Listener's Questions, Six Calls

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

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

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

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

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

James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to the Dividing Line. On a Thursday afternoon,

Comrex stack connection failed. Great. It's back to, I cannot see the phones once again,

I'm not sure why that is, but such as life, we'll just sort of have to fly blind here.

Let's see if we can bring it up on something else. This is what happens when you're trying to do some, good, I can bring it up on a different computer.

It's not that computer. Great. Wonderful. Anyway, this is live stuff, folks.

And when you're sitting here with books open right up to the beginning of the program, at least, hey, you know, at least

I'm trying to do some preparation. And we've got lots of questions to get to and taking your phone calls, 877 -753 -3341.

I was trying to do a little straightening up, you know, eventually the office needs a little straightening up and, you know, especially when you've been out of town, stuff piles up.

And I had been sent a copy from Bethany House of a new book titled, If God, Why Evil?

A new way to think about the question by Norman Geisler. Yes, Norman Geisler of the great evangelical cover -up fame.

And I haven't had a chance to look at too much of it. It's pretty short. But I was just scanning through it, looking at the flow of the argument and things like that.

And I ran across this section on page 67.

Even Jesus was not able to persuade all his people to believe,

Matthew 23, 37. And then that's followed by a quote from C .S.

Lewis, the famous quotes, there are only two kinds of people in the world, those who say to God, thy will be done and those whom

God says to whom God says in the end, thy will be done. All that are in hell chose it. Without that self -choice, there could be no hell, the great divorce page 69.

But I found that very odd. Even Jesus was not able to persuade all his people to believe,

Matthew 23, 37. I have absolutely no idea how you can read Matthew 23, 37 to mean that.

Were the Pharisees his people? Was he trying to convince them to believe?

I guess that's what he means is his people, as in the Jews, I guess. I don't know.

That's not what Matthew 23, 37 is about. But anyway, I found that rather interesting.

Anyway, we've gotten already getting some phone calls in here. And please try to remember this is an apologetics program.

This is not an eschatology program or things related thereto. Please try to keep your questions and comments somewhat related to the subject of apologetics, if you possibly can.

Sometimes folks call in and they want my opinion on everything under the sun, and I don't pretend to be the

Bible Answer Man in the sense of the online Bible Answer Man. That's not where we're going.

So if you can be apologetically oriented, that helps out a lot.

Some of the questions that have been sent to me include this one.

I've heard the argument that Petras and Petra are simply synonyms in Koine Greek, even though there might be a meaningful difference in Attic Greek.

This was not addressed in Roman Catholic Controversy. That is the book I wrote. I've been trying to find a response on aomin .org, but can't locate one.

Can you direct me to a previous response or give a little info on the validity of this argument? Something that has been addressed many times in our debates on the papacy.

Let me suggest to folks, if you're new to the ministry, I just sort of assume if anyone likes me at all, it's because they've listened to the debates.

It takes me aback sometimes when I talk to folks who have been supportive of the ministry and stuff like that, and then

I discover they haven't listened to the debates. And as far as I can tell, it's the most important thing

I do, really. That's the front line type stuff. And we have debated the subject of papacy many, many, many times.

There is a seven or seven and a half hour debate, two -night debate with Jerry Matitix on the papacy, the

New Testament evidence first night, the early church evidence the second night. There is a number 448 for those who are looking for it.

Well, you know, I was looking for something recently. I even put the number in and it didn't come up.

Because now that we use this multimedia thing, it comes up to one thing and then you can choose the different things.

But I had a DVD set in front of me and I looked at the number, DVD, I put that in and nothing came up.

I had to go searching for keywords just to find it. That's because the number's changed. That's a bad thing.

Listen, if you ask me, you know. I know what the number's in. That's why I put them in when you mention it and I go, 448.

Okay. All right. Fine. Anyway, look around and you'll eventually find stuff. There's lots and lots and lots of stuff on the website.

In debates on the papacy with Mitchell Pacwa and with Jerry Matitix and these things are gone over a good bit in those contexts.

I do not use the Petras -Petra argument. I don't think there's much validity to it.

Not because of the standard arguments offered by Roman Catholics. For those who are wondering what the

Petras -Petra argument is in the first place, the Petras -Petra argument has to do with the two different forms of the word rock found in Matthew chapter 16.

Upon you are Peter and upon this rock and there are two different forms and therefore many people have very commonly said, see, there's two different things.

Well, there is two different things, but that's not why. It's not because, well, in Aramaic it would have been the same, because you don't know what it would have been in Aramaic.

All this Aramaic stuff, whenever you hear somebody arguing Aramaic, you're talking to somebody who can't make their point from the canonically inspired

Greek scriptures. And we don't know what any Aramaic original, if there was such a thing, and I don't believe there was, even in Matthew, we don't know what it would have read.

It's all conjecture. And so whenever you hear Roman Catholics going, oh, it would have been kefa and kefa and there wouldn't be a feminine form and blah, blah, blah, it's all conjecture.

They don't know what it would have been. There's other words for rock in Aramaic, and scholars have made the argument that it wouldn't have been kefa there.

So all that stuff only demonstrates the fact that folks are missing what

Matthew 16 is about anyways. It's not about Peter. It's about Jesus, the identity of Jesus. The point in Matthew chapter 16 is that Jesus says, you, direct address, are

Peter, and upon this rock, not you, Peter, he doesn't continue the direct address.

He's referring to something else. That's the important issue. And that's what I brought up in my debate with Jerry Matitix.

And so that's what I would direct you to. And that's why you're not finding much on aomin .org because it just isn't the direction to go.

The direction to go is an exegetical argument that is not based upon Petras Petra, but upon the very meaning of the text and the focus of the text, which is the identity of Jesus and the fact that the identification of Jesus as the

Messiah, the Son of God, is the foundation of the church. It is what binds all Christians together down through the ages.

