August 21, 2003

This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

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

James White. And good evening and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is

James White. It is a beautiful evening here in Phoenix, Arizona. And tonight on the program, we'll be taking any phone calls and won't be around for the next two regularly scheduled times of the program.

I'm going to be out of town the next week, but Lord willing, back on the 2nd of September for the

Tuesday morning program, so I'll only miss one week of The Dividing Line. I will be off working on a book on the sufficiency of Scripture.

So I hope those of you who would like to see that type of thing written will pray for me that I'll have freedom to write that particular work during that period of time and in the weeks thereafter, of course, just trying to get the bulk of the text written during that period of time.

But tonight, I just want to, first of all, address some of the emails that we've gotten.

And then we're going to be looking at the debate, quote unquote, the brief, brief encounter that took place

Monday morning between myself and Dr. David Bernard, who is president of the

Urshan Graduate School of Theology, the primary, in fact, they're going for ATS accreditation, so they'll be the first United Pentecostal accredited graduate school out there.

And so we did a discussion on the debate topic was, did the

Son exist as a divine person prior to the Incarnation, which is the key issue in dealing with oneness theology.

Before we look at these emails, I just hope you are paying very close attention if you live in the

United States, if you're a United States citizen, to what is going on in Alabama today, what is going on in Alabama during this period of time.

I truly believe that we are seeing in what is going on there the first clear evidences of the push to silence the proclamation of the gospel in this land.

You may think that is radical or that that's too much, but I'm sorry, that's the way it is.

The people who wish to erase the history of this nation's relationship to the

Bible as the word of God and God's law and the role that God's law has played in the creation of the fabric of our society are succeeding, and they are succeeding well, having taken over the educational systems of the land and dumbed down the populace.

It's a, I think there are tremendous, there are tremendous ramifications for what is going on there, for what all of us will be facing in the future in regards to our rights and our privilege, the privilege we have had to proclaim the gospel of Christ and the cost that it may indeed entail in the not -too -distant future.

So I hope you're paying attention to that, and we will have some more discussions about that in the future,

I'm sure. Anyway, we get emails, and we get some strange ones, and this email was forwarded to me.

It was sent to straightgate .com that hosts our archives, but it was aimed at me, so it was sent to me.

Evidently someone listened to the archive program from last week or the week before where I was responding to various and sundry issues regarding Arminianism.

And all I can do is read this and let you figure it out from there. It is, if it sounds choppy, it's because it is.

It is very poorly written in the sense of there's a lot of simple grammatical and spelling errors, punctuation errors, all sorts of things like that.

I'll try to put together as best I can, but this gives you an idea of some of the stuff that is out there.

The subject line was, these are the answers to James White's evil god of Calvinism.

And God is not capitalized, neither is Calvinism. Loving deliverance for the tortured, bestirred

Calvin man. All through this, it's never a Calvinist. It is a

Calvin man, or a Calvin. Don't ask where that comes from, and Calvin is never capitalized either.

Stacking the deck is unholy. Libertarian freedom is genuine freedom under God or Satan.

I'm just reading them. These are lines. These are just put together. God's libertarian freedom can supersede his libertarianism against unrighteousness.

Man has the same libertarian freedom under God or Satan, though man does supersede righteousness.

Would God be just if he created people in such a way that they could not respond? That was the only line

I've seen so far that was actually spelled correctly, and I've heard that particular argument before, and it's a meaningful argument, and of course it's been addressed 27 times on the program at least, but anyways,

God can have that foreknowledge even though you cannot understand, he can have it of libertarian foreknowledge.

Arminian is showing how pre -selectism is a dead God, a

God that he himself sins, pre -selecting sinners making sin. That is wrong. Calvins, therefore, worship a

God, small g of sin. This is all biblical, even though it is accused, actually it's accused, of not being so, does not mean it is not in full agreement with scripture according to Jancis 1, 26 and 27.

Circumstantial freedom must act within nature, and God created you only to sin to hell is the

Calvin's position, and that is a sinful God to do that. God has libertarian freedom accordingly bound by his righteousness as he has passed it to us.

He has chosen to never sin, we know this of him, but we, since we are not

God, do not that which makes us different, for we are not so perfect to have such self -control.

God is able to sin, but he does not. I let that one sink in for a minute. God's decree is sovereign, yes,

God is limited by man's fullness coming in. That is righteous for God to do this.

Just I'll do that one one more time. God's decree is sovereign, that sounds good, yes,

God is limited by man's fullness coming in. That is righteous for God to do this. Calvinism absolutely makes

God the author of evil, even though the Calvin cannot understand this, but God's sovereign decree of God is not for sin.

The intention has nothing to do with it. It is a fact a Calvin God intends for that sin, but under libertarian free will under God or under Satan, God does not preselect sinners, it just happens because they refuse

God. It is wrong to say Shakespeare killed King Duncan, it is true to say

Macbeth did. The focus should be on the given of being made in God's image and stop there, not go farther to say

God did and so God preselects murderers, murders, murders, there you go.

God did not, God simply gave man his same free will, that is false cause, that this is going too far.

God does not pick and chooses who goes to hell. God has the freedom to do this, but he does not under a

Calvin God would, W -O -U -L -D.

Calvins aren't saved, but their minds are bestirred and that is what Satan wants.

Satan has already won in the Calvin man, game over it seems. God creates the potential, but we actualize it, stop analyzing it, fact.

