Doctrine of God

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon at our regular time I believe next week will be at our regular times as well.

Don't see anything coming down the road cause any Difficulties along those lines eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number

I have had this sitting on my screen for at least a week wanting to address it and since I didn't at the beginning of each program it didn't get addressed because our phone calls have been

Gobbling up all of our time. So allow me to address it right off the bat So that as phone calls come in or as we go to the should be

Raleigh Mike like on a debate. We don't miss this Someone had written to me as I recall and that's why

I brought this up. I I honestly don't remember the exact context but they were asking about a very common

Islamic apologetic argument and You you will hear it

Presented to Christians, but not in not in the way that really

Most most will not depend upon it because they recognize Especially if they are live in Western cultures and in fact have been raised in a

Western culture that this particular Argument is not overly compelling to Western thinkers

But it is an argument of the Quran itself and hence those raised within Islam Find it to to have some level of validity.

Let me explain what it is in cura Surah 17 88 we read say if the mankind and the

Jinn's were together to produce the like of this Quran they could not produce the like thereof even if they helped one another and In surah 223 read and if you

Arab pagans Jews and Christians are in doubt concerning that which we have sent down speaking of the

Quran to our slave our Apostle Muhammad then produce a surah of the like thereof and call your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful, so the challenge is produce a surah like unto the

Quran the the the mankind and and the Jinn's the the evil spirits even if they were to cooperate together couldn't do this and So you have this this assertion and this

Quran is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah But it is a confirmation of the revelation

Which was before it that is the Torah the NGO the gospel and a full explanation of the book wherein

There is no doubt from the Lord of mankind Surah 10 37 38 or do they say he

Muhammad has forged it Say bring then a surah like unto it and call upon whomsoever you can besides Allah if you are truthful and it goes on surah 11 13 is another example in surah 52 33 to 34 and so you have this assertion that is made in the

Quran itself that no one could ever produce something like the Quran and this is taken as a

Proof that the Quran is divine That no one could produce anything like it now

Obviously if you think about that for just a moment You go, what do you mean? No one could produce anything like it?

I Dare say that there are many people who feel that they have it's a completely subjective argument

There's no Mechanism to objectively demonstrate that this is the case.

I mean the Muslims says Oh, well, no one's ever done it and someone else will say well look at this here and look at that there and you know

I'm imagine there's plenty of Mormon who would feel the Book of Mormon is surpasses the Quran and it's in its clarity and what it means to them and so wouldn't that disprove the

Quranic argument at least for the Mormon and All the Muslim can say is no it doesn't and the

Mormon says yes It does and the Muslim says no it doesn't the Mormon says yes It does and and I can't say

Muslim Mormon clearly that many times in a row But the point is no one there's no way to win the argument

There's one way outside of violence anyways. Yes, it does. Yeah Rack back that ak -47 and that's the end of that argument.

Sadly. That is how Islam manages to do it when it's in the majority, but When we're still in it's still in the minority

It's this ain't much of an apologetic argument and So, you know,

I have I have heard this mentioned over and over and over again in especially when

Muslims are talking to Muslims and it's taken as as a given

It and it's and it's accepted as a valid argument That well, we all know that no one could ever produce

Even a single surah like unto the Quran now you know,

I've read the Quran and reading it again and and Studying it and all these things and and I go

Man, there's I've read all sorts of things and Jonathan Edwards that are far beyond anything ever found the

Quran Spurgeon had away with words that Muhammad never did

I assure you of that and and oh, but I was just in English Not in Arabic. Well, you know what? You know those who think

Arabic is to be all and end all of all things. I you know, I beg to differ don't think that it's it's quite on the same level as as other languages to be perfectly honest with you, but Again, how do you prove that because it's all a matter of taste

It's just a matter of taste. Let me give an example here and it'll give me an opportunity to likewise. Don't worry

I'm while I am highly tempted and it would be greatly appropriate for me to do this

Robert Burns is the the Bard of Scotland and His poetry is very very well known and it would be very appropriate to to read this with a

Scottish brogue, but You wouldn't be able to understand it because this is sort of an older language, but listen to one of his most famous poems

Cotter's Saturday night. This is about a an old Scottish family that gathers together and and Just just listen to this this segment and I would from my perspective.

There isn't nothing like this in the Quran So I guess this just proves Islam, but here here it is.

