God's and Generals, Open Theism and Phones

is the dividing line. 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 morning and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is

James White. Yeah, I know who I am. Hey, we're doing all sorts of new stuff today.

I have a new microphone. You know, it is not golden. It is not the golden. Yeah, this is sort of a silver thing.

And I like it because I can adjust it better so I can put it where I want it here. And same old headphones, which

I need a little more volume of. More me, please, in my headphones. A little bit more. La la la la. Okay, that's good.

Actually, that's terrible, but that's just because it's my voice. And anyways, we have a super -duper, neat, kino, cool soundboard on the other side of the wall today that's starting to look as big as the one

I used to use when I ran sound at the North Phoenix Baptist Church. Which was real big.

Of course, that was a long time ago, so this one's much, much fancier as far as, you know, solid state and all that kind of stuff.

But anyways, everyone on the channel is saying it sounds good, which is amazing, given that I'm the one that's talking. But all sorts of neat, fun stuff over there.

And I think there's going to be more neat, fun stuff next week that will actually probably encourage me, anyways, to be a little bit more willing to have guests on the program.

I think we'll be able to hear our callers better, and hopefully the callers will be able to hear us better. And so we're doing a little upgrading, because, you know,

I travel all over the place. I was in San Antonio this past weekend with the

Saints and the Brethren and the Sisterin at the Free Grace Baptist Church in San Antonio.

Ken Billings and Tim Goad, the pastors there. And I had a wonderful time with them.

I need to mention, I know it's getting mixed reviews, but Friday morning, 11 .50

in the morning, Pastor Ken Billings and myself were the first two people to get tickets to see

Gods and Generals when it opened. And I know that the pacing in that movie is not what you're accustomed to in modern

American movie -dom, which is specifically designed to keep your attention when you're not really capable of having a long attention span and things like that.

I remember there was one scene where General Jackson, Thomas Jackson, believe it or not, he's in bed with his wife.

But you know what? They're fully clothed. And it's this wonderful scene where they're talking about, and it does help if you've read the book, the fact that his wife, he was a widower, and he was deathly afraid of experiencing happiness, because everyone he'd ever loved had died.

And anyways, they're talking about having a child. And it was wonderful.

Talk about character development and in -depth stuff. And I hear a guy sitting behind me.

And, no, I did not forget you, David. You were the third person, but you were behind us.

I'm sorry. We were there. I must, I repent. In sackcloth and ashes,

I would shave my head if I had anything to shave on my head. But it was Ken Billings, myself, and MDH, one of the uber -geeks of our channel.

David Hughes drove down from Austin. We all saw the movie together. And so I repent in sackcloth and ashes.

I was thinking about the movie, not necessarily who was there. But anyways, there's this wonderful scene where they're talking about all this stuff.

And this guy behind me, I hear him going, ah, come on, this is taking too long. Everything's just got to be boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

No character development, nothing in -depth, nothing like that. Well, anyways, it was an amazing film.

I've never seen Hollywood produce something where there's prayer and there's so much reference to scripture and faith and all the rest of this stuff.

And I know people go, ah, well, you know, it just made the South look so good. Hey, they won the first two years of the war. What do you expect?

The third one they're doing is going to be depressing for everybody in the South, because that's when they're losing.

And read the books. The books are good. Get the books.

Jeff Schara wrote the first and the third. His father, Michael Schara, wrote Killer Angels, which was the story of Gettysburg.

And I'm just very, very excited that there was a film in which there was discussion of duty and honor and actually raised the issue that there was more to the

Civil War than I was taught when I was in school. Let me guarantee you that. It was something else.

But, anyways, we saw, yeah, Ted Turner was in it, no less.

Actually delivered his line fairly well. I heard yesterday that Senator Byrd was in it, and I didn't notice that.

Then again, I never noticed that the guy who played Thomas Stonewall Jackson and did such a wonderful job,

Stephen Lang, was also the guy who played Pickett in Gettysburg. That's going to be really weird when someone watches,

I know Ted Turner produced it, he put 91 million bucks into it, and he got $667 for delivering his couple lines.

It was amazing. But, for example, when Jackson stands, it's a solo thing, he's alone out in this field praying to God before the

Battle of Bull Run, and he puts his arms in the air and is worshiping

God, and it's just like, ah -ha! That doesn't happen very often in films.

