September 25, 2003

and actually fooled everybody into thinking that we had that computer fixed. I was on a roll, wasn't

I? You were on a roll. That wasn't too bad. And in the... It's a good thing

I'm not the one that talks around here for a living. Well, you know... Well, I'm not going to say a word about it.

You're the one that's sitting in there in the midst of piles of computer parts. So, I'll let you continue tinkering and sticking stuff into boxes and trying to make things work.

It's a long leap from Windows 98 to XP at times. Well, especially when the hardware turns out to be five years old that you're working with.

Nothing matches up. Hey, we've been making things work for a lot longer than most folks make them work.

That's for sure. Yeah, well, I don't think XP likes bailing wire in. It probably has a little higher standard as far as especially memory is concerned.

Yeah, I think that's true. Well, anyway, welcome to the dividing line, folks. I hope you have that number.

877 -753 -3341. I just saw this incredible... Yeah, a question.

Go through the channel. As if somehow, while doing a program, you can go and do all this research and compare

Hebrew and Greek and do all this stuff and then, boom, off the top of your head, answer that question. Sometimes, I'm telling you, folks,

I have laughed. I have laughingly said, I'm going to open a tire shop in Alaska.

But, you know, the evidence is piling up from every direction.

I'm ordering tire balancing and wheel alignment for dummies from Amazon right now.

I'm telling you. Oh, my goodness. 877 -753 -3341.

Just about to hit the big rush between now and I have a mental breakdown scheduled.

I need to check the calendar here for the exact date when I'm going to do that.

Let's see. The calendar says that that is scheduled for... Oh, my birthday, middle of December.

I'm going to go completely wacky because there is far too much that I'm allegedly going to be doing between now and that day to possibly ever accomplish it in any meaningful fashion.

The big stuff starts... It really started last week in Austin and now heading out to globe this weekend.

And then, of course, the next big thing on the list is the debate at the

University of Utah with Jerry Matitix on the subject of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I am really looking forward to this. I'm looking forward to it because Mr. Matitix goes around the nation and he challenges pastors who've got no concept whatsoever of the subject to do debates and throws all this stuff around that, you know, if you just had time to think about it and sit down with your

Bible and do a little research, it really is incredibly weak argumentation. But, you know, when it's thrown out there with confidence, it sounds good.

I'm really looking forward to this debate. That's going to be 7 o 'clock. Is it the Orson Spencer something?

I know that one of our faithful Salt Lake City friends is in channel. I'm not sure if he's listening or not.

Well, I think it's Orson Spencer Hall if I recall correctly. And that's 7 o 'clock.

And as far as directions go, you can get a hold of Christ Presbyterian Church up there because I hope we remember how to get there.

We had some fun getting there last time. We got to visit pretty much the entire University of Utah campus.

And that was fun. But we always get there so early it's not funny anyways.

Orson Spencer Hall. There it is. And that's where I remembered, in the auditorium. Same place we were last time,

I'm assuming. I don't know that, but I'm assuming it's the same place. If it is, it's the place where even if you're, like, really tall, you disappear behind this massive podium.

I think the thing's bulletproof, which is probably a good thing. You can almost dive into it if you open the doors and hide in there.

It would probably protect you or something. Anyway, 7 o 'clock is supposed to run for 2 hours and 25 minutes.

Obviously, it never gets started right on time. And it never finishes right on time.

But, you know, we'll probably get out of there around 10 o 'clock. You know,

I think, didn't we get out of there? Yeah, we got out of there about 10, 10, 10 .15 last time. So, anyways.

I know there's some folks flying in from California. And it's definitely going to be an interesting evening.

Then immediately from there off to Sao Paulo, Brazil, and then to Minnesota, Minneapolis.

We actually have updated the calendar for those of you who just gave up years ago even looking. We updated the calendar, and some of this material is on there.

I really don't feel comfortable right now mentioning something coming up in December.

But I'll just sort of let you know that something that folks for a long time have wanted to happen may hopefully be happening in the middle of December.

That's about as far as I can go with it right now. Don't want to go past that right now until we've got it really, you know, confirmed and locked in.

But something that a lot of folks said, boy, I wish you'd have the opportunity to do this may be taking place in December.

We hope that it takes place in December. You can pray toward that end. It should be very, very interesting.

877 -753 -334. And I keep pausing because I don't know how long now

I've had this ugly little piece of paper that I wrote that number on eons ago.

And I just sort of stuck it up next to my monitor. And I decided to get fancy and print it out on a mailing label and stuck it on my monitor.

And now I can't find it. It's right in front of me. It's just not where it's supposed to be. Tradition.

You start looking in one particular place. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number if you have had questions you want to ask.

