Caller Driven Show

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 afternoon, welcome to the Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon, regularly scheduled time.

Yes, we did this just yesterday, just over 24 hours ago, I guess. But we are back again, this time caller -driven or tweet -driven, if you'd like.

Dividing .line on Skype, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, or Dr.

Oakley, 1689 on Twitter. In fact, I'll start off with a question that was tweeted a number of hours ago by a fellow by the name of Peter Uld.

And as soon as I saw that, I said, Uld? Is that like that guy down in Sydney, David Uld?

And his response was, shared a womb at the same time. I think that means they were twins.

I think. That's my guess. That's biologically, that would probably be the best guess on that.

So this would be David Uld's brother, who is, I guess, still in the land of enlightenment, still in England, rather than in exile down under, which is where David is.

We're not sure exactly what David did to deserve that. But it's okay, because we're going to try to get back there, looking at August of 2011 for the great return to Australia.

I hope that works out. Anyway, he had a question, and it's something about social media that when you only have 140 characters, when you have to go through a number of things here just to get to the question, but I'll see if I can figure it out here on TweetDeck.

I want to know how confessional believers' baptism fits with all of the Philippian jailer's household being baptized.

Scripture only gives us the jailer making a confession of faith. Doesn't this passage fit the model of baptizing believers?

Go to the next tweet, which is actually, that was two tweets, now we go to the next tweet. Children as disciples based on their parents' faith.

Now, this, of course, is a common text that we've addressed a number of times in the debates.

In fact, I think it's come up in every single debate we've done. The one back in 1995, the one we did at New Mexico State University, the one that we did with Pastor Shishko, the one we did with Greg Strawbridge, and the,

I don't even list it as a debate, but the discussion that I had with a Presbyterian brother down in Brisbane, Australia last, so I've done five debates on that subject now, but we only make available,

I think, two of them, the most, two most recent ones, I recall. Anyway, we've addressed this issue a number of times.

Let's remind everybody what the text says, and I will then scroll all of this up so that if you send me something on Twitter, I'll actually get it.

That's DrOakley1689 for other questions you would have. Acts 16, 31 through 35, they said,

Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household. And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

Please note that. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds. And immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

And he brought them into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Now, the argument that has been made is that the phrase rejoiced greatly is singular. And so you have only this one individual is rejoicing.

And so I've actually had some of my Reformed brethren say that only he believed in God, that the rest of his household, even though the word had been spoken to them, they had not believed in God.

Now, this one to me really makes me scratch my head, because if my

Reformed brethren are using this, then I really wonder what they're thinking.

We have some email questions? Really? Did we have them before the show started?

And did you tell me about this? No. Good. Thanks. Appreciate that. Very kind of you.

Thank you very much. You're what? You were busy. So was

I. But I would have made room to be prepared to give even better answers if I had known them.

Anyway, here's the point. First of all, the word of the

Lord was spoken to him together with all who were in his house. So either they believed or they rejected.

If they rejected the word of the Lord, could someone please tell me how this man is rejoicing greatly, having believed in God with his whole household?

Did his whole household believe or not? Certainly, if they rejected the word that was spoken to them, no.

And furthermore, how could there be infants in the house to whom the word of the Lord was spoken? So whoever is in his house could understand the proclamation of the gospel.

And the man rejoices. And if they're rejoicing together with him, if you say only he had believed, some people try to say it only says he believed.

And with his whole household is just they rejoice. So they reject the gospel but rejoice with him that he accepted it.

When does that ever happen? It doesn't. It just doesn't make any sense.

The obvious meaning of the text is that they proclaim the gospel to everybody in the household and they believed, it says, having believed in God with his whole household and that's why there's rejoicing.

So there's nothing here about baptizing infants, babies, baptizing people on the basis of somebody else's profession or anything like that.

And to try to read it that way ends up creating a situation where you've got a man rejoicing even though his family has rejected the gospel and yet they are rejoicing together with him that he's accepted the gospel, which is just,

I'm sorry, this doesn't make an ounce worth of sense. So no, I would say that this text does not substantiate that perspective at all.

877 -753 -3341 or dividing .line on Skype.

And then we have a question via Twitter. And it is, it's a big one.

It's one we've addressed a number of times before. But again, it takes us back to the original languages.

In 2 Peter 2, when we have, the question specifically is,

ESV study Bible equates master in 2 Peter 2, 1 is Jesus. This one really puzzles me, help.

It might be. In fact, it probably is. But I don't understand what the question is because again, the term master is despotese.

It's not kurios. And the bought them, again, if this is in reference to his sacrifice, then this is the only place in all the

New Testament where the price of sacrifice is not mentioned. And so again, the text in 2

Peter 2, verses 1 and 2, addressed on our website in the Reformed Theology section.

