August 21, 2003

Sufficiency of Scripture and the Coming Book Project

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic here is James white.

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 won't 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 only miss one 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 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 Email on Arminianism and Calvinism

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 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 Sun 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 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 that's that's the way it is the people who wish to erase the history of this nation's Relationship to the Bible is 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 of the land and dumbed down the populace.

It's a I think there are tremendous There are tremendous The 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 some strange ones and This email was forwarded to me.

It was sent to straightgate .com that hosts our archives and. But it was aimed at me. So it was it was sent to me evidently someone listened to the archive program from last week of 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 I'll try to put together as best I can but this gives you an idea of Some of the stuff that is 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 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? They could not respond. Well that act that that was the only line I've seen so far. It 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. God can have that foreknowledge even though you cannot understand. He can have it of libertarian foreknowledge.

Arminian is showing how Preselectism is a dead God a God that he himself sins. Preselecting sinners making sin. That is wrong. Calvin's therefore worship a God small g of sin. This is all biblical even though it is accused actually at the cusp of not being So does not mean it is not in full agreement with Scripture according to Genesis 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 moment.

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.

Okay 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 pre select 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 pre selects 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 shoot chooses who goes to hell. God has the freedom to do this. But he does not under a cow, but he does not under a Calvin. God would.

Wou LD 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.

Except don't analyze disobedience accepted. God cannot be glorified for it. Otherwise this evil is authored by an evil God of Calvinism. I like see no. He knows the word Calvinism just.

Hmm.

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. UNSAL VAT ion unsalvation. Reformations of Sardis have been false revivals. Calvin's 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. Calvin's falsely accused of this. This rewiring that's 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. Mmm, that sounds familiar graced when made in the image of God. The error is where was that grace under Arminian. Arminian in this? It was that our creation under Calvinism.

It is in pre select select ism. The latter is demented. Sorry white says we are not chatty Kathy dolls. Why we were not chatty Kathy dolls but under Calvinism. We are chatty Kathy dolls because grace to pre select ism is needed.

Demented we are pre-programmed under Calvinism. Calvinism is sick. It's almost done. There is the constant rejection of the chatty Kathy 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 I Evidently, I'm I don't remember exactly which which program this was. This is in response to but I guess I pointed out.

Well, there's no scripture citation. I guess it was in my response to Hank Cantergrass comments and I Point out sure would be nice if we could. You know, this looks like what he was just doing is sitting there typing stuff as I was speaking that's why it's it's doesn't really have any form to it and I made the statement, but it should be nice if we get into some.

You know.

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 passages just about them.

These men were not predestined in their actions because they were chatty Kathy 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 Kathy dolls. It's it's spelled the exact same way each time. 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 act. 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 anybody do that.

White hates this calling them pillow talk boys. Where did that come from pretty bad and 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 as they have 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. PS. He should treat God as biblical psychology.

Don't. As I said we get letters. Okay, well this next one actually makes sense and and the guy is nice and. So I thought I'd read it read it as well. This is back from December 7th of last year. Well, this was just sent this week, but it was in response to people go back and they listen to those archives.

I mean they they really get listened to a lot and so sometimes people people will write to me and they will Assume I've been listening to.

The.

Same thing they've been listening to and this was comments Years ago and that frequently I have to end up looking really stupid because I had to sort of go to him and go. What are you talking about? And they have to give me the URL and I have to go back and go.

Oh, okay. All right. So anyways, at least I know 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 points. He says I do think you were seriously wrong on some things you said.

Here's here's some of the issues. Number one second. That's what is 213 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 first recipients in the 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 in order 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 on promoting the the 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 the first fruits unto salvation is not something different. I mean if you're the first recipients 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 that stuff.

So I I don't see the relevance of the of the first first point that was raised. Number two. You took issue with him quoting different Calvinist scholars is saying that people do not have the real or true gospel.

And so they hell have the Calvin gospel. Do I stutter? The Calvin gospel if you mean if you referring to Calvinism or Reform theology, but 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 there 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 and shall I know even as also I am known The thief in the cross next 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 that and is 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 Arminian ism.

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 diddly-or-annoying us 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 the hour time frame here. Number three you said Dave never will give answer to a scripture like John 316. You says it's you say it says everyone believing not whosoever.

Now then here's here's where we get and this is sort of the Dave Hunt type thing that would be Strong's 3956 coupled to 3588. 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 the subjunctive that type of thing.

And.

Doing so on the basis of Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible that's that's not a good thing to do and It ends up creating some some major league difficulties. The the rest of the comments then are based upon that that kind of a problem all I simply said is.

And I pass hop is to own ice out on means are 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 I'd be that word. What about other places?

The writer just simply completely misses the entire Construction because he's 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 I seem to recall very clearly. He was mocking. You can you can. You can just listen to it for yourself go back and listen to the December 7th the program and and you can hear it for yourself.

There accuses him of lying. I Think what he means there that point. I said well. You know if he's read all of these Calvinists if he's read 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 you cannot even you can't get through a page without talking about the sweetness of Christ and the love of God and and All these other things and so to say they never talk about it's just it's just it's just absolutely ridiculous.