So, anyways, just one thing if you haven't seen it yet, take Kleenex, because all three of us, the three that saw it together, myself,

Ken Billings, and David Hughes, that's M -D -H, he's in channel right now, everybody wave to David, because I ignored the poor brother in my opening statements, which

I didn't intend to do, but he took offense anyways, and so David over there, we saw the film together, and we all had these terrible allergy attacks at the same points in the film.

Actually, I am going to go ahead, and I know David says it was just dust, but I had tears streaming down my face, and dripping onto brother

Billings' jacket that I had wrapped myself in because I was freezing. It was cold in there. Anyways, the last hour is tough, but just the whole thing, the

Battle of Fredericksburg, was very much like I had seen it in my mind when I read the book. But anyways,

I don't want to ruin any of the rest of the... Well, it's sort of like saying,

I don't want to ruin the plot of Two Towers. It's a book! It's been out for years!

So are these books. You can't... I mean, I'm not revealing anything to say.

Stonewall Jackson died! Hello! That was, you know, a long time ago. That's just the way it went.

Anyways, please, it's well worth going and seeing. I've seen some of the... just way overdone and overacted and all the rest of the stuff.

Hey, if we don't go to see the films that actually are friendly to our side, why should we whine when everything else they produce is negative to us?

You know? I mean, come on. Anyways, no, it's not a chick flick. It is, even though I think women would enjoy the humanity of these men.

For example, Robert Duvall plays Lee, and I think he made a better looking

Lee than Martin Sheen did because his beard was real. But there's one point where, and this is again historically accurate, when

Jackson is dying, Lee sends a message by a man who had come to him, please tell

General Jackson that I prayed for him last night like I do not believe

I've ever prayed for myself. And he said that with such emotion in his voice that, again,

I had this allergy attack right then and there. It was a really... It was something else. Wonderful stuff.

And how did I get on to that so quickly? I don't know. 877 -753 -3341. Maybe you'd like to share your thoughts about gods and generals.

I don't know. That's good. Oh, we've got a northerner in channel who obviously has done much reading.

Is that the General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard? That's real good. Anyways, 877 -753 -3341.

Remember that this is only an hour -long program, so those of you who like to wait until ten minutes after the hour in the third half hour, you're not going to get anywhere if you don't call earlier in the programs.

If you've seen the film, would like to make a comment about it, that would be fine. I thought it was wonderful.

I had read the books myself. I lived within half an hour of Gettysburg as a young man and have walked the fields of Gettysburg and hence have some investment in that whole subject and found it very neat to get to watch that film and to especially at Fredericksburg.

It was just absolutely incredible. Well, the stupidity first of all of the leadership of the

Federal Army at that point, I mean everybody agrees with that, but then I just don't know how men do what they did and then especially when you see the

Irish Brigade. Just incredible stuff. Hadn't had a chance to see it.

Be warned, it has an intermission and ends up being about four hours long and I understand there's a director's cut that's more than five hours long.

I wonder if that's going to come out on DVD someday. Can you imagine if that was five hours and Gettysburg was close.

Gettysburg was around four, wasn't it? I think it is. That would be nine hours, however long the last full measure will be.

Let's say it's another four. You could make it a multi -day multi -day run just watching the films on something like that.

Just incredible. 877 -753 -3341. This is the dividing line

Lots of stuff going on. I was mentioning that we were with the brethren in San Antonio and had a wonderful time with them discussing.

I presented a response to Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free, which primarily was on the subject of how to present the doctrines of grace.

I started off, and this sort of left a few people wondering, but since I was asked to respond to the book,

I started off discussing why people like Dave Hunt and Norman Geisler are producing the books that they're producing.

I think it is important to understand motivations in those situations so you can understand those things.

That's what the presentation was about. I had a good time there. I got to meet folks from the channel. Of course, that's the home church of one of our channel ops.

Nina is a member of that church. I've been there in January of 2000, so it's been about three years since I was there last.

Nina was there, and then MDH, as I mentioned, drove down from Austin a couple times and was able to be with us.

Then Cow Poet, Andy, drove 16 billion miles.

Driving anywhere across Texas is like driving across a nation. I think they drove six hours to get there just for the

Saturday morning presentation, which was just amazing. I got a chance to meet Cow Poet and to actually mention him during my presentation, the bovine bard and all those other terms that we've come up with for the poor guy.

We got to meet some of the folks from the channel. That's always neat to be able to put faces with the folks we get to know electronically who become friends, our brothers and sisters in the

Lord electronically. But to put faces and ages, that's really neat. I thought

MDH looked considerably younger than he is, which I think is simply disgusting. Though you look a little closer and there is a little gray in there.