Accept don't analyze disobedience, accept it. God cannot be glorified for it, otherwise this evil is authored by an evil

God of Calvinism. See, he knows the word Calvinism. James White is not saved,

I am 100 % convinced. If he is saved, I would not want to be saved because Christianity would be a lie.

James White loves his mind, but not the righteousness of God. Sugar -coated James White, reformed

Calvinism is still Calvinism and a God who is the author of evil, my God is not. The comfort of this authorism of evil as righteous is really evil and that comfort in this claim that it is righteous is proof of unsalvation.

Unsalvation, U -N -S -A -L -V -A -T -I -O -N, unsalvation. Reformations of Sardis have been false revivals.

Calvins can't understand synergist. God puts it out and God changes us and righteously allows us come to him and that is righteous.

There is always an avoidance of righteousness of given that free will falsely accusing it is a work.

Belief on your part is never a work though Calvins falsely accuse of this.

This rewiring, that's terminology straight out of Norman Geisler, this rewiring or regenerating of Calvinism is necessary to receiving

God is totally wrong. God righteously says he needs our belief. The question is not

Christ's power in all things, but our willingness to receive what he wants us to receive. The new life of the saved can receive things the unregenerated cannot, but before one can have that new life, one must walk through that door to receive the stamp of grace of new life.

So when you're dead, you need to walk through the door. All men are able to turn to Christ to initial salvation.

That sounds familiar, graced when made in the image of God. The error is where was that grace?

Under Arminian -ness, it was at our creation. Under Calvinism, it is in pre -select -ism.

The latter is demented. White says we are not chatty

Caffey dolls, C -A -F -F -Y. We are not chatty Caffey dolls, but under Calvinism, we are chatty

Caffey dolls because grace to pre -selectism is needed. Demented, we are pre -programmed under Calvinism.

Calvinism is sick. It's almost done.

There is the constant rejection of the chatty Caffey doll strings pulled. White has not been able to answer this, and as usual, he blames no scripture cited.

All scripture is cited, though. The whole Bible. I just love that. Evidently, I don't remember exactly which program this was in response to, but I guess

I pointed out, well, there's no scripture citation. I guess it was in my response to Hank Canegra's comments, and I pointed out, it sure would be nice if we could, this looks like what he was just doing, he's sitting there typing stuff as I was speaking.

That's why it doesn't really have any form to it, and I made the statement, boy, it sure would be nice if we could get into some exegesis.

Let's look at some passages, and I mentioned that's the problem so often with this type of stuff, is that you don't get any exegesis, you don't get any discussion of the passages.

Just about done. These men were not predestined in their actions because they were chatty Caffey dolls strings, but these men are all dealt in their own conscience with God personally, and scriptures record this even beforehand because of God's foreknowledge, not chatty

Caffey dolls. It's spelled the exact same way each time, C -A -F -F -Y,

I'm sorry. All is blaming that scripture is not cited, but does not mean that it is not handled.

God will use the sin of the brothers of Joseph, sin will be used, God did not decree the evil, but used it.

The result is not death, for this actuality of the potentiality of sin, if it did not happen, but if it does,

God will use it. God disciplines by purpose, not creating evil, but it all stems from the fall of man and is being resolved,

Calvinism does not get this. Well, that's because you could never substantiate that assertion on the basis of Genesis 50 if you actually look at the

Hebrew text and the parallelism, but can't get anybody to do that. White hates this, calling them pillow talk boys.

Where did that come from? Pretty bad, eh? God is not decreeing evil, but using it to resolve.

Genesis 50 does not blow this away. There is something sinister going on, the evil Calvinist, Isaiah 45 .7

deals that James White is a babbling babbler. God is not so complicated, otherwise only scholars would be saved.

He is operating on the talent of his soul only, not a pure conscience. And then for some reason at the end,

P .S. he should treat God as biblical psychology. As I said, we get letters.

Okay, well, this next one actually makes sense and the guy is nice, so I thought

I'd read it as well. This is back from December 7th of last year.

This was just sent this week, but it was in response. People go back and they listen to those archives. I mean, they really get listened to a lot.

And so sometimes people will write to me and they will assume

I've been listening to the same things they've been listening to.

And this was comments I made years ago. And that frequently I end up looking really stupid because I have to sort of go to them and go, what are you talking about?

Then they have to give me the URL and I have to go back and go, oh, okay, all right. So anyway, at least I know what this was about.

December 7th of last year, Dave Hunt gave that talk at Calvary Chapel. I reviewed it, played sections, and he makes a couple of points.

He says, I do think you were seriously wrong on some things you said. Here's some of the issues.

Number one, 2 Thessalonians 2 .13 doesn't say chose us before things existed or from the beginning or predestined us for salvation.

It says God chose us to be the first ones, the first fruits, the first recipients of the new covenant. That's what it is saying.

It's not a good argument to use against Dave Hunt, as you did in your diatribe about his sometimes ignored bantering.

Well, I had another person point out there's a textual variant there, which, of course, I'm well aware of. But even if you take, first of all,

Dave Hunt uses the King James Version and the King James Version says chosen for salvation.

And he is pretty strong on promoting the text underlying the

King James Version. So when he goes around saying there's no passage that says this, and that's the only Bible he uses, he should at least address it, which he hasn't.

Secondly, even if you take the textual variant, it doesn't change what is being said. The first fruits unto salvation is not something different.

I mean, if you're the first recipients of the new covenant, what does that mean? I mean, is not the new covenant salvation in that context?

Because it talks about the work of the Spirit and belief in the truth and all the rest of that stuff. So I don't see the relevance of the first point that was raised.