It says the police like father reads the sacred page how Abram was the friend of God on high or Moses bade eternal where warfare waged with amalekhs and gracious progeny or how the royal bard did groaning lie beneath the stroke of Heaven's avenging ire or Job's pathetic plaint and wailing cry or wrapped

Isaiah's wild Seraphic fire or other holy seers that tune the sacred lyre

Perhaps the Christian volume is the theme how guiltless blood for guilty man was shed

How he who bore in heaven the second name had not on earth run to lay his head

How his first followers and servants sped the precepts age they wrote to many a land

How he who lone in Patmos banished saw in the Sun a mighty angel stand and heard great

Babylon's doom pronounced by heaven's command Then kneeling down to heaven's eternal

King the saint the father and the husband praise Hope Springs exulting on triumphant wing that thus they shall all meet in future days

There ever bask and uncreated rays no more to sigh or shed the bitter tear Together hemming their creators praise in such society yet still more dear while circling time moves round in an eternal sphere compared with this how poor

Religions pride and all the pomp of method and of art when men display to congregations wide devotions every grace except the heart

The power incensed the pageant will desert the pompous strain the sacerdotal stole

But happily in some cottage far apart may hear well Pleased the language of the soul and in his book of life the inmates poor enroll

That's just a portion of it And there's nothing like that in the

Quran now a person who reads the Quran in Arabic might say oh no No, no, no, but there, but there is but it's all

Subjective it is all just a matter of what you find to be compelling and Obviously I would find that to be compelling because of its

Christian elements and and of course it's Scottish elements and things like that but it's it's all a matter of subjectivity so My point would be if the

Quran itself Which allegedly is the very?

The very Word of God The very the final Word of God consistent allegedly with what has come before If the

Quran sees this as a compelling argument, and it quite simply can be demonstrated not to be

That would reflect upon its authorship that its author is in fact a man named Muhammad not the eternal

God it's not some eternal revelation that has just been mediated down to Muhammad Without without human hands are getting in the way and so It also strikes me that if this revelation and again.

I've mentioned this many times. It's very clear that Muhammad thought his revelation was consistent with what had come before it and Since he did not have access to the

Christian scriptures in his own language or even in the original languages that matter Then he would have no way of knowing that The argumentation utilized in the

Christian scriptures is significantly different and of a completely different character as to apologetic content

Than that which Muhammad presents in the Quran Why would God utilize one form of argumentation, and I would argue a significantly more usable consistent compelling form of argumentation in the

Christian scriptures with which the Quran is allegedly consistent And then adopt a completely different perspective in the

Quran Which is supposed to be the final be all and end all of all revelations is supposed to be able to go to the whole world well

The reality is Islam can't and in fact we're seeing in The political struggles in our world today the fact that that Islam cannot

Islam's message cannot do what the Christian scriptures can do that is the gospel can cross geographical and Linguistic and cultural boundaries and Can speak to men women and children of every culture and of every language?

without banishing everything in that culture and Forcing everyone to look the same to wash their hands the same to dress the same to speak the same to act the same

Islam cannot do that Islam has to change the culture into an

Islamic culture you have to establish Sharia law and This is this is not how the gospel works the the kingdom of God is established within the heart

Not just externally within the society now that will impact how people behave

God's law then becomes something that they rejoice in But you can see the very external nature of so much of what we see in Islam today and The fact that that this this constant push to establish

Sharia law as if somehow merely having the law Somehow is honoring and glorifying to God you see since since Islam does not have a biblical

Anthropology does not recognize the depravity of man the deadness of man and sin then we can understand why just the establishment of the law

Becomes the goal, but we would recognize that if that's all you do Then all that's going to do is more and more demonstrate the sinfulness of man there has to be a quelling of the rebellion of man's heart

For there to be any true and final Establishment of the kingdom of God so just something

I had had up on the screen I had wanted to address the arguments that the Quran itself makes in regards to the fact that it is a

It is not Unrepeatable you cannot produce something that would that would be its equal which of course is a completely

Subjective argument without the ability to establish on an objective Foundation 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number and we have one caller

We'll take that call and then I get into the Shabir Ali Mike like Kona debate as we began listening to it briefly

The last edition of the dividing line, but our LDS caller

Pierre has wrote earlier today and wants to make some comments concerning the materials that I have been posting on the blog attempting to Explain to folks from the writings of the

LDS Church leadership itself What the Mormon Church has historically taught on the subject of the nature of God's let's go to Pierre hello

Pierre Hello, how are you? I'm doing fine. Thank you Thank you for taking my call.