It sort of blends in right now, but a couple more years and that's going to start getting really pronounced.

Then he'll look more like the son of Bill Gates that he truly is. Anyways, we had a very good time.

I was talking to the folks at the channel about what we were going to discuss this morning. I have a little pop -up whenever anybody asks what's the topic today.

It just says the topic is religious stuff. I actually asked the question, what should we talk about today?

An excellent suggestion was offered by one of the channel participants who rarely says almost anything, actually.

In fact, now that I look here, oh, he's away. But Dave B.

suggested something that is important and that is the minstrel of the moose.

Yes, a bovine bard. We've come up with lots of stuff. I had never heard a cowboy poetry.

I didn't figure, well, I guess you got to have something to do when you're sitting up on top of that horse. Rhyming stuff makes sense,

I suppose. Anyways, Dave B. suggested, I thought, a very good thing to make note of, though it's not like I had a lot of time to prepare for it, and that is the fact that we've heard from our

Denver correspondent, who we pay big money to call into this program, let me tell you something, that the goings -on at the

Evangelical Theological Society. Historically, organizations such as that, organizations such as seminaries, major church denominations, and the like, those organizations sort of function as bellwethers, as barometers, in essence, for movements within the church.

And I think you can watch ETS, and I think eventually what you're going to see, if historical patterns replicate themselves, if what has happened in the past repeats itself, which it frequently does, you're going to see a process of degradation, decline, followed by controversy, as conservatives seek to re -establish old standards, and sadly, most of the time what ends up happening is this then results in the establishment of new organizations, or in some cases, new denominations.

Look at what has happened with the Presbyterians, historically. What happened at Princeton, the apostasy of Princeton, you could very well say that, given what is taught there these days, and what was taught when it was originally founded, and the establishment of new conservative movements, but that eventually succumb to the constant erosion that is part and parcel of a form of fallen world in regards to truth.

For some reason, those who hold to falsehood tend to be significantly more motivated to present their falsehood and to continue to push their agenda than frequently those who know the truth, and that happens very frequently, sadly, in denominations, churches, seminaries, and organizations.

What's going on in ETS right now, of course, is the issue over open theism, and if the

Evangelical Theological Society does not have the foundation in truth to allow it to exclude open theism and its denial to God of exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future events, if a person who can be considered an

Evangelical who does not denies to God a historically held attribute that has such incredible impact upon the view that we have of God, of ourselves, of the future, of time, of God's sovereignty, and everything else, if the

Evangelical Theological Society cannot exclude from its membership those individuals who deny these fundamental truths, then obviously there is deep difficulties, and the decline will then accelerate, because once you have an abandonment of truth in that area, there will be an abandonment of truth in many other areas, and eventually you would see a collapse on the issue of inerrancy, a collapse on the issue of the gospel, and everything else.

That's just simply the process by which things take place, and so as we watch this, and we note that in the last installment of our

Denver Correspondence discussion, we know that a motion was made, and there is a process undergoing where John Sanders and Clark Pinnock are being examined in regards to their views of inerrancy, and the question really then becomes, is this just a sideways way of dealing with their issue of open theism?

I had asked, maybe I missed the thing here. I thought

I had asked a question. Anyways, oh yeah, there it is. Someone just didn't answer me, because I asked, do we have the

Sanders debate in WAVE format available, and if so, I'd like to be able to possibly, during the break, cue it up.

I'd like to play the answer that he gave.

Yes, we do. If you could give me the specific question, I would love to get that specific number in the sub -directory. That would help me to grab it during the commercial break.

Then we can, it's one way or the other, then

I can try to find that particular section. It was the very last question, so it would be pretty easy to find it.

I'd like to play Sanders' response to the last audience question, which in essence was, do you subscribe to a statement of inerrancy?

If so, then there's some more to the question. I think we ought to give a free tape or something to anyone who can figure out what the response was supposed to mean, because that means you're considerably more intelligent than I am, which is not difficult to do, but also seemingly considerably more intelligent than anyone that was at the debate, because no one could figure it out, actually, what in the world he was talking about.

That would be something we could do. We do have our first phone caller on the new system, which will only be the system for this week, because then next week we'll have a different system, which will be even better than the system that we have now for phone callers.

I can guarantee if something's going to explode today, if something's going to go really bad today, it's going to go bad now, or during the break, one of the two, when we're playing with all these new things.