It shows Incredibly shallow a knowledge of the field and so he's he's either lying, and he didn't read all the books. Or he did read the books. He's lying about what's in the books, so you can put either either direction you want.

Well, where is your writing about the love of God? Where's all these writings be speak of his love? I haven't seen them either just a bunch of big.

Taught.

Tau ght taught about being astute. Is it talk. Tau ght doesn't know that. 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 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. You know maybe you haven't haven't read any of the commentaries of Calvin where he talks the love of God. Have I written a book in the love of God? No, I have not written a book on the love of God then again neither is Dave Hunt to my knowledge John MacArthur did.

But then Dave Hunt misrepresented that oh well anyway. Again, no hypocrisy demonstrated there, but just you know the kind of you know shoot those things out there. The only thing you said about others writing about God's love was mentioned 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. 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 1st Corinthians 13 13. And now by faith hope charity these three. But the greatest these is charity which should be love of course. Please explain explain to me why doctrine is more important than this.

Huh. 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 if you're familiar With what he's talking about there. Then you would be aware of the fact that he's 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? Ah well, there's there's that that that gives you two examples sort of sad examples of the 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 to provide a meaningful foundation for serious apologetic interaction with the world out there, let's put it that way and It is.

Well, there you go we get letters now you give an idea Kind of stuff that becomes and I don't see a lot of it I just happened one of those came directly to me from straight gate and.

One.

Was forwarded from another 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 Gonna be gonna be interesting.

The Brief Encounter with David Bernard on the Pre-Existence of Christ

Well anyway For the rest of 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 Roshan Graduate School of Theology the chief theologian for the United Pentecostal Church International While 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're going to have so it was very much a 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 Totality thereof which isn't much and. So what we're going to do is we're going to play that for you. I'm going to skip our break and just go ahead and play this and finish the program off with this.

I 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 a David Bernard on the issue of the pre-existence of Christ as a.

Divine person. James White and David Bernard on with us. Good morning, gentlemen. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. Dr. Bernard. Tell us a little bit about yourself. Yeah, 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. Five points two 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 Persuasive is the other view. Dave's view. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm director of alphanumeric 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.

The Trinitarian Case from John 17, Philippians 2, and John 1

Why do you think it's important for us to dialogue?

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 Sun as a divine person has eternally existed or not.

Issue. All right, dr. Bernard. You agree. Five-minute segments. That'll be plenty of time. The Sun exists in the New Testament. Have to know your arithmetic son of God. We're including his humanity in that reference.

I would be born a man if Joseph or dr. Bernard and We put you on hold and then we're going to hear from.

Logging on does the 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 doctrines of Trinity is true.

And so I would like to look primarily today at the passages that teach that the Sun Existed as a divine person before his birth in Bethlehem because these the passages that I think Demonstrate the truth the doctrines of Trinity over against the one that's 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. And Jesus is 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 Sun as a person Referring to the father as a distinct person and the Sun is referring to the period of time before the world was hence long before Jesus's 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 exists 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 Sun had equality with the father in heaven itself as a divine person. But one this advocates say this passage refers to the time of Jesus's human ministry.

Now if in fact the passage refers the period before the incarnation of Christ That the Sun pre-existed as a person was active and divine and hence the debate is concluded the Trinitarian position is Established now it's the verbs in this passage that determined 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 times running out is John chapter 1.

Verse 1 the word exists personally in the presence of the Father in eternity path. 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.

All right, James your question question just questions only you say well. I have a comment. We'll put the comment in the form of a question and address either either gentlemen all right. Let's continue with our debate.

Trendy or oneness. Dr. James White's and dr. David Bernard. It is time for one God and I believe James White feels that there. But I think it's very important to establish the absolute to read through the Bible.

You'll see the writing oneness are stated and God. Praying because God by definition does not need a real often that Jesus could lifting up his eyes to heaven. He's praying and he has a real man considering himself as a man and addressing the one God as we would.

Now in that context with the glory I had with you before the world was he's speaking of his humanity. He spayed just passed on the world revelation the way it's in the intention and purpose and predetermined.

Jesus here is a man is saying I'm humbling myself to this hour. This is the hour I find and saw him. They did not direction was no less than God before the incarnation yet Jesus did not assert his divine prerogatives.

But as a man in order would say that doesn't for the moment of inquiry in his death. Oh, which is a messianic passage saying that he emptied his Validates the the whole real identity of Christ because this mind be in you.

Emulated according to his eternal deity, but we can emulate him according simply what this path. Do you have any anything else to add? Well, it's been five minutes. Oh, it was good timing. And before we.

We're gonna open up the phones, but the phones are going crazy. So it's a little late number. You're calling with a question not a comment. 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 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 Can not be interpreted in the way that dr. Bernard has just presented and I you know We don't have a lot of time to develop this here.

I would like to invite. Dr Bernard to do a a full or three hour debate or so on this in person. We've done this many times though. There are other folks and I want to make sure that he's aware of the fact that we would desire to do that now.