Mm -hmm. I've been reading your articles with great interest And I wanted to address a couple of issues if you depending on how much time you

Feel you want a lot to the subject. Mm -hmm, but I Guess creation out of nothing

I have a couple of Guess you could say scholarly Observations to make here some of which

I think you might appreciate as a Someone who likes to return to the original language and in terms of dealing with the grammar

I have a Bible dictionary that is produced by the

Jerusalem Press and Looks like most of the contributors are probably

Jewish or Hebrew Being from University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University but also contributors seem to be

Catholic as well as Protestants judging from the universities that they They seem to be at Including Catholic University in in Chicago and I mentioned that just to say that this is a

At least somewhat of an attempt to make a balanced Contribution for Jews and Christians alike anyway on the issue of Creation They make the following commentary, which

I think is appropriate to what you I think you last wrote on The Old Testament I'm quoting now the

Old Testament commences with a majestic Prologue describing the creation of the universe by an exalted transcendent

God According to this account the world was created in six days by divine fiat which produced cosmic order out of primordial primordial chaos

Unlike the prevalent assumption Description this description does not infer creation out of nothing an

Old Testament outlook absent I'm sorry an outlook absent from the Old Testament Mentioned for the first time only in the apocryphal book of 2nd

Maccabees chapter 7 verse 28 the tale is rather one of harmonic orchestration wherein the six days divided into symmetrical patterns of three days each

And then it goes on and talk about the creation So, you know at least some scholars hold to the view that the earth was not, you know created out of nothing

Well, of course Which has almost next nothing to do with Joseph Smith because what Joseph Smith was arguing was that God is an exalted man?

From another planet who does not have the capacity or ability to do these things because matter itself is eternal

And that he himself was once a man and now as an exalted man and that men can become gods themselves

Obviously none of those writers were in any way shape or form addressing the idea That the

God who created these things was himself once a man and hence dependent upon the creation from which he himself then sprang which of course is what

Joseph Smith was doing and which is what the King Follett funeral discourse is Communicating to everyone and why

I have been quoting it because no one wants to seemingly deal with the fact that the

God of Mormonism is completely and totally different on the most basic levels from the

God that Christians have worshipped from the very beginning and That is the whole issue regarding Criatio ex nihilo is not so much an argument over how to understand

Bara and it's and it's Cognates though I would certainly argue I can't imagine how anyone can deal with the book of Isaiah and not come up with Criatio ex nihilo

But that's really not the point of why I even mentioned it the reason that the

Mormon God Cannot create out of nothing is because he's not a god. He is dependent upon the creation from which he springs

That creation pre -existed him and in point of fact without it He could not become a god.

And so this is this is the issue with Mormonism is that Mormonism has no self -existent creator the the

God of Elohim of Mormonism is an exalted man and there was a

God before him that he worshipped and that God was a Once a man and he had a a

God before him and as you know, Joseph Smith himself talked about a grandfather God Totally misinterpreting

Revelation chapter 1 and missing the Greek there because he was ignorant of the biblical languages and his Prophethood somehow did not manage to teach him those languages though.

It allegedly taught him Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics But he he claimed that that there was this this progression of gods now

You know modern Mormonism seems to be quite confused in my opinion as to what direction it's going there seems to be great confusion on the part of the

Leadership about which elements of these things are going to present and there's been evolution Since the days of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith I mean, it's pretty clear to me

Wilford Woodruff taught that God is Continuing to advance in knowledge power might and dominion will do so worlds without end

Bruce R McConkie said he's not so You know You've got contradiction between apostles and prophets and things like that along along those lines and it it does seem to me that Joseph Smith thought that it was sort of like a train and You can't get any farther along the exaltation path than the cars in front of you

Which are your ancestors and things like that and that's not really the big emphasis anymore either so who knows exactly where it's going, but the point is that until Mormons are willing to abandon

Joseph Smith's teachings and Embrace a God that has eternally been God Mormonism will remain a religion unto itself

Completely separate from Christianity, which believes that God has eternally been God as God himself says in Psalm 90 verse 2

Okay, I can I like to come back to that if I may let me finish my point here

I like to quote from another Writer Richard Eliot Friedman.

I don't know you might know him. He's a Hebrew scholar From a university on the

East on the West Coast, I think in Oregon or out, Washington And he has written a number of books including who wrote the

Bible which was also broadcast on one of the

Learning channels on TV. I can't remember which one but it was the history channel or PBS.

But in any case He has he makes his own translation here of the

Hebrew Bible The Torah the first five books and then he makes commentaries on as he translates it using his own knowledge of Hebrew to make his own translation and With regard to Genesis 1 to where the earth had been

Shapeless and formless he makes the following commentary, which I think you might appreciate Here is a here is a case and I'm coding now in which a tiny point of grammar

Makes a difference for theology in the Hebrew of this verse the noun comes before the verb in perfect form

This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in biblical

Hebrew This point of grammar means that this verse does not mean the earth

Was shapeless and formless referring to the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created this first rather Means that the earth had been shapeless and formless.