And so Roman Catholics will sometimes utilize that because it's very common to find in older Protestant works rather confident claims about Petras and Petra that do not take into consideration all the information.

So they actually use that to say, we've refuted them. Well, actually not. Oh, by the way, we also are taking

Skype calls today. Dividing that line is the address if you wish to get hold of us via Skype.

Next question. Here is, well, I'm currently reading the

Quran for the general purpose of gaining more knowledge and to draw my own conclusions on Islamic beliefs, not just hearsay from others who seem to mention infidels or getting virgins because they killed us infidels.

But when I've asked them if they've read the Quran, they answer no. The answer is no. The version

I'm reading is called The Meaning of the Holy Quran by Abd al -Yusuf Ali. Yusuf Ali's is obviously the most common

English translation. It is not the best English translation. I really think if you're going to read the whole thing, there are two

English translations that I would recommend. If you want the Amplified Bible version of the

Quran, and almost nobody remembers what the Amplified Bible is, but if you want the

Halalikon translation, it's a translation and a commentary all sort of thrown in.

So there's all sorts of stuff inserted, but it's inserted from the Hadith and things like that. So it can be very, very helpful in identifying what's being talked about.

So the Halalikon. But if you want just what seems to be, as far as I've been able to tell so far, the most literal and yet Islamically translated, because let's face it, there's some non -Islamic translations of the

Quran. I hear there's a couple that are supposed to come out that are really good from non -Muslims.

But would you really expect a Muslim to accept a non -Muslim translation of the

Quran? I mean, put yourself in their shoes. What if somebody started quoting to you an

Islamic translation of the Bible? You're automatically going, yeah, I'm not so certain that you translated this without a bit of a bias in the process.

And you can go from there. So the Sahih International translation is one that I'm using.

And I've found it in a number of places. When my Arabic tutor and I got together earlier this week for the first time in a while, and we sat down, and again, looking at text, the

Sahih International does seem to do a pretty decent job. For example,

Yusuf Ali says, Say not Trinity. Well, it's not Trinity. The word Trinity doesn't appear in the

Quran. It says, Say not Three. And the Sahih International says, Say not Three. So that's a good direction to go.

Anyway, it says, I'm currently in Surah 9, and my question is,

Do you agree with our Muslim friend that the unbelievers are different from the people of the Book, which means Jews and Christians?

It seemed that way for a while, with pagans or unbelievers being the Arabs who fought against them. However, in Surah 9, 30 -32, it seems we, the people of the

Book, are called unbelievers because of being polytheistic, sons of God. So I'm a little confused. Yeah, here's the thing to remember to this inquiry, to this writer.

If you're reading the Quran, and you're reading it from Surah 1 onwards, you're not reading it correctly.

I have recommended this over and over and over again to folks. There is, if you go to the blog and search on the word chronological, that will very quickly bring up a chart from my blog that gives you, in order, the

Surahs as they were written. Chronological order. Well, the best we can determine. There are obviously arguments about that.

And there are some Surahs that have material from different parts of Muhammad's life squished together. So it's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than starting with Surah 1 and moving on from there.

Because there's a change. There is a very clear change in Muhammad's relationship toward and view of the

Al -Kitab, the people of the book, the Jews and the Christians, from the beginning of the

Quran to the end of the Quran. Very clearly, the last Surahs written take a much harder line approach than the earlier ones.

Because in his life, he was attempting early on, when he's a minority prophet in Mecca, to enlist them on his side.

And so there is a higher view of the Al -Anjil, the

Al -Kitab, at that point, than there is after there has been a very clear break.

And Muhammad is now in Mecca, and he's at the head of an army, and now he's the prophet, and now you get all the

Surahs about obeying the prophets, and Muhammad is this and Muhammad is that. And so you do see an evolution, a change, during the course of the

Quran at that point. Now, that's from a Western perspective. The Muslim, the believing

Muslim anyways, now a liberal, westernized Muslim can go, oh yeah, sure, but your believing

Muslim doesn't believe that any of this reflects Muhammad's understanding anyways. All these words were written in heaven, in eternity past, and therefore none of this reflects his experience or anything like that at all.

And so they can't accept that as being a possibility in any way, shape, or form.

But that's the fact of the development of the Quran over time. You do see that change.

And so, sure, there are some, and in fact I'm not ready to do it now, but eventually

I want to make some comments in the program on Dr. Wolf's new book,

Allah, A Christian Response, just came out. I've listened to it over the past couple very long rides, over the past about 150 miles of riding, and it troubles me, but it needs to be responded to, it's well written, and it's going to have an impact,

I think a negative impact, but it's going to have an impact. But there are those who will read the text of the

Quran in such a way as to bend over backwards to find a way to keep

Christianity compatible, and to say, no, these texts are actually about Christians or Christianity.

The problem is that's not how historic Islam has read these texts, and historic Islam is what determines

Islamic orthodoxy in the Sunnah, the Hadith, and so on and so forth, that is so important in the establishment of Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic theology.

So to try to say, well, hey, we can come up with a new reading today, yeah, that's nice for Europeans to come up with, but that doesn't really work real well in Islam.

But they do attempt to read those texts in that way, and obviously it's easier for them to look at the earlier texts when

Muhammad is more friendly toward Christians, and then read the later texts in light of the earlier texts.

But the problem is that's not how Islamic orthodoxy has read the Quran for many, many years. They read it the other direction.

That which comes later abrogates or explains or is more authoritative than that which came earlier, and that's what you have going on there.

Now I did get a follow -up from the last program, the

Radio Free Geneva we did, from my Muslim correspondent, who was thankful for the time

I had taken to respond to the questions. Wow, we have a full board, two

Skype calls and three regular calls, wow, we are full up.

There's only one blank left there. Can you fill that one blank in? What's that? Hurry up?

