The Dividing Line July 29, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

James White. Good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line. We will have the phones open today at 877 -753 -3341 if you would like to join us looking at the rest of the debate material.

We don't have all that much left to cover. There is one issue. Oh, I didn't bring the book in with me.

Well, there was one issue that I wanted to touch on briefly in that area, but then we can take your phone calls, and often those phone calls get us off into all sorts of interesting areas.

So just don't wait until the last five minutes of the program to do it, because then it's significantly less interesting than it would be otherwise.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. We have been listening to a debate on the resurrection.

Is the resurrection historically provable? And we have been using this not so much as a source of criticism, but as a mechanism of comparison and contrast between various apologetic methodologies, and an illustration of the fact that theology matters.

Theology determines the kind of apologetics you use. And obviously, if you hold to a viewpoint that exalts the autonomy of man, you are hardly going to be in a position, consistently, to challenge a worldview based upon the autonomy of man.

And a humanistic worldview, a worldview that is focused upon the creature, and in essence demands that we have the right and ability to put

God on trial, and the existence of God on trial, rather than seeing ourselves as His creations, and seeing ourselves in light of His sovereign purposes, that really is the issue.

And even in defining what history is. What is history? How do you define history?

And can you come to history with atheistic presuppositions, and thereby just simply dismiss all evidence of God's activity in history?

Or do you demand that mankind see himself as the creature he is, that he is in moral rebellion against God, and that his view of history must take that into consideration?

These are some of the things we've been listening to as we've been listening to Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona debate this issue.

We were listening to Bart Ehrman in part of the Give and Take rebuttal periods, and you'll hear exactly what

I'm talking about. Bart Ehrman's insistence that history is atheistic, that history exists separately from the realm of Christian claims.

And remember, Christianity makes specific historical claims. Jesus Christ came at a particular time, in a particular place, did particular things.

This took place in history, it wasn't just some myth, this is one of the major differences between the mythologies that are so popular that people refer to today.

The Gnostic religions, the mystery religions, did not have a concern for history.

They did not have a concern for saying, God has acted in truth, therefore here is his truth.

The idea of a body of dogma, of truth, for these religions, no.

It's much more subjective, it's disconnected from history, it doesn't have the same view of history that comes out of the

Christian worldview, etc. etc. So let's go back to listening to what Bart Ehrman was saying, because it's going to come out, once again, being illustrated very clearly, right here in the next comments.

I too once believed that, and I approached my study of the

New Testament with the same belief. The result of my scholarship led me to renounce my former beliefs, and I have to say,

I left the evangelical fold kicking and screaming. I did not go easily.

I wanted to hold on to my faith, I tried to hold on to my faith, I did everything

I could to hold on to my faith, but I got to a point where I realized that the historical evidence did not support my faith.

I did not go with my personal bias, quite the contrary,

I ended up changing my mind despite my bias. So it won't do to say that I'm biased against the resurrection, because for the majority of my adult life,

I believed in the resurrection and wanted to believe in the resurrection and tried to believe in the resurrection. Let me just, and I know

I played this last time, we're getting to the important part here, but let me just comment briefly at that point, yes he is biased against the resurrection, and even during his evangelical days, if he did not have a serious

Christian worldview that was thought through as a worldview, then his experience as a

Christian is not evidence against his bias. There are many Christians who are inconsistent, they think like the world while trying to hold on to Christian beliefs, and it doesn't work, and when they end up going to places like Princeton, they end up becoming non -Christians, because they've already been non -Christians in their worldview.

They have not seen that the Lordship of Christ extends to the entirety of one's life.

And so, just that statement, well you know, I once believed these things, but did you actually have, and I don't see any evidence of this, did you actually have a

Christian worldview where you even recognized, for example, that history itself, that the sciences themselves, that all of these are under the

Lordship of Christ. That to adopt an atheistic perspective in these areas is to be an inconsistent

Christian, that really is the question that I would have to ask. Mike, on the other hand, has wanted to believe in the resurrection, and he does believe in the resurrection.