We're going to try to bring good old David on the air. David, of course, was sitting with me and watching

Gods and Generals, and claims that unlike myself, who openly admit to the fact that I wept at certain times, he being the man that he is does not weep.

Instead, he has allergy attacks at inopportune moments. We're going to see what

David has to say about the movie and Sola Scriptura. Here we go.

Let's try it. Let's bring David online. David, are you there? I'm here. You sound like a robot to me at the moment.

Really? Yes, but that's okay. Well, I'm a Microsoft guy. It could be. Well, being related to Bill Gates, we'll do that to you.

There you go. My theory, though, is that during the emotional parts of the film, people were getting up to leave so they wouldn't cry.

It's stirring up a lot of dust. Right, okay. So the people behind you who were obviously not believers and didn't really care about that type of development, they were getting up because they were going to get emotional about something?

I think so, and it just stirred up a lot of dust. I see. That does remind me a lot of the answers

I get from Microsoft that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual situation. Yeah, that's true.

No, I wept openly like the rest of you. Okay, all right. My favorite line in that movie, and I'm guessing it's a historical line as well, was where one of his men asked

Jackson, how you can be so serene on the battlefield. I can't remember the exact wording, but his response was, because the day of my death has been set by God or the end of my days has been set by God, I'm as safe as the battlefield as I am in my bedroom.

I'm actually looking right now in Channel, I created a pop -up with the exact citation and why in the world can

I not find it now? I even mentioned it to, oh wait a minute, it was actually an alias, so I can actually quote that.

Oh, that's really bumming me out. I know Eric saw me working on it, because that was part of what was, let's try

Stonewall, let's see what that does. Look at that! One of America's greatest generals,

Thomas Stonewall Jackson, a man of deep Christian faith, was asked after the Battle of Bull Run how he could remain so serene with bullets and shells whistling past his head.

He replied, quote, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death,

I don't concern myself with that, but to be always ready whenever it should overtake me. That is how all men should live, then all men would be equally brave, end quote.

Wow, what a testimony of God's sovereignty. Oh, and he was standing, as you may recall, next to a federal cannon that they had captured, and yet there were like two or three of his

Virginia Military Institute men dead around the cannon, and that was where the question was asked, and he then said,

I will never forget these men. Yes, indeed, it was quite the quotation, that's why

I had typed it up even before I saw the movie. Yes, it was great, it was good to have you with us.

It was a lot of fun this weekend, and I enjoyed your lectures, and I wish I could have been there Saturday, but I hope to get the tapes.

Yes, and actually you might want to, if you call Free Grace Baptist Church to request those, we're going to try to get them ourselves, but Sunday morning

I spoke on Ephesians 1, and it was unusual. It wasn't the normal presentation

I make on Ephesians 1, so that would be interesting to get hold of as well. Just a quick comment about Sola Scriptura.

After listening to quite a few of your debates, I've noticed that a debate can start on one topic, but it always seems to lead to that.

For example, the debate on homosexuality started off as them trying to defend that practice using

Scripture, and it turned out to be actually an attack on Scripture itself. I'm wondering if you've noticed that.

It seems to be the common denominator, the bottom line. It is the bottom line. It's really the bottom line with pretty much all the religious groups with which we deal, and that is if you're going to really practice

Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura, then it's going to have an impact on your hermeneutics as well, and since the source of pretty much any false teaching is going to come from various external sources, traditions, and things like that, that becomes really the dividing line, not to use an overly used term, between those who really believe that the

Bible is what it claims to be and those who may say they do, but then will in some way, shape, or form violate that faith or violate that confession with the addition of their own traditions, addition of other books of Scripture, whatever else it might be.

There's all sorts of different ways of denying Sola Scriptura, and that almost always involves an attack upon the

Scriptures themselves. So as to make room for these other sources of authority that then give rise to the false teachings.

I mean, if you apply a consistent hermeneutic to the Scriptures, you're going to come to such conclusions as the

Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the physical resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith, etc., etc.

If you deny either sections of Scripture or deny that Scripture is consistent with itself, then you can make room for false teachings, but that's just the way it is.

Yep -o -dupper. All right, well, thanks. All right, thanks for driving all the way up there and enjoying our time this weekend.