Lengthy discussion that can be found there. Yes, sir. Those questions that we could have given better answers to than we will, but we'll do our best.

Okay, well, the first email that I have here is from Lee. And he says,

Dr. White, I am a Reformed Baptist and very grateful for your ministry. I was listening to the

November 11, 2010 Dividing Line yesterday and enjoyed your response to the gentleman from Australia regarding infant baptism.

Right at the 46th minute of the podcast, you mentioned that baptism is always eschatological.

I listened intently and have re -listened to your further explanation, but I'm still not quite sure what you meant with that statement.

Can you elaborate on that for me a little more? I did completely understand that baptism isn't looking forward in hope that a person, child or infant, will one day be converted.

Just would like clarification on the above statement you made. Yeah, when you use the term eschatological, people automatically categorize that in a way that I didn't mean it, and that was my explanation.

In other words, when I said that it's eschatological, what

I mean by that is that it's looking at a completed situation. It's not looking forward to a hoped -for situation.

It is looking back on a completed situation. It is a finished thing. It is a sign of that which has already happened.

I've always found this to be odd. In fact, I think I might have it on my

Kindle, and I just haven't gotten to it yet. There's a new book out, I think, from Reformed Baptist Academic Press. I'm not certain.

I'd have to double -check on this. I've just been busy with other areas, and it's hard to keep up with every area. But I saw a book that had been released within the past six months,

I think, and the argument basically is that the Westminster Confession is inconsistent at this point.

And I've always thought this, and my Presbyterian brothers are pulling their hair out, but just bear with my

Baptist meanderings here. But to say that baptism is the sign of our union with Christ and then to say we give it in hopes for that union to take place in the future, that's the very issue that the federal theology guys go after, in essence.

They say, look, you're being inconsistent. They're saying you should not call your children to repentance and regeneration because you're then questioning the promise that you have given them in baptism.

If it is a sign of one's union with Christ, the idea it is a sign of a future fulfillment,

I just never see baptism functioning that way in the New Testament. And so that's what I meant by eschatological.

It is always looking back at the completedness of what it means rather than forward to a hope for fulfillment that in many instances we simply have to admit there is no future fulfillment because we do not have.

I'm sorry, I know there are people who believe this, but we do not have a promise that every single one of our offspring is part of the elect.

That's just not there. There are people who think it's there, but I'm sorry it's not. Yes, sir.

Okay, our second one is from Eric. So there's only two? Maybe.

Oh. I'm now getting phone calls from people saying, I can send emails in for questions on the show?

Oh, great. You mean through the contact thing? Yes. Oh, okay. So we might be getting more. In fact, I'm expecting a contact thing.

In fact, I'm surprised we didn't get it from Australia from this morning. So if you got one, let me know. Oh, okay. Well, sure.

From Brisbane. From Brisbane. Brisbane. Yes. We said that correctly. Brisbane. One of the first questions I was asked when

I was in Brisbane by someone who set it up as very, very serious was, how in the world did you find out how to actually say

Brisbane? Because everybody comes to the United States and says, it's nice to be here in Brisbane. And they're like, yeah.

So anyways, yes. Okay, so Eric asks an interesting question that I think would help for you to clarify.

I get this a lot. He asks, I'm interested in -

Oh, I see what you're doing. You just don't have time to answer all these things. You're just going to throw them out. Ah, okay. I got you.

Open phones is open phones. There you go. I'm interested in Calvinist philosophy in relation to the understanding of humility.

If you have any material, please let me know. And I was very intrigued by that because there's a lot of people out there, a lot of Armenians who think that Calvinism is merely a philosophy.

Interesting. Well, I would interpret, if I had seen that email before I sat down here,

I would have interpreted that. I would interpret the use of the term philosophy there not so much as a philosophical system as in what is the

Calvinist understanding of why we should live in humility or something like that. That's how

I would have taken that. All right. So taking it in that way, I would recommend to who was the writer?

Eric. I would recommend to Eric that there is a little booklet called

The Practical Implications of Calvinism written by Pastor Albert Martin that was published,

I think, by Banner of Truth Trust. And it is a tremendous brief.

I would assume it was probably a sermon. It's short enough to have been a sermon.

It will rip the arrogant hide off of any Calvinist, I assure you.

It really explains why it is that if you really do believe in sovereign grace and you really do believe that it's nothing of yourself, and if you really do believe that it's an eternal choice of God and there wasn't anything to where he looked forward and saw something in you that made him go, oh, isn't he wonderful?

I'll choose him. If you really believe all that stuff, then you have absolutely positively no basis whatsoever upon which to be arrogant about your salvation, prideful about people who don't see things the exact same way you do, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

He really makes it very, very, very clear that, oh, it's available online for free.