Which of us is taking a historical approach? I'm not disputing

Mike's beliefs. Now, which of us is taking a historical approach? Notice, for Ehrman, history is atheistic.

History is outside of the realms of the claims of God. This is his presupposition.

This is going to come up in January. It has to come up in January, because this is fundamental to the entire presentation he's making.

So he says, I'm not challenging your beliefs. What he's saying is, your beliefs are ahistorical, and as long as you keep them in an ahistorical area, as long as you don't dare say, this stuff really happened.

As long as you don't dare make your faith relevant to your worldview, and to, therefore, my existence, then you're fine.

If you want to just be one of the pagans who says you've got mythology, you know, if you want to say

Dionysus was sewn into Zeus's thigh, and then was born out of Zeus's thigh, that's cool too.

No worries. Leave it in mythology, just don't you dare say it actually happened.

Now he must know that what he's really saying is, you must abandon your Christianity.

Because that's what he did. The results of his scholarship, and if he thinks his scholarship is true, then isn't the result of that inevitably?

That if he abandoned Christianity, because he didn't find it to be true, then isn't that what anyone who actually loves the truth should do?

Well, you would think so, but for him to say, I'm not challenging your beliefs this evening, well, no, I'm sorry. In reality, you are.

For your beliefs, the vast majority of you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. What I'm arguing is that that belief of yours is not founded on historical evidence.

The resurrection of Jesus, if it happened, trans - is, I'm sorry, goes beyond anything like historical evidence.

Historical evidence cannot establish the resurrection. It is a faith claim.

It is a claim that there is a God who is in control of this world, who created this world, who sent his son into the world, and raised his son from the dead.

Those are theological statements. I'm not saying they're true or false. I'm saying they're not historical.

Hopefully now we're all starting to hear this. Because if you're hearing this and you're understanding this and you're seeing, oh, wait a minute, he's trying to be politically correct here and say, well,

I'm not saying that what you believe is false. But to make that statement, what he's having to do is to say, everything you believe is outside the realm of the verifiable anyway.

Everything you believe is outside the realm of truth claims anyhow. Theological truth claims are irrelevant to historical truth claims.

But he knows the very nature of the Christian faith is such that he's denying those truth claims.

And so, sadly, most people hear that and go, wow, that's really neat that he's letting live and let live, and isn't that wonderful, and la, la, la, la.

In reality, he is, in fact, doing exactly what he's saying he's not doing. Historical statements have to do with what historians can establish as probably having happened in the past.

Historians can be believing Christians. They can be Jews. They can be Muslims. They can be

Buddhists. They can be heathens. They can be apostates. They can be atheists.

They can be agnostics. They can be all of the above. But the evidence they adduce has to be available to everybody that I've named.

It is available to everyone that you've named, but evidence is examined and weighed within a world view.

And when you are an apostate agnostic, use both terms there, when you insist upon an atheistic view of history, then you are going to dismiss as evidence that which goes against your world view, and therefore you are going to dismiss as evidence that material that would indicate to you that Jesus rose from the dead.

It's not historical evidence. If it's historical evidence, it's based on presuppositions that everybody

I've just named can agree on, not people with only one particular theological point of view.

If the historical conclusion requires a theological point of view, then it's not a historical conclusion, it's a theological conclusion.

Thank you. So again, we see the contrast between the two.

If you want to have your theology, fine, you go have your theology, as long as you don't make your theology wander into my history.

There is a big wall between the two, and the two shall not meet, they cannot meet.

So that is his presentation. Then there were audience questions. Some of the audience questions were interesting, some of the audience questions, quite honestly, were not interesting at all.

Let me see if I can find, let's see which question this one here is.

It's this one right here, and let's try that again. Dr. Ehrman, one of the criteria given for evaluating evidence were independent accounts.

Doesn't the fact that some of the accounts are difficult to reconcile, I assume the Gospels are meant here, indicate that they were independent?

Aren't these discrepancies similar to what one would find between witnesses and a court? Oh yeah, excellent question.