And, you know, I mean reasonable questions. You know, when you listen to most national radio programs, and this is not a radio program, but it's like a radio program, national webcasts, you know, the questions are on issues of, you know, general theology and apologetics, not could you, you know, parse and syntax each

Hebrew term in comparison with the Greek Septuagint and such and such. And besides that, that makes for really lousy listening for everybody else.

So questions that are, you know, a little bit more in that particular area. And, of course, our one ban is on, of course, the subject of eschatology.

It's funny when people ask, so you don't discuss eschatology? No, I don't discuss. But why?

Well, because I'm not completely convinced of any one particular perspective.

I've got one perspective I think seems to be more likely than the others, but there's too many books to read on the subject, and it's just not something

I find overly exciting. And people will go, but could you tell us the one?

And I'm like, what part of no I don't discuss that you don't understand? It's just like, we have to know.

And it's like, no, you don't have to know at all. You can just be left guessing. It's sort of like saving

Private Ryan when they had that pool going as to what the captain did,

Captain Miller did. And that's sort of what we, we should start a pool, an eschatology pool.

The problem is that it will only be decided in the eschaton, at which point any of the funds placed in it would be completely and totally irrelevant anyways.

So we don't do eschatology. But anything else is available at 877. And I don't even see my faithful call screener across the other way here.

Not seeing anything. I opened a little window there. Hello, anyone there?

Not seeing anything. I guess no one wants to talk to us today at 8. Nada, nada.

Do you want to do a voice or something like that? And, you know, call in and ask a question like that.

This is your opportunity, folks. See, the problem is what I've been working on so far today, the two things

I'm working on, and for some reason, I'm not sure why, it's really hard for me right now, I guess my mental energy level is really low, to, you know, like shift gears and move out of, my mind is sort of on one road.

And there are some days I can just bounce from road to road to road and it's real easy to do.

And then there are other days when you're writing and when you're preparing, when you're getting into the quote -unquote zone for a debate, you're working on a book, you're working on a chapter, an article, whatever.

Right now it's just only two areas. And the problem is the one area that I'd love to talk about is the perpetual virginity of Mary stuff because I'm finding myself going through all the arguments, going through all the presentations that Roman Catholic apologists make, and, you know, for example, there's a

Roman Catholic in the channel right now, and, you know, obviously making statements about, you know, supportive of the perpetual virginity of Mary and, you know, made the statement,

Wow, that firstborn stuff that Eric Svensson mentioned to Jerry Mattox, that's really weak.

The fact that the Scriptures, Luke specifically, refers to Christ as the firstborn.

Well, I addressed that in my opening statements, and I point out, again, the vast difference between doing exegesis and eisegesis.

Exegesis takes the meaning from the text. And on this subject, the Roman Catholic apologists can not do exegesis.

Can't! The Roman Catholic is absolutely positively forbidden by dogmatic decree to do exegesis.

You go, why? Well, because the conclusion has already been arrived at. The Church has already said, this is what you must believe.

So, when you look at the text, you're not trying to derive your belief from the text. When you look at the text, you cannot believe that Prototokos, firstborn, when used in a birth narrative, and it's a birth narrative where you have a mother and you have a birth, and you have other children, and you have all the rest of that kind of stuff, you are precluded from taking that term to mean its natural meaning in that particular context.

The same thing, obviously, with brothers and sisters. Brothers and sisters, within a particular context,

Rome says, and this is where I'm going to emphasize this, but I can't go too deeply into it, because I don't want to read my opening statement in this particular context.

We're going to do that in a couple, what is it, about nine days? Eight days?

Actually, it's eight days because it's Friday, so it'll be a week from tomorrow. So, it's only eight days.

When Roman Catholic apologists addressed this issue, in fact, I was listening to an old, old tape today.

I think it was from about 1989, 1990. Gerry Matitix was still with Catholic Answers, that's how long ago this was.

But he was on with a Presbyterian minister, and bless that Presbyterian minister's heart, he doesn't know how to deal with Catholic apologists, and they get away with murder when they're dealing with people like that.

I don't know why they take any joy out of dealing with people. I have no idea what their position really is.

Beating up on somebody like that is rather easily done. But, you know,

Gerry Matitix got away with murder because the person he's, quote -unquote, debating with doesn't know the issue well enough to hold him to a consistent standard.

And one of the things to get away with is, remember, the perpetual virginity of Mary is a dogma.

It's a defined dogma, it's de fide. Well, how do you substantiate a dogma?

Do you substantiate a dogma by saying, well, you know, while brother can mean brother, it's possible, it's possible that it might mean this.

And this passage over here, it's possible, it could mean this, are mere possibilities that maybe it might mean this, and that one over there might mean that.

Is that the foundation of a dogmatic decree?