Thank you very much, Phibbo, online. GraceOnlineLibrary .org,

there is a printer -friendly version of it at GraceOnlineLibrary .org,

and that's one word. So go to GraceOnlineLibrary .org, look up Practical Implications of Calvinism, and you will be able to get it right there.

I highly recommend all my Calvinistic friends read it because it does take the hide right off you.

And we need that because the tendency of the human being is to become prideful.

So I would say that the Calvinist philosophy on humility is that if you are the object of God's sovereign grace, if you know your absolute unworthiness before God and there is nothing in you that detracted

God's grace, that's the greatest reason in the world to be humble. Okay, I've got another one.

I'm glad you do, especially since why isn't the phone ringing? I do not know. The phones are working, right?

Yes, they're working perfectly because we have a new provider we're working with. But why isn't anybody calling?

Because I even tweeted earlier. And we have a NetSplit on our channel. All right.

Jerry writes, Romans 2 -7. Jerry writes? Jerry. Hmm, Jerry.

With a G. Dun -dun -dun -dun. Romans 2 -7 is used to refute the doctrine of sola fide.

They interpret that by doing good, God will give eternal life.

How do I respond to this argument? Well, Romans 2 really needs to be a text that if you've picked up The God Who Justifies, you might want to take a look at what

Romans 2 is about because there's a couple of texts in Romans 2 that are utilized by those who oppose sola fide and sola gratia, the freeness of God and salvation.

And this is one of them. To those who by patience and well -doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

But for those who are self -seeking and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Now, if someone is trying to say that it is patiently seeking for glory and honor and immortality that results in your reception of eternal life, then the only person who could really say this would be a

Pelagian, a person who believes that it is solely on the basis of your actions that you receive eternal life.

And that evidently, apart from grace, you can be one who by patience and well -doing seeks for glory and honor and immortality.

And apart from grace, those others who are self -seeking do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, they receive wrath and fury, and there's nothing descriptive about the text.

It is all prescriptive. But the thing, again, you have to keep in mind is the difference between reading these texts prescriptively and descriptively.

If you read them as prescriptions, then all of salvation in the Bible is mission impossible.

There's no way. Because if you read this as a prescription as to how you obtain eternal life, then you need to go to 1

John, and you're going to need to love perfectly, and you need to do righteousness perfectly. And the whole point that Paul is going to get to is that if it is perfect obedience to anything, which is what this would be,

I mean, what is patient, well -doing, seeking for glory and honor and immortality if it is not keeping the law, if it is not keeping the highest example of God's revelation of what it is that is pleasing to Him?

So you either have that route, which demands perfection. That's the whole message of Romans and Galatians, is if you're going to walk down that line, if you're going to make this prescriptive, then you have to do it perfectly.

You can never mess up. There's no forgiveness for messing up. There's no mercy or grace down that road. He who lives by these things, he who abides by these things will live by these things.

That's how it goes. But if you recognize these as descriptive rather than prescriptive, then you understand what's being said.

This is a description of those who will receive eternal life. What is their life like?

Well, by patience and well -doing, they seek for glory and honor and immortality. Not thinking that what they're doing is going to earn something from God.

That's the very attitude that is going to be identified as what does not bring salvation in Romans chapter 4.

Those who work, the wage they receive, it's what's due. Those who do not work but believe in Him who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited to them as righteousness.

This is a description of the saved and how they live, and a description of the unsaved who are self -seeking, do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness.

Wrath and fury will be theirs. So these are descriptive texts. They're not prescriptive texts, and to turn them into that kind of text is frightening and results in a works salvation system.

Did you have any more? Actually, I do. This one just in.

Just in? This just in. And then we have to talk to Alan? Yes, we have to. Hi, Dr. White.

I share your love in sharing the truth of the gospel with the Catholic people. My question is this. Without having to go into a complete and detailed explanation of Sola Scriptura, how would you answer a

Roman Catholic who asks, where does the Bible make the claim that there are no infallible words from God found outside of Scripture?

Well, you can't avoid defining the doctrine, because, first of all, there are only some

Roman Catholics who would even make that claim in the first place. That is, the positive claim that is being made is that there is theanoustas revelation outside of Scripture.

The person making the positive claim is the one who has to substantiate it. And so if the person is making an assertion, there is theanoustas revelation outside of Scripture, they have to show it to you.

Where is it? How do you know this is theanoustas? We know that all Scripture is theanoustas, but this must be outside of Scripture.

So upon what basis are we to believe there is some type of God -breathed revelation outside of Scripture?

What is it? What's its nature? Who did it come from? Does this mean the canon is still open? Is this something from the

Council of Nicaea? Is this something from Vatican II? You have to show us, substantiate the assertion, because the only thing that we know of that is theanoustas on the basis of divine revelation is divine revelation.