Did everybody hear the question? Okay, so I pointed out you need independent witnesses for historical evidence, and the question is, since you have discrepancies between the accounts, doesn't that show that they're independent witnesses, and so doesn't that increase the probability that you've got independent attestation of the resurrection?

Let me just stop right there, just so you, you know, that is a good question, and it will be interesting to hear

Ehrman's response to this, because there's so much of an assumption on the part of much of modern scholarship of an overarching process of editing or something like that, that it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

And it's an excellent point, but the way you have to establish whether the Gospels are independent of one another is by a detailed analysis of their similarities and their differences.

Scholars have been doing this for hundreds of years, and what scholars have pretty much shown,

I mean, it's pretty standard. I assume Mike's going to agree with this. Mark in priority? No? Yes?

Yes? Okay. Now, I realize that there are many in the audience know exactly what he's referring to, but there may be others, and so let's all get up to speed.

Mark in priority is the current popular viewpoint in New Testament scholarship. It has not always been.

In fact, down through Church history, it was not. But Mark in priority is the idea that Mark is the first of the

Gospels written. And then, and here's the key point, because it's one thing to say it's the first of the

Gospels written. It is the next step to say it is the first of the Gospels written, and Mark is used directly.

He exists as a literary body, that Gospel exists as a literary body, and is possessed in at least copy form by both

Matthew and Luke, so that Matthew and Luke are copying from Mark, then they have access to some other source, normally called the

Q source, which has nothing to do with Star Trek, which is a collection of Jesus' sayings, basically, and the two of them make purposeful changes to Mark, sometimes contradicting

Mark, and that becomes the foundation upon which both

Matthew and Luke are written. Now, the order of the Gospels, we don't know what order they were written in.

It's a theory. We don't have any manuscript evidence. There's not really, there's actually pretty decent internal evidence that at least the synoptics were written prior to the destruction of the

Temple in Jerusalem. Obviously, a naturalistic world view would cause you to force it to be after the destruction of the

Temple, because of the prophecies of the destruction in Matthew 24, etc. So, if you don't believe there's such a thing as prophecy, then obviously that makes it post -70, but there's good reason, lots of good reason, for putting them pre -70, and very, very early on, there are some who believe everything in the

New Testament was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. There are others who have put John at a much later date, all within the first century, but later on after that destruction, etc.,

etc. But, the real key issue is this idea of literary dependence on the part of Matthew and Luke using

Mark and editing Mark as they go along, in essence. This is the majority viewpoint.

If you go to New Testament classes, even in conservative seminaries, the majority viewpoint is going to be

Mark in priority. Now, I do not hold to that form of Mark in priority. I don't know what order the

Gospels were written in. I don't have any particular problem with theorizing that Mark is the earliest.

It certainly seems to be written in that way. But, the idea that both

Matthew and Luke are just sitting there with Mark going, Oh, well, let me see here. I don't like this. I'm going to take that out, blah, blah, blah.

Knowing that the very same community that already possesses Mark is going to be reading them.

I mean, that's one thing. I know it's so common that people don't even challenge majority viewpoints.

Well, I'm a Calvinist, so I'm used to it. But, you know, I sort of sat back, even when

I was at Fuller, going, So, does anyone ever think about, you know, exactly what this would mean?

And, you know, do you consider the fact that if you're changing Mark and the people you're going to be giving yours to already have

Mark, they're going to go, Excuse me, hey, dummy, what are you doing here? I don't know. Those types of things cross my mind.

But I personally believe that it makes much more sense in light and reading.

Do I still have it in here? Yeah. We're videotaping.

Why do we say videotape anymore? I haven't used videotape in I don't know how long. It's an

SD card. We're digitizing. Yes, we're digitizing. So I will show this to the

DigiCam. You're digitizing. We're digitizing. Jesus and the eyewitnesses.

The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Baucom. See, there it is. I wrote the book review of this one for the

CRA Journal. All that did was confirm many conclusions

I had come to in my own thinking. And that is that what you have access to, what

Matthew and Luke would have access to, would be the same tradition. And I'm not using that term in the

Roman Catholic sense. But the same oral preaching of the Church. This is preaching.