Thanks a lot, God bless. Thanks, bye. 877 -753 -3341 got a phone call, phone call, what am

I talking about? Email, just now from Tom, who is listening somewhere, and said he hasn't seen

Gods and Generals yet, hopefully I haven't ruined that for you. I couldn't ruin it for you, it's four hours long,

I wouldn't have time to ruin it for you, but just thought I'd mention that I recently had the pleasure of reading a fine book entitled

Jackson and the Preachers. You know, I do the very same thing as you just did there, Tom. It's actually titled

Jackson and the Preachers, not entitled. You know who corrected me on that? You know where I first, you know why

I really try, and I keep saying entitled, that's not the best use, you know who corrected me on that?

Now if I could just remember who it was. Looking at the back of the, oh there it is,

J .I. Packer. J .I. Packer corrected me on that, and that stuck in my mind when

J .I. Packer says something to you, people listen. Anyways, Jackson and the Preachers by John W.

Schilt. It discusses men such as Robert Louis Dabney and other godly ministers Jackson had in his life.

Well indeed, there are a number of books, one of the things I'll tell you honestly, Tom and everybody else that's difficult about the pace of my life right now is

I don't get to read all the books I would like to on subjects I would like to. I'll be perfectly honest with you, reading heresy and falsehood is, you know, it was easier when

I was 28 than it is at 40, and if it continues that way, by 50 it will be almost unbearable.

So I much prefer reading the truth these days, and so I don't know what that means, but anyways.

Thank you Tom for the email, I appreciate that, 877 -753 -3341. We are going to take a break,

I'm going to see if I can track down that question and discuss a little bit more of John Sanders' view on inerrancy and take your phone calls here on The Dividing Line.

We'll be right back. 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 translations, old and new, 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 Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, 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 Potter's 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. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

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

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

Here I stand, on the one that's for all delivered me.

On the Word, it's all above it's holy name.

And welcome back to Dividing Line. My name is James White. It's a Tuesday morning, 11 .32

here in the Phoenix area anyways. A rainy, rainy day.

If you can pot up my computer here. This is live webcasting at its best, folks.

It truly is. Why does this look so strange? I have loaded up.

Okay, it says 2 hours and 32 minutes. I guess that's the right amount of time. I have loaded up the end of the

Sanders debate, but because it was reading through the network from a Windows 98 machine.

Yes, MDH, it does sound a little bit like the bottom of a tin can. It's a headset.

Oh, that's a problem. Anyways, I'm going to see if I can find this question.

We're going to look for it, search for it together. Let's see if this is the question here. I invite the audience to consider well the explanations offered by various open theists regarding such a clear definitive prophecy on the lips of the

Lord Jesus. Hmm, that sounds like my conclusion here. In any one of these scenarios, the prophecy of the incarnate.

Oh, it would help files down here. That would help a lot. There we go. Hey, looking through wave files here, folks, we're doing the best we can.

Let's see here. Let's see if this is the. The primary cause of the remote cause of human specificity, the secondary cause of the process.

And how does it make sense? Perfectly sensible and logically coherent.

How God would be. Our next question is for Dr. White. I think

I'm finding it. Dr. White. Dr. White, the next question is for you. Do you believe that according to open theism, the statement

Jesus made in John 6. Okay, here it is. Sanders, in view of modern physics, the time is relative.

Which temporal frame of reference is your time bound God in? Dr. Sanders, do you affirm.

I found it. It's the very end of the debate. I knew where it was. I just guess I should have gone there.

All right. Here's the last question that was asked. Yes, nothing like groping the dark.

Here's the very last question that was asked of Dr. Sanders. And I'm going to make an executive decision here.

A free audio tape of this entire debate to anyone who can call in and explain to me exactly what

Dr. Sanders says in response to this question. Okay, here it comes.

Dr. Sanders, do you affirm the doctrine of inerrancy as understood by the

Chicago Statement? If yes, wouldn't God have had to violate the biblical author's libertarian freedom in order to inspire a perfect text?

If no, then why do you appeal to, in your opinion, a possibly misleading and untrue text to argue for a theologically true position?

A perfect text. Well, Chicago Statement allows for, well, the question is what's an error?

And they have several pages delineating what is not an error. Figures of speech, rounding numbers, approximations, et cetera.

And all those are there. That's the text that we have.

That's the text we're working with. That text is without error, given those definitions.

I believe the exegesis of the inspired and errant text of Scripture, the consistent application of a consistent hermeneutic to that text, reveals to us that indeed

God is the one who is with the beginning and the end. He is, as Psalm 90 verse 2 says, before the mountains were brought forth, the river that was formed, the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art

God. All right, there was, let's try just his response one more time.