So either divine revelation ended and the canon's closed, which is the official position of Rome, or there's something more, which is more the functional position of Rome.

But you see, they don't want to go that far because they know they cannot substantiate these things. And when you start looking at how these dogmas have been defined, especially the most recent ones, but go anywhere after the first few hundred years, when you look at the process, the political process, the chicanery that was involved, the politics involved, nobody wants to call that theanoustas.

It destroys the elevated nature of all of revelation to even try to associate such things.

So when the person is making a positive claim that there is this kind of divine revelation, they're the ones that have to show you where they get that from.

I mean, would you really allow a Mormon to get away with just assuming the Book of Mormon is inspired? You have to challenge that.

You have to challenge that assertion. There's a positive assertion being made. That's what you have to do. And by the way, before we go to Alan, and do you have any other...

Okay, before we go to Alan, I did want to, since it's somewhat similar and it'll also help us to slide right into Alan's question,

I saw on a blog this morning a quote from Scott Hahn that I wanted to interact with just briefly.

It says, Now, the problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as a sacramental priesthood in the

New Testament. Nowhere. It does not exist. Honest Roman Catholic apologists and theologians recognize that it is a much later development.

I would direct anyone to the debate that I did with Mitch Pacwa on this very subject of the

Roman Catholic priesthood. Ephesians 219 has nothing to do with a priest who is called

Father, who has some sacramental authority, who by the words of consecration can turn the elements and the body, soul, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ, who is called

Father and has these kinds of powers. There's nothing like that in all of Scripture.

And the establishment of a Romanist priesthood, which is what you have in various and sundry denominations and groups and so on and so forth, the establishment of that thing detracts horribly from the biblical teaching that,

A, all the people of God amount to a holy priesthood, that everyone stands before God and has that direct relationship with God, that the priesthood used to separate people from God as a mediator.

Now we have direct access to God as one indwelt by the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ.

The way has been opened. The veil has been torn. It also detracts horribly from the high priesthood of Jesus Christ and the finished work that is his.

And it's no surprise then that this mediating priesthood has in essence stitched the veil back up and through the superstitious act of this allegedly

Eucharistic sacrifice, reinstituted that which was just a shadow of what was finished and completed in the cross of Calvary.

And so when you hear Roman Catholics like Scott Hahn and others who are apostates, who once professed the truth and now deny the truth, talking about this, you'll notice there's only one citation given in that quote and it had nothing to do with priests because there are none in the

New Testament. And that's just the essence, as I think of it, of Roman Catholicism that level.

Well, having said that, we have a question on the subject of Roman Catholicism, a very practical one.

Let's talk to Alan. Hi, Alan. Hi, Dr. White. How are you, sir?

Man, I'm good. I'm doing great. How are you? Well, you know what?

I saw my first picture of you the night before last, and you and I both are causing a lot of people to go, dude, what happened to you?

Well, I found out that if you eat less, you will lose weight. You know what?

I found that out, too, but I add to that a massive amount of aerobic exercise.

Okay. That helps. Anyway, that's not why you called. No, I'm in my car right now, so if it gets too loud, let me know.

But I'm calling because what do you—well, this is a serious topic.

The background is that a friend of my wife has a child that has a son that has passed away.

After 12 days, he had a disease. He was baptized immediately upon his birth in the

Roman Catholic Church because he knew this would happen, which also tells me that they are more conservative

Roman Catholics because I don't know the official position in Rome. I think it's now that unbaptized infants go to heaven.

I could be wrong on that, but— Yeah, I think so. Okay. All right. So, but they baptized him immediately, and this morning, she referenced her son as saint, which means that she believes him to be in heaven.

Their funeral is tomorrow. There will be high mass. My wife is struggling with going because she's never been to mass, and she doesn't know.

So I am not going. I don't think that she should go. I don't think she will.

I don't know yet. But I guess, would you be okay with attending the

Liturgy of the Word portion of the mass and ducking out during the Liturgy of the Eucharist or just avoiding the whole thing?

Yeah, it's a question I've been asked, you know, personally by a lot of folks.

Generally, it hasn't been in regards to a young infant that has died at this very early age, obviously.

But, you know, a relative, a friend who dies, there's going to be mass.

You know, what do you do? And I very, very strongly believe that the

Eucharistic sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Church is certainly amongst the most serious blasphemies against the finished work of Jesus Christ that I know of.

Agreed. Agreed. It's a huge argument against the all -sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, an assault on His priesthood.

And there's more than that that takes place. There's prayer for the dead. There is, in some cases, prayer to the dead.

And so it's more in the second, after the Nicene Creed is recited, I have in the past ducked out.