That is it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation creation of matter in the

Torah is not out of nothing creatio ex nihilo as many have claimed and The Torah is not claiming to be telling the events of the from the beginning of time and quote

No, that's a good reason why you never use translations done by a single individual you always use translations done by a committee because Individuals like that will come up with their own little pet theories and import them into their translations

Which is what just happened there? But the problem of course is Genesis 1 isn't the origin of creatio ex nihilo

I wonder by the way Pierre Have you found anyone who? Actually agrees with what Joseph Smith said in the

King Follett funeral discourse and his comments on the Hebrew which are completely wrong and he would Be be failed in any beginning

Hebrew class he ever took ever found anyone who would who would say that his commentary there was correct or his commentary about German in the

King Follett discourse was correct or any of those things where he makes those those claims Based upon original languages.

Oh, I'm sure that they probably would not because you cannot separate obviously Joseph Smith from all that he taught and so and no one's going to agree to that because of what it's

Tradition that gets in the way. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no No grammatic grammatical grammatical points are grammatical points whether you're a

Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or a Buddhist or an atheist and Joseph Smith made certain claims that were just simply wrong.

He does he couldn't read the languages and So I would I would think that the the first thing you'd be doing would be

Rehabilitating Joseph Smith's comments rather than going with these comments, but I guess you don't have any of those quotations

But my point is that Genesis 1 isn't where you go for crash UX and Hilo anyways as the foundational passage

That's what you find all the way through Isaiah 40 through 48 and the trial of the false gods So what what do you do with with the assertions that?

That Yahweh makes when for example in Isaiah 44 24 he specifically

Makes the assertion that he creates all things by himself

Specifically it says that says Yahweh your Redeemer and the one who formed you from the womb I Yahweh am the maker of all things stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone

In Mormonism did Yahweh Aka Jehovah as we slaughter that in the

English language via the Germanic languages Does Jehovah? create

Stretch out the heavens alone and spread out the earth all alone Again it has to do with The way you want to interpret things and And how you want to look at things because I think from an

LDS standpoint we would have no problem with that verse at all Really again the create the idea of again a creation is simply organization bringing together the the raw elements and and creating something

Organized out of something that is disorganized. I mean you can still use the word create you can take the cosmic dust and Create a whole galaxy out of it and and Yahweh did this alone, right?

Or was he directed by a separate God named Elohim in company with Michael again when

Jehovah speaks he is speaking on behalf of God the

Father that's why he is a singular pronouns Yes, he can do that that by that's known as divine investiture of authority

He can speak as one who he can speak as if he were Jehovah He is

Jehovah. Is he not? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I meant Elohim. He can speak as if he were God the

Father But he says I am Yahweh who made all things Who alone stretch out the heavens now did

Yahweh make the planet that Elohim lived on when Elohim was a man? Well, I don't know probably

I'm sure the answer is no So he didn't make all things then Again, what does all things mean?

What is his mean? Yeah, what what what you know did Jehovah have in mind when he made that comment when he said all things well

Yeah, don't you think do you think the context might determine that I? mean since Isaiah 41 through 48 is the demonstration of the falsehood of the false gods that the

Israelites were worshiping and Since likewise in Jeremiah it is said that any God did not create the heavens and the earth will perish from underneath the heavens and the earth

Then the context is God is the creator of all things and it's the false gods who come forth from the creation just like the

Mormon God comes forth from the creations depend upon the pre -existing material and Hence the the whole apologetic contrast is between the

God who makes all things Bara Yatser all the the cognate terms that are used

And the false gods who themselves are dependent upon the creation So wouldn't the context then tell us that all things actually does mean all things

How do you know that all things in the mind of Jehovah has to do with all things that he himself was personally involved in?

creating Meaning to say for instance the solar system Whatever other solar systems, and how do you know that I am

Yahweh who made all things who alone? Stretched out the heavens who spread out the earth by myself.

It would be incumbent upon you to demonstrate that in language of Isaiah and in Jehovah's Revelation to his people

That there is something beyond stretching out the heavens and spreading out the earth by himself and I would submit to you

That the whole idea of multiple universes and a limitation of the extent of God's creation is something

It didn't come along at least in this context till late 1830s

Approximately 25 2600 years after Isaiah Yeah, you go back to the to the beginning if I were a

Hebrew man And I were listening to someone in the in the synagogue reading out of the

Hebrew text Say 3 ,000 years ago What would

I be hearing with my Hebrew ears? I would be hearing in the beginning the God Created the heavens and the earth.

No, you would not know you would not No, sir Yeah Pierre Pierre, yes, it is.