I've got work to do here. Stop that. Besides, you didn't even give me a topic on the last one, so, you know, other than both are these, both folks are from England, and is that Pierce from America's Got Talent, or Britain's Got Talent, or anything like that, that'd be cool.

I'm glad he's reading Potter's Freedom, we'll have to get to that. Anyway, I did get a follow -up to last

Tuesday's Radio Free Geneva, and there was one response, further clarification question, and it's a good one, in regards to the third of the six questions that had been asked, where I talked about the fact that, of our union with Adam, our fall with Adam, etc.,

etc. And here's the response, but don't you think that this is pushing the problem just one step further?

What I mean is that I was born into the state of being fallen in Adam forcibly, and not by choice.

Keep that in mind. God decreed that I be born in this state. God created the world purposefully, in a way where he ensured that I was born condemned because of what one person, that is,

Adam, did, and then there is the chance that God won't elect me. Isn't it unfair to people who are not by choice already created, fallen in Adam, becoming so totally depraved and given such corrupted natures, that they are unable to see

God and then God doesn't elect them? One of the reasons I wanted to go ahead and respond to this is that it raises an important issue that we didn't raise or get to in the preceding program, and that was, we do not know the identity of the elect.

I am not given that ability, I don't know who the elect are. We are given certain markers of the elect, but those markers are, from a biblical perspective, something that is observed over time.

Yes, no one can say that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. Yeah, but a lot of people say it, just like I've said, la ilaha illallah wa muhammadan wa zillalah.

I can say that too, but even a normative Muslim will say, well, you can say the shahada without, if you don't mean it, in fact, some people have identified seven things that have to exist for the shahada to be a true conversion to Islam and so on and so forth.

In the same way, saying Jesus is Lord isn't just mouthing words, it is, there's meaning to it.

There's repentance from sin, there's faith in Jesus Christ, there's faith in what Jesus being

Lord means, and so on and so forth. And so there's content to all these things.

So we can look at Scripture, and Scripture will say that he who endures the end shall be saved.

So enduring faith is a mark of being elect, and the loving of the brethren, and things like that.

But I can't look in anyone's heart. And so we don't know the identity of the elect, we can have a better idea of who the elect are by how the elect behave, that is, at some point in their life, they are going to repent and believe in Jesus Christ, and there's going to be a change in their priorities, and et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.

But in evangelism and things like that, you don't go, I wonder if this person's elect?

That is one of, by the way, the major problems of hyper -Calvinism, which is why anyone who says

I'm a hyper -Calvinist is a bold -faced liar. Hyper -Calvinists look for evidence of election as if they can somehow see that.

And they don't believe that everyone's responsible to repent and believe. But Paul made it very clear, all men, we declared all men the duty to repent and believe.

And I say to this, my Muslim correspondent, you have a duty before God to repent of your sins and to believe in Jesus and what he did upon the cross of Calvary, his death, burial, and his resurrection.

You have a responsibility to do that. And God is not keeping you from doing that.

The fact that you are incapable of doing it is due to your fallenness in Adam and your love of, well, it is sin.

Even if you say, well, but I'm a religious person. Yes, but you would have to admit that if yours is a false religion that is keeping you from the truth of Jesus Christ, then you are loving something that is false.

And it's keeping you from dealing with God's only means of forgiveness for your sin.

I mean, let's face it. And again, I'm speaking directly to this person here.

If Jesus Christ is who the Bible says he is, and if he is the eternal son of God who has entered into human flesh and he's given his life on Calvary's cross as the means by which true and perfect peace can be created between the believer, the repentant believer, and God, wouldn't it be absurd for someone to come along and say, well,

I don't like the way that you have made peace available. I want to come up with my own way and hence to start some other religion.

I mean, if what the New Testament says about Jesus is true, then all forms of pluralism and everything else would be abjectly ridiculous.

And any other religious system that denies the centrality of who Jesus Christ is would by necessity be offensive to God because it's in essence saying you lied when you raised

Jesus from the dead. You lied. You deceived us all. That's an extremely important thing to consider.

So I don't know the identity of the elect. And so we proclaim the gospel to all people.

And that's why part of this question caught me a little bit off. You know, I objected to it on Tuesday was it's sort of like, well, shouldn't the primary thing being find out if you're elect?

No, that's never, ever, ever the proclamation.

It's never see if you find, you know, if you're elect or something like that. No, the call is to repent and believe that is what the

Spirit of God uses to change the hearts and minds of men. Then once a person has repented and believed, has been raised to spiritual life, united with Christ, all the rest of those things that we associate with salvation, then

Paul says, make your calling an election. Sure. But it's never look for signs that you're elect.

Because the only sign of election, first and foremost, obviously, is faith and repentance toward Jesus Christ.

So having said all of that, I think it was important to point those things out, because I think in the background of these objections and questions is some confusion on that matter, as if we somehow can know who the elect are.

But to say I was born into this state of being following Adam forcibly and not by choice.

That's where the problem lies. You're going to be born into a state.

And since you don't pre -exist, how can you have a quote unquote choice?

You have to be born. I mean, can we can you say that because you're all the men on your side of the family go bald, that it's unfair that God has forced you to go bald?

No, it's what you're born into. That is your genetic inheritance from your parents.

And the point of Romans chapter five was spiritually, our spiritual father is

Adam. And we can only get from Adam what Adam can give to us. And we can only get from Jesus Christ what

Jesus Christ gives to us. And so I would say this person, it is not a matter of your even thinking about the doctrine of election and whether you yourself are elect.

The question is, will you bow the knee to Jesus Christ who died upon Calvary's cross, who was buried and rose again the third day, and who is proclaimed to be

Lord of all, not just the Jewish people, but he sent his disciples out to all nations.

Not just the Jewish people. He's not just the Jewish Messiah. That is a bad misreading of the

New Testament. And he calls you and every other Muslim and every other person on the planet, no matter what they call themselves, to bow the knee before him in repentance and faith and to embrace him as Lord and as Savior.