You still have eyewitnesses in the Church. And so that preaching is what is prevalent throughout the

Churches. They would travel from Church to Church. We know that this happened historically. And so changes from that would sort of stand out, especially amongst those people who had been believers for a long period of time.

And it would seem to me that there would be an entire body of tradition that would be available to Matthew and Luke.

And that this is what they're referring to, not to some slavish dependence upon Mark himself. The similarities are due to the fact that all three of them are deriving their material from that same single body of Christian proclamation that had been going on with eyewitnesses for however long it had been between the time of the crucifixion and the writing of the first Gospels.

Obviously, there are many who wish to push that date as far back as possible to minimize its connection to the actual disciples and apostles themselves.

And that, again, is one of the divides that you have between conservatives and liberals at that point.

So that's what he's talking about when he's talking about Mark in priority. I mean, what most scholars think is that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used

Mark as a source. So whenever they change Mark, whenever they're different from Mark, it's because one of them has changed it for some reason of their own.

And this is significant because it can show you that if Matthew is different from Mark in any particular, it means

Matthew has intentionally changed something in Mark. And that can show you Matthew's overarching intentions, or Luke, and so forth.

Now, you see what that perspective does, is that in essence, since most of them reject

John as having any meaningful historical information at all contained within it, then what you have is only one witness.

You only have one literary witness. Mark is being used by Matthew and Luke, so Matthew and Luke are not independent witnesses in and of themselves.

So you have one redacted witness. That's all you've got left. See, that's one of the apologetic issues that comes up when you utilize that theory.

And so it's interesting that, for example, in some of the later

Gospels, it's not the women who discover the tomb. The women go off and the men discover the tomb.

And the men then serve as the witnesses. Why is that? Because, to the point Mike was pointing out, that in fact people were loathe to attribute testimony value to what women had to say.

So I don't think the mere fact that they're different shows they're independent accounts, but it shows that some accounts are being changed in the process of the transmission.

Mike, do you have any response? Because I'm having trouble with my voice, I think I'll save it for something in which we're going to have greater disagreement on.

Okay, for Mike Oikona, are there continuing claims of misogyny?

See, just at that point, that's where I would, you know, again, I feel very sorry for Mike and his voice that day.

It was pretty rough. But you see, that's what's got to be challenged right there. And that's, again, this particular spectrum of apologetics is so closely wedded to that kind of viewpoint in regards to, oh yeah, sure, you know,

Mark was just being slavishly copied and changed by Matthew and Luke and stuff like that, that they really don't, they have to go, yeah, okay, and that's not only relevant to dealing with Ahriman, that's relevant to dealing with Islamic apologetics and its claims concerning, you know,

Pauline corruption and all the rest of that stuff. Again, you know, what can we say? Theology matters.

Let me go a little bit down here because we've got a phone call to get to, and let me try to get to that last question.

Never mind. Question for Mike, and then we'll throw one out for both participants to respond to.

Mike, is there any historical evidence independent of the Bible for the Resurrection?

Well, it depends. You know, at this point, my first response is, may I please point out to you that the

New Testament records are historical evidence, that their testimony as historical witnesses cannot simply be dismissed.

But, of course, if you haven't defended that up to this point, it's a little bit late when you're, this is 1 .56

out of two minutes and, two hours and two minutes, so you're down the last six, seven minutes of the debate, so it's a little late to be getting to that.

I think we could look at something like Tacitus, who in his annals, book 15, section 44, talks about how after Pilate had crucified

Jesus, that Christianity was checked for the moment, and then it broke out again in Judea, where the evil mischievous superstition started.

I think this just shows a consistency with what we find in the Gospels and Acts.

Same thing with Josephus in a disputed passage, but most Josephus scholars agree that Josephus mentions

Jesus in that passage, that he was crucified by Pilate, and that his disciples continued to follow him.