Number two, you took issue with him quoting different Calvinist scholars as saying that people do not have the real or true gospel until they have the

Calvin gospel. Do I stutter? The Calvin gospel?

If you mean, if you're referring to Calvinism or Reformed theology, but this

Calvin stuff, I mean, two letters in a row where it's Calvin. And it's like, okay, your argument, well, your argument is, well, of course, that's what we'd say.

Isn't that what you say or anybody says about their or what they believe to be their interpretation of the real gospel to be?

Sorry, I put you in quotes here, but it's a, it's real close to what I see your argument to be. James, your straw man, as you guys love to say, argument is hypocritical.

How can the Calvinist dogma be the only way you see the real gospel and not be works? How can it be predestination to the

Calvinistic dogma, or you don't know diddly? What you're saying without saying it is that we have to get to grips with Calvinistic teaching.

We don't have the real truth. Our faith is in him, not his teachings. For now, we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face, now

I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known. The thief on the cross next to Jesus was no

Calvinist. He was a believer. He was predestined, chosen, etc. He asked and he received.

He knocked, he found. He had the real gospel and did not debate, only believed. I don't know what the last part has to do with anything. However, all

I said was, for some reason, Dave feels offended when

Calvinists refer to their beliefs as the gospel. What they're saying is that when you add man into the mix, when you detract from the glory of God, at best, what you end up having is an inconsistent sub -biblical position.

Are we actually going to believe that Dave Hunt believes that his view is not clearly representing the gospel itself?

He may not call it Arminianism. He may not call it anything, but it's still his particular tradition, whether he wants to name it or not, is irrelevant.

So, I still don't understand any of this. I don't understand the stuff about Diddley or A &S, that stuff. What I'm saying is, the

Bible, interpreted consistently, the Bible interpreted throughout its text, teaches certain things about the grace of God and about the work of salvation.

And there are people who hold inconsistent views. There are people who hold completely unbiblical views.

Our desire is that we should, obviously, examine the text and do so in such a way as to honor

God and His truth. Third point, because I want to start the debate in about nine minutes or so, so it'll sort of fit right into the hour time frame here.

Number three, you said, Dave never will give answer to a scripture like John 3 .16. You say it says, everyone believing, not whosoever.

Now then, here's where we get, and this is sort of the Dave Hunt type thing, that'd be

Strong's 39 .56 coupled to 35 .88. No, that wouldn't be.

Here's where you get the problem of people attempting to deal with the syntax of scripture, with such things as the subjunctive, that type of thing, and doing so on the basis of Strong's exhaustive concordance of the

Bible. That's not a good thing to do. And it ends up creating some major league difficulties.

The rest of the comments, then, are based upon that kind of a problem. All I simply said is,

Hinnah paschah pischuon ais al -tan, means that everyone believing in Him.

To then go to Strong's and try to dig around and say, well, that would be this word and that would be that word.

What about other places? The writer just simply completely misses the entire construction, because he's not familiar with the languages themselves.

Number four. You get upset, Dave said you guys never talk about love, even suggest he's mocking.

I played a whole section where, again, I seem to recall very clearly, he was mocking.

You can just listen to it for yourself, go back and listen to the December 7th program and you can hear it for yourself.

There accuses him of lying. I think what he means there, at that point I said, well, if he's read all of these

Calvinists, if he knows more about Calvinism than Calvinists do, then he's had to have read

Edwards. He certainly doesn't show any evidence of having seriously interacted with Edwards on anything, especially

Edwards' book on the will. But if you read Edwards, you can't get through a page without talking about the sweetness of Christ and the love of God and all these other things.

So to say they never talk about it, it's just absolutely ridiculous. It shows incredibly shallow knowledge of the field.

So he's either lying and he didn't read all the books, or he did read the books and he's lying about what's in the books.

So you can put it in either direction you want. Well, where is your writing about the love of God?

Where is all these writings that speak of his love? I haven't seen them either. Just a bunch of big, taught,

T -A -U -G -H -T, taught about being astute. Is it talk?

T -A -U -G -H -T doesn't... That's really all I ever see. Just a bunch of doctrinites bragging about their knowledge, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

You really were hypocritical, James. You say Dave does certain stuff and commit the very thing you're trying to accuse him of.

Well, like I said, maybe you haven't read any of Edwards. Maybe you haven't read any of the commentaries of Calvin where he talks about the love of God.

Have I written a book on the love of God? No, I have not written a book on the love of God. Then again, neither has Dave Hunt, to my knowledge.

John MacArthur did, but then Dave Hunt misrepresented that. Well, anyway, again, no hypocrisy demonstrated there, but just the kind of...

shoot those things out there. The only thing you said about others writing about God's love was mention one man and also Calvin himself, but you never explained what they said about love, nor did you address the issue

Dave was trying to bring up. Yes, I did. That if he's read all these books, then he should know these things. That wasn't the point to go, let's stop and let's spend the next couple of hours discussing all the things

Reformed people have written about the love of God. The point is that there is plenty of stuff about the love of God.

The point is also that Dave's view of the love of God is incoherent. Then he quotes 1

Corinthians 13. 13. And now by faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity, which should be love, of course.

Please explain to me why doctrine is more important than this. Wow, it isn't.

In fact, Hebrews, which is chock full of hard -to -understand doctrine, ironically says for us to leave doctrine. Now, if you're familiar with what he's talking about there, then you would be aware of the fact that he's talking about Hebrews chapter 6.

And Hebrews chapter 6 is, Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity.