Now, if God in his mercy grants to you a regenerate heart, if God in his mercy by his spirit causes you to see the

Lord of glory for who he truly is and draws you to himself, then he is praised for that.

But that does not change your responsibility. You say, oh, but if I'm unable, no.

Do we let, do we say to the drunk person who runs over our child because he's drunk, oh, you're not responsible?

No. And the same way, don't ever miss the fact that the sinner loves his sin.

The sinner loves his inability. The sinner loves being on the throne of his own life. The sinner loves running his own life.

And the religious sinner loves religion that allows him to quiet his conscience while maintaining his love for his own personal sins.

The religious sinner loves that. And so keep that in mind as you can consider this issue.

But finally, as I've said many times before, this is not just a matter of quote -unquote fairness because mercy, grace, and loving kindness are not categories of fairness.

You would have to agree that God would have been just to have just taken a hands -off approach and allowed people to die in their sins and bring judgment upon them.

Especially as a Muslim, you can't argue that one because that's a part of Islamic theology as well.

God is just to punish sinners. What transcends those categories is mercy and grace and forgiveness.

These things are all free. And as I've said many times, you don't want fairness.

You want mercy. And that's what God has done in Jesus Christ. So hopefully that will be helpful as well in continuing that conversation.

877 -753 -3341. I had a few other things, but we've got a full board here.

No question about it. So let's start real quickly with Arlen.

Hi, Arlen. Hello, Arlen. I do not hear Arlen. I had myself on mute.

Sorry. Oh, there you go. Hello, Dr. White. How are you doing? Just fine.

All right. My question was—we had an odd speaker yesterday in chapel, but that's not really that important.

What's important is you mentioned a textual variant in 2 Peter chapter 3, verse 10.

And that variant, I believe it's—the critical text says the earth and works done on the earth will be exposed, while in the majority text it says it will be burned.

And I'm trying to figure out what the significance of that variant is, especially how to read that passage as a whole.

Well, you know, it's really hard when you've never looked at a variant before to try to on the air just go, oh, well, this, that, and the other.

I've never looked at it before. I really can't help you on that. Might take some time to look at it.

But to be honest with you, that kind of thing, I'm just looking at Metzger's here.

There's at least three paragraphs, and it would be of no use to you or to anybody else for me to try to sit here and hymn and haw and read them and then re -digest them.

So I'll have to take a look at that some other time. Okay? Okay. All right. Thanks a lot. Have a good one. Bye -bye.

Let's talk to David in Phoenix. Hi, David. Hey, how are you doing, Dr. White?

Just fine. I know my topic is disseminary, and that is my topic. And I just want to ask you, because I am not reformed, but I do believe in election, and I wouldn't consider myself a full -blown

Arminian. I mean, I don't follow these principles or whatever. I would like to go on both aspects and study the

Bible both ways. I know it's a materiality, you know, Calvinism and Arminianism.

So I was wondering, is it possible to study? If I go to a seminary, I'm going to have one view, whether it's reformed or whether it's not.

So I'm looking at, is it possible to study both aspects, or do I have to go to a seminary?

Are there books I can look at, you know, just to gain knowledge on the subject?

Well, you certainly don't want to go to seminary simply to study one subject. Are you asking if there are good books on the subject of soteriology and the reformed

Arminian issue that you can read? Well, I'm just wondering how

I can, if there is an education, if there is, I would like a seminary because I do want to study under people, you know.

And I'm wondering if there is a school that doesn't hold to their soteriology.

If there's a school that what? If they study both sides, I guess it would be. Well, I'm batting zero here.

I don't know how to answer this. I mean, obviously, if you go to any seminary, you're going to get different perspectives.

I don't know of any seminaries that are set up saying, we're neither. And in fact, anybody who says they're neither probably is very confused.

I am very confused. Yeah. Well, you don't go to seminary for that. I wouldn't recommend that you even think about seminary for that.

There are fine works on both sides that I think very clearly lay out the issues.

But this is not something you go to seminary for. You go to seminary to learn how to exegete the text of Scripture, learn biblical languages, learn church history and biblical history and biblical backgrounds and all those things in preparation for ministry, not to decide the

Calvinist -Arminian issue, which I think can be done by anyone with their

Bible and enough seriousness to allow all of the Bible to speak.

That's not why you go to seminary, though. Seminary will frequently force you to deal with the issue and might hopefully give you an appropriate foundation for actually understanding what the issues are.

But that's not why you go to seminary, especially with how much seminary costs these days.

If I may ask, how can I figure out whether or what

I believe? I mean, Calvinism or Arminianism. I mean, I've looked at all your debates, and I have looked at Arminian debate, and I mean,

I just don't know where to draw the line, because this is what it is, and this is not what it is.

Well, what does your church say? My church doesn't really stand on those topics,

I guess. How could it not? I haven't heard a sermon on, we are

Reformed, we're not. Well, that would mean it's not. And I would guess.

Yeah, because this is a fundamental issue of what

God's character and purposes are in the world and how he accomplishes things. So if it never makes an impact, is never heard, you never hear a sermon that would reflect a perspective on it, then that probably would be a non -Reformed church.

In essence, and so how do you determine the issue? Well, if you've said you've listened to all the debates and read the

Potter's Freedom and stuff like that, I don't have anything more I can say other than what

I said in those debates or in that book. I mean, I've laid it out. I've said, here's what

John 6 says, here's what Romans 9 says, here's Romans 8 says, there's Ephesians 1. And if that's not sufficient,

I don't have anything I can add to that, because I've said everything that I know to say.

Well, I have not read your book. Not because I don't want to. I love your debates with the

Muslims and all that. I do want to pick up your book. I mean, I just don't want to go so into it that my theology deceives my faith.

I don't know. Well, would you consider it semantic?