Yeah, it is but you just demonstrated you don't read Hebrew. Do you I don't okay Because the fact let me let me you know, since you just put out a complete falsehood

I'm gonna correct it now and anyone can go and check out who's right There are a number of forms in the

Hebrew language where you have either dual forms or plural forms that are translated as singular So nobody who reads

Hebrew? Nobody nobody more than a year and a half year old in he in in Israel today would make the mistake

You just made now you made it because Joseph Smith made it because he was not a true prophet and didn't know what he's talking About and you're following him but no one who actually reads

Hebrew would say what you just said because the fact that that word is used with verbs and One of the things that drives me nuts is that in the

English language for example today is just being destroyed We are just we are watching the utter degradation of the

English language no one cares about grammar anymore and People are put out on the media who could not match a noun and a verb if their life

Depended on it and when you hear people who and and I'm you know, we all make mistakes but there are people who just Consistently can't put a singular noun the singular verb or plural noun the plural verb their life depended on and it's amazing to me

That people do not correct them or they're not embarrassed by it the Hebrew when it wants to refer to gods and there are times when

Elohim is used of Gods the gods of the peoples are all idols psalm 96 5 tells us

So when you have gods they're idols anyone who worships more than one God is is an idolater

The verb used the the language explains to us. This is a plural because it's plural verb

But but when it's speaking of the one true God because many many times over 530 times

It's Yahweh Elohim where the name Yahweh is attached to Elohim So it's

Lord God in English translations, but Yahweh Elohim in the Hebrew. The verb is singular not plural and so anyone who would translate it as a plural in The English language would likewise be matching singulars and plurals and we sort of chuckle at those folks and so You are wrong, of course to say that the

Hebrew person would hear Genesis 1 1 and go oh the gods did this because That's not what the verb tells you and they would recognize the name of their

God Elohim Jehovah and they would recognize of course the fact that as the scriptures say

He is a had he is one not that Elohim is the father of Jehovah But in fact the scriptures say

Yahweh he is Elohim there is none else beside him singular not them

Plural and so I'm sorry sir, but you are just simply incorrect in your

Hebrew grammar at that point First 26 We have again a mention here of the plurality of God, you know and the

God said let us make man in our image after our likeness That's that's the book of Abraham the book of Moses and you know and again

I just want to make sure people understand the the overriding theological source for you is is The things like the book of Abraham which has been demonstrated to actually have have been

Joseph Smith's made -up story based upon Egyptian funerary documents where he didn't get a single word right ever on anything and It's amazing to me there there have been

LDS people who stayed these things and who have you know left the LDS church I'm not sure why you would look at those things and not do so, but that's that's the overriding

Filter up here that you every single time you call we have to keep pointing out as we go to the scriptures we see these things and People hear you

Responding the way you're responding date. They need to see the the role that overriding presuppositions have and what you hear and what you don't hear and you go to Genesis 1 26 and you translate the gods did this and the gods did that and and You you you don't respond to Elohim he is

Jehovah because for you Elohim is the father of Jehovah and that in fact there is a period in time when

Elohim existed as a God and Jehovah did not exist as a

God or in fact even as a human being correct Correct and there is and to say that is to demonstrate what

I've said from the beginning and that is when Joseph Smith said we've Imagined supposed to God was God from all eternity.

I'll refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see By uttering those words in the general conference the

Mormon Church the King fall at funeral discourse he forever Separate his followers from biblical

Christianity because we have a completely different God The scriptures say that Yahweh is the eternal creator of all things you don't have a

Yahweh that it's the eternal creator of all things You just admitted and I appreciate you're doing so that there was a time when

Elohim was a God before Jehovah even existed as a man on on earth or Since you believe that's

Jesus or even as a spirit child his exaltation would have had to have preceded the birth of Jehovah as a his firstborn spirit child, so There you go.

I mean Sadly this is not the level of discussion that's taking place in our culture right now regarding Mormonism and You know as I haven't said a word about Mitt Romney But when people talk about Mormonism, they're not actually talking about what

Mormonism teaches and in fact Do you know any Mormons who are I mean honestly do you let me say that you know?

I've been in the church for 37 years And we actually don't really concern ourselves with these kinds of issues that you bring up because they're who

God is Yeah In the way you bring it up I mean in the kind of detail that you're interested in and and those kind of issues

But we know who God is and we understand the plurality of God's I think all those who have been through the temple several times and who read their scriptures and Who look carefully at some of the comments that are made in general conference?