Now I'm not sure that I'll go to any portion of the mass, but I don't know if it would be violating one's conscience to go to the first part of it or not.

For me personally, no, it would be absolutely impossible for me to do that.

The only time I've ever been at a mass was to observe and study, sort of like going to a Mormon ward or something like that, to observe and to see what's going on and to document things and things like that.

But in a context like this, you're going as one of the mourners. And for me, it simply would not be possible.

Obviously what I would seek to do would be to, I would hope, put it this way, best -case scenario prior to this happening, there would have been an opportunity where I could have explained what

I believe about the sacrifice of Christ, so that there would be a basis for the other party knowing why

I can't go. But that's a best -case scenario. I don't believe that is the case.

Yeah, frequently you can't go there. So what you're looking for is an opportunity in the future, and I would say in the future, the day of a funeral or two weeks after the death of an infant or something like that is probably not the time to be attempting to discuss this, but looking for an opportunity to very positively present one's belief about the finished work of Christ in the context of why one finds the

Mass to be just so completely different. And that's one of the things that sort of ties together with what

I said yesterday about Jack Chick and all that stuff and the death cookie tract and all the rest of this stuff.

Because, you see, you can make a very positive presentation about the finished work of Christ if you happen to have a biblical theology of the

Atonement, and not just a wishy -washy Evangelicalist view of the Atonement. But if you have a real view of the

Atonement and a finished work of Christ and a Hebrews view of the Atonement, then you can present that, and the contrast will just be so stark to what you have in Romanism and in the

Mass that you hardly even have to raise the subject. It's right there in what you're saying.

And so that's what I would be looking for, the opportunity of doing. But personally, no,

I cannot subject myself to taking the role of one who is sitting and observing that kind of blasphemy against the work of Christ.

I understand, and I think the same thing, having been raised Roman Catholic. But very quickly, could you sum up the position of the

Sacrament of the Eucharist that Rome supports? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, basically, it is a representation, a bloodless sacrifice, and it is never enough to perfect you.

If I've heard you say you have to go to the table 10 ,000, 15 ,000 times in your life and die and can still go to hell, then, you know, it's not perfect.

It's not a perfect work. Right. It does not perfect anyone for whom it is made, which is why you see the sad reality of people during the medieval period, for example, leaving their substance to various monastic orders so that many, many, many masses would be said in their behalf to try to get them out of purgatory, realizing that that mass could not even spring a person from purgatory.

There would have to be many of them, because the mass itself has a finite value to it, because the person receiving it is finite.

And so there is no perfection based upon the sacrifice of the mass, even though the claim is that this is a representation of the one sacrifice of Christ.

And as I've said, as I've been saying now since 1990, when my first book came out,

The Fatal Flaw, if you don't have a biblical view of the Atonement, if you have an Arminian view of the

Atonement, you cannot argue this point with a Roman Catholic, because you don't really believe that the sacrifice of Christ perfected anyone at all.

Norman Geisler cannot argue against the mass the way that I do, because in his perspective, the death of Christ only makes men savable.

It does not save anyone at all. There is no perfection in it, because there is no specific group for whom it is made.

It's not personal in that sense. So the only way to argue against the

Roman position that is forceful and biblical is to have a consistently biblical view of the

Atonement, which many evangelicals do not have today. Well, yeah, I would rather them be happily inconsistent, though, than to avoid drifting into heresy or becoming an open theist or becoming a

Roman Catholic. But yeah, you're correct. They can't argue because they do not believe in true substitutionary

Atonement. But, you know, that's fine. But you know what? My pizza is going to get cold.

However, I'm here at the Papa John's. I've got to get this pizza ready. Pizza? Wait a minute, pizza?

You're eating pizza? Once in a while, yeah. But now instead of eating a whole pizza for myself,

I might have two pieces. Okay. All right. We'll let you know. Well, I would be interested in this particular case, because the belief,

I assume, would be for a 12 -day -old infant that he will not be going to Purgatory. No. And certainly the mother believes that, referencing him as a saint and as one who is in heaven.

Yeah, that's obviously pushing it a little bit. But yeah, the whole limbo thing has been put on limbo.

So yeah. Yeah, it's gone. I think Benedict got rid of that. All right, Alan. I'll let you know later.

All right, thanks. Thanks. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. Stay skinny. Alan and I, you want to take a break?

Really? Do we have to? Oh, I'm being told that we absolutely have to take a break. We've got three calls?

Okay, all right. We'll be right back right after this. Alpha and Omega Ministries is pleased to introduce the

Christmas Morning CD by Todd Lindstrom. Passion and peace are what sets Todd's music apart from others.

These 12 instrumental favorites will bless and inspire you as you entertain guests and spend Christmas morning with your family.

