June 4, 2009

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 the mega 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 It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white Thank you. Morning. Welcome to the dividing line. It's actually Thursday morning I know it's the wrong time.

But as we announced last time, I'm teaching for a Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary right now We're teaching an apologetics class and it begins at 5 15 p .m

And I would have to have a helicopter a high -speed helicopter to get all the way out to Golden Gate's campus if we did the normal time between Four and five so we decided to move it up to the morning and get it taken care of and we'll go from there and in fact

I'm hoping that some of the folks in my class will tune into the program or listen to the archive because In essence,

I'm going to be doing what I wish I had time to do in class It's a summer intensive class. You only have a certain amount of in in class time

And we listened to a portion of the William Lane Craig debate with Christopher Hitchens Which is a significantly better debate

Than the debate with Frank Zindler On many levels

I would like to say some people are going to say you're just hypercritical and so on and so forth but I would like to say that I I don't think

I have seen a Videotaping on any higher level than this it really is enjoyable to watch

I Have worked as a professional cameraman in the past in television when

I was much younger And so I am a little bit hypersensitive to things they needed to have a better Foundation for one of the cameras it was shaken a little bit

But other than that and you probably wouldn't even notice it. I know things like that because I'm a cameraman, but anyway

The the numbers of cameras they had the backdrop the everything was just very high quality

So if you would like to watch an evidential list debate With Christopher Hitchens, this is the one for you, and so I'm sure you can get it from Biola University very high quality production

But the reason that I would like to look at I have an entire queue list here Of about at least a dozen things maybe a little bit more than that Is do the fact that once again the reason that we review what dr.

Craig teaches on salvation and apologetics Is not to pick on dr. Craig because if dr.

Geisler was as easy to Follow and utilize in this way, then I would probably be looking at dr.

Geisler's material and I have and I realize I am well aware of the fact that how unpopular it is

You're not supposed to do this. We're supposed to have a united front, right? Well, I don't do this just simply to be disagreeable

I do this because there are fundamental theological differences between us that then result in a major difference in the

Apologetic that we offer to Islam to atheism, etc.

Etc I can't speak of an apologetic to Roman Catholicism for dr. Craig because there isn't any apologetic to Roman Catholicism that's the point and So we look at this so as to assist you

I truly desire that such reviews primarily help you as a believer To honor

God in being consistent with his word in giving an answer for the hope that's within you That's the whole reason we do this program.

And so that is why we are looking at these things So we've got a lot of things to listen to today's let's get to it

I Begin with an assertion by dr. Craig that in essence Christopher Hitchens has something to prove.

Let's let's listen to what he has to say In conclusion, then we've seen five good arguments to think that God exists if mr

Hitchens wants us to believe instead that God does not exist then he must first tear down all five of the arguments that I presented and Then in their place erect a case of his own to prove that God does not exist

Unless and until he does that I think that theism is the more plausible worldview now again

Two things. I don't know that it is actually appropriate or fair In a debate where you are defending the

Christian position to say to the atheist You have to prove atheism now, I do recognize that Christopher Hitchens has a worldview you must

Criticize that worldview. You must bring the presupposition that worldview into the debate. No question about that but to demand that someone prove the

Non -existence of something I have some real problems with that and I think a lot of atheists do appropriately so Along those lines as well.

So but then the second thing is this this idea of greater Probability, this is the main thing that you will hear over and over again the difference that you should hear between Greg Bonson's presentations between the presentation that I made at the

University of Illinois against Dan Barker is we don't say that that on the whole the

Greater portion of the evidence points the greater probability the existence of a god of just bare theism

I Never see the Apostles doing that that's that's not what I believe the goal of Christian apologetics is and That is one of the major differences between the two now

Christopher Hitchens began with a fascinating discussion. He has been spending a fair amount of time with Doug Wilson and So he he wants to discuss that he recognizes that there is a difference between the apologetic of Doug Wilson and William Lane Craig The amazing thing is despite spending all that time with Doug Wilson and doing movies and being treated like like a rock star and all

That's that stuff He still doesn't get it. He still does not accurately understand even what?

What what Doug Wilson has to say he's he's still just not getting it

So but it is interesting to listen to this section. Let's take a look at what he had to say now

What I have discovered in voyaging around this country and others in this debate and just debating with Hindus with Muslims With the

Jews with Christians of all stripes is that the arguments are all essentially the same For belief in the supernatural for belief in faith for belief in God But there are very interesting and noteworthy discrepancies between them and one that I want to call attention to at the beginning of this evening is

Between those like my friend Doug Wilson with whom I've now done a book of argument about Christian apologetics

Who would call himself a presuppositionalist in other words for whom really it's only necessary to discover the workings of God's will in the

In the cosmos and that's not presuppositionalism. How can you do multiple debates?

sit around and talk over well, whatever they were drinking and Do do a book and Not get the basic definition of presuppositionalism and the role of presuppositions in one's epistemology.