A thing that you could say, this is a part of the gospel? That's the real issue that you're facing at that particular point in time, is you cannot substantiate an absolutely dogmatic, positive assertion on the basis of mere possibilities, especially when those possibilities are not even the most likely possibilities in each and every situation.

And yet that is the foundation of the argumentation from a biblical perspective in regards to perpetual virginity of Mary.

You can't take prototokos in its natural usage. You have to take it as if it's synonymous with monogamies, even though the author who uses prototokos also uses monogamies in that way, but doesn't use it here.

You just throw all that out because, you see, fundamentally your ultimate authority is Rome anyways. And so this debate is going to demonstrate sola ecclesia to a

T. And I'm also arguing with myself right now as to whether I should keep my opening statement the way it is right now.

And I go first. I'm defending the thesis, Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.

I'm debating with myself right now whether to keep it in the form it's in right now or take one section out, knowing

Jerry Manatek's presentation, knowing where he's going to go and knowing what he's going to say.

I could take one section out, let him do his thing, make his claim, and then in the rebuttal section use that section to absolutely close the door.

Just leave it completely and totally refuted. I'm not sure whether to do that or to go ahead and keep it in the opening statement so that, in essence, almost all of his major lines of argumentation have already been closed down.

Not sure which one to do. I can see advantages to both. And after the debate's over, maybe in one of the dividing lines, there aren't going to be any of the week afterwards because I'm going to be out of country, but in one of the dividing lines later on, maybe we would have the opportunity of discussing which side

I came down on that and the reasons why and even playing sections of it on the debate or here on the dividing line and have people comment on it.

That would be a possibility. I just can't get into too much detail right now because I know it would sort of be like just sending my opening statement and all my notes over to Mr.

Matitix and saying, here, here's my presentation. That gives him more time to come up with ways of, in essence, twisting the truth around and getting out of dealing with those particular issues.

It's not really something that I'm going to be doing right now. And then the other issue is the section of the book that I'm working on is still very closely related to the material from the last dividing line, specifically in regards to allegations of the corruption of Scripture.

And I'm trying to sort of take all the stuff we talked about in the last dividing line and distill that down to a couple paragraphs, which, if you think about that, is not the easiest thing that you've ever attempted to do, but it is something that you sort of have to do to try to keep your audience when you're writing a particular book.

When you write a book, you sort of visualize what your audience is, who it is, and then function from that particular perspective.

And I'm not sure that going into all the detail that we went into on the last dividing line in regards to manuscripts is going to fit.

It's related, but it's not central. And you have to be very careful as to how far off the track you end up wandering and keep people focused upon what you're really trying to talk about and not feeling like they're getting lost and things like that.

So those are two major areas that I'm looking at right now. That and I've just started working on a section on Matthew 22 and, of course, the relevance to Sola Scriptura.

And the teaching concerning the nature of the Scriptures is found in Matthew 22,

Jesus' discussion about have you not read what was spoken to you saying that element of it.

And so it's hard to convert a whole lot of that into an interesting dividing line topic unless you have somebody on to discuss that with you or you're debating that with someone or something along those particular lines.

So that's why I invite you at 877 -753 -3341. It does seem since we moved the program up one hour on Thursdays that it's like the phone lines have just died a thousand deaths.

Thursday night was normally a busy time, but for some reason that one hour difference has seemingly cut off everybody on the

East Coast. Everybody back there, I guess, eats dinner at a particular point in time. And we're up against TV dinners.

And, I don't know, back when I was a kid, it was TV dinners and Gilligan's Island on a very blurry, but it was a color screen.

And that was, well, I'll tell you, that was exciting. I remember the first, you know what? It wasn't. It was black and white now that I'm thinking about it.

You know how your memories are in black and white. That was black and white. Our first color TV was a throwaway from a

TV station when my dad was an engineer. Then I found out that Gilligan wore a red shirt.

Can you imagine what it was like to go all those years on that program and just wear that one shirt? Well, I know he didn't just wear one shirt.

Obviously, they had more than one, but I met him once. I have a picture with me and Gilligan.

Eighth, you can tell he's wondering when he starts talking about his photos of his youth when he met

Bob Denver. Not John Denver, it's Bob Denver, and has a picture in front of a palm tree, which

I thought was rather actually appropriate, that you'd have a picture of Gilligan in front of a palm tree.

It's better than an oak tree or something like that because it's islanded. Some of you are going, who are you talking about?

That's the scary part because we talk about things like that, and people in channeling are going, what are you talking about?

Then you feel really old. I'm not going to repeat the number again because you all have it. You've already heard me say it, 777 -533 -341.

Hey, thank you. Right now you can get almost anything out of me.

I could send you a tape. I don't remember where the picture is on my family.

I was like 16 years old. I was as skinny as he was. Anyway, let's hopefully not our last but at least our first phone call today from Brett in North Carolina.