And he interprets that to mean that we should leave doctrine. Hebrews definitely says to leave doctrine.

I wonder if you've ever even seen that. Our heart should be established by grace, not doctrine.

Isn't that a doctrinal statement? That our heart should be established by grace? How do you define grace without dealing with the doctrine of grace?

That gives you two examples, sort of sad examples, of the kind of folks that are finding

Dave Hunt's writings on this subject to be compelling.

And neither one of them speaks very well for the ability of that position to provide a meaningful foundation for serious apologetic interaction with the world out there.

Let's put it that way. There you go.

We get letters. Now you give an idea. The kind of stuff that comes in, I don't see a lot of it.

One of those came directly to me from Straightgate and one was forwarded from another direction.

So, there's more like that. I just don't have to see it. And I can guarantee you, when the book on Calvinism comes out, boy, it's going to be interesting.

Well, anyway, for the rest of the program this evening, for those of you who were not in channel at 7 a .m.

Pacific Daylight Time, 9 o 'clock Central Time on Monday morning, we had a brief interaction with David Bernard, the

President of the Irshon Graduate School of Theology, the Chief Theologian for the United Pentecostal Church International, one of the chief spokespersons for oneness theology in the

United States in opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. And I did not know until the day of the encounter what kind of time frames you were going to have, so it was very much an off -the -cuff type of a situation.

When you boiled it all down, we got to a grand total of around 34 minutes of interaction.

And that's not per person, that's the totality thereof, which isn't much. And so what we're going to do is we're going to play that for you.

We're going to skip our break and just go ahead and play this and finish the program off with this. You will notice that twice

I invite Dr. Bernard to do a full -fledged debate on this subject, and I never heard a response back.

But at least we got this one in. And so here from this past Monday morning, my encounter with David Bernard on the issue of the preexistence of Christ as a divine person.

James White and David Bernard on with us. Good morning, gentlemen. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. Dr. Bernard, tell us a little bit about yourself.

We know you were born at a very early age, but besides that... Yes, I'm a pastor in Austin, Texas. I'm the president of the

Urshan Graduate School of Theology located in St. Louis. I was raised in Korea.

All right. James White, good morning. Good morning. How are you? Real fine. Thanks for joining us. It's good to be back with you.

It's been a while. It sure has. Heard from Dave Hunt recently? Not since we finished our book, which will be coming out in February of next year.

Who publishes that? Multnomah. And that's going to be on Calvinism, right? It's called Debating Calvinism, 5

Points, 2 Views. Okay, good. And if anyone can get Dave to actually interact with me on the radio program, it'll be you guys, because you're so utterly persuasive.

Is the other view Dave's view? Yes. Okay. Well, James, tell us a little bit about yourself.

Well, I'm director of Alpha Omega Ministries, an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and live out here in sunny, warm Phoenix, Arizona.

All right. And why do you think it's important for us to dialogue with our oneness friends?

And I'm going to ask David Bernard the same question. Well, I think it's very important, because obviously we believe very different things in regards to the nature of God and I believe

Christian worship is worship based upon truth. I believe that one of the things that separates Christian worship from the worship of the religions of the world is that, as Jesus said, the

Father seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. We do not worship what we do not know. We worship

Himself as He has revealed Himself to us. And therefore, it's very, very important, because we have some very fundamental differences, primarily the issue between us is whether the

Son, as a divine person, has eternally existed or not. All right.

And that's the issue. All right. Dr. Bernard, you agree? I agree it's important to talk, because we're all interested in truth and the way that we understand truth is through study and looking at various views.

And I think anything that promotes the study of Scripture is valuable. All right.

Well, let's give you gentlemen each five -minute segments. That'll be plenty of time. And there'll be no cutting in or out.

But let's start with Dr. Bernard and we'll close with Dr. White. Dr. Bernard, why don't you start?

Does the Son exist as a divine person in eternity? Well, let me answer your question by giving you a little background first.

And we believe that there is one God, absolutely one God, indivisible in His personality, in His essence.

And we believe that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of that one

God. We actually believe the fullness of God, the indivisible Godhead, is revealed, is fully manifested in Jesus Christ, so that we can say that God, the

God of the Old Testament, is manifest in the flesh, that in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the

Godhead bodily. We understand the term Son of God to refer to Jesus Christ as He was born of the

Virgin Mary, to the God -Man, or God as He is manifested in the flesh.

So we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We also believe that He is God. We think the term

God refers to His eternal nature. We think the term Son refers to His incarnation.

So we would not say the Son is eternal in the sense of that term and that office, that incarnation or manifestation.

However, we would say that He who has been revealed to us as the Son is eternal.

In other words, Jesus Christ, the one true God, the eternal God, He is the eternal

God. So the one who has come in these last days in flesh as the

Son is eternal. But the flesh is not eternal. The manifestation is not eternal.

For this, we find scripture, and I assume you're wanting me to go ahead with the five minutes here. Yes, go ahead.

That's what I'm doing. We start with the Old Testament as giving us the foundational information about who

God is. We understand progressive revelation. The New Testament is supreme revelation. But if I can compare it to learning arithmetic and learning calculus, you have to know your arithmetic before you can understand your calculus.

So the Old Testament introduces us to who God is. And it says in absolute terms

Deuteronomy 6 .4 and many other passages, Here, O Israel, the Lord our

God is one Lord. The book of Isaiah defines God as alone, by Himself, none like Him.

He will not share His glory with another. He created the heaven alone. He created the earth by Himself.