I Don't get that but then again Christopher Hitchens didn't get it either to assume that The truth of Christianity is already proven and what are called they include dr.

Craig with great honor and respect in this the evidentialists It's already proven.

You mean it's already known but being suppressed by the unbeliever There's a there's a huge difference between the two.

I cannot imagine That that was not clarified for mr. Hitchens numerous times by Pastor Wilson, but anyway now

I want to begin by saying that this distinction strikes me first as a very charming distinction and Second as false or perhaps as a distinction without a difference

Well, why do I say charming? Because I think it's rather sweet that people of faith also think they ought to have some evidence

And I think it's progress of a kind after all if now again, it almost sounds like he he

Buys into this just completely false idea that the presuppositionalist does not believe there's any evidence for God's existence

And and I know That that that had to have been explained to him over and over again

I mean back in 1997 a Doug Wilson made that clear to Dan Barker So I have no reason to think that he wouldn't make that clear to Christopher Hitchens as well

But that's the situation we have been having this debate in the mid 19th century

Professor Craig or his equivalent would have known little or probably nothing about the laws of physics and biology

Maybe even less than I know now, which is to say quite a lot in its way

And they would have grounded themselves. Well, he would have grounded himself on faith On scripture on revelation on the prospect of salvation on the means of grace and the hope of glory and perhaps on Paley's natural theology

Paley who had the same rooms or had had the same rooms later occupied by Charles Darwin in Cambridge with its watchmaker theory of design that I know

I don't have to expound to you but which briefly suggests that if an aborigine is walking along a beach and finds a gold watch ticking he knows

Not what it's for Or where it came from or who made it, but he knows it's not a rock. He knows it's not a vegetable

He knows it must have had a designer the Paley analogy held for most Christians for many years

Because they were willing to make the assumption that we were mechanisms and that therefore there must be a watchmaker, but now that it's been here's where the

Presuppositionalist versus evidentialist Dichotomy begins to kick in now. It's been rather painstakingly and elaborately demonstrated

To the satisfaction of most people. I don't want to just use arguments from authority, but it's not very much contested anymore

That we are not designed as creatures, but that we evolved by a rather laborious

Combination of random mutation and natural selection into there there you get to Christopher Hitchens statement of faith

The the fundamental assertion of the Darwinian materialist ignoring the the mountain of evidence of design that is that is all around us that is

Plentifully available to anyone who wants to look and who wants to learn but this is the dogma of the materialist so we this cannot be questioned any intelligent person believes us as Dawkins himself would say if you would reject it.

You are insane etc. It's a species that we are today It is of course open to the faithful to say

That all this was now that they come to know it now that it becomes available to everybody now that they

Think about it, and now that they've stopped opposing it or trying to ban it Then they can say ah actually on second thought the evolution was all part of the design

Well as you will recognize ladies and gentlemen there are some arguments. I can't be expected to refute or rebut because There's no way around that argument.

I mean if everything including evolution which isn't a design is Nonetheless part of a divine design then all the advantage goes to the person who's willing to believe that that cannot be disproved

But it does seem to me a very poor very weak argument because the test of them a good argument is that it is falsifiable not that it's unfalsifiable so This I would therefore this tactic or this style of argument which we've had some evidence of this evening

I would re -baptize or might I dare say I would re -christen it as some Retrospective evidentialism in other words everything can in due time if you have enough faith be made to fit

Now that's an interesting way of putting it interesting critique being made of the

Perspective it certainly wouldn't be the perspective that I think the critique that he would offer of Wilson And you too are all quite free to believe that a sentient creator

Deliberately consciously put himself a being put himself or herself or itself to the trouble of going through huge epochs of birth and death of species over eons of time in which 99 % in the course of which at least 99 .9

% of all species all life -forms ever to have appeared on earth have become extinct as We nearly did as a species ourselves you

I invite you to look up the very alarming and beautiful and brilliant account by the the National Geographic's coordinator of the genome project by the way

You should send in your little sample from the inside of your cheek and have your African ancestry traced.

It's absolutely Fascinating to follow the myocondrial DNA that we all have in common and that we have in common with other species other primates and other life -forms and Find out where in Africa you came from but there came a time

Probably about 180 ,000 years ago when due to a terrible climatic event probably in Indonesia An appalling global warming crisis occurred and the the estimate is that the number of humans in Africa went down to between 40 and 30 ,000

This close this close think about fine -tuning this close to joining every other species that had gone extinct

Well, it's amazing that That mr. Hitchens can know these things with certainty what populations were that long ago and yet can look at the the

DNA transcription methodology or the ATPase and and so on so over the mitochondria and you can't see design there.