So in a strict sense, I'd say, no, we have to look at the New Testament as ancient documents here, and that we can,

I could look at the Koran, and I don't believe it's divinely inspired, but I still can, as a historian, look at different things and conclude different things, such as there's one surah that has

Jesus and God talking, and God says, did you tell them you're my son, or did you tell them that you,

Mary, and me are gods? And Jesus says, no, far be it from me, you know I never said that, I've only said

I'm your servant. I don't believe that that conversation happened, but it tells me that Muslims and Christians were having this debate on who was

Jesus, is he divine, or just a man? And same thing with the New Testament, the case

I've given this evening. By the way, that's surah 5, 116 through 117, if you're looking for it. Wouldn't assume at all divine inspiration, we could look at it simply as an ancient compilation of 27 different sources, ancient sources, and make our conclusions based on that.

And again, that's where we just have to differ, is this idea that we can divorce the

New Testament documents from what they say about themselves, and simply we're going to step onto this neutral ground with you, this atheistic history theory of yours, and we'll do battle with you on that ground.

And I say to you, it doesn't work. You can't get to the Christian God from that perspective. Again, it goes back to the beginning presuppositions that you have to be consistent at that point.

Yeah, it is a really good question. People are surprised to know how little information we have about Jesus outside of Christian sources from antiquity.

You would think you'd have birth records or accounts of the trial or his enemies talking about him or Romans.

Why would you think any of that? That amazes me. I mean, of all the people who have lived on Earth, how many of them do we have that kind of serious information about who lived at that time?

Almost none. Almost zero. So why, especially in Palestine, at that time in history, would you expect that?

I don't know. I haven't figured that part out. When an official is saying something, in fact, nobody says anything about him during the entire first century except for Josephus, the

Jewish historian, who has two references to him. Within 100 years of Jesus' death, he's only mentioned four times in any non -Christian source.

In Tacitus, the reference Mike was giving, in Pliny the Younger, three years earlier, and possibly in Suetonius, the

Roman historian, and in Josephus. Josephus has two references, so there's five references to Jesus.

These references tell us almost nothing about who Jesus was or what he did or what he said, and strikingly, none of them says anything about Jesus being raised from the dead.

I had something there. I agree with him on that, but I don't think it's as bad as that might lead us to believe.

The Roman emperor, at the time of Jesus' ministry, for him, we have just as many non -Christian sources who mentioned him within 150 years of his death as we have of Jesus.

Non -Christian sources who mentioned him within 150 years of his death. And Caesar Augustus, the most prominent emperor of Rome, we only have four primary sources that mention him, and most of these are more than 100 years after his death.

One last question. Okay, here's the last question. This is how the debate ends.

I'll just let the whole thing play out. A response from both sides. I'll read it to each of you.

Your response, both John and Mark, are correct about the Passover meal because the

Messiah honored the Passover of Yahweh as written in Leviticus 23 on the 14th of Abib, whereas the rabbinical

Jews celebrate the Passover on the 15th of Abib. Do you agree? Yeah, Mike, do you agree?

I feel like I'm on my Ph .D. exam again. I don't know about you. Okay, so let me tell you what that meant.

The problem is Mark explicitly indicates that Jesus celebrated the

Passover meal. John explicitly indicates that he was crucified the day before the

Passover meal. And so the question is saying that different groups of Jews celebrated the

Passover meal on two different days, so both Mark and John could be right. On the surface, that sounds plausible, but the reality is

Jews in Jerusalem in the first century did not celebrate Passover on two different days.

They celebrated it on one day, because there was only one day that the lambs were killed in the temple on the day of preparation for Passover.

John says that's the day that Jesus was killed on the day of preparation. Mark says he was killed the next day, and so there's an inconsistency.

I do. I do. Oh, man. Maybe I should type it in and you can see it on the screen.

I do hold to biblical inerrancy. However, I have to admit I don't know the answer to this one.

Okay. All right, let's give both of these gentlemen a round of applause. Well, I would direct you to the rather full discussion of that very issue provided by Dr.