Absolute terms that distinguish the one true God from any idea of multiplicity of personalities within God.

God is a personal being, a spirit being. Then when He was manifest in the flesh, Colossians 2 .9

talks about Jesus, in Him dwells all, the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

1 Timothy 3 .16, God was manifest in the flesh. Titus 2 .13, we're looking for the appearing of our great

God and Savior, Jesus Christ. John 20 and 28, when Thomas saw the resurrected

Christ and understood really what had happened, he confessed, my Lord and my

God. As a Jew trained in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 6 .4, when he said, my

Lord and my God, he wasn't meaning a Lord and a God. He was meaning the one true God of the

Old Testament. We understand that Jesus is not only divine, but also human. And so when we say the

Son of God, we're including His humanity in that reference. For instance, in Luke 1 .35,

the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and explained to her that the child would be born of her would be called the

Son of God. And he said the Holy Spirit is going to overshadow you, the power of the highest. Therefore, the

Holy Child that's going to be born of you shall be called the Son of God. We believe that gives a scriptural definition of the

Son. Jesus is called the Son of God because the Spirit of God caused

His conception. Not Joseph or any earthly man. If Joseph had caused the conception, he would be the

Son of Joseph. But since God caused the conception, He is the Son of God. So when we say the

Son, we're including a reference to the humanity. For instance, we can speak of the death of His Son, death of God's Son, Romans 5.

We can't really speak of the death of God in the sense of God ceasing to exist or God going unconscious or anything like that.

But when we say the death of the Son, we understand according to the flesh the

Son died. But in Spirit, God has remained exactly the same as He always was.

So for us, the term Son always has a reference to the Incarnation. It refers to Jesus, who is both

God and man at the same time. But it's always in the context of the

Incarnation. The fact that God came in flesh is what enables us to speak of Him as the

Son of God. So to answer your question fully, we believe Jesus is the

Eternal God, but we do not believe He is the Eternal Son. Okay, that's five minutes for Dr.

Bernard and we'll put you on hold and then we're going to hear from Dr. White now. Dr. James White, we're dialoguing on, we're debating does the

Son exist as a divine person in eternity? James, you want to respond?

I certainly do. I think it's very, very important that we recognize that the fundamental issue here is not whether there is one

God because we both believe that. I believe that the issue is, is that one

God Unitarian in existence or Trinitarian in existence? And the only way to answer that question is not, of course, to look at passages that say there's only one

God, because we both believe that there is only one Jehovah. But is the unlimited, infinite being of God shared by only one person, or does the

Bible teach us that there are three persons that share that one being? And the fact that the

Bible teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, distinguishable from the Father, distinguishing

Himself from the Father, pre -existed His birth in Bethlehem as a divine person, demonstrates why the doctrine of the

Trinity is true. And so I would like to look primarily today at the passages that teach that the

Son existed as a divine person before His birth in Bethlehem, because these are the passages that I think demonstrate the truth, the doctrine of the

Trinity, over against the oneness teaching. Now, there are three passages, there are many passages, but three that I like to emphasize that make this very, very clear.

In John chapter 17, in Jesus' high priestly prayer, He specifically says these words in verse 5,

Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory which

I had with You before the world was. Now, obviously, these are two persons in communication.

When we use words like Me, You, I, with You, these are words that refer to persons.

This is the Son as a person referring to the Father as a distinct person, and the

Son is referring to the period of time before the world was. Hence, long before Jesus' birth in Bethlehem as the incarnate

Son of God, He, in the presence of the Father, shared divine glory.

Now, that's not something that a plan can say. That's not something that a forethought can say.

That is only something that a divine person can say to another divine person. So, here in John 17, 5, we have clear indication on the part of the

Lord Jesus that He viewed Himself as an individual who existed in the presence of the

Father before His birth in Bethlehem. The same is to be found in regards to Philippians chapter 2.

Philippians chapter 2 makes it very, very clear that, again, the Lord Jesus existed as a divine person prior to His birth in Bethlehem.

We have these words. Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied

Himself, taking the form of a bondservant and being made in the likeness of men. Now, Christian exegetes down to the centuries have understood the passage to refer to the period prior to the

Incarnation, when the Son had equality with the Father in Heaven itself, as a divine person.

But oneness advocates say this passage refers to the time of Jesus' human ministry. Now, if, in fact, the passage refers to the period before the

Incarnation of Christ, then it's plain that the Son pre -existed as a person, was active and divine, and hence the debate is conclusive.

The Trinitarian position is established. Now, it's the verbs in this passage that determine the truth of the issue.

Notice what it says. Have this attitude, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied

Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Now, when we examine the actual text,

Paul presents two different clauses. The action of existing and consider equality, they go together.

This is important because to consider something is the action of a person. The key verb is emptied.

The possession of equality took place before the emptying. Taking the form of a servant describes the means of the emptying, as does being made in the likeness of men.

Now, obviously, Jesus was made in the likeness of men at the incarnation, not at some later point where He's already a man.

And so, those two verbs describe the means of the emptying. Therefore, the equality that He had, and the consideration of that equality, was before the incarnation, and that is the action of a divine person prior to His coming into flesh as the

Son of God in Bethlehem. The third passage, which I can only mention right now because time's running out, is John chapter 1, verse 1.

The Word exists personally in the presence of the Father in eternity past.

That's not just a plan. That's not just an idea. It is not an idea that became flesh. It is the Word who became flesh.

The Word is a divine person. Thank you. Alright, James, we're going to give David Bernard, Dr.