A perfect text. Well, Chicago Statement allows for, well, the question is what's an error?

And they have several pages delineating what is not an error. Figures of speech, rounding numbers, approximations, et cetera.

And all those are there. That's the text that we have.

That's the text we're working with. That text is without error, given those definitions.

I don't know. That's how it ended. I guess he said that text is without error, given those definitions.

The problem is, through the course of the debate, he had presented concepts of prophecies that had failed.

False statements that are made about future events that do not come true because of his position.

I would imagine that that's going to be the very essence of the debate this coming

November, is can you affirm that concept of inerrancy?

And of course, we should be very fair, I think, in this situation. Clark Pinnock and John Sanders are two separate individuals.

And they obviously view things somewhat differently, even though both are inclusivists and both are open theists.

There were a number of times I cited Pinnock in my debate with Sanders, and you could sort of see this look on his face of, well, you know,

I sort of wish that maybe he hadn't put it that way.

I don't know that I would express it that way, and so on and so forth. And most folks in the audience that day just really had no idea.

Debate in November about what? Well, that's when ETS meets. What is it? Which weekend is it?

First or second weekend, I think, in November. I'm trying to remember which one it was. Anyways, the

ETS national meeting. I would assume, I'm not certain of this, but I would assume that this will be the big issue, that the work that was assigned to some committee to examine this last year will be presented at that time.

Yes, MDH just noted that Sanders sounds just like Dick Cavett. And he does.

You're right. In fact, now that I think about it, he looks a lot like Dick Cavett, too. So, very similar personalities and perspectives there.

Anyways, some folks in the channel are too young to know who Dick Cavett was, and hence don't have any idea what that issue is all about.

That will be the subject, because I really think if you can present the idea as Dr.

Sanders did, that there are false prophecies in scriptures. Now, he doesn't use the term false prophecy. Unfulfilled, or conditional, in the sense that they were, how do

I put it, given their perspective of God's relationship to time, there can be prophecies that simply will not be fulfilled.

They just don't want to call them false. And the problem is, that results in no ability to identify any future prophecy as false.

Deuteronomy 13 and 18 become irrelevant. They become something that has no meaning.

And, ironically, you end up dealing with an open theist on the very same passages with which you deal with a

Mormon, when a Mormon is attempting to defend Joseph Smith. And how do they defend Joseph Smith's false prophecies? By attacking

Jonah, or prophecies in Jeremiah, or Ezekiel concerning Tyre and Sidon, and all the rest of the very same issues that we deal with, dealing with the cults, you end up dealing with within this context as well.

It's an amazing thing. And so, if ETS is unable to hold its position, and I'll be perfectly honest with you, if ETS is unable to hold its position,

I can tell you exactly why it is. Exactly why it is. It's called the

Academy. And it's called the attitude of the Academy.

There are those who like to use that term, the Academy. We are the

Academy of Christian Scholarship. And we must maintain our relationship and our respect by those in the world.

And in reality, what has ended up happening is we have adopted the methodologies of studying and being academic like the world.

And as a result, since we are looking for the acceptance...

And it's so easy to see this. What's the most popular degree, terminal degree, in seminaries today?

PhD, Doctor of Philosophy. Why? Because that transfers around.

In other words, you can get a PhD at a state university and then go teach in a seminary. What used to be the most popular degrees?

PhD, Doctor of Theology. But you see, if you get a doctorate in theology, then you can't go teach at the state university because they're not going to want you.

See? It's so obvious in the language it's used.

I've mentioned that when I went to that ETS meeting in 98, I was simply heartbroken and disgusted at the attitudes of so many who spoke of the

Academy as if it were the benevolent leaders of the benighted church.

Obviously, I know that that is not the attitude of all. But I'm afraid that the massive political machinery that we've created, the massive institutions that we've created, that is so separated from the church, and so separated from the ministry of the

Word of God in the local church, that machinery cannot long protect orthodoxy.

Because you have to be passionate about the truth. You have to love the truth to be able to withstand the constant erosion of sin that exists in this fallen world.

And if anything proves that this is the direction that these institutions end up going, just look at history.

Look at the seminaries. Look at what happens constantly when these organizations are built.

And they may be built with the most wonderful of initial desires and concerns, but the simple fact of the matter is, over time, because of a desire to be accepted by the world and to utilize worldly standards of education, the result has always been the same.