It's always been something that very interesting Anyways in response to this

Then William Lane Craig gave the following comments. Now. He did make some remarks about the theory of evolution which at least

Insinuated that this was somehow incompatible with theism and I have two points to make about this first I think that the theory of biological evolution is simply irrelevant true the truth of Christian theism

Genesis 1 admits all manner of different interpretations and one is by no means committed to six -day creationism

Howard van Till who is a professor at Calvin College writes is the concept of special creation required of all persons who trust in the creator

God of Scripture Most Christians in my acquaintance who are engaged with either scientific or biblical scholarship have concluded that the special Creationist picture of the world's formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief

Now again, I don't know what he means by special creationist, but is this a serious assertion that God as Creator is not definitional of the

Christian faith. I would certainly hope not now of course to Limit God's creation to sort of a deistic getting things winded up get get evolution started and then and then go off to vacation the

Bahamas or something It would would also impact things but it just strikes me that once again right here

I've talked to many people who have encountered individuals and churches who?

decide to add Christianity on because they feel the need for some self -improvement or something

But then when it comes to the the central doctrines of the faith and especially the idea that God is the creator

They just balk at this And very often eventually end up leaving the church or they end up in the very liberal denominations where there's not much

Christianity left anyways But what was the one thing? that the one true

God in the Bible says about the truth of his existence over against anything else

That is You know What what how does God prove his existence he proves his existence through his creatorship?

He knows the future. He knows the past and why the past took place He is the creator all of the gods are not the creator, but here are being said well

You know that part. You know we can sort of fudge that You what you win them with is what you win them to?

so You know that's that's that's an important element Let's let's continue on here so I can communicate with the people outside who are looking all really confused as to what in the world

I'm talking about about a creature in the other room and wanting to know where it is now the convictions It's just that I I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural

Dimension and I don't have never been shown any evidence that any process observable to us cannot be explained by more satisfactory

And more convincing means now two things first of all did you hear the cell phone now?

I heard them say at the beginning take your cell phones out and turn them off But there was a cell phone and even

Christopher Hitchens who is a very good speaker He's an extemporaneous speaker, but he's a very good speaker. You could tell he was thrown off By that cell phone so people turn your cell phones

It's Common -sense type thing, but what was he saying? when you hear an atheist a naturalistic materialist saying to you

I Have never seen evidence as a naturalistic materialist.

What evidence will they accept? That was my point in the debate with with Dan Barker was look

What evidence are you gonna accept You've already said that the only way we can come to truth is through science and so you have to have physical evidence and Dan Barker demands physical evidence of a non non -physical being

And I'm sure that in the same way Christopher Hitchens Says well,

I've never seen any evidence what kind of evidence would you accept this is the problem in having a

A human being a creature climb up upon the celestial throne and say

I will determine what evidence I will and will not accept and I will not accept any evidence that points to a supernatural being therefore

I've never seen any evidence of a supernatural being therefore there isn't any evidence of supernatural being now that that kind of tight

Circular reasoning it should be obvious to us But when someone even as as smart as Christopher Hitchens can make that kind of an error rather regularly

Well, that's that helps out now if you've ever listened to Christopher Hitchens You know that he has

He has a pretty standard presentation and it's changed a little bit You know at least he does try to improve it some add some things to it

You know at least try to debate the person he's debating, you know, you got to give him at least some credit there It's not just well, you know, these are my points and they're valid whatever the other person believes

And so, you know that he asks the idea of Morality what can you as a believer do?

That I as an atheist cannot do that is a good moral thing. And so here's the Hitchens morality questions

There's the two questions that I've asked in public and I'll try them again because I try the one every audience

They're very simple ones first. You have to name for me Challenges, let's say rather than questions

You have to name for me an ethical action or an ethical statement or moral action moral statement made or undertaken by believer

That I couldn't undertake or say I couldn't state or do I haven't yet had an example pointed out of that to me

There was that a person of faith would have an advantage by being able to call upon divine sanction

Whereas if I ask you to think of a wicked act undertaken by someone in the name of God or because of their faith

You wouldn't have or a wicked statement made you wouldn't have that much difficulty I think in coming up with an example right away the genital mutilation community for example is almost exclusively religious

The suicide bombing community is almost exclusively religious There are injunctions for genocide in the

Old Testament There are injunctions and warrants for slavery and racism in the Old Testament, too There's there's simply no way of deriving morality and ethics from the super natural

When we come to the question of the ABS, so there's there are the questions What can what can you do that you consider to be a good moral thing that the unbeliever cannot do now as?

I heard that again. I Had an answer and interestingly enough a little bit later on.

Dr. Craig is going to give a similar answer to what I would give but as soon as he gives

That answer he's going to change the application that I would make as soon as he as soon as he gives it again an illustration as we will see of The fundamental difference between us at at a theological level that then changes the apologetic application that we make now

Christopher Hitchens, and I we are getting some phone calls you have to hold on I'll I'll try to keep up a good pace in my response here but I want to get through this today, and then hopefully we'll be able to Get you all in at the end of the program and and make it all fit together, and it'll be a consistent whole hopefully

Hitchens likes to close his presentations with the celestial North Korea argument or Actually very little this is argument at all, but here's how here's how it goes

That we don't have the dignity. We don't have the self -respect We don't have the character to know a right action or right statement when we see it or when we want to to perform it

It's it's this servile element in religion, and it's not strictly speaking the subject of our debate this evening

I know, but I'm damned if I completely forgo it. It's the idea that Buried in the religious impulse is actually the wish to be unfree is the wish for an immovable unchangeable celestial authority a kind of heavenly

North Korea that will take our decisions They will take our decisions away from us and commit us only to worship and praise and thank a great leader and his son

The dear leader forever and ever and ever I'm so glad there's no evidence that this is true.

Thank you That's exactly how he finishes most of his debates I'm so glad that there's no evidence.

This is true and and so on and so forth, but this celestial North Korea concept

He normally expands that he didn't have time to do that this time around But you know the thought police and and things like that all meant to I mean this is rhetorical

It's it's not really meant to be in a very compelling argument very little of what he says is when you really examine it

He may be a very intelligent man and and able to express himself quite Well, but it doesn't fall that his arguments actually are compelling at all upon analysis it seems that for him it is far better to Capture the hearts of people and not the heads of people

But this idea of a lack of freedom what he means is a lack of autonomy This idea of recognize that one is a creature is

Is very reprehensible to him the idea there therefore will be judgment and that there is a moral nature of the universe

And things like that that is that is what he finds to be Reprehensible and I've commented on my youtube page

Concerning this atheistic issue. I think that it is relevant at that point now when we grab the the

DVD on on Tuesday and played the cross -examination between Hitchens and Craig we skipped over the section where Craig was asking

Hitchens questions, and it is just here Honestly that I've come to understand. This is where debates take place

Now obviously sometimes you're limited in the amount of cross -examination that you can have

And the amount of interaction you can have there's not going to be a whole lot of interaction unfortunately In the dialogue that we're going to have on the 25th with Imam Shamsi Ali.

I wish there was much more Interaction at that particular point, but when you have the opportunity

I think it really says a lot about the debate as to what questions you ask and how you approach it and Obviously from my perspective if I was debating

Christopher Hitchens I would be challenging his worldview I would be challenging the consistency of his worldview

I'd be demonstrating that he has no grounds to make the accusations and arguments that he is

Is that what? Dr.. Craig did well, let's let's listen all right

Let's talk first about whether there are any good arguments to think that atheism is true

Now it seems to me that you're rather ambivalent here that you say you redefine atheism to mean a sort of ah theism or non -theism

But how do you distinguish then the different varieties of non -theism for example?

What is normally called atheism? agnosticism or the view of Verificationists that the statement

God exists is simply meaningless Well, I mean there are different schools of atheism as you say, but the there's no there's no claim

I know how to make this is atheism is true because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition isn't true

So I wish you'd get this bit right Because I'm it's there you go again. Well. I just devoted a little time to this

I said it's it is not in itself a belief or a System it simply says you can get by Better probably we think

Without the assumption that no one who wants you to worship a God has ever been able to come up with a good enough reason to make you do it now so so the point is though that on your definition of of atheism or non -theism it really embodies a diversity of views such as agnosticism what is normally called atheism or this

Verificationism now which of those do you hold to within this umbrella of atheism are you?

An atheist who asserts the proposition God does not exist Or do you simply withhold belief in God in the way the agnostic does right?

I'm a guy in some on some days. I'm a greater No, I'm not gonna.

I'm not gonna do that much of a favor On Some on some days I'm a great admirer of Thomas Huxley who had the great who had the great debate with Bishop Wilberforce I mean

Oxford at the Natural History Museum about Darwinism In the mid 19th century who was known as Darwin's bulldog.

We would now say Darwin's pitbull And who completely trounced the good bishop? But I can't thank him for inventing the term agnostic

And I can't thank him for some of his social Darwinist positions either which are some which are other I need an answer to this

Because I think I think agnosticism is evasive to me Yes, if you if you talk about the power of the

Holy Spirit and so forth to me that is meaningless It's it's to me. I'm sorry. I've tried. It's white noise.

It's like saying there is only one God and Allah is his messenger It's gibberish to me There are many of us.

I'm sorry. There are just many of it. You know it seemed to me that there were

Some sound problems, and I can understand that when when Shabir, and I were on the same stage We were right next to each other so I could hear his voice

But if you saw how they set this up they put the two tables far far apart from each other and over and over again

Dr. Craig was going excuse me what could you repeat that and it really slowed down the cross X and and the speed with which it

Could go on because it was just clearly evident. They had not done the speakers, right so that each

Speaker could hear the other one very clearly that that happens a lot Unfortunately especially in large venues that that takes place, so we're going to continue with cross -examination.

I've still got a Number of things to get to we've got two callers on hold we'll try to get to them as well

But we're gonna take our break and be right back Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases

Similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way

Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope book or chapter Plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences scholars

Your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files

From your computer as well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available

I have used Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program

This is the program that runs 24 -7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage in Debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious Exegesis of the text for over 15 years

Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and that enables you to Do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth

Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith Once the core of the

Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine In his book the

God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr.. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you And Welcome back.

I'm gonna go ahead and grab one of our phone calls here because it's directly on the subject I want to try to stay on subject as best as possible today

And let's go ahead and talk with Rich. Hi Rich. How you doing? Oh I'm doing well.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if you were grabbing me because I'm not sure if I'm directly on the topic

Well, it says dr. Craig And and I wanted to at least comment on the

The nature of his Arminian ism because when you were when you were playing him the thing that really struck me is is

Hopefully not sounding pejorative He seems extremely theologically naive in terms of some of the statements he makes as if he hasn't really

Ever ever studied what the the material issues of the Reformation were when he he seems like he understands philosophy more than he understands theology and It it really sort of the the past.

I really appreciate the past few episodes where you've you've really highlighted how close

Historic Arminian ism is to Roman Catholic theology at its at its root where Essentially, I I might my antenna were really tuned whenever I was listening to Craig talk about the nature of faith where he wouldn't want to turn it into a work, but then he would go around and say about perseverance that essentially we continue in love and obedience and that sort of thing and The words he was using were essentially an equivocation where he didn't want to use the word works but everything that would

Be implied by works in terms of our cooperation with grace Is resident in his theology and he just doesn't seem to to to say to notice that just because he's saying

Oh, we're saved by grace through faith. But then he defines everything by by according to the same sort of categories or he says well

Roman Catholics don't say they're saved by By works and of course their theology doesn't have any such thing as as bare works

They all agree that that the the works that are performed Are basically on the basis of cooperation with grace to begin with so I just don't see any material distinction between everything he's been saying and I I'm just glad you brought that all out so that people can see that and and know that there are

There is a reason why this Protestant Reformation occurred and it's the gospel itself

Well, I think that's what we we listen to with with dr Craig's discussion of Roman Catholicism and then his presentation of the difference between the

Reformers and Trent and then Taking Trent and just tweaking that but doing so in a way that I think

Isolates a number of key issues in a way that misrepresents Roman Catholicism really does.

Yeah, I think all of that illustrates Exactly what dr. Truman was saying in regards to his review of Noel's book is the

Reformation over and for a large track of even evangelicals

Including William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler and others I would say it is that those issues are are no longer

Definitional and that the you could say that for those individuals Reformation is over now dr Truman say well, they should do the right thing and go back to Rome, but They they obviously don't want to because of taste or these lower level disagreements

It really reminds me of the fact that you know when you're dealing with with smooth talk and in false doctrine you're dealing with people who are are mostly ignorant and the sad thing is is that They they they have the words so that they feel like they're avoiding

Works but and so they say I have faith and what they what they seem to miss is that When you when you make faith something that God has held out to all men

And he's gone 99 % of the way and all you need to do is add your will to the equation

That's exactly what Roman Catholicism is saying all along is that God Gives you mostly grace and then you only have to cooperate a little and God looks on that that little bit of cooperation and And considers it to be much more than it's worth and essentially

The Arminian view of that or semi Pelagian turns faith into that very thing

It's it's Christ's righteousness Christ atonement Plus what you can add in terms of the nature of your faith the strength of your faith the vitality

And and then the continued cooperation of that and that's what that's what saves you and that's what keeps you within Within God's good graces and and it's just sad that that's where so many people are stuck

If you really pin them down in terms of what their faith Signifies they're not they don't see

Christ's righteousness alone And they're not they're not laying hold of that alone as their their source of justification even that their continued

Continuance and sanctification by his priesthood there there that this doctrine is very insidious and It I think it's even worse than Roman Catholicism because they don't know where they stand and I know that sounds harsh, but it's said out of a a real concern out of many people that I've encountered that Really when they encounter the gospel for the first time they stop looking to themselves and for that fervor and in measure of faith that they keep looking for that it has to be stronger than Say their neighbor in order for God to find them acceptable.

Well this issue That dr. Craig has of you know when he's asked to identify a false denomination

He he doesn't even think of Roman Catholicism He thinks Calvinism as we played in the last program it came up toward the end of the debate there was this there is this back and forth going on between Hitchens and and Craig and He was talking about you know

Craig made the the right statement And that is that that people who did terrible things in the past name of Christ did so against their their worldview

But listen to what happens when you're inconsistent on this when you when you in essence are paddling around the middle of the

Tiber River You you agree with Rome on her nature of grace nature of man natural theology stuff

Listen to how you become hamstrung listen listen to this section guards at Auschwitz.

They were acting Inconsistently and in defiance of the ethic of Jesus of now you should tell that to the

Vatican I mean we know it Paul Johnson in his very Friendly history of Christianity Says that up to 50 to 60 percent of the orphan

SS were practicing confessing Catholics in good standing No one was ever threatened with discipline by the church with excommunication for example for taking part in the final solution

The only Nazi ever excommunicated by the by the church was Joseph Goebbels, and if you like I'll tell you why

To the student his wife was a divorced Protestant Excuse me

Christianity does have some standards Next to so there you go There yeah there you have

Craig says nothing I would be in the position to say sir I have very clearly said for a long time that Rome does not preach the gospel of grace so to keep throwing

Rome at me in this way is Is an irrelevancy, but of course Craig can't do that because well

They're born -again Catholics And I just got you know the difference between me and a Catholic is is about the same difference between me and a

Presbyterian That's what did you notice that when Craig was talking about these Catholics who who might be saved?

He links it as it's typical to them having sort of what he considers to be sort of a dynamic

Relationship or a personal relationship with with Christ as if it's the the vitality or the perceived

Fervor that the person has towards Christ that is the grounds of justification instead of instead of faith alone and see again this this gets to the point of many

Protestants share the same view with Catholics that it's your devotion and your You the strength of your faith as it were that's the grounds of your standing before God and that works itself out in a in a

Sort of a sacerdotal system for Roman Catholics, but for for Protestants. It's going on mission trips

It's walking the aisle occasionally and that sort of thing and so it's essentially materially the same and and and most people don't see that they look to fervor and and because the word works is not being

Used they they they they're almost immunized against seeing their their faith as that which

Paul is condemning All right. Hey, thank you. Thank you for the call rich. I got to get to the rest of these for the end

No problem, thanks a lot for calling All right, let's get back to this.

I want to try to get it all done today I want to put it in one section so we can address some other things. I wanted to get to the cross -examined the the question about the

The Resurrection in the cross -examination listen to what's what happened? Consistency it said in one of the

Gospels that at the time of the crucifixion all the graves of Jerusalem were opened and all the tenants of the graves walked the streets and greeted their old friends makes resurrection sound rather a

Commonplace in the greater Jerusalem area it said that's in the Gospel of Matthew and that's actually attached to a crucifixion

Narrative that's what I said. It says at the time of the crucifixion. Yes, that's right at the time of the crucifixion It says that there were appearances of Old Testament Saints in Jerusalem at the time.

This is part of Matthew's description of the crucifixion scene I mean do you believe that I don't know whether Matthew intends this to be apocalyptic imagery or whether he means this to be taken

Literally, I'm I've not studied it in any depth, and I'm open -minded about it. I'm I'm willing to be convinced one way or the other

Yeah, okay Matthew 2751 behold the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom and the earth shook and the rocks were split the

Tombs also were opened and many not all Many bodies of the Saints who had fallen asleep were raised doesn't say

Old Testament Saints Doesn't say you know these were this was you know Moses or somebody else and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went to the city and appeared to many

So how do you get from that? Description to the idea that all the dead were raised and went into Jerusalem and Why why not just point out something rather obvious?

How would you know who these people were if they hadn't died recently? How would there be any be any recognition if Moses walked up to you?

Would you recognize him? You know I mean obviously he's not he's not a walking zombie.

He's not a walking You know he's not in grave clothes or something like that. How would you that was Moses? Clearly these were people who had died

Recently so they could be recognized as having been raised from the dead But this idea of why you know

I don't know maybe it's apocalyptic well Maybe the maybe the whole narratives apocalyptic

Maybe we don't really need to take any of this seriously, but but when Craig writes about the resurrection

And I would think that someone who has written multiple books. This is his thing is

The resurrection this is part of those accounts That one just left me stuttering

That that that that happened Now here's here's where dr. Craig answers the issue of morality

Now mr. Richard says name one moral action that an unbeliever could not take well That's trivially easy if God exists are all kinds of moral duties that we have that the unbeliever could not recognize

At the panel discussion last week in Dallas when mr. Hitchens Demanded that someone named such an action a pastor on the panel immediately piped up.

How about tithing? Well leave it to a pastor to think of that but Clearly that's that's an action that only a believer would take even more fundamentally

What about the first and greatest commandment? You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your strength with all your mind

That is an action that only a believer can take no unbeliever can discharge even this most fundamental of moral duties

But in any case all of this is beside the point with respect to the moral argument

The point is that on atheism there are no moral obligations for anybody to fulfill in nature

Whatever is is right and mr. Hitchens is unable to provide any sort of Objective foundation for moral values now my first thought

Upon being asked that question was the first commandment love the Lord our heart soul mind strength love the true

God the God who actually exists not just the God of your imagination Love those aspects of God's being the most reprehensible to the natural man.

Those are the first things I thought of and dr Craig went to the first commandment as well after the tithing thing that I guess was

Doug Wilson that brought that one up And and I'm gonna skip over Wilson's response Wilson's responses

I don't think giving money to build a new st. Andrews Church is moral therefore it doesn't really fit for me, but he then

Does not deal with the first commandment, and he would have to simply say well I don't think it's a moral act to love

God either because I think that God is reprehensible blah blah blah blah blah But then he what happens here is that Craig goes, but this is all irrelevant irrelevant

And I don't think it is irrelevant. I think the fact that there are moral absolutes that are a part of the creation that are a part of God's decree that are a part of God's purpose is

Absolutely central to the argument, and you can't just say well. You know I you know I don't necessarily think that that's

Relevant to our debate this evening. I am running out of time this I found this one really a little too facile I myself for example have followed the career of a woman known vulgarly in the media as mother

Teresa An Albanian named Agnes the Joshua a Catholic fanatic operating in the greater,

Calcutta Area, and I watched every stage of her career as a candidate for and then the recipient of the edification and shortly canonization the canonization will require and as the

Vatican demands The attestation of a miracle performed by her posthumous Intercession and the miracles already been announced a woman in Bengal Fortunately already a devout

Catholic by pressing a medal of Mother Teresa to her stomach the made a tumor go away or so She says all the witnesses to this have since recounted all the doctors have given a much better explanation of how she was cured of The swelling and the growth and what the medicines were and so forth, but they're still stuck with it

They have to go ahead With this process because which will lead to countless untold suffering in India because it will appear to license the the bogus charlatanry of shaman medicine and and Intercessory medicine rather than the real thing all of this will have to be gone through this awful display in the name in the name of faith and interesting commentary very

Very interesting commentary and again if I were in this debate

I would be able to consistently say well once again there you have a practice that is thoroughly unbiblical

There is no belief no basis whatsoever for believing that the Apostles engaged in any such behavior

This is something that develops far down the road in a system that rejected the the norms of the

Bible long before that and Therefore you know now having done all this it is fascinating to me that at one point

William Lane Craig Decides to extend an invitation to Christopher Hitchens to become a Christian But if you notice something we've been listening to a lot of William Lane Craig There's one word

I have yet to hear him here utter From his mouth and let's listen to this invitation to Christopher Hitchens to become a

Christian Hitchens And so I want to invite mr. Hitchens to think about becoming a Christian tonight

Honestly if if he is a man of goodwill who will follow the evidence where it leads all of the evidence tonight has been on One side of the scale and he wants to affirm objective moral values, so why not adopt theism now did you catch that?

Like to become a Christian why not adopt theism excuse me But adopting theism is not becoming a

Christian They are not the same things and what's the one word that I don't hear him use repentance

Repent Christopher Hitchens and believe you have it's not just become a theist

Become a little closer you know that's what is amazing about all stuff about the the

Atheist who became a deist Wow he's he's become a deist he believes that there's a

God out there now. He's like Thomas Jefferson Well, he went to hell too. I mean what where do these folks get the idea that wow what a great victory?

He's a little closer a little closer to what? The Jews were really close, and they were the ones who got the strongest words of condemnation from Jesus Think about that You are not evangelizing if you're trying to get people a little closer

That's not evangelism you call for repentance and faith and If you don't really trust the

Holy Spirit can actually do those things that I can understand why you shoot for a lower target But that's what makes this so unbiblical in its in its very essence well

Gonna have to go this last one because it was longest one. I have to skip some others, but Audience question audience questions as always horrible

Distract from the from the debate go all sorts different directions. You just wonder, but at least this one was semi interesting

For dr. Craig, what do you think about epicurus's argument that if God is omni -beloved omniscient and omnipotent

If he knows about kids in Africa and like that are born with like AIDS What do you think about him suggesting like him not intervening and him not changing that fact that I don't that's a question that I've always

Struggled with so I'm just one egg Like could you expand on that and I don't like you don't put on it the problem of evil and suffering has been

Greatly discussed by philosophers, and I think there's been genuine progress made In this century on this problem now.

Let me just stop right there. That's that struck me as so strange Again major difference between us if someone's gonna ask me about the problem of evil.

Where am I gonna go? I'm gonna go what God says about it, but we've made great progress on this problem in philosophy, and Again major differences here

What to me is the only answer to someone's question about the nature of evil is what

God has said in his word And and if you start someplace else,

I I just I think it's important to distinguish between the intellectual problem of Suffering and the emotional problem of suffering

Because these are quite different from each other in terms of the intellectual problem of suffering

I think that there you need to ask yourself is the atheist claiming as Epicurus did that The existence of God is

Logically incompatible with the evil and suffering in the world if that's what the atheist is claiming that he's got to be

Presupposing some kind of hidden assumptions that would bring out that contradiction and make it explicit because these

Statements are not explicitly contradictory The problem is no philosopher in the history of the world has ever been able to identify what those hidden assumptions

Would be that would bring out the contradiction and make it explicit on the contrary You can actually prove that these are logically compatible with each other by adding a third proposition namely that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world as Long as that statement is even possibly true

It proves that there's no logical incompatibility between God and the suffering in the world

So the atheist would have to show that it is Logically impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in the world and no atheist has ever been

Able to do that. So the the logical version of this problem, I think is widely recognized to have failed

Those atheists who still press the problem therefore press it as a probabilistic argument They try to say that given the evil in the world.

It's improbable that God exists not impossible, but improbable Well again the difficulty there is that the atheist has to claim that if God did exist then it is improbable that he would permit the evil and suffering in the world and How could the atheist possibly know that?

How could the atheist know that? God would not if he existed permit the evil and suffering in the world.

Maybe he's got good reasons for it Maybe like in Christian theism God's purpose for human history is to bring the maximum number of people freely

Into his kingdom to find salvation and eternal life catch that There's God's purpose is to bring the maximum number of people into his kingdom

There's God's purpose not his glory. It's not the demonstration of his name It is not the demonstration of the triune nature of God and the self -glorification

In a peculiar people for all time and eternity that are known to him. No no no no no no the entire purpose of God is focused on man

Amazing you want it you want to know my biggest problem here is dr. Craig's theology is hamstrung it is

Hamstrung it is so sub -biblical that is not God's purpose. That is not biblical you could never

Substantiate that I know Norman Geister says it and I know William Lane Craig says it it's not

Biblical that's not what is said It's if God wanted to bring the maximum number of people in he could have been a universalist

He could have done that don't tell me that's beyond his capacity That is not

God's purpose in this world And so to to well anyway

We're about a time and how do we know that that wouldn't require a world that is simply suffused with natural and moral?

Suffering it might be that only in a world like that the maximal number of people would freely come to know

God and find salvation behold the twisting of Christian apologetics due to a bad theology a

Sub -biblical theology there you go, and this is in the same debate where this man identifies the consistent biblical position as An example of falsehood, there's there's there's where it goes so the atheist would have to show

That we're gonna run out of time here the interesting thing was that that Christopher Hitchens that said oh

I don't make that argument anyways He actually he actually sees that this argument from evil doesn't work along those lines and says

I wouldn't make that argument anyways But there you go Here the perfect opportunity to say

God is glorifying himself He has chosen to act in this way every bit of evil has purpose because God has a decree hey when you're a

Molinist And you've got to have this Star Trek idea where God's using middle knowledge Between his natural knowledge and his free knowledge to come up with these worlds where people freely do what they do given certain

Circumstances and you actualize just that and the only people you actualize the people who do what you want and all the rest of this stuff just to serve at the altar of the free will of man it shouldn't be surprising that that then is the result a

Mutated form of Christianity is your answer what an amazing example of it I hope I hope that you hear that and understand that and recognize the importance of it

Well, we managed to get almost all of it is only one clip. I didn't play it That's pretty close, but thanks for listening today to the dividing line

I hope that's useful material to you as you go out and seek to glorify God this day We will see you on Tuesday of next week

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at P.

O box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

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