David Bernard, a chance to respond to that. In 10 minutes, we'll be opening up the phone lines for your questions.

Just questions only. You say, well, I have a comment. We'll put the comment in the form of a question and address either gentleman.

Alright, let's continue with our debate. Trinity or Oneness? Dr. James White and Dr.

David Bernard. And, I believe, who's up? Uncle Al? It is time for David Bernard to respond.

You've got five minutes. Alright, very good. Go ahead, sir. Alright. I think it's very important for us to discuss the

Oneness of God because we don't mean the same thing when we say one God. When I say one

God and I think it's important to go from the Old Testament through the New Testament to see how the

Bible speaks of God as one. I mean God has one personality, one divine will.

When we get to Heaven, we're going to see one person on the throne. Now, apparently, James White feels that there are three personal entities in the

Godhead that can talk back and forth, and so there's a division of mind, of will, of personality.

I'm not sure if he expects to see one, two, or three when he gets to Heaven, but I think it's very important to establish the absolute

Oneness of God. I think if you read through the Bible, you'll see those phrases or those terms regarding Oneness are stated absolutely.

Now, when we go to John chapter 17, we do not find God praying because God, by definition, does not need to pray.

What we find is Jesus Christ as a real, authentic human being praying to the

Eternal God. In order to die for our sins, Jesus had to be a human being. He had to be fully human in every way like us, except for sin.

So, if we could pray, we have to understand that Jesus could pray, but the prayers of Jesus show nothing about His Deity.

They simply show that He is a real human being. And we see this in verse 1, He's lifting up His eyes to Heaven.

He's praying to the Father. In verse 3, He says, This is life eternal that they might know

Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.

Now, He is making a distinction between the Eternal God and Himself in His humanity.

But if you make that distinction and try to put it into the Godhead, then you would have the

Father, whom He references in verse 1, as the only true God.

And you would have Jesus Christ outside the Godhead. That would be a

Jehovah's Witness type interpretation, which of course I don't espouse. My point being,

Jesus is praying in His humanity as a real man, considering Himself as a man and addressing the one

God as we would. Now, in that context, when He says, Glorify me with the glory

I had with you before the world was, He's speaking of His humanity. He's speaking of the cross. He's saying from ages past, this hour was planned.

And you can see the parallels in 1 Peter 1, the Lamb was foreordained from the foundation of the world.

Revelation, the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Now, the Lamb was not actually put on the cross before creation, but it's in the intention and purpose and predestination of God.

So Jesus, here as a man, is saying, I'm humbling myself to this hour. This is the hour

I was born for. Now, fulfill the purpose. Fulfill the plan.

The glory that I had in the mind and purpose and predestination of God, now it's to be fulfilled.

If you go to Philippians chapter 2, we find that Jesus, it's speaking of Jesus as God incarnate.

And it's saying that even though Jesus was disguised, you might say, when the average person saw

Him, they did not directly see deity. Only through the eyes of faith could they see that Jesus was more than just a man.

But the point is, Jesus in His humble servant role was every much the same as God before the incarnation.

God in the incarnation was no less than God before the incarnation. Yet, Jesus did not assert

His divine prerogatives, but lived a humble life as a man in order to die for us.

And when it talks about Him emptying Himself, I would say that doesn't refer to before the incarnation, or just to the moment of incarnation.

But it refers to His whole earthly life culminating in His death on the cross.

That's when He emptied Himself and you see a beautiful parallel in Isaiah 53 12, which is a

Messianic passage, saying that He emptied His soul in death. And so that invalidates the whole reasoning that the emptying would have to occur before the incarnation, or at the incarnation.

Again, the whole focus here is the human identity of Christ because the passage starts off by saying let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.

Speaking of us and our human identity, we're to emulate Christ. We can't emulate according to His eternal deity, but we can emulate

Him according to His human identity and human example for us. And that's simply what this passage is referring to.

Alright, do you have anything else to add? Well, it's been five minutes, so it was good timing.

And before we... We're going to open up the phones, but the phones are going crazy, so it's a little late.

Remember, you're calling with a question. We'll take it after the next break. A question, not a comment.

The gentlemen we have on are quite good at making the comments. Okay, James, you have five minutes.

James White, and we're talking about does the Son exist as a divine person in eternity? James White and Dr.

David Bernard. Go ahead, James. Thank you very much. Dr. Bernard just said that I feel that there are different persons, and that we will only see one person in heaven.

Yet, of course, in Revelation chapters 4 and 5, we have a vision of heaven, and there the Lamb is clearly distinguished from He who sits on the throne as an individual person, and is even the object of worship in that particular passage.

But I want to focus primarily upon what was just said, because I honestly believe that the text, as it was inspired by the

Holy Spirit of God, of John 17, 5, and Philippians chapter 2, cannot be interpreted in the way that Dr.

Bernard has just presented. And, you know, we don't have a lot of time to develop this here. I would like to invite Dr. Bernard to do a full or three -hour debate or so on this in person.

We've done this many times with other folks, and I want to make sure that he's aware of the fact that we would desire to do that. Now, I think

Jesus' prayer life is an insurmountable problem for the Oneness position. Certainly, Jesus is praying as a human being here, because we believe that Jesus is one person.

He is fully God. He is fully man, but he is one person. And what Jesus says in John chapter 17 is not that this plan that has been predestined for ages past is now coming together.

He says specifically, Father, glorify me together with yourself with the glory which

I had. Not a human nature, not a plan, not a predestined concept, but the glory which

I had with you. Not in any other place than in the fellowship of the

Father and the Son. The Father and the Son were glorious. They shared that glory before the world was.