You can find this beautiful music that celebrates the birth of our Lord in the bookstore at aomin .org.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God, James White, in his book,

The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt

Scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author

James White traces the development of Bible translation and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin

.org. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free?

A new cult? Secularism? False prophecy scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potters' Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, But the Potters' Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very

Gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the Gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Potters' Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at www .aomin

.org. How the

Pilgrim's Progress is not an easy way. It's a journey to the sun day by day.

And welcome back to The Dividing Line. Not sure why we had to take a break there, because now we have almost no time at all for the rest of our callers, but we're going to take them anyways.

We have two from Atlanta. That's weird. Both on Skype. That's odd. Let's talk with Harold from Atlanta.

Hi, Harold. Hello, Harold. Hi, how are you? Doing good. Hi, I'm here.

Do you hear me? Yes, sir. Oh, yes. Okay. Hi. Yes, I just had a question about how to sort of engage a philosophy professor of mine.

I'm going for a degree in philosophy right now in a secular college. Let me just ask you, is there a particular reason for that?

I mean, going for a degree in philosophy, what's your hope for goal? Well, I want to understand non -Christian forms of thought so that I can engage them and intelligently encounter them.

Okay. I mean, do you want to teach? What do you want to do? I'm not totally sure in what direction

God would have me to go, but I am interested perhaps in teaching, but that's where I feel

God would have me go at this point. Okay. But I'm not totally sure.

But basically, I'm sort of in a philosophical overview class right now, and I've been sort of engaging my professor throughout the course of this semester by writing papers on various philosophers and basically trying to go through, play out the presuppositionalist understanding of philosophy.

And I've been reading Apologetics to the Glory of God by Dr. Frame, I guess.

And it seems like he always comes back in the conversation that I've had with him, he just doesn't see any reason to begin to consider the truth of the

Scripture. I mean, he has no real answer. He just sort of doesn't want to engage it.

I mean, obviously there's nothing I can do to directly make him deal with it. I mean, he's free to not believe in Christianity.

I mean, I'm not obviously forcing him or anything, but what would be a suggestion that you might have of a way to sort of engage him as an atheist in demonstrating the necessity of the

Scripture, I guess? Well, the starting point is always the same.

I don't care if you're reading Bonson or Van Til or Frame or whoever else it might be.

The reality is that you're dealing with an individual who has created an image of God, and as he exercises his mind and as he interacts with the world and as he speaks and seeks to do so in a particular fashion, he is going to contradict himself.

He's going to have to abandon his worldview and borrow a theistic worldview to hold things together because that's the whole point of a recognition of God as the

Creator, is that presuppositionally he's going to have to be inconsistent with himself.

And that's the only way that you can engage the person, is not to pretend that there's a neutral moral ground upon which you can stand, because there is no neutral moral ground, or even a neutral fact for that matter.

Every fact is a fact because God made it to be that way. And whether he admits that or not does not change that reality.

And so to pretend that there is, is to go backwards in essence. What you need to do is, as they say, press that antithesis and just be prepared to raise issues where you detect in your consistent worldview the inconsistency of his own where he's stealing from a theistic worldview to make his work.

Now that may or may not come up in class because class is not a real representation of real life.

I mean, let's face it, when we talk about the ivory halls of academia, there's lots of things that fly real well in a philosophy class that are absolutely irrelevant in the real world.

So you have to be looking at that. But probably, I would imagine, an entire semester of discussion, there can be some times where he's going to have to abandon his naturalistic worldview and say things that don't really make sense because he's creating the image of God.

And that's the hook or the foundation you can interact with.

Yeah, and that is the direction that I'm trying to go. But just to give an example, the problem of the uniformity of nature, there's no basis upon which to say that there's no way that we can know that nature is uniform.

But nevertheless, we live our lives on the basis that it is. And there's no ultimate reason, of course, just to say that that is true unless God has created us in his image and intended us to have a relationship with the world.

But he seems to be okay with Hume's answer to that, which is simply, this is our custom.

Basically, he's okay with saying, well, we really don't have a basis, but we just go with that because that's what we can do.

That's kind of like something maybe Barker. Well, Harold, I think in a situation like this, when you have someone who is a philosophy professor, he feels very comfortable in his own classroom, on his own grounds.

My gut feeling would be that the only way you're really going to engage him and to make any type of headway, find something that will actually cause him to start thinking outside of his area of expertise is to identify an inconsistency, not in him as a philosophy professor, but in him as an individual and how he lives.

Philosophy is his playground, and the mind for him is a tool that he uses, and that's all there is to it.

He will live and act and respond in ways that are inconsistent for a naturalist to live, act, and respond, and that's what you go after.

And when I say go after, I don't mean in a nasty way, but that's where you make the connection.

And that may not, again, that's difficult to do in a classroom setting.