And we see it happening around us when people ask me, well, what are the conservative seminaries? And you look around, and the list is getting smaller and smaller and shorter and shorter.

And even then, in the vast majority of situations, when someone says, well, I want to go to seminary, but what's it going to cost?

And you start talking about the numbers, people just about faint. And I'll admit,

I have a hard time defending, biblically, the idea that what

God intends is that we are to take our best and our brightest, we're to take those individuals who

God has gifted within the context of the local church. You remove them from that place.

You remove them from the oversight of the very elders, the men of God that have raised them up and trained them and preached to them and applied the word of God to them and prayed with them and prayed for them.

You remove them from where they are. You put them immediately under tremendous financial pressure, frequently far away from friends and family.

You indebt them to their eyeballs. You indebt them to a point where they could never be content to minister in a small local church.

They have to, simply for survival's sake. They have to think about salary first.

They have to think about size of church first. And then you train them under individuals who may or may not, depending on where you go, even be elders themselves, who may or may not even pass the tests provided in scripture to be an elder in the church.

And then you do it in a worldly fashion. And what do I mean by that? Well, let's face it.

In the vast majority of situations, we have bought into the world's ideas of education.

Now, I am not saying that there's anything wrong with doing tremendous scholarship.

It needs to be done in a Christian way. And I don't mean with a Christian veneer on it. I don't mean send folks to chapel once in a while, pray once in a while, sing some hymns once in a while, as if that somehow fundamentally impacts the methodology of education.

You have to get it settled first, right at the beginning, that the reason for even doing the study is to serve

Christ in his church, not to gain the laud and adoration of the world.

And hence, I firmly believe that what you're producing in your seminary classes is not going to be used to bless people within the church.

I think you're wasting your time. Now, someone may immediately say, Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.

What about those people who do in -depth studies in Greek grammar that almost no one in the congregation could ever be blessed by?

I am not saying there's anything wrong with doing those things. But let me tell you something.

I have a different standard of scholarship. If you can't take your in -depth study in Greek grammar in some obscure form, let's mention, for example,

Dan Wallace. He did his doctoral dissertation on the Granville Sharp construction and Greek articles.

Well, then you take that, and if you can't communicate that and bless people with it, then don't call yourself a

Christian scholar. That's one of the big things. Scholarship develops its own language and doesn't care whether it communicates with anybody else.

That's worldly scholarship. That's one area I'd say, look, here is one example of where Christian scholarship should be absolutely unlike the scholarship of the world.

Secular scholars love to sit around and use their specific technical language to impress each other rather than communicating with those around them.

And they pat each other on the back, and isn't that wonderful, and my, you're so smart, and you're so brilliant, and all the rest of that stuff.

And I honestly think if you can't take what you're studying and communicate that to a person in the pew, you're missing the boat.

And if you really want a challenge, then take what you're learning and communicate it to the kids in your church.

I think that's a real test of Christian scholarship. Now, I know,

I've just demonstrated that I'm not in the loop, okay? That I'm not a part of the political machinery.

No, I'm not going to be, and I never will be. And as a result, people take shots at me, well, you're not really scholarly.

If you were really scholarly, then you'd play the game, and yeah, okay, so you've done education in both, you know, you went to Fuller, and you graduated with honors, and all the rest of that stuff, and yeah, you know, we can look at your books, and you obviously know

Greek and Hebrew, you can do that stuff, but if you really want to be scholarly, you've got to do it our way, in our context, and play the political game.

You know what? I'm just not going to do it. I mean, I love teaching. I love teaching.

And the last two weeks in my classes for Golden Gate, a week ago, last night,

I role -played the uber -Catholic apologist. The uber -Romanist.

And my class will tell you, they will never forget that experience.

They will never forget having to go up against me on the issue of the canon. I shredded them!

Now, do you think that when we start watching one of the debates I've done with a Catholic apologist on the subject of Sola Scriptura, are they going to be more likely to listen and remember, or less likely to listen and remember?

Well, we all know. We all know the answer to that one. I think,

I love teaching, and I love challenging people within the context of my classes.

And making them uncomfortable, that's where it should take place, is within the context of that seminary classroom.

And what I like about teaching for Golden Gate is that we have extension seminaries. And I think that's really what needs to start happening in the future.

Is instead of these centralized places that indebt you to the eyeballs, what we need is if these centralized seminaries continue to exist, then the resources and the funds that are tied up there need to go into extension seminaries so that people who are already in ministry can avail themselves of those things.