And there simply is no other way of looking at the text. I would challenge Dr. Bernard to tell us, where in the

Greek text do you get this idea of a predestined plan or something along the lines of that?

It just simply isn't going to be found anywhere whatsoever. When we go to Philippians chapter 2, this is even more clearly seen, because the comment was just made, well, what we have going on here, really, is this emptying is his whole life.

Again, I would challenge Dr. Bernard to explain to us, if that is the case, then what is the syntactical relationship, the grammatical relationship, the relationship on the basis of the text itself, in regards to those terms that are used?

For example, when it says he emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant, being made in the likeness of man, those participles that are used there, how are they related to the word emptying?

If emptying is his whole life, then please explain how taking the form of a bondservant, is that just simply in his serving others?

And then notice, being made in the likeness of men. Those two phrases are parallel to one another.

They are two participial phrases that are explaining the means by which he emptied himself. How is it that Jesus was made in the likeness of men throughout his life?

This is why Christian theologians down through the years have understood the passage to be referring to the incarnation itself.

That he emptied himself by entering into that which he himself created. He made himself of no reputation.

He didn't come with all sorts of you know, he wasn't wearing the halo that you see in pictures and things like that.

We did not see him as if he looked like anyone else, like he looked different from anyone else.

His glory was veiled, but he entered into human existence. This is how he did so.

And if that's the case, then he was active as a divine person beforehand because he did not consider the quality he had with the

Father before his incarnation. And I point out to you, it's very consistent. John 14 28,

Jesus talks about the fact that the Father is greater than he is. In what way? In the way that he has just indicated in John 14.

I'm returning back to the presence of the Father. I'm going back to be with the Father. To where he was before.

That position of glory that he had before. None of these things could be said of a mere human nature who did not pre -exist.

Remember, it is the Son through whom all things were made. And it's interesting to listen. I would like to ask

Dr. Bernard, Colossians chapter 1, where it talks about Jesus Christ as the creator of all things. It does so as the

Son. It is the Son who created all things and for whom all things were made and through whom. Are all those prepositions that Paul uses there, are they just meant to be in reference to on behalf of the

Son or on account of the Son? No, they are the activities of the Son in creating all things.

The Son, as a divine person, was active prior to the incarnation itself.

And since that's the case, we have two divine persons, both sharing the one name that is Jehovah.

That is the very foundation, the very reason why this position of oneness has been rejected down through the centuries.

Thank you. Alright, we're going to give both of you a chance to go at each other for about three minutes.

We'll be back in just a minute and then we're going to get to our listeners who have questions. Alright, our guests are

Dr. James R. White himself. He is a believer in the

Trinity. Dr. David Bernard is a New Life UPC. Oneness, by the way, is oneness, is it okay to call you oneness?

Is that considered oneness? We are oneness

Pentecostals, or Jesus' name. Pentecostals are apostolic. Pentecostals, that's the typical designation.

We've got about three minutes. You were both asking some questions and you probably want some time to answer those. We're just going to let you guys duke it out for the next three minutes.

We'll get to Brian and Rob in their questions here in just about three minutes. Go ahead, Joe. Dr. Bernard, do you want to respond?

Yes. Let me just say there's no way we can delve into all this in the limited time.

You have a book, The Oneness of God, also another book, The Oneness of Jesus Christ, that actually has a chapter on each of these questions that have been raised.

Do I have three minutes at this point? Yes. We were kind of hoping you both would be going back and forth for the three minutes because we want to get to the callers.

I just want to say Revelation 4 says there's one

God on the throne. The Lamb comes out of the throne and comes back to the throne. That's the vision representing the

Incarnation. Revelation 22, 3 -4 is very clear that God and the Lamb is one personal being with one face, one name sitting on the throne.

I think we need to emphasize the importance of the fullness of God. The one

Jehovah is fully revealed in Jesus Christ. That's what we're missing. I can comment on all the other points raised, but maybe we don't have time to do that.

Are we supposed to be interacting? Yes. I see nothing in Revelation 4. This is a picture of the Incarnation.

There's nothing in the text that indicates that. In fact, the text indicates just the opposite in Revelation 4 and 5 because it's talking about the martyrs of the church which obviously did not exist prior to the

Incarnation. So again, you have an interaction between He who sits on the throne and the

Lamb. I just wanted to point out that Dr. A .T. Robertson, the greatest

Greek scholar America has ever produced in regards to John 17, 5 said With thine own self, by the side of thyself,

Jesus prays for full restoration of the pre -incarnate glory and fellowship enjoyed before the

Incarnation. This is not just ideal pre -existence, but actual and conscious existence of the Father's side.

And I do address these issues in my book, The Forgotten Trinity, but instead of just having folks go out and get competing books and things like that,

I again would like to point out that I've done debates. I'll be debating Gregory Stafford, a

Jehovah's Witness apologist in December in Tampa. I've done 47 moderated public debates since 1990, and I would like to invite

Dr. Bernard. I debated someone that Dr. Bernard knows fairly well, Robert Sabin, on this particular subject.

You can listen to those debates. They're done with respect. They're done in a proper fashion, and you also don't have to talk this fast this early in the morning to get all your points in.

Alright, let's go to the phones and let's take a question from Rob. He's been holding on. Good morning, Rob. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

And may God bless us all and bring us all to the truth of His revelation.

And since you guys have almost covered every question I had, I just have one for Dr.

Bernard. Okay. And how can you be a father if you have no offspring? That's a good question.

Go ahead. That's exactly my point. The term father is a term of relationship.

God is the Father in the context of relationships with humans. God is the Father of Jesus Christ because Jesus was born of the

Virgin Mary, and that's how we define the Son of God in Scripture. Okay, James, you want to respond to that?

Well, the problem is that the Son is described as the Son in Colossians 1 prior to the Incarnation.

So the relationship of the Father and the Son pre -existed the Incarnation when the Son was a divine person in the presence of the

Father. Alright, let's go to the last call. We've got Brian. Good morning, Brian. Yeah, good morning.

My question, I guess, is first to Dr. White. It's Galatians 3 and 20. The Bible says now a mediator is a mediator of one, but God is one.

I'm curious of how, when the Bible says there specifically that God is one, how you can interpret that to be a plurality when

I haven't found it otherwise. Could you explain your view on that? The doctrine of the

Trinity has always asserted very strongly that God is one. The question is, is He one in being or one in person?

We believe that He is one in being because that is the contrast with all the false gods, where there are many gods, polytheism, and things like that.

If you take all that the Bible reveals, however, we then have to recognize that that one name Jehovah that is used, that one true

God is used to the Father, used to the Son, the Spirit is the Spirit of Jehovah, and the Bible distinguishes between those persons and does not confound them.

And as we have seen in this debate, I believe the Bible is very clear that the Son preexisted as a divine person.

Therefore, that oneness must be taken in its entire understanding in the Scriptures. Dr. Bernard, do you believe though that a person who doesn't believe in the

Trinity or maybe isn't baptized in Jesus' name, are they going to go to Heaven? I believe that a thorough intellectual understanding of the

Godhead is not essential, although it is desirable. There must be some basic understanding that Jesus is both

God and man, that Jesus died for our sins. He is our personal Savior, and of course we must obey the

Gospel. Acts 2 .38 does command us to repent, to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, to receive the gift of the

Holy Ghost. And so I think that is where we need to start in our obedience to the

Gospel. James, do you believe that if a person doesn't believe in the Trinity that they are going to Heaven? Let's say they are baptized in Jesus' name.

They saw in Matthew 28 where Jesus baptized them in the name of the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Spirit. But they would say, of course, that is the name, the name of Jesus. And they see the disciples baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

What about that? Are the people who are baptized in Jesus' name who don't believe in the Trinity, are they going to Heaven?

That depends on whether that non -belief in the Trinity is a purposeful non -belief, that is a purposeful rejection, or something of ignorance.

I know many an evangelical Christian who is simply ignorant of the truth in regards to the subject, and then they end up believing something that isn't quite correct.

And upon correction, they embrace that. But if it is a purposeful rejection, I just remind us of what the

Scripture itself says. 1 John 2 .23 says, Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father.

The one who confesses the Son has the Father also. Now the question is, if we believe that the

Son was merely a plan, did not exist as a divine person, came into existence at the time of His birth in Bethlehem, is that confessing the

Son? I do not believe that it is. Okay, now, the only one sin will not be forgiven in this world or the world to come, and that's blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit. So it's important to know who or what is the Holy Spirit, David Bernhardt?

The Holy Spirit is God Himself. It's spoken of in the terms of God, His spiritual essence and spiritual action.

It's possible not to know who Jesus is, but to be open to God, to pray, be

God, and receive a revelation of who Jesus is and be saved, like Paul did. But if you resist the very grace of God, the very

Spirit that would draw you, if you fight against that, God has no other means of getting around that to reveal truth to you.

So in that sense, it's blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, there's no alternative. Well, I'm a little confused then. If the

Holy Spirit is God and Jesus is God and God is God, that's Trinitarian, is it not?

No, not at all. There's one God who has revealed Himself in personal relationship with our

Father, who came in flesh as the Son. The Son was born of a woman, by the way, Galatians 4.

4, not preexistent, although God used the plan from the beginning.

The Lamb was not slain until the right time. And the Spirit is

God working in our lives, one God. We believe that God is our

Father, but we don't think that that makes Him a different God than the Holy Spirit.

And I think what will help clarify this, when we get to Heaven, if we're going to see three personal beings, that is not one

God in any meaningful sense of the English, Greek, or Hebrew words. If you look at Revelation 22, 3 -4, the throne singular of God and the

Lamb shall be in it, and His servant singular shall serve Him. They shall see His face. His name shall be in there for His.

God will be revealed as one personal being with one face or one throne, with one supreme name, and that's the true doctrine of the

Oneness of God. Alright, James White, you have the last minute. Well, and that's exactly where I think we get an excellent example of this, because what was just mentioned regarding the

Holy Spirit, Jesus clearly distinguished between the Father Himself and the Holy Spirit. He said He and the

Father, two persons, would send the Spirit to dwell within us, the third person. It's allowing all of Scripture to speak.

What we just saw in the book of Revelation, the book of Revelation does show us the unity of the being of God, the close relationship that exists.

There is only one throne. However, it also, if we allow it to speak for itself, demonstrates the distinction between the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit. And so, it's balance. It's allowing all of Scripture to speak, and I believe that if we look carefully, and if we had the time to dig very carefully, we could do cross -examination of one another on the basis of the text.

In John 17, Philippians chapter 2, we would see the complete balance of the doctrine of the

Trinity as the biblical revelation of the truth of who Jesus Christ truly is.

Very good. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today. We really appreciate you both. Thank you. Thank you so much.

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.