A .T. Roberts in his Army of the Gospels. This was a textbook that I used in Bible college.

And he points out, he goes through each one of the specific texts in John and demonstrates that the consistent usage of language in John is consistent with that of synoptics, that John is not, as was just claimed, specifically stating that Jesus is crucified before the

Passover. But if you recognize the Passover is not just one day, but is an entire celebration, that there is no inconsistency.

And again, John is writing, if their theory is correct, and John's last one to write, wouldn't he know what

Matthew, Mark, and Luke said? And why in the world would he specifically make his different? Well, for literary purposes, come on!

You know, it's frustrating at that point. But anyway, again,

I only did this series for the intention of helping people to see that sometimes the apologetic realm can be somewhat confusing.

And one of the reasons is because we have different methodologies. We're starting from different starting places.

And where you start is going to determine where you end. We're going to take a break. Take your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back. And welcome back to The Dividing Line.

On a Tuesday morning, the phone lines are open at 877 -753 -3341.

There's been all sorts of stuff going on out there. And some of which I don't even want to begin talking about.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yeah, there's definitely one topic in the blogosphere right now.

We ain't touching with a ten -foot pole. I like having my website right where it is. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Ain't going there. Noop, noop, noop, noop, noop. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. But there has been some wild stuff.

By the way, I am about a third of the way through The Shack, for those of you who have been wondering.

And I'm only reading it when I have opportunity. I'm not putting anything else aside just to get to that. But I have been working on it because I think there does need to be some commentary.

I wouldn't be the first one, obviously. I'm a little slow getting to it. I think Tim Challies was on in January. But slow getting there.

But I think maybe I will do something on that, have some commentary on that sometime in the future.

All right, let's go to our single phone caller at the moment, unfortunately. And like I said, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Let's talk with Arlen. Hi, Arlen. Hello. How are you, sir? Single phone caller, eh?

I'm sorry? Yes. So far, the only one. I feel so honored. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Okay, well, just so that you know who

I am, I'm Atlanteans from the blog. Apparently, I'm a mole witness. I'm not sure what that means exactly.

Anyway, so. Okay. If you don't remember me, then I'll try to forget this awkward moment.

Atlanteans from the blog? From the chat room thing.

Oh, the chat channel. Okay, all right. All right. Yeah, you were last seen quitting the channel six weeks, three days, and 13 hours and 50 minutes ago, actually.

Hmm, that's strangely creepy to know that. Yeah. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Would you like to know what you were wearing when you left?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yeah, I've been on a mission trip, actually.

That's basically what happened. Anyway, my question is this, and I'll phrase it in the sense of I believe that the gospels were written before 70

AD, all four of them. I think that's relatively. I don't see that there's a really strong argument otherwise.

And my point would go essentially that Luke's would have to have been written before Paul died because Acts ends before Paul died, and ends so abruptly there's no apparent reason why it would.

I'm sure there's a lot more to that, and I think that your idea about it being written for his trial makes a lot of sense.

Well, that's not my idea, but I think it makes sense, so yeah. And from there

I would go back to how the early fathers generally say that Matthew was written first, et cetera, et cetera.

I just wanted to know what you think, especially in light of people who would read

Bar Airmen, what some of the strongest points that I could point to would be that would reinforce the early dates?

Well, you know, that is a good question. For the vast majority of people, sadly, just taking the time that it took you to explain the relationship of Luke and Acts and the death of Paul, sadly, in my experience, extends beyond the attention span of most of the people we're talking to.

I mean, I think it's terrible, but that's just the way it is. And you'd almost have to make sure that you're in –

I think part of having success in this is phrasing your presentation in such a way as you can get past that ahistorical,

I don't really want to think much more about this type of thing. And so if you can in some way, shape, or form communicate the fact that, you know, it's interesting you said that.

This means a lot to me, and I've done some thinking on this, and have you ever considered this?

Sometimes just that little bit of introduction, the beginning, can sort of extend the attention span out a little bit.

You can't assume that they would even know who Paul was. I mean, you just mentioned Paul.

You and I know Paul. But it's really tricky, to be honest with you, to try to make sure that when you are making even a fairly simple case that you're giving enough background information that they have some idea why what you're saying is relevant.

For example, even mentioning that we can be pretty confident about the timing of Paul's death, and therefore have some sort of a benchmark there that we can utilize.

How do we know when Paul died? Well, again, we don't know exactly when

Paul died. However, the fact that Acts ends where it ends, and when we take into consideration the material found in the pastorals, which again, someone like Airman is going to dismiss anyway, is just on other grounds.

But when we take those things into consideration, and also understand when various emperors reigned, and when the

Neronian persecution was, and things like that, we can have great confidence that we're talking about the early part of the 7th decade, or the early 60s, as the farthest end point.

Because if he was still around, there'd be some evidence that he was. I mean, the guy liked to write letters. And we can utilize his letters to establish certain things, or certain people are mentioned that we have been able to identify.

For example, in Corinth, Crispus, as I recall, is mentioned there. And we know about when that person was there, things like that.

But you asked for the strongest arguments. I appreciate what Dan Wallace and his co -authors said in their work on Jesus.

One of the arguments that they presented was that the Olivet Discourse, in the various forms in which it is recorded,

Matthew's being the fullest, especially because he's got a primarily Jewish audience, but Mark and Luke also have portions of that recorded for us as well.

In every one of them, there is material that would be, quote -unquote, embarrassing.

In other words, because not everything is fulfilled as yet, if you were looking back, writing about the fall of Jerusalem, why would you put things into the narrative that have not yet happened, that would be potentially embarrassing for you, and have to make you answer the question, well, is this man a true prophet, because these things have not yet taken place.

And so if we are wanting to get into the boat that says, well, what you've really got going on here are really shady people, and they're wanting to come up with some religious authority over other folks, or wanting to write some stuff, they're really pawning this stuff off, and they're making it all up as they're going along, which would mean they'd all have to be in cahoots with one another, and all the rest of this stuff.

If you really want to go there, then there's all sorts of reasons to believe that they went about it all wrong.

I mean, how they ever made this thing work is pretty amazing. But the fact of the matter is, the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem are only quote -unquote partially fulfilled in the actual destruction of Jerusalem, because it goes beyond the destruction of Jerusalem.

That's where the hyper -preterists jump off the boat. But it goes beyond that. And that,

I mean, probably the single most common claim that I hear from liberals is that, well, of course,

Paul expected Jesus to return at any moment, and he was wrong. The idea of the imminence of the return for every generation is embarrassing from an apologetic perspective, unless, of course, you have sound theology and can explain why that's relevant.

But, again, for people who are just making this up to get themselves power, the idea that they'd be looking down the centuries to see what effects this would have down the centuries is just a little bit of a silly stuff.

So, oh, we lost you there. All of a sudden, it sounded like, was he still there? I don't know.

Is he still there? Am I? Hello? Oh, there you are. Okay. Oh, I am. Yeah, something was going on in the background.

It sounded like your tire went flat or something. No, unless I be hit while on the phone, and your audience hear what's going on.

Well, okay, my question would then be, if you are a Molinist, would God know you were going to get hit or not?

That is the real question. I would say yes. Okay, one thing that is always, well, not always, since I've only thought of it for the past few months.

Anyway, I find one huge flaw in the whole Q document and Mark in Priority concept that seems to make the whole theory fall flat.

It's based on Ockham's Razor, and I wanted your opinion on it. The idea that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John knew each other, and actually interacted.

Well, in what sense? I mean, we don't know the exact relationship between them.

We know there was traveling. I don't think there's any reason to question that they would have had some contact with one another.

But again, could one have written and died long before another writes?

We would assume that John's writing in Asia Minor, probably near Ephesus, somewhere in that direction.

Where were the others written? We don't know. What concerns me about the almost slavish adoption of Mark in Priority connected with literary dependence is the fact that people don't question it, and any other theory just is sort of dismissed right off the top, because, well, you're going against the majority viewpoint at