Are well aware of the concept of The fact that we are the children of our father in heaven and as children we may become like him someday

Well wait wait a minute here. I'm confused. Are you saying that though it is the substance of?

the endowment ceremonies themselves though it is it is Definitional of what you are taught what you observe in the endowment ceremonies themselves that somehow

Just it doesn't it doesn't connect with with regular Mormon life, it's not something that's that you that you ponder or that you compare with Scripture I I don't understand your statement here because it used to be many years ago anyways back in the when

I first started witnessing to Mormons even the young people Understood with the King Follett discourse was even the young people were more than willing to go to the mat

Because you know well Joseph Smith himself said it is the first principle of the gospel Now I agree with you there has been a diminishment of a focus upon this

But I are you saying that you you feel this is it's always been this way Well, it has been from the time that I joined some 37 years ago

I don't think we spend time in our classes discussing these type of things now I certainly I knew about them from the beginning because I Converted when

I was at Brigham Young University, and I had opportunity to attend Mormon doctrine classes where these things were brought up They were not the focus of extensive discussion as you have described for instance in your in your blog articles

But you know there was they're not in the priesthood manuals They're touched upon in the priesthood manuals

But now again not in great extent and you know what we focus on is

Leading a Christ like life That's what we do and knowing knowing that as we do so we will eventually

Become exalted beings even as Jesus Christ is an exalted being so that is our exemplar so when when the

Were you married in the church mask yes, my wife, and I were sealed in the temple in Salt Lake City Mmm, can

I ask how long ago that might be in 1974 okay? He's a convert to she's a convert from the

Methodist Church, so that would have been a little bit before this but the the achieving a celestial marriage

Manual published by the church the very first thing it says before it even discusses

Anything else about marriage is it spends page after page after page driving home the point that God became a

God by obedience to law specifically to the law of celestial marriage and That we can become gods and that we are of the same species as God Everything that I focus on and bring to the

Word of God and examine the light of the Word of God it presents as the the first foremost and primary thing

Before anything else in the discussion of celestial marriage, and that was published Obviously under the seal of the first presidency of the church

Jesus Christ. Thanks, and what what year was that yeah? I was used it was It was used all the way up to 2003

I think it was 2003 because I remember when you presented it on your program several years ago

I presume that's what you're talking about the one you gave it. I I've discussed it. Yes Yeah, I was surprised that the

I guess the How should I put it the clarity of the way or the way they presented it

Because I've never heard that discussed anywhere At least not to to that degree in manuals that I've read so I was a little surprised to see it

But you know I mean that that is what we ultimately come to a belief And I don't think that you can escape that reading the scriptures going to the temple etc.

Etc This is something that comes to your mind with exceeding great clarity over time

You think you think that a person reading the Bible would come to conclusion that God became a god by obedience to?

celestial law No, okay, and that's why Christianity fails to comprehend some of these things not only the tradition

That's blinding them But also the Bible and that was the whole purpose of the restoration and the need to bring forth new scriptures

To restore some of the knowledge that was once believed in but has since Been well it was once believed in but you don't have any

You can't actually name anybody who actually ever believed that and before what about 18 40 approximately probably so yeah, that would be correct and and You know when

I first joined the church I thought if I could dig back far enough I haven't found anything to that extent the process

I come to are some of these statements made that are quoted in Robinson's book

Mm -hmm on the Mormons Christians Where he quotes several of the other church fathers about you know

God became man that the men could learn to become God Yeah Which as I demonstrated in my debate with Martin Tanner Is a completely different context and is a gross misuse of those patristic sources since they were all monotheist who likewise believe that God Created all things that have never been a man

So those those words cannot possibly mean what Mormons have frequently abused them to mean and I don't mean you necessarily

But dr. Robinson and Martin Tanner and Van Halen some others who do that, especially the folks at BYU That do that so if have you ever seen the the the

DVD of My debate with Martin Tanner. No, I think it might be interested to get that.

Well, I'll tell you what We do have a another caller and I'll tell you what I'll do Pierre. I'll put you on hold Let's talk to Rich and he'll get your address and we'll send send that out to you

And then make one quick final comment on what you just said there Okay, and that is that I agree with you that these individuals did not believe as we do

However, it does Represent a remnant of a once true belief that has become corrupted over time

Except they of course would tell you that this was based upon their acceptance of the very thing that Joseph Smith said was a ref was he was refuting and that is that God is

Self -existently God and you can't find anyone before them believed anything differently Which would mean you'd have to hypothesize that those original

Apostles and their original followers who were taught by the Apostles who believed these things never wrote anything and just completely collapsed in the face of some sort of opposition that no one can really identify and honestly,

I think that's a Let me put it this way Pierre. I'm I am significantly more fair with LDS history than Mormons are with my history

Your history being reformed or you time I hit the history of the history of the Christian Church Okay, I mean, you know when

I try to deal with When I deal with section 114 the Doctrine and Covenants, I take it all out of your own stuff

I don't I don't create mythical groups that never existed and say well, you know I think they did exist and I don't think there's necessarily evidence that they didn't exist and sort of insert them when

That's what Mormonism has to do and say well, you know, this is a remnant I can't show you anybody who actually believed this but you know, it's just this echo and when you say well

How do you demonstrate that you go? Well, that would be the case because of what I believe about what

Joseph Smith taught me and that's not how you do history in my opinion Yeah, all right

Pierre, hold on just one second and let's let's rich I'm gonna go ahead and hit on this side rich and Oh, you already got it.