It may require knowing somebody outside of that. Well, I've talked with him on a number of occasions in his office or whatnot, and he's open to talking, which is great.

I've talked with him a number of times for, I mean, an hour and a half at one point.

He's very, very kind in that respect and open to speaking with a student.

But, I mean, I don't understand. I'm not sure how I would go about pointing out an inconsistency in his life.

I mean, how would I do that? Well, in how he would respond to, I mean, obviously there are things that happen.

One thing I was going to mention, and the only reason I'm hurrying here is because we've got three other calls we've got to try to get in, but I was going to mention this disgusting story that just came up of a couple that have put up a website, and up until December 5th, people have a chance to vote as to whether they will abort their baby or not.

Now, there is the kind of visceral, created response to that kind of disgusting behavior that doesn't have a ground in a naturalistic worldview, but it does when a person has created the image of God.

That's the type of thing. The response that he will have to something like that might be what you can grab onto. And by demonstrating the consistency of your response under the

Lordship of Christ and the inconsistency of his, at least you have the opportunity of bearing witness at that point.

That's the type of thing I'm talking about. Okay. Okay. I hope that's somewhat helpful. It's a tough situation you're in there, but pray for opportunity.

We don't have an hour to talk about it now or anything, but I really appreciate you helping me out there.

Okay. Thanks a lot, Harold. Alrighty. We're going to now run real quick to Johnny in California.

Hey, Johnny. Hey, James, how are you? Pretty good. Make it quick, brother. All right. My question,

I have actually three questions, but I'll just limit it to one. On the subject of Islam, do they believe in what we call progressive revelation?

In the sense that they wouldn't use that terminology because the

Quran is perfect in and of itself, but they also have to recognize that they can discern differences in perspective between the earlier

Quranic sections from Mecca and the later from Medina. And so the concept of abrogation is sort of an implicit recognition of a progressiveness to the revelation, but they try to hold that in a very strong tension against the idea that the

Quran represents anything of Muhammad at all.

So since the Quran is simply the representation of this heavenly book, then the only progressive element would be that it came in pieces to Muhammad, but it cannot at any time represent

Muhammad's growing awareness or understanding, at least in historic theology. That's not what

I mean. What I mean is that with biblical revelation, you can have things that were known to Moses that were more explicitly revealed to Isaiah, which were more explicitly revealed to Malachi, and then with John, etc.,

you have more information being given over time to the prophets. Obviously with the Quran, it's just one guy who is...

Right, right. So I ran into this surah, and I just found it fascinating where it's basically saying to the

Jews and the Christians that they can't argue about what Abraham really taught since the law and the

NGO had not been revealed to them. It's surah 365, and it made me wonder, if you cannot argue about the beliefs of a patriarch like Abraham, how would they be able to pin on us that we can't find

Trinitarian theology in Abraham? The only way I could find a legitimate or consistent answer from the

Islamic side is to deny progressive revelation, at least that's the way I see it. You people of the book, why dispute you about Abraham when the law and the gospel were not revealed till after him?

Have you no understanding? I'd want to look a little bit at how that's been interpreted by people like Ibn Kathir and others and see what the context is.

But yeah, it's a backward system because you have an exalted view of Muhammad and of the

Quran as this uncreated thing that is being read backwards onto what is obviously something that did involve progressive revelation.

I mean, the whole satanic verses thing clearly illustrates that there was a process involved, and liberal

Muslims will go there, but historic orthodox Sunnis, it's just not a possibility to allow for that any longer once it became established that the

Quran is an eternal book that represents this heavenly book in heaven, and it's always existed in Arabic and all the rest of this stuff.

And so they can't allow for what we can allow for in progressive revelation as we understand it, because as you pointed out, not only is it just one individual, but it's one individual who is not receiving revelation and expressing his understanding of it.

He's just basically an automatic typewriter. An MP3 recorder with sandals is the sole role of the prophet in receiving these things.

So yeah, but he would argue in such a way as to recognize the historical nature of things, but the modern position doesn't allow that to really have any long -term application.

Okay, well thank you. I guess I'll have to save my other two questions for another time. Yeah, it's 4 .52, so we've still got two callers to get to.

Hey, thanks, Johnny. Thank you, bye -bye. Bye -bye. All right, so are we ready to go to Jonathan?

All right, back to Atlanta with a different Jonathan, I assume. I believe so.

Okay, two Jonathans from Atlanta. That's a little weird. Well, we are weird,

I guess. I don't know. That's just how we do things over here. Okay. I just have a very simple question for you, one that you can probably answer real quick.

I know you're short on time. I've been dialoguing with an Eastern Orthodox gentleman, a friend of mine, and also a few

Catholic friends of mine on Facebook, and I'm very ignorant to the Eastern Orthodox religion, but apparently they seem to be taking the same side on so many issues.