Didn't get blown away by the storm, huh? No, we're still here. You're still there. Yep. What can we do for you,

Brett? Well, I've got a question on Ephesians 1. Okay. Ephesians 1,

I've been reading this forever. In verse 17,

Paul is praying for the Ephesians. From what I gather, he recognizes that these are believers.

He prays that God give them a spirit of wisdom and a revelation and knowledge of him.

Okay. Now, I'm stuck on that spirit of revelation. Now, I'll lean more toward the spirit in that passage.

It's not referring to the Holy Spirit, but maybe a disposition toward something. But if that's the case,

I'm not really sure what he means by a revelation. It seems like everywhere I go, I get a different interpretation of that passage.

I was just wondering what you thought. Yeah, you probably would. Interesting, the New American Standard does not capitalize that.

That obviously is an editorial call. Evidently, they would be taking a spirit of wisdom and revelation as a singular phrase, and hence the term revelation would have the same connotation as far as relationship with the believer that wisdom would.

Hence, it's not the concept of the technical theological term of revelation in the sense of God speaking.

But instead, wisdom is normally, when it's in regards to spiritual wisdom, is, of course, as you know,

Sophia in Greek, and that's the term that is used here. Both revelation and Sophia, wisdom, are here in the genitive.

And so the fundamental grammatical question is, how are they functioning in this particular passage?

And you also then need to take into consideration the final phrase, in true knowledge, epinosis of him.

So these prayers of Paul really touch upon the highest gifting, the greatest fulfillment of sanctification, and the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit of believers. This is where Paul defines what we should be striving for or hoping for.

He defines for us what real evidences of God's work in our life are going to be.

And interestingly enough, they are never the same types of things that generally we look at.

They're not external. They generally have to do with an understanding of what God's will is, an understanding of what

God has done in Christ. And I think that's what we have here, too. Both wisdom and revelation,

I think, would relate to how we understand what God has done in Christ, and that that's related to the dative phrase at the end, or if you learned

Greek in the 8 -case system, locative, instrumental, and dative.

Here, probably more the sphere of a true knowledge of him, a locative -type concept.

And so I think Sophia and revelation would be related together in that way, and hence it would be more of a constant growth in understanding of the mystery of God in Christ, the role of Christ, the centrality of Christ, those types of things.

Not so much a revelation as in, we use that term technically, but a constantly increasing understanding of who

Christ is, the mystery of God in Christ, how Jesus Christ is the glory of the

Father, which is the preceding phrase, all the related concepts that come along with that.

And I think that's the same thing that you see in the next phrase, the lightening of the eyes, and that you will know what is the hope of his calling, what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance to the saints.

This is all not requiring some new revelation, but it is a growth in understanding of the revelation that we have already been given.

That's how I'd understand the phrase. Yeah, because in verse 15, he says, for this reason, for the reason that, which in verse, after I guess 13 to 14, he says, you know, they've listened to the message of truth.

They have believed and they are sealed with the Holy Spirit. So it seems like he's praying for a deepening of their knowledge of Christ, of God.

Well, isn't that what the Scripture says? That God's purpose is a growth in the grace and knowledge of the

Lord Jesus Christ. So, you know, the content of his prayers is that they are going to be a people who are going to be marked by this constant growth and understanding of the mystery of God in Christ, that they are going to be people who are wise in understanding this, that the eyes of their hearts are going to be enlightened.

And I'm not sure if one of the things that's causing you a problem is, well, but every

Christian's eyes has been enlightened. Well, in the sense of regeneration, yes, but in the sense of growth in always gaining new insights into the

Scriptures. That's something that I think a lot of folks, I think is somewhat missing in a lot of modern evangelicalism, is this growth in grace, this idea of reaching ever greater understandings of how

God's truth relates to itself and the centrality of Christ. No one can ever really begin to scratch the surface there.

And I don't think it's generally presented the way that it should be, that that is something we should always be looking for, always be striving toward.

And so this whole sentence is filling that out. Yeah, I definitely think that's what he's trying to get across.

I guess the sticking point for me is why he chose to say it in that way, why he chose to say a spirit of wisdom and a revelation, because in Colossians chapter 1, he says something very, very similar.

He says, for this reason, chapter 1, verse 9, he says, for this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and ask that you be filled with the knowledge of his will and of spiritual wisdom and understanding.

I mean, what does Paul have in mind here? Why does he talk about the same thing in this way?

Why does he talk about wisdom and revelation as opposed to wisdom and understanding? Well, I've never done a study of apocalypses in Paul.

There is a use of 2 Thessalonians 1 .7, but that has to do with the apocalypses of Christ that is coming.

In Ephesians 3 .3, it is about an actual revelation from God to Paul in regards to the gospel.

Galatians 2 .2, it's the same thing. Galatians 1 .12, 2

Corinthians 12 .7, I'm just going through here. Revelations and Visions 12 .1, and so that's the normative use, is either in regards to that kind of revelation or the apocalypses of Christ, the revelation of our

Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 1 .7, and Romans 16 .25,

the revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long ages past, that could refer to either the

Incarnation or the Revelation in Scripture, or, that's a little bit more related to this, in regards to the possibility of the usage that I mentioned before.

So, a large portion of these usages go along with that line. I didn't actually,

I don't have, in fact, I don't even have one near me now that I'm looking. I took it on my last trip and didn't get it out of my bag down there, but I haven't even looked to see if there is a variant at all in the text.

I'm not sure if you have or not, but I don't have a Nessie Olin text within reach here for some strange reason.

I normally do, but I took my little 26th edition with me some place. Oh, wait a minute. There we go.

I knew I could find one some place within reach. See, I normally have a piece of paper here to shake, so I sounded like Rush Limbaugh, but I didn't.

Nope, nothing noted there whatsoever. And so the only answer I could give you off the top of my head is that it's used in concert with Sophia, and that that's what gives it the semantic range here.

Outside of that, have them foggiest. Okay. Well, I guess I'll just keep in prayer and go with it from there.

Well, again, there's nothing in the context about an external. This is not talking about an external revelation.

I think the only way to take it consistently in the context, especially with the use of fotidzo in the very next phrase, because those participles in the next section in verse 18, especially the perfect passive participle that is used in 118, that's going to be describing the means by which the desire of 17 is fulfilled.

And so enlightening the eyes is allowing you to see something that's already there.

If you enlighten someone's eyes, you are allowing them to see what is already in front of them. So that would then sort of fill in some of the meaning of apocalypsis in verse 17, is that it's not bringing something new in front of you.

It is the revelation of that true knowledge of him. So I think it fits with what

I was saying earlier, that that's something very important to keep in mind, is that when he explains how that is to be filled out, it is not something that refers to some extra -scriptural revelation coming to him.

And for the believers today, I guess it would be the same for the believers in Ephesus, but our means of God's revelation to us is complete in the canon.

But I was under the impression that we know Christ better, we know him more intimately through his revelation of himself in the

Word. Well, certainly in the sense of we would have the same relationship to Christ that the

Ephesians did. I mean, Christ has been resurrected, he is at the right hand of the Father, his spirit is given to each and every individual.

His spirit testifies to the things of Christ. And so we would have the very same basis of relationship, and what you might be referring to is, well, but they didn't have the completed canon of the

New Testament. Yes, but they didn't have Paul's apostolic teaching, especially there in Ephesus. And so the point would be that the

Spirit of God would still utilize the same God -breathed scriptures to provide the basis of that knowledge, and then as he makes our spirits alive and as he draws out our hearts after Christ, the basis that we would have of the knowledge might be wider now with the completion of the canon, but the work is the same and the purpose is the same, and the spirit is the same.

Believers have had that precious ministry all along. I mean, Christ does call the spirit the other comforter, using a term that would refer to other of the same kind, other of the same type.

And so certainly we are not lesser than they, but I don't know that we could even say that we are greater than they in light of the fact that we have the completed canon, because the

Ephesians had the ministry of Paul. I wasn't really saying that the revelation that he's provided for us today is any better than what he provided for the

Ephesians at that point in time. I think what I was trying to say was that this is an active work of the ministry of the

Holy Spirit, whereby he uses the revelation that he's given us to give us,

I guess, the ability to see it more clearly so that we would know him better. Well, I think not only see it more clearly, certainly

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, but it's the eyes of your heart. And that does include the mind, but I think it goes beyond just the mind to that rich appreciation of what these truths mean and how they are central to our every, and I hate the phrase, our everyday life, but to how we, well, the term that Paul used is our walking.

He uses that to refer to our everyday existence. And so when it talks about,

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened so that you will know what is the hope of his calling. The terms hope, his calling, riches, glory, inheritance, and the saints, these are all extremely rich concepts that we can never truly say that we've grasped all of it because there are many times that as we live the

Christian life and we interact with other people, we come to appreciate elements of this that we just simply had not experienced before.

So there is the knowledge aspect, and then there is that application, and then there is having passion for these truths.

There are people who have, you know, there's many people who know that the doctrine of the

Trinity is true, but they're not passionate about it because they haven't seen yet in their growth and grace the importance and centrality of that truth to the rest of the

Christian life. And so I think that's probably what the Enlightenment would be referring to here.

Just an example of what I was in my own walk with the Lord and experiences earlier this summer,

I was studying the Atonement of Christ and for whom it is applied and what did it accomplish, and I'm very much persuaded by the fact that it actually did accomplish that for which it was set out to do.

But just in reading that, I read the passage in Matthew that, My God, my God, why have thou forsaken me?

And I've read that so many times, but just this one point, I was just reading it, and I wasn't really looking for anything that was just going to just blow me away, but just the

Spirit of God just hit me, and it just brought me to tears at that time, and just to hear that, it just brought on a new meaning.

I just felt like a deepening was going on in that. Yeah, and I think that is the work of the

Spirit, not so much the... I think the deep feeling and the passion has to come from a true understanding of what's being said.

There are people who will latch onto a passage and they will just insist that the Spirit told them

X, Y, and Z about this, and when you actually look at the passage, what they think it says is completely contradicted by the very grammar that the

Spirit Himself gave us in defining the words. And so, I think there's a proper godly order between what is revealed to us and what is in Scripture and what we've come to be passionate about.

But once we have done the work, to honestly say, I have totally sought to allow the

Scriptures to speak to me in the sense of I have done the work, I've done the study, and now that I have allowed

God to speak in this passage, my goodness, the revelation that is here absolutely has changed my life and it's something that's precious to me.

I want to explain it to others. I want to share it with others, so on and so forth. So, yeah, I think that's a part of the process and it's a very precious part of the process as well.

I hope some of that is of some assistance. Yeah, well, I do appreciate it. And I'll be praying for the debate with Jerry that it goes great.

Thank you. And hopefully some people will have some change hearts from that. Well, certainly we're going to be videotaping and we're going to be audiotaping and making those things available.

I'm really looking forward to it. Okay, well, take care, James, and I appreciate it. Thank you very much. God bless. Let's talk with Scott real quick in Kirkland, Washington.

Hi, Scott. Hey, James. How are you doing? I'm doing pretty good. I have a question for you, and hopefully you can kind of get where I'm coming from on this.

I'm not sure how clear I can be. But I'm just kind of wondering, like, biblically, what are kind of the extent and kind of the limits of parental authority?

Because I go to a church which is, you know, very much speaking covenantally, and they talk a lot about the father is a covenantal head and how, you know, so children are under that covenantal head until they, you know, go off and get married.

And it seems almost like sometimes there can be an almost totalitarian, you know, authority of the father.

And biblically, I just want to know how are we to evaluate that?

Well, certainly if a person is held accountable and responsible in the sense of before God for what takes place within their family, there needs to be a commensurate amount of authority.

And there certainly isn't any question as you examine the role of fathers in the

Old Testament that they have that very large amount of authority.

Now, part of that in its expression, not in the sense of the absoluteness of children obey their parents and the

Lord for this is right, that kind of thing. But some of the level of that expression is cultural in the sense that in the

Old Testament, those cultures, you know, women wouldn't walk in a certain way close to a man or forms of dress and arranged marriages and things like that.

Obviously, you know, there are some who would actually say, well, that's the way you should do it. They'll go so far as to say you should. And certainly

I think a parent has a duty to share and to communicate wisdom concerning a prospective spouse and all sorts of things like that.

But some of the applications tend to take on a cultural aspect, especially when they have to do with forms of marriage and cultural things that do not necessarily transfer from culture to culture.

But the idea of the father being the head of that household and being responsible for God is certainly a biblical concept.

I think most of the time, though, that's not really the question. The question is, well, how does that end up fleshing itself out in regards to any myriad of things?

You know, as far as how old, you know, there are questions of are you still under the father's leadership even after some form of marriage until you have children?

What if you're not married? You know, all those types of things. Certainly an area of discussion that is not a major portion of my studies in any way, shape, or form.

And I haven't really gotten into much of the writings of some individuals promoting a very strongly, shall we say, patriarchal form.

I know that those books are out there, but just another one of the many, many, many areas of ignorance for yours truly.

Do you have a specific position in mind? Well, I guess, you know, specifically related to my situation is, you know,

I have a relationship with a girl who is grown and she's outside of her parents' household and she's supporting herself, and yet they continue to, you know, assert that we, you know, can't get married because, you know, they say so.

And, you know, there's been divorce in their family, and so I'm really kind of trying to figure out, well, whose approval do I ultimately need?

And it's just real messy because on the one hand she has, you know, a dad and a stepdad, and the dad says it's okay and the stepdad says not.

I'm trying to work this out biblically, and I go to the scriptures, and I start to see there just isn't a whole lot there as far as whose permission do you need to get married.

And yet I want to be respectful of what scripture says, and I want to be able to rightly discern what would

God have to say on the subject. I know practically it's always good to have everyone on the same page and something like that.

But, you know, ultimately, biblically is what I'm going to have to live by. Right. Well, so this woman has already been married?

No, she hasn't, but her parents have essentially cut her off financially, you know, citing their own problems.

She's not living with them? She's not living with them, no. She lives with another family that's kind of taken her in just to help out her finances so that she can, you know, afford to go to school and such.

Wow. Well, that does create all sorts of complications, especially when you have a difference between, it sounds like what you're saying, between a birth father and a stepfather.

Yeah. Oh, you know, that's not going to be nice and easy and clean, and obviously it's easy to say, well, fundamentally it would be, you know, do they all claim to be believers?

If there's one who isn't and is opposing on that ground, then that clarifies that.

That's a very complicated situation that I think the best advice

I can give over a webcast is you talk to your elders and her elders, and it would be helpful if they were the same elders, and get the best godly advice you can get from there, and then you act upon that.

But without knowing all the people involved, you definitely are facing a complicated position.

Fundamentally, in the final analysis, you want to make sure that if a relationship does begin, the sense of a marital relationship, that it doesn't do so having, in essence, burned every bridge there is to burn in the past, if at all possible, obviously.

And if there are believers involved, hopefully that can be something that's worked out. You said pretty much the same thing that my elders and other people have said, and that's, it's messy.

That's pretty much the answer I've gotten. And it is. Well, I would hope, when

I mean talking to your elders, that if they're closer to the situation, they might know the people. I mean, I have no way of talking to any of these folks, or knowing where they're coming from, knowing why one would say yes and one would say no, or anything like that.

I think that enters into the real situation, is why does one say yes and one say no? That type of thing.

From a distance, the best you can give is a platitude at that point.

Yeah. Well, and it has to do with theological differences, too. Does God give direct revelations to people today, as far as this is a person or not?

Oh. So someone's looking for a revelation from God that you're the right one?

Right. Well, actually, it's been the opposite. They've been told that I'm not the right one. And see, at my church, we don't really operate that way.

We're a Reformed church, and we would say, well, you know, that's not really how

God works today. Right. Exactly. That makes it even messier, because now you're dealing with extra -biblical revelation.

That's always fun to try to run into. Oh, yeah, and they love discussing theology with me. I bet they do.

All righty, sir. Well, if I weren't Reformed, I'd say good luck. But I am, and so a blessed providence to you.

Oh, thank you, James. All right, thanks a lot. God bless. Bye. Bye -bye. Oh, boy.

That's, yeah. All righty. Well, it seems that the 4 o 'clock hour, at least, does work better for some of our regular callers.

And, in fact, for the third week in a row, we get to spend just a few moments here at the end of the program talking with our favorite

Latter -day Saint from Virginia, and that would be Pierre. Hi, Pierre. Hello. How many

Mormons are there in Virginia? There's probably a... I'm living in the Washington, D .C.

area, and I'm estimating there's probably about 50 ,000. Now, is that because...

Is it lesser in the more rural areas? I think so, yeah. Is that because there's a lot of the...

My impression has been that LDS, many LDS, especially Utah LDS, tend toward government service, military, that type of stuff, and hence it would seem that rural

Virginia would probably be a little less heavy in the population area. That's correct. Yeah, see, there you go. So are you in...

I'm not trying to pry, but is that what brings you to that area as well, or are you a convert? I'm a convert to the church.

I'm sorry. Did you say you were or weren't? I am. I was a Catholic. I grew up as a

Catholic. All right. And how long have you been a member of the LDS Church? 34 years now.

Oh, okay. All right. That's... Longer than I was a Catholic. Oh. Well, would you have called yourself a nominal

Catholic or a... Yeah. I think you can say that. I was a nominal Catholic. Yeah.

All righty. Okay, well, what's your question today? My question stems around a comment that I've heard that you made,

I think it was the first time we talked this little round, and also I've heard Hank Hanegraaff mention a few times, and that is that there seems to be a concern about our belief that Jesus Christ worked out part of the

Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane. Mm -hmm. Do you not hold to that view?

I presume you do not hold to that view, that traditional Christianity does not believe that the

Atonement, at least in part, was worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane? Yeah, that's correct. I mean, the very term is consistently used in Scripture, the blood of his cross, the tree, the crucifixion, his death in our behalf, but never in the

Scriptures do we have any of the apostles looking at the prayer of Christ in the

Garden of Gethsemane and connecting this in any way, shape, or form to the concept of Atonement, especially due to the fact that,

A, when, I believe it's Luke, makes reference to the concept of sweating, as it were, drops of blood, the term there is meant to indicate the greatness of his agony, not that there was actually bleeding from the pores.

I know there are people who have taken it in a more literal way, but there's no reason to do so. And secondly, the concept of Atonement has to do with the giving of life and, of course, with the concept of the union of the elect with Christ at least in his death.

That just wouldn't have any connection whatsoever with Gethsemane. Now, I know that the

LDS Scriptures present a different perspective in the Doctrine and Covenants, especially,

I believe it's section 19, if I recall correctly, maybe 18, and that there is this idea of at least a two -fold accomplishment of the

Atonement, but I've also read general authorities who have, in essence, said that the primary element of the

Atonement took place in Gethsemane with the cross, in essence, completing the work which was begun in Gethsemane.

And I just think that goes back to a fundamental misunderstanding of what

Atonement, and especially the function of the high priest, really was, which

I think goes back to some fundamental flaws in Joseph Smith's understanding of the sacrificial system of the

Old Testament as well. What is the Christian position as to what was going on in the

Garden of Gethsemane? Why was he in such agony? Why did one part of the

Scriptures say that he was amazed? What was he amazed about? The other thing is that another time it says that an angel came to strengthen him.

Why was all that necessary? What was going on in the Garden? Yeah, I think that's a good question.

I think that the answer to that goes to the fact that, first of all, Christ was completely aware of exactly what was going to take place.

That, as he says in one of the Gospels, he set his face toward Jerusalem.

He said, it is necessary that the Son of Man be betrayed in the hands of men. So he was not, as is so often suggested by many liberals today, taken by surprise.

He is fully aware that in a matter of a very short period of time, his hour would come.

That's the terminology used in the Gospel of John. My hour has not yet come. Well, the hour had come and that, as Paul puts it in 2

Corinthians 5, he who knew no sin was made to be sin in our place that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

That great exchange, that experiencing the wrath of the

Father in behalf of the sins of all of God's people before the cross and after the cross, when the sinless

Holy One who had had perfect communion with the Father is going to finally render his greatest obedience to the

Father upon the cross. That is the very fruition of everything that he has come to do.

And as such, we believe that Christ was the God -man. He was not half

God and half man. He was fully God and fully man. And as such, contemplating such an experience certainly is the background of that deep and mysterious experience where we see the

Father and the Son interrelating there in the garden and the background of his high priestly prayer given to us by the

Apostle John in John chapter 17 where he shows that deep understanding of what was really coming his direction.

Okay. It seems to me that simply he wasn't the only individual who had died on the cross.

There was a common form of execution for the Romans. And I think most people had a pretty good idea what the crucifixion entailed.

I don't think his fear was of the crucifixion in any way. I wouldn't even call it fear.

The trauma was not dying like one of the other thieves on the cross.

Here is one who is not under the penalty of sin. He says in John 17,

I lay down my life of my own accord and I may take it up again. This is the very fulfillment of everything that he has come to do.

And it is that becoming the sacrifice for sin, being made sin on our behalf, experiencing the wrath of God on behalf of the elect of God that is the issue, not the method of execution that he was going to be facing.

I think that explains the depth of the prayer of the

Father. Okay. Well, I was just interested in your side of the equation.

Yeah. Well, good. I think it's an excellent question. I would just invite you to consider that if the

LDS perspective is true, then why in the book of Hebrews, where you have this extended discussion of the nature of atonement, the place of atonement, the time of atonement, the purpose of atonement,

Christ's priesthood, for example, and its relationship to his being the high priest, the offering of the sacrifice, the heavenly sanctuary, all these things that are developed extensively in the book of Hebrews, it would strike me that if anywhere in the

New Testament this concept of an atonement in Gethsemane would be developed, it would be there.

And yet, the problem is, to develop that very idea would completely disrupt the presentation that is made by the writer to the

Hebrews in regards to the parallel between the one high priest and his offering of himself and the

Old Covenant sacrifices. That would be disrupted if the idea was, well, it was sort of a two -phase atonement.

There would be no Old Testament parallel that could be developed in that fashion.

That's why the writer to the Hebrews doesn't. And so, when I look, obviously from my perspective, the only apostles

I know of, of the Lord Jesus Christ, there are only 12 foundations to the heavenly city, not 90 -some -odd foundations to the heavenly city, and those 12 have left their record for us in Scripture.

And in the Scriptures that I have, I don't see any basis for believing that the apostles saw

Gethsemane in the way that the LDS perspective is presenting

Gethsemane. Okay. Okay? Well, just to forewarn you, my next call will be,

I want to discuss the moral implications of your theology and soteriology.

Well, that sounds rather interesting. I'm assuming you're referring to the concept of the sovereignty of God and man's will and things like that.

Oh, absolutely. Okay. Those things go hand in hand. Alrighty, sir. Well, I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for calling today on The Dividing Line. Thanks for everyone else for listening today. I thank very much the callers themselves, because you helped me out a lot.

Because if you ask the questions, then I can get the old mind going over there. But it's not always easy when you're not there.

So I appreciate your calling. Lord willing, we will see you on Tuesday morning, 11 a .m.

our time here, on The Dividing Line. 3 -4 -6 -0 -2, or you can write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. Or you can find us on the

World Wide Web at AOMIN .org. That's A -O -M -I -N .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.