Okay, never mind and Thank you for your phone call. Let's go to Mark in Texas.

Hi mark. Hi. I had a question for you about James 121

I was reading a commentary on that verse and the commentator said that the phrase save your souls carries the idea that the implanted word has the ongoing power to Continually save one soul and as a reference to the present and ongoing process of sanctification

In other words, he was saying that the word save can be meaning of both salvation sanctification or Glorification in the sense that save from the presence of sin would be glorification

Save for the power of sin would be sanctification that type of thing But when I was looking at the verb that he's commenting on there, it's in the arist now

I know you said a little Greek is dangerous and that's why I wanted to call and ask you this question Which from the little bit that I understand would seem to preclude the idea of a process there

So I was just wondering if you could comment on that. Yeah, sure. I Can't comment on the commentary

Because it sounded just in listening to it read a little extended beyond Maybe what the context would allow but in regards to your question in In reference to the the the verbal issue here yes, it is an heiress but you also have to notice that it is it is an heiress infinitive and Infinitives in the

Greek language are a a creature utterly Unlike anything that we have in in English when we when we when we talk about an infinitive in English to do something yeah, that is the

Greek infinitive but it goes so far beyond that and the emphasis that I heard and what you were reading doesn't come from so sigh an

Infinitive is going to draw that from the verbal forms used with it and specifically in this case

It would be the participle that comes in front of it And that is do nominon, which is the present form of the participle and so I would assume if I heard what you were saying correctly that the ongoing nature of the of the text would be drawn from That term and then that that gives that Continuous ongoing type idea to the infinitive which wouldn't contain that within itself necessarily.

You got to remember that Heiress and things like that are not necessarily time bound.

They are type of action Frequently they do have a time element to it But the time element is not actually communicated just by that it has to come from other things within the grammar

So this really illustrates why I've so many times said that things I can like interlinears are a true waste of trees because you can look at something like this and it like an interlinear and someone sees that word save and They assume an

English element to it. And if you don't actually know how Greek grammar interacts with itself and how

Phrases work those types of things can actually be rather misleading at that point

So that's probably where it's coming from in the commentary You're reading is from the participle beforehand, which is the present rather than from the heiress infinitive itself.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much You're most welcome. Thanks for your phone call today, and I'm gonna start charging for Greek grammatical

Greek grammar on the fly on the dividing line today and let's head over to Glenn in California.

Hi Glenn Doing pretty good Question for you on a passage in 1st

Timothy chapter 4 verse 10 Mm -hmm

Where it speaks about God being the favor of all men, especially those who believe

Yes My question was the the term Melissa there

Do you take that as especially I am a

Calvinist and I believe in particular redemption, but I was kind of exploring this passage a little bit and Doing some reading on it and I I Read a little bit by Verne Poythress Saying on how that word

Malista there Probably means especially I know some people take that as something like Namely or that is kind of like it affects the

Jetticle. Well, I H I H Marshall who is no No Calvinist In in his commentary on the pastoral epistles

TNT Clark 1999 specifically says adoption of the traditional translation of Malista as Especially leads to some strained exegesis these problems disappear if we accept the other possible translation to be precise

Namely, I mean all is thus limited here to believers and quote that's from a a non reformed commentary on the pastoral epistles by H Marshall That that is something that has to be looked at as the possibility at that point

But even if that even if you stayed with especially as as the as the text

I think at that point you have to look at What the term

Soter means and and pontoon on throat bone people just assume automatically

That the the text even though it is not actually a Soteriological text in fact, it's just mentioned in in passing is talking about The object of our faith who is the

Living God now? Why would why would the Living God be an appropriate object of our faith?

Well because he is he is positively disposed toward all men now the

Western thinker automatically Goes individualistic at that point which the Eastern thinker would not

The Eastern thinker would hear all men in the sense of all kinds of men and that would explain why?

Fixing our hope upon him would make perfect sense because he has demonstrated himself by the salvation of men from every tribe tongue people and nation to be the

Living God and to be one who is worthy of our acceptance of his his love and his redemption and the

Reading into the text of an extension beyond that to say well It means

Savior and therefore that means there has been a specific Substitutionary atonement that's been made on behalf of these individuals and they have been purchased you go to first Peter 2 to blah blah blah blah

Is to take a text that that is simply talking about The fact that there is only one

Savior because there's only one Living God And extending that way beyond what the

Apostle Paul himself would I think in any way shape or form? Establish especially when he himself

Says that when discussing Soteriologically the Savior hood of Christ he attaches it immediately to such things as atonement intercession you know first Timothy 2 he's already pointed out that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and men and He is the one therefore because of his mediation who is able to save is he are we really going to say that well what?