So I'm assuming they have somewhat, quite a bit of stuff in common. I apologize if I'm being naive there.

Okay, you're talking about the Eastern Orthodox view of the canon? I'm sorry, yes.

I've been discussing the scriptures with one gentleman from the Eastern Orthodox religion and other people from Catholicism.

Ah, yeah, so that'll create much confusion. It definitely has. They've succeeded in that.

And I have no problem discussing general apologetics or theology or exegesis of the text with them, but they're knocked down below with me, and I'm always quick to admit when

I don't know a topic, and so I refuse to discuss something as though I do know it. And the early canonization of text, how certain books were selected, when this took place, by who, they all seem to say that it was a

Catholic council of some sort, I believe, who gave us the text based upon what the Catholic Church was teaching.

And I find that suspect, since the text doesn't really line up with what the Catholic Church teaches. But I was curious if there's any type of resource you could direct me to where I could actually educate myself on how exactly we got the canon of Scripture and what that process looked like, who was involved.

Yeah, a number of things. There is a chapter in my book,

Scripture Alone, where I specifically address the theological— the necessary theological foundations for a theological discussion of the canon.

The vast majority of books that are out there that address the subject of the canon do so solely historically, not theologically.

They don't address the issue of a theological book from a theological perspective.

It's always struck me as very odd. And so I attempted to provide some insight to that aspect of it in my book,

Scripture Alone, that I think would be helpful to you. Then you'll find all sorts of resources on the historical level,

William Webster's material at christiantruth .com. I know the

Turretin fan has posted some very important articles relevant to aspects of canonization, especially in regards to the apocryphal books, the deuterocanonical books, the roles of early councils and things like that as well.

And that's come up in some of the debates that I've done. I did a debate—I've done a couple of debates on the apocryphal books and things like that with Roman Catholics.

The other thing that you run into is the fact that the Eastern Orthodox rely primarily upon the Greek Septuagint, and so issues regarding what the

Greek Septuagint did or did not originally contain come up, and priority of the

Septuagint over the Hebrew text. There's a lot of reading that goes into these things, and you get a lot of the resources, at least in regards to the

Old Testament material from Roger Beckwith's book, The Old Testament Canon and the New Testament Church, which we carry.

It is thick reading, but it is scholarly, and the bibliography alone is well worth the price of the book that would really give you a lot of the information that you need to have there as far as the

Old Testament goes. New Testament, B .B. Warfield had some important work that he did on the issue of the canon, but you would want to look at it from a theological perspective first, and then look at the historical information, and there is a lot of it.

Some of it is in print as good, some of it, eh, you know, but that's where you start.

But it's a huge area, and the problem is you're probably dialoguing with people that are just simply going on second - and third -hand information, and they're really not aware of whether they are accurately representing the historical situation.

I mean, the stuff that I see on the Internet, especially on YouTube, on the subject of the canonization of Scripture and stuff like that, is just absolutely amazing, it truly, truly is, and how inaccurate it is.

I'm sorry? I try to remain conscious of that. I understand that there's, on the Internet, unfortunately, even amongst Christians, many people like to discuss things as if they know what they're talking about.

And I really, when I'm involved in dialoguing with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I realize that I'm accountable not to their understanding of me, but I'm accountable to my

Father in Heaven, my Creator. Right. And even if I win them over and make them think

I've successfully browbeated them, I may have just completely insulted God with my mind and my reasoning. And so I will humbly bow out of a conversation if I'm not equipped, but I do appreciate the resources that you've just listed for me there, and I will definitely look into getting some of those.

I'm not afraid to jump in deep into a book, and so I greatly appreciate that. Good, good.

Yeah, you'll find Beckwith to be extremely useful along those lines, and hopefully my chapter as well will be useful, and Warfield, and there's a lot more there.

But hey, Jonathan, thank you very much for the call today. Sorry, Gus, we'll have to go with next Tuesday.

Looked like a good question, presuppositionalism and ethics, but we'll get to it as soon as we can here on The Dividing Line.

Thanks for listening today. Excellent questions from everybody listening today. Hopefully it's been useful to you.

Always enjoy doing this. Continue to pray for us. By the way, heading to the U .K. in February of 2011, hopefully blogging something about it by next

Tuesday. Need your help to get there. They're in Sydney next year, so pray about that, and we'll see you next week on The Dividing Line.

God bless. Crossroads, let this momentous flow away.

We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for. We need a new Reformation day.

It's a sign of the times. The truth is being trampled in a new age paradigm.

Won't you lift up your voice? Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise.

I'm no sleeper. I'm no sleeper.

I stand up for the truth. Won't you live for the Lord? Because we're piling up.

The Dividing Line 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.