No. Okay. No, not in any way, shape, or form. It's fundamental, it's determinative, it's a dividing line that makes a big difference.

It's a matter of consistency. I honestly believe if you use the same methodology of interpretation, exegesis, that you would use to defend the resurrection of Christ, or the concept of the atonement, the cross, the existence of God, whatever, deity of Christ, all those things, that you will come to the same conclusion, if you use the same methodology of interpretation.

It's my belief that every Arminian I've ever encountered, even the best ones, used a different methodology of interpretation once they got to those verses than they did when they were defending the deity of Christ or something else.

So, yeah, that's really where I'm coming from. I see what you're saying. So, yeah. Can you list some books?

Well, I know yours. Well, on the Arminian side, you've got

Roger Olson writing a lot of stuff these days. On the Reformed side, you've got

Piper, and you've got Sproul, and you've got all sorts of stuff out there that's very well written, and very well argued, and has stood the test of time, that does a very good job in presenting those things.

Well, I appreciate that. Okay. All right. Thanks, David. Thanks for calling.

Bye -bye. All right. 877 -753 -3341.

Where are we going now? All right. Let's talk to Justin.

Hi, Justin. How are you doing, Dr. White? I want to thank you for your two debates you did in London. They were very helpful.

All on the King James issue? Yeah. I thought it was awesome. Some of the people I sent a YouTube video to thought the analogy of the jet running on four engines was amazing, and they didn't hear anything else.

I was troubled with that, but that's what I got. Two questions for you. Of the

English translations that we have, if you had to pick one, maybe that's not a fair question, what do you feel is the best, the most accurate all around?

I know they all have their problems, you would probably say, but what would you say is your favorite translation?

Well, I always point out with the caveat that I've been associated with the

New American Standard Bible, working for the Lachman Foundation for many years. Haven't really done anything for them for a long time, but I'm still considered to be associated with them.

And so, obviously, I like the New American Standard Bible. And because I've always called the

ESV, the N -A -S -V without semicolons, in other words, it has a very similar translation methodology and is very much the same, except somewhat simplified.

ESV would be an excellent translation as well. And so, I would probably put those two at the top of the list as far as what

I think will probably, you know, 30, 40 years from now still be out there and being used in a regular way.

I think the NIV is always going to be out there as well, even though it's just a little bit too free for my taste.

Holman has produced a pretty decent translation, but it just doesn't set itself apart really for any particular reason.

We have too many English translations, to be honest with you, and most of them, you know, sit on a shelf and never really accomplish a whole lot.

We can fill our screen with parallel columns of English translations today. I'm not sure how much useful, how really useful that is.

But, you know, if you have a N -A -S -B -E -S -V in one column and an N -I -V in another column and maybe the

New King James, if you understand the textual differences, you've got quite a good range of solid translations there to work on.

Okay, my last question, more specific, the church I'm a member of is not

KJV only, but they might as well be. The ministers, the professors, they only are basically allowed to use the

King James. And one of their big reasons was they feel that in John 3, 16, where the term begotten is used, they feel it is almost borderline inappropriate to use anything but the word begotten, or like the

ESV says, God's only son. They feel that's completely inappropriate, and that for some reason the

Greek word has to be begotten. How would you respond to something like that? They need to freshen up on their

Greek, because the term monoghanes does not mean begotten.

Ton monoghanes, see, the problem here is when you look at the term monoghanes, it's easy to take the word apart, monos, only, then genes is not from geno, which means to beget.

Geno has two news. In English, it would be G -E -N -N. It's from genes, a single new,

G -E -N -E -S, from which we get gene, or genetic, or type, or kind. And so monoghanes literally means one of a kind only.

Hence, the NET, for example, gave his one and only son, and his only son in the

ESV. Now, can you find places where there's clear relationship in regards to sonship?

Well, yeah, it's right there, ton huyan. But that's where the sonship comes from, is from the term son. And the emphasis is upon the uniqueness of that sonship.

And the use of the term begotten, it can be understood correctly if we recognize the background of the

Greek term, and its use, and stuff like that. But that's probably one of the most common things I have to deal with with Muslims, is explaining the misconceptions they have based upon that term.

Because they think it's something that refers to an action in time, where the son comes into existence, or something along those lines.

And so I would just simply say, if that's the primary reason, they just need to look more closely at where the term came from, and some of the best scholarship on the origination of the term, and realize that the termination of the word, the second half of the word, is not from gena 'o, to beget.

It's from genes, kind or type. And that can be backed up from pretty much all the lexical sources that are available today.

All right. Thank you very much. It's been very helpful. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Justin. All right.

All right. Well, I at least was able to help one out of three there. So I'm up to 33%.

That's good. Now, someone make a note. I'll have to start the next program off by commenting on textual variants.

Sometimes, if I've studied a textual variant, great. But if you want me to look at a textual variant, contact the ministry first, please.

Especially Arlen, since you're in the chat channel. I am going to get out of here, and I am going to send that guy to prost -purgatory for so long that he won't even remember how to get back.

The system will forget who he was, because he could have said, hey, could you take a look at this textual variant for me before the program?

And then I would have been able to give him all the information. But no, what does he do? No, I'll just think, how about just doing it cold?

How about just, oh, are you in a hurry today,

Rich? You got three Skype callers. Well, that's nice. But are you in a hurry today? You just seem to be in a, did you drink too much coffee before the program started?

You don't know what I'm talking about. OK, let's go to our Skype callers, and let's talk with Pierce in England. Hello, Pierce.

Hi, Dr. James White. How are you, sir? This isn't the famous Pierce, is it? Famous? You know, as in Britain's Got Talent?

Uh, no. No? I watch Britain's Got Talent. I've got better things to do with my time.

Well, you know what? There was a really cool section on when that lady sang that one song.

So you've got to have seen that one. I mean, that was a worldwide hit. So anyways, so the other

Pierce, there's only two of you then there in England. What can we do for you? Well, I've just bought your book,

The Potter's Freedom, which I'm really glad about, because it's been on my list of books to get for a while.

And I just noticed, I mean, most of the snipes that I hear against you are actually not to do with your arguments, but to do with actually your personality, which is actually probably a bit more of a compliment to you, because it shows that your arguments are good.

But I was reading the kind of forward of the second edition of The Potter's Freedom, and you seem to kind of go out of your way to just say what a nice guy

Norman Geisler was. So I found that a bit interesting. Was there a reason you did that?

Well, actually, this forward to the second edition, um, hmm,

I don't see anything there about, um,

I'm looking through it here. What are you referring to? I'm a little confused. Hang on.

Uh, well, just you, you were talking about how kind of you went out with him for loads of meals and that kind of.

Well, that's true. I mean, uh, uh, up until this situation arose and he wrote this book and see, there is, there is a little background here and that is he had told me he was writing the book.

I sent him my books on, on reformed theology as a result. I don't think he ever looked at them.

Um, but I, I tried when writing my book to lean over backwards to show

Dr. Geisler respect. Um, I wrote to him and asked him some questions.

I, I, I was willing to invest the time to correspond with him on some of the issues that I had.

He was not willing to do that in response. I asked him, for example, um, why there was no exegesis of John chapter six versus 37 through 44 in chosen, but free.

Cause I, I, I mean, it's a central text. You would think there would, there'd have to be some serious exegesis of those texts. He went back and said,

I exegete the text fully. And so I actually took the time to type out for him every single reference to John six 37, uh, in the entirety of chosen, but free, which in the original edition was a little bit hard to do because there was almost no scripture index in the first printing.

And, uh, all he would respond to was a postcard that said, if you publish, I will respond.

That was it. So I, I tried to reach out to him. I tried to show respect for him because I do believe that in this situation, um, if you, if you, if you get personal issues in the way it will detract from the force of the argumentation that you're actually making.

And so I don't believe anyone can make an argument that my book, uh, contains personal attacks against Norman Geisler, unless you're a postmodernist and think that any disagreement automatically involves a personal attack upon someone.

But I've actually had people say, well, you know, you pointed out that he was wrong when he said in Romans, certain, certain texts in Romans that the

Greek word Ek is there and the Greek word Ek isn't there. And you shouldn't have pointed that out. Well, I had to, I was quoting the man.

You know what I mean? When, when part of his argument is based upon something that doesn't even, it isn't even there, uh, you have to point those things out.

So, uh, there was, there was a lot of respect shown for Dr. Geisler there. Let's put it this way.

There's a thousand times more respect shown for Dr. Geisler and Potter's freedom than he showed for me in his response.

Um, in, uh, in the second edition of Chosen But Free, there was a, an appendix that very clearly

I do not believe was written by Dr. Geisler. I believe that he allowed his classes at Southern Evangelical Seminary to write the response.

It was horrific. It was filled with errors, uh, large portion of even the page numbers weren't even right.

It was so bad. And thankfully it has been removed from the third edition, uh, wiser heads prevailed at Bethany House and it's gone now.

But, uh, the fact remains that, um, I think that if, if any argument can be made, uh, it is that I have shown a lot of respect for Norman Geisler.

And unfortunately his response has not been to show me respect. And in fact, many people would agree that his current defense of Erickon Cantor is actually an outgrowth of his dislike for me because of the

Potter's Freedom. And, uh, that, that is a, that is a huge commentary in of itself. But, um, the

Cantor stuff came long after the Potter's Freedom. And, uh, I wrote that book with the true and honest desire in my heart to be respectful toward him, uh, for what he had accomplished in his life at that point.

And, uh, what has come afterwards has come afterwards. Well, uh, I'm just, just saying that, that from what

I've been reading so far, that, that really comes, comes across quite strongly. Yeah.

Um, so. Well, how far have you gotten yet, if I could ask Pierce? Well, I'm, I'm, uh, just, just, uh, part, uh, partway through, through the first chapter at the moment, but that was just like an, an initial impression.

Okay. Well, you know where you're going to see it really come out very clearly is in chapter two, because in chapter two, you will see that I will go all the way back to Norman Geisler's earliest writings to try to trace as accurately as I possibly can his understanding of the concept of God's knowledge of future events.

You don't do that unless you're showing respect for somebody. If you just want to rip on somebody's position, you don't go back and buy old books or out of print just to make sure that you're accurately understanding what the person that you're disagreeing with is actually saying.

No, I, I mean, that's, that's good. I, I look forward to it. There, there was actually another thing that I, I wanted to, uh, talk to you about as well, which is, is to do with Catholicism, and this is somewhere which

I know is, is an area of your expertise, that obviously Catholics say that there's been this unbroken line of Pope since, since Peter.

And, um, I, I know, I know historically at some point that there were two popes, and the, uh,

Pope Leo the 10th was dodgy and stuff like that. Dodgy. Dodgy, I like that.

A wee bit, yeah, so a wee bit dodgy, yeah. But, um, he, um, yeah, so, so he, he, he obviously did, did loads and loads of, uh, different things with indulgences and all that lot, but it's just, have you written anything on, on church history, or, or, or would you recommend something on church history so that I can really kind of back up?

Yeah, yeah, there's a lot of things to look at. Um, uh, is it, um, somebody in channel, uh,

Turrets and Fan will help me with this, I'm sure. I think it's JND Kelly who wrote the Oxford Encyclopedia of Popes, and he will correct me very quickly if I'm wrong about that.

I'm doing it off the top of my head. It's in my library, but it's in another room. Um, JND Kelly's work is very important.

Philip Schaff's work, uh, is, uh, very important as well. His History of the

Christian Church, it's available online, but, uh, if you can get hold of it, you'll find it to be a real resource, uh, for information on such things as, uh, the nature of the early papacy.