It means is as Christ is mediating for every single Individual and therefore failing to save them to extend it to that level.

I think is To go way way way beyond what a passing comment that is much easier understood in the context,

I just gave it to you really really allows and Generally in my experience when people raise that and I go back to what

Paul himself has said concerning the Savior work of Christ even in that text

It's it becomes very very clear pretty quickly that the individual citing it hasn't looked at those things and really hasn't thought through the consistency of their interpretation

Do you hear a clicking because it sounds like you've got a bad line or your phone's bad. Do you do you hear that Glenn? I am on a cell phone that could be a probable

Causative right now Can you still hear me? Oh, yeah? Yeah, I can hear you, but it's just it's just a pretty loud clicking

So anyway, go ahead. Okay, um Well, thanks for that I appreciate the when it talks about the

Savior all men I've been read I've been Reading an article by dr. Sam bah, who is a

New Testament professor at Westminster, California and he's written an article on that and He's basically saying and the first part when it talks about Savior That's more of a general idea of like being a preserver or protector or general benefactor kind of idea

Would you somewhat concur with that? Well, it's a possibility. I suppose. I mean again

There's there's something if you're going to take malice stuff as Especially then there has to be more than one way in which the term

Savior can be understood So if you could take it as especially then yeah, you have to do something along those lines That the problem

I have with that is that it's it's difficult for me to see Paul utilizing that terminology in that way

Just because of the specificity that attaches to the work of Christ that makes him a a proper

Savior And that is why I think those others point out that if you if you render it a little bit differently

That whole issue goes away and I think that was their whole point was, you know, whatever you do with this thing

You're extending it way beyond what? These these folks are comfortable doing so I hear what he's saying

And if you take molest on that way, you have to have some way in which he's Savior to one person He's not

Savior to another and how is Jesus a Savior to unbelievers? The assumption is well

He's a potential Savior to unbelievers and a potential Savior on the basis of what for the

Apostle Paul who's already laid out? that the basis of his being the Savior is that Intercessory work the the the atonement and the intercession of the high priest that comes with that which is really expanded out in Hebrews But sticking just with Paul or you know, we don't know who wrote he wrote

Hebrews like people think Paul was but anyway To go there is is really to I just don't

I haven't met too many people who walk through first Timothy and come to that conclusion instead they just land on first Timothy four and they haven't actually dealt with two and three before they got there and unfortunately so much of So much of the discussion sort of in our society today goes that way

Okay. Well, thank you I'm trying to put it in context and the you mentioned

I Howard Marshall and the article that I read by Vern Poitras seems to Give good evidence that They especially well first I couldn't really find the

Melissa in any lexicons that had that meaning of like namely or that is and then

I Looked at Poitras his article and he said some of that is based on a gentleman named

TC skeet Who Marshall might be going off to Get this new meaning for Melissa as namely or that is and What Poitras does he goes through every instance that skeet tries to use from various papyri and that kind of thing and kind of evaluates maybe

I can call back or Email you and get some more detail on it If you if you're interested in the article by Poitras, it's in the

Journal of Theological Studies And then I can maybe discuss more in depth

Theological studies volume 53 number two. Well just looking at at the the standard

Greek lexicon Molestos translated to an unusual degree most of all above all especially particularly very greatly marker of high level of certitude and answer to a question most assuredly or Certainly are the various renderings that are that are provided by Bauer Donker aren't and Gingrich, which is the standard that is that is utilized by most folks today the

Freiberg gives very much exceedingly highest point the extent of something most of all especially above all and Just pull up one more here real quickly, which is

Lonita a very high point on a scale extent very much particularly Particularly They were especially sad at the words.

He had spoken something along those lines So those are you know, those are the renderings that are that are provided that point.

I don't know what sources Howard Marshall is utilizing in regards to looking at the various semantic domains that are available to it

Okay I've got to either do something with the

Savior or with Soterra with Melissa there and I'm kind of well, yeah a combination of things or well, yeah,

I think I think Soterra though It has to be

Defined two things you got to keep in mind. First of all You you cannot come up with a meaning of it that is contradictory to what the soteriology the preceding text that actually address

Soteriology is and secondly remember this is describing why it is that we can have hope in the living

God So if it becomes basically descriptive at that point that might impact your interpretation as well. Hey Glenn Thank you very much to your phone call.

That is the end of the program today. Thank you very much for listening and Next week

Lord willing. We'll be back at our normal time 11 o 'clock Pacific Daylight Time 1 2 p .m.

Whatever it is three hours for you poor folks over in the east and you folks over in the UK Whatever it is.

Thanks for listening. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at six. Oh two nine, seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o

box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks