, for people such as those people who aren't really aware of the

Greek? Right. You know, it'd be good to, like, have an intro. Well, a couple things. The reason

I do that is because I believe the most effective apologetics that both encourages believers as well as honors

God is an apologetic that is based in the inspired word itself. And so much of the, especially when you're dealing with people who are false teachers who are paying lip service to Scripture, much of that apologetics is demonstrating that they are misrepresenting the teaching of Scripture.

And to do that, you have to be able to provide a positive exegesis, a positive presentation. I do understand that that then places a greater burden upon us because we're not using the most popular forms of apologetics.

We're not using the ones that have the emotional impact. We're using the ones that actually have the long -term impact, because when you examine them, you find that they're true, long -term, not just short -term.

It's not just an emotional thing. It's a conviction of truth. As far as sources would go, I would go with what I mentioned at the beginning of the program, and that is

BibleWorks 6 .0, because it allows you to just bring your cursor across a word, see what the root form is, its meaning.

You can search for other places it's used in the New Testament or in the Old Testament. You can search in the Greek Septuagint.

You can do all sorts of stuff without knowing the language. But if you're looking for a resource to at least familiarize yourself, say, with a basic vocabulary and some basic elements of the language, the book that I've recommended over and over again to folks is by William Mounce, M -O -U -N -C -E, and it's called

Basics of Biblical Greek, published by Zondervan, and it comes with a

CD that contains Bill Mounce's materials as far as Pars Works and Flash Works.

You can study Greek vocabulary, which, by the way, you can do with BibleWorks 6 .0 as well. And then the workbook that goes with it.

And my understanding is that Bill Mounce's tapes where he is presenting that information are also available from,

I think it's Technia .com, as I recall correctly. You could Google Bill Mounce's name and track it down that way. But it is not easy to do.

The best way to learn Greek is to do it in a class. There's no two ways about that. But the people that I have known,

Chris Jenkins, for example, who comes into our channel fairly regularly, he's a doctoral student at Trinity, he tested out of Greek at Master's Seminary because he taught it to himself.

And that's exactly what I gave him. I gave him Mounce, I encouraged him in that, and he really buckled down.

He did it. And he, in fact, earned two Master's degrees in the time most people earn one there at Master's Seminary.

So it can be done, but it's not easily done. If you can find someone to do it with you, and then, for example, if you could come into the chat channel, if you all just run into something you just can't figure out, there are a number of people in our channel that do read

Greek and could answer basic questions. Not necessarily all the time, but it could be done, yeah.

Well, the reason I bring that up is when I have conversations with people about this issue, they'd be asking, well, how do you know, why would you believe certain things?

I guess if it comes in regards to God's sovereignty or stuff like that. Do you understand what

I mean? Like I'm saying, if I don't know Greek, and then I try to use one of the arguments that you had mentioned, like if it comes to John 3 .16.

Right. I fully understand. The best way to do that is to make sure, and by the way, let me just mention something to Joseph and to,

I think it's Bill. We're going to get to you. We're going to go a little bit long today on the program.

If we need to, just to make sure we get to all of our callers, if you're on hold right now, we will get to you, so don't drop. I just want to make sure

I mention that. The best thing to do in that situation is always be honest. That is, you can phrase your assertion as follows.

I am not a Greek expert. I do not read the language myself, but I have taken the time to familiarize myself with certain basics, and in the resources that I have read, it seems a consistent statement that this means

X, Y, and Z, and that that is consistent with, for example, the Bible Works program that I utilize to study, it backed that up, etc.,

etc. You can phrase it in such a way that you're not putting the onus upon yourself as if I've been teaching

Greek on the graduate level since 1995, and therefore, I say this.

It's really good to be careful at that point, because I've mentioned this in the program before, and I'm trying to do this fairly quickly, but I sat down with two

Jehovah's Witnesses once in a restaurant, and I made a statement about the meaning of a particular term in the

Book of Colossians, and this guy said, so you read Greek, and I said, well, yes, actually, I do. He says, oh, well, could you read this, and he opened up his

Kingdom in a Linear Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and he slid a little yellowed piece of paper over to me that had been folded up, and I looked at it, and what he had done is he had copied out of the

Greek New Testament somewhere a sentence in Greek. There's no English on it, and I looked at it, and I said, well, you didn't write this letter correctly, but the phrase actually says, let no one deceive you with empty words of foolishness, and deceptive words of foolishness, as I recall the phrase was, and he just about passed out.

He said, I have been carrying that piece of paper for 15 years, and every time

I go to someone's door, and they tell me they can read Greek, and I show them that piece of paper, you're the first one who is ever able to read it, and so you've got to be careful.

If you're going to make the claim, then you've got to be able to back it up, so you can phrase it, though, in such a way that you can still bring out that information.

Now obviously, you're probably sitting there thinking the same thing I am, and that is, yeah, I do have an advantage. There's no question when you're talking about Greek or something.

I've taught it for years, and that gives me an advantage, sure, but that doesn't mean that that information is not accessible to you.

It's just the way that you have to present it to do it in such a fashion. I see people in Channel who work in the information technology area talking about all the tests that they have to take, and to get certifications from Microsoft, or from Linux, or whatever, and I sit there and look, man, think of how much time we invest in our lives for stuff that once we leave eternity is going to have no lasting value outside of what we did with it to glorify

God, and yet, when you actually talk about taking one class and maybe learning

Greek, taking first year Greek in a local Bible college or something, people are like, oh, you're a Gnostic, or how could you expect people to do that, and we live in a day, look, with the

Da Vinci Code and the Jesus Seminar and stuff running around, we don't live in the 1860s where everybody respected the

Bible. We live in the beginning of the 21st century, and the Bible's under constant attack in our culture, and so that has raised the bar for all of us.

That's just all there is to it, so if you get the chance, do it. Believe me, your local

Greek teacher would appreciate it. All right, man. All right. Thanks a lot. All right.

God bless. All righty, I think, I'm hoping that our next caller is going to be, okay,

I'm completely lost now. I'm sorry, but there's, Bill in Massachusetts needs resources in Calvinism.

Which line is Bill on? Joseph is on, Bill's on three. Okay. All right, Bill. Hi, Bill.

Hey, Dr. White. How are you? I'm doing good. I do have a quick question for you before I get into the resources.

All righty. You're still a Baptist today, right? I'm sorry? You're still a Baptist today? I most certainly am.

Glad to hear it. Okay. My question is, I have been discussing the doctrines of grace within the confines of my church for a few weeks now.

I got an interesting call from a sister that attends the church questioning me on some of the writing of Virgin.

I guess she's gone online and done some reading of Spurgeon and Tribute. Are you able to speak up just a little bit?

We're having to crank you all the way up to the top. All right. I'll speak up. Okay. Thank you. She's gone online and read some of Spurgeon's stuff on Spurgeon .org,

and she was trying to draw a conclusion or some comparison between Spurgeon and some gentleman called

Rice, I guess was his name, James Rice? Uh, I'm not ringing any bells.

I mean, there's a modern John R. Rice? That's it. That's it. Okay. All right.

And I really didn't know who he was, but he asked me if I could recommend something that she could pick up and read because she loves to read.

Most of the books that I have are pretty big. Do you have a recommendation for like 100 pages, 120 pages on just a simple

Calvinistic point of view? Yeah. A couple things.

If she wants to read Spurgeon on the subject of Calvinism, Ian Murray's The Forgotten Spurgeon is not a big book.

It's a fairly small book, and that would be one possibility. Secondly, just on Calvinism, my little book, which used to be called

God's Sovereign Grace, but was somehow renamed The Sovereign Grace of God, is about,

I'm reaching over here, this is the original version, and the original version is 150.

I think the next version is actually a little bit shorter than that. So that's around that area.

My little book, Drawn by the Father, would fit in that area. And R .C. Sproul's fine little work,

Chosen by God, is not a big tome, and it's typeset in a very friendly way.

So all of those would be books that would probably be real useful to her, and she might find them to be helpful.

Cool beans. I'll recommend those to her. Okay. Thank you for your recommendation, Dr. Olson.

Have a great night. Okay. Thanks a lot. God bless. Bye -bye. All right. We're actually going a little long today, because we wanted to make sure to get to Joseph.

Hi, Joseph. Hello. How are you, sir? Good, Dr. White. I had a couple of quick questions on, well, maybe not quick, but a while ago you had mentioned in Romans 9 .22,

I lost the verb here, but that the verb, someone had argued that the verb prepared was in the middle voice.

Yeah. Yeah. The katertis mena, which can be either middle or passive in form.

Right. And so, and I looked up, I think you had mentioned that, so I looked it up on Modelworks, and it says passive, and it says you can go middle.

So what is a good argument for going passive? Is it correct that there's no agent?

Well, the fact of the matter is, in general, unless you're dealing with a verb that has a specific semantic range that frequently utilizes a middle meaning, now katertizo can be used in the middle to mean strive for perfection or something along those lines, but unless the verb itself has that aspect to it, the passive greatly predominates over the middle in the

New Testament. And so when someone opts for a middle translation, generally you have to be able to defend that over against the passive if both make equal sense, just simply from usage sake.

My perspective, and I think the person I was referring to, if I'm recalling correctly, the comments that you might be making reference to, been doing the dividing line for, you know, coming up on 20 years or so, so who knows when it was, but recently

I mentioned in passing the fact that the argument is made by Lenski that because the, in verse 23, you have vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory, since the agent is found there, that the argument is, that Lenski makes, is that since it's not expressed in 922, then in essence we're free to sort of fill that in and by filling that in we can fill it in with basically the person is the one who by their actions is preparing themselves unto destruction.

And the problem is that 922 starts off with,

I day, what if God, willing to do something. This is a, and this is one of the problems

I've had with the Mr. Holdings stuff on the blog that I've been dealing with, is you can't atomize the text, you have to follow the argument, you have to listen to the author, the author is making a point.

And when you read Romans 9 and you don't try to break it up into little parts, the point that he's making is consistent all the way through and when you say, what if God, well what's he, what's he illustrating, well he's illustrating 921, does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use.

Well the honorable use and the common use, the common use is 922, the honorable use is 923, which he then uses to segue into further material down in chapter 9.

But it's the potter who makes the pot for common use in 921. To then go down to 922 and break that connection, break that parallel, break that illustration and say, well yeah the potter does make it for common use, but when we start talking about human beings, it's not the potter that does it anymore, it's the pots, is clearly to try to avoid the very point that is being made.

Beyond that, it says, what if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known, endured with much patience.

God has a purpose, he is willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known.

Well if he's going to demonstrate his wrath, for example, on the gods of Egypt, how did he do that?

He raised up Pharaoh. He used individuals. You can't say, well

God's willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known, but he's dependent upon the pots to prepare themselves for such a purpose.

It just makes mincemeat of the text and clearly requires you to be bringing something in from the outside and forcing it down upon the text to make it work that way.

Looking at the grammar is very, very important. All of that is extremely important, I do it all the time. But I find, especially in teaching, that the most compelling argumentation simply comes from allowing the text to speak for itself, pointing out where the parallels are, pointing out what the argument is, and following a thought all the way through.

That's why I find no one who can sit down with me in John 6 and walk through that passage. They may come up with an excuse about one verse, but then they're going to have to come up with a different excuse about another verse.

You can't walk through it. When I preach, I preached both services last weekend,

I tend to do blocks of text and instead of one, two, or three points and like that,

I work through the text and let the text make those points as I go along.

That's just what I'm most comfortable with and that's what I have found people define most compelling. Also, the common error people make in 828 or 829 about foreknowledge and its verb usage, how would you contrast that with 1

John 2 .2 where foreknowledge is a noun? 1

John 2 .2? No, I'm sorry, 1 Peter 1 .2. Oh, okay, I was sitting here going, I don't remember that in 1

John. I know what 1 John 2 .2 is and I didn't remember that was there. The thing to remember is foreknowledge is something that is possessed and foreknowing is something that is done.

Foreknowledge is a noun that can mean exactly the idea of having knowledge of future events or future people or whatever that might be, but to foreknow someone, that's where the problem comes in and it's funny, if you've been following the blog, the holding stuff, here's where really actually allowing

Hebraic thought to properly have its place is the important part because when you consider what it meant to know someone in the

Old Testament, when you consider when Jehovah knew Israel, you of all the nations alone have I known, clearly we're not talking

Greek philosophical categories of bare knowledge here, we're talking about relationship, we're talking about choosing, we're talking about something that's based in love, based in the will, and when we do allow that to have its proper place, especially when

Paul drives some of his background from Exodus 33 where God chooses freely to reveal

Himself to Moses and all the rest of the stuff that comes out of that, then we see what that issue is all about.

So it says according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, this is where you would not be talking about, well according to the foreknowledge of God the

Father means that God looked down the corridors of time, this is talking about what do we have here? God, Spirit, Jesus Christ.

This is the role that each of the Divine Persons has taken in the triune work of salvation.

And the triune work of salvation, when we talk about God the Father, He is the fountainhead, He is the source,

He is the one referred to in Ephesians chapter 1 when it says that in eternity past He chose us in Him.

That is the very fountainhead of it. The sanctifying work of the Spirit is the one that's made us alive to that and has brought us into that union with Him, and the basis of that is the work of Jesus Christ, to obey

Jesus Christ, to be sprinkled with His blood. So that is an introduction that to me again emphasizes the reality of the fact that we are talking about the

Gospel is triune. And that really only strengthens the reality of the freedom of God in the work of salvation itself.

So I hope that's a little bit useful to you. Hey, we went eight minutes over for you brother. I hope that makes you feel good.

God bless. Thank you very much. Thanks for listening to The Vying Line today. We just wanted to get them all in. Great questions.

Awesome stuff. It goes fast. We will be... I haven't checked, but I think we're here

Tuesday. I think. But I'll mention on the blog one way or the other when I check my flight schedules as I head to St.

Louis. So we should be here Tuesday. If not, I'll let you know on the blog. Thanks for listening. God bless.

We need a new reprogram. ...has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 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.