Uh, there's, uh, there's a lot of work coming out on that demonstrating that there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome.

There was no single bishop understanding of church function in Rome until about 140 AD. Um, the pornography, the, the period of utter, uh, deprivation, uh, of the, uh, uh, of the, of the papacy during the ninth and 10th centuries.

Then you, of course, very, very importantly, as you noted, uh, the Babylonian captivity of the church where the papacy left

Avenue, left Rome, went to Avenue in France. And then the, you have a counter -papacy set up in Rome and then the two are excommunicating each other.

And then you have a third Pope because of what happens at a council and all the rest of this stuff. This idea of unbroken succession is a hodgepodge of excuses to deal with the fact that, uh, the, the

Bishopric of Rome has been, um, uh, something that has undergone a tremendous amount of evolution and change over, over history.

So J. N. D. Kelly, uh, Philip Schaff, uh, and then that'll give you some bibliographies to start digging into more, uh, like scholarly articles and journals and things like that, that can give you information on specific

Popes, uh, the, the Borgia Popes and, and Innocent X, like you mentioned, and, and things like that, that, uh, will, will give you a lot of, of sound information.

As to what I've written, it's not so much what I've written, but the debates that I've done. If, uh, I think you would find the debate that I did with Mitchell Pacwa on the papacy to be very helpful along those lines, as far as, uh, important patristic citations in Matthew 16 and, and, uh, uh, stuff like that.

So I think you'd, you'd find those to be helpful and those are available, uh, on the website as well. Cool. Well, I'll, I'll check that out.

So that's good. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Pierce. Thanks for staying up so late. All right.

God bless. All right. God bless. Bye -bye. All right. Let's get to, uh, James in England as well. Can we do it that fast?

He's trying. He's trying. James, James in England. Is this James I? James IV?

Which, uh, which James is this? The James who was wearing the team cow, the T -shirt with John Calvin.

Oh, yes. This guy, this guy is at the debate with, uh, with Bassam Zawadi and he's got this T -shirt on that has

John Calvin's head on a basketball player. And I mentioned to him that since the basketball player was in shorts, uh, that John Calvin would have had him burned, uh, for having, uh, even wearing shorts like that in Geneva.

And he found that rather interesting. Good. Good to see. Good to see you again, James. Good to talk to you, James. Yes, sir.

Just a couple of things. One, um, as I mentioned, I, um, gave my girlfriend a copy of the

Potter's Freedom and that has really helped her out. Oh, and you're not single? No, I'm not.

Because believe me, I've met, I've met many a man who has given his girlfriend a book on Calvinism who was a single man for a long time after that.

Oh, well, we've talked about it lots before, but I was going to send you a card, but unfortunately I couldn't find one that said, thank you for Calvinizing my girlfriend.

Oh, well, that's going to end up on somebody's vlog. What do you bet? Okay, anyway. My question was, um,

I bought a Greek and Hebrew Bible, um, because I'm learning Greek with some, a group of people at church.

Oh, this isn't interlinear, is it? Um, no, it's got a

Hebrew Old Testament and a Greek New Testament. Okay, good. Wow. Because I was going to hang up on you if it was an interlinear, because I just, interlinears are the most useless thing that man has ever invented, but that's another whole long story.

So is this like, is this called Biblia Sancta or something like that from the United Bible Society? It's just called a

Reader's Hebrew and Greek Bible. Oh, yes, yes, yes. I have, I have the exact same one. And, uh, there's a great bookbinder over here,

Ace Bookbinding over here in, uh, America. I sent it to, and they did an awesome job because I'm afraid the binding on that isn't all that great.

But the, the printing and the, and, and the book itself is, is super. That's a good thing to have. Oh, great.

Yeah. But I was just, I was just wondering, I was talking to a guy the other day. He's kind of not really part of any cult.

He's just a guy with a Bible and an agenda who claims that he's bringing up some stuff about the ancient

Hebrew. And just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the oldest type of Hebrew we, we have and the sort of kind of Hebrew in that Bible?

Well, obviously when you're talking about an ancient, ancient, ancient language, um, languages undergo evolution.

Um, but, uh, you know, I mean, some of the inscriptions we find in the most primitive form of Hebrew, the script is going to be different than what you would have in a

Masoretic text. But the letters are the same, that the language is pretty much the same. I mean, you can see some sort of differences between the earliest and latest.

Any language is going to have some type of evolution during that, during that time period. But, uh, what, what point was he trying to make?

I, I understand what the issue would be. Well, he said the Bible was not written in, um, he said the oldest was not written in Hebrew, but in ancient

Phoenician, which seems to have some of the same characters, but not, that seems to be an overstatement.

Well, I don't know how he proved that. I mean, uh, all the most ancient, uh, records we have of scripture, uh, of the

Old Testament, of the Tanakh are, are in Hebrew. So I, I, almost every time, like I said earlier in the program, every time someone comes along with this idea, and we're going to have to go a few minutes later, uh, because we're going to make sure to get, uh,

Stephen in before we, we get wrapped up here. Uh, and then I need to make sure to announce something that I'm doing in California in just a few weeks, because I keep forgetting every program we do it.

So, um, anyway, uh, there's just no evidence that every time someone comes up with this, well, it wasn't originally written in that it was written in Aramaic or it was written in ancient

Phoenician. Almost every time someone's doing that, it's because they've got some kind of pet theory or some kind of new belief or some kind of something that they can't get in through the front door of exegesis, and they're not willing to come up with a new book of scripture.

And so they, they're trying to play with the text of the Bible. And, um, I just, I just don't see any, any reason to give it much, much thought because there's just no reason to accept that.

I would go, okay, give me your evidence. Show me your, show me your documentation, uh, that, uh, that this is the case.

Normally what they'll say is, well, we don't have any evidence that these books were used, uh, that this type of language was used that far back.