The churches need to become involved. The churches need to be producing the elders that are going to be a part of that particular church.

I don't know how people... How do we... I don't know. I don't know. I don't claim to have all the answers.

All I know is if someone challenged me to defend those kinds of centralized, go 5 ,000 miles away, indebt yourself to $40 ,000, $50 ,000, and more.

I mean, for a bachelor's, master's, Ph .D. program, you're talking $110 ,000, $120 ,000 in many places.

Indebt yourself to your eyeballs so that you're constantly worried about the things of the world. You can never be totally set apart to the gospel ministry, all the rest of that stuff.

All I know is I could never defend that, biblically, in a debate. The only thing

I know that Scripture talks about is speaking to the elders of the church, passing on what they know and what they've heard and what they believe to those who are worthy.

So that involves examination. That involves training. That involves time. That's all

I see in Scripture. And some may say, well, that doesn't mean you can't use a seminary to do that.

Well, obviously God has used seminaries to do that. But the simple fact of the matter is those seminaries need to demonstrate that they have a different view than the world as to what scholarship is.

And when it is centered upon the service of Christ in His church and the

Lordship of Christ in all areas of knowledge and unashamedly rebukes the world for thinking you can know anything truly outside of the

Lordship of Jesus Christ, then we're on the right path. And that can't just be said.

That needs to be lived out. For example, those who are students of mine in either seminary,

I teach for two seminaries, Golden Gate and Columbia Evangelical Seminary, will both tell you that I have told those individuals, when you write papers, when you are working on projects, what is your ministry?

What are you doing? What can you do right now to bless the church you're in?

What kind of studies can you do right now that they're not only you can be passionate about now, but what you produce as a result is going to be useful in the long term?

I think that's vitally important. If you produce some 60 -70 page paper that ends up in your professor's hand and ends up on a shelf someplace and no one ever reads it, well, did you really redeem that time?

Some might say, sure. If it gave you tools to do other things, then there could be some level of redemption.

That's true. There's no question about that. And I understand that there are certain circumstances where you're producing something where the paper itself may be so technical that it's not going to be usable in the church format, but then you should make the effort to then take that knowledge and then bless the church with it.

But there are many situations where we could, in fact, instead of going into the world's attitude of, well, the only meaningful scholarship is where you don't present actual conclusions.

You just present possibilities. It is part and parcel of worldly thinking to question anyone who can come to a final conclusion.

People wonder why there's not much in the way of meaningful, powerful proclamation of the gospel today.

Well, if you're taught in the world's view of knowledge and the world's view of scholarship, you are discouraged from believing that you can come to solid conclusions.

I've met so many people who have gone through seminary educations that went in believing and come out agnostic on so many points.

Now, I know there are some people who go in believing traditions and end up coming out recognizing that they did believe traditions.

That's good. But on the other side, there is a worldly perspective that ends up causing young men to believe that they cannot actually proclaim something as being true.

Because, well, you know, there's this perspective over here and there's that perspective over there and yada, yada, yada, and it ends up ripping the heart out of the proclamation of that which is central to the

Christian faith. And it simply shouldn't be. That's not how it should be.

Boy, I didn't expect to start preaching here and I apologize for doing so, but obviously I feel very strongly about this because I love my students no matter what context they're in.

And I love seeing, I love seeing the look on, I'll mention him, on Dre's face in class last week when

I just hammered him on how he knew that any book in the

Bible was supposed to be in there. He didn't like it, but you know what? He'd tell you today, man,

I'm glad we did that. My students are really looking forward to seeing these debates because they're going to get the answers to answer the things that I did to them.

And I think that's awesome. I think that's wonderful. I love it. I love doing it and it's exciting to me.

And what a privilege it's mine to get a chance to do that. Well, remember, this should be the first week,

Lord willing, that we have the normal new dividing line schedule. That is, we just did a program here at 11 o 'clock on Tuesday morning.

A second program will be done this Thursday evening at 5 p .m.

Mountain Standard Time. That's currently 7 p .m. Eastern Time, 4 p .m.

on the West Coast. You know what I mean. Hollywood, Hollyweird, that stuff.

Anyways, 5 o 'clock Mountain Standard Time this coming Thursday evening. We will have another hour -long edition of the dividing line.

So maybe there were some things you wanted to say today you didn't get a chance to. That's when you'll be able to participate with us here on the dividing line.