Well, we don't, we keep finding older and older inscriptions. And just recently, just last year, the oldest

Hebrew inscriptions were found and they were in Hebrew. Now, is it a very ancient form of Hebrew?

Yeah, but it's still Hebrew. We can, we can read it. We can tell what it was. Uh, so, you know,

I challenged that by saying, give me your evidence. And, and normally once they start trying to do that, the wheels fall off pretty quick.

Okay. Thank you very much. I mean, I was just wondering, because if I ever do manage to finally get through Greek, I'd like to move on to Hebrew.

Well, uh, I, I, I highly recommend learning both. Obviously, in my, in my own personal experience,

Greek is more useful. It's awfully useful to be able to read, uh, Hebrew. There's no question about it.

Uh, but on a daily basis, I, I certainly would be translating significantly more Greek than I do, uh,

Hebrew, including the use of the Greek Septuagint. So, that's, that's important to keep in mind as well.

But, hey, James, uh, great to have met you at the debate. And, uh, thanks for hanging on for the phone call. Thank you.

All right. God bless. Good night. Bye. All right. Let's get our last call in here real quick. And don't let me wrap up the program until I mention what we're going to be doing over for Trinity Law School in California, because I keep forgetting to do that.

Let's talk with Stephen, uh, who isn't, it's not quite as late for Stephen. He's only in Maine and not in England.

Hello, Stephen. Hi, Dr. White. Hi. Um, I'm calling with a question about, uh, four -point

Calvinism. Oh, the, the Christmas Calvinism? Um, I don't know exactly what you mean by that.

Noel, Noel? Uh, um, yeah, that one. Sorry, I stole that from R .C.

Sproul. Blame him, but I got it from him. Come on. Everyone's heard Noel before. Anyways, yes.

Nope, I have heard it, but, um. Now you have. I'm doing a seminary paper on Amiro and how the whole thing began.

And it seems like shortly after Calvin died, Amiro looks at Beza and says, this limited atonement thing is all your fault.

Um, Calvin was not a Calvinist. And I've got a list of commentaries and verses and things about, uh, the universal extension of the atonement.

And it doesn't seem right to me. It seems like he's adding things that are extra biblical.

And. Who's adding things? Amiro. Amiro, okay, all right. It seems like he's adding extra biblical things and, um, tying my brain in knots.

And I was wondering if you knew anything about the way that, uh,

Calvin dealt with the. Hello? You knew anything about the way?

I was wondering if you knew anything about the way that, uh, Calvin handled the atonement?

Well. Was he specifically for penal substitution? Because I think that would settle everything. Well, as I've said before, this was not an issue in.

This was not an issue of debate. No one ever walked up to John Calvin and said, do you believe in limited atonement? So that's not a, not terminology that he would be utilizing.

And, and anyone who goes back to Calvin, uh, has to keep a couple of things in mind since it wasn't.

Uh, the focus, uh, his focus is on, on, on divine election, defense of divine election against his enemies.

Um, and that's, that's seen in, in the fact that even his friends are writing and in defense of those things like, uh, like Jerome Zankia, something like that, but that's what he's focused upon.

And so the question is, what is the, the logical extension or understanding of, of the application of what he was focused upon when you raise the question of the extent of the atonement and its purposes and so on and so forth.

Um, there, the other thing to keep in mind is the fact that, uh,

Calvin, I think was pretty clear that the institutes are meant to be the lens through which his commentaries are read, not the commentaries, the lens through which the institutes are to be read.

Um, in my experience, uh, my Amaraldian friends, um, if, well,

I, I use the term friends lightly because for some reason this does seem to be a place where, uh, he who is closest to you often becomes your most bitter enemy because, uh, even in this current explosion of wild -eyed hatred and, and bile at certain, uh, blogs in the, in the internet, we've even had

Amaraldians show up there, uh, to lend their, uh, lend their support.

So it's a sort of sad thing to observe, but, uh, the, my, my Amaraldian friends, uh, tend to focus upon quotations from Calvin's commentaries rather than building their case first and foremost upon what he himself identified as being the central aspect of his theological writings, and that is the institutes, which he produced numerous editions of during his life in both

French and Latin. And so if you, if you start with the institutes and then take some really clear statements from the commentaries in regards to the topic, um,

I think that that's what I, I pointed out in, uh, in the section in the

Potter's Freedom where I went through Roger Nicole's article on this particular subject. Um, I think that is a more fair way of dealing with Calvin's perspective, but I think it is important to say, look,

Calvin doesn't use this terminology, not because he was trying to avoid it, but because it just wasn't a part of his context.

And so you don't want to push people into, um, answering questions that, that their context did not have them answering.

And so we need to be careful about that. Uh, I think more careful than the other side is in saying, oh,

Calvin would not have believed these things. I think, I think the responsible way for the other side to deal with this is to say, well, um,

I think that a meaningful case can be built, uh, for a, uh, uh, less restrictive view of the atonement on Calvin based upon these.

And then they, they need to start with the institutes and then go from there. If they don't start with the institutes, then

I really don't have a whole lot of respect for the approach because that's clearly what Calvin meant us to do. He recognized his commentaries were primarily taken from his sermons and that he assumed, uh, on the part of his listeners, that body of doctrinal truth to be the interpretive grid through which the, the sermons were to be, to be read.

And, um, so no, I've not written on it, um, outside of, of that little bit in the

Potter's book, uh, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that that, that, that,

God bless. I believe we're standing at the crossroads

Let this moment of sloth flow away We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for We need a new reformation day

It's the sign of the times The truth is being trampled in a new way in Paradise Won't you lift up your voice?

Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise I'm your Wittenberg Oh, Wittenberg I'm your

Wittenberg I stand up for the truth And won't you live for the

Lord Cause we're pounding Pounding on Wittenberg The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602

Or write us at P .O. Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069 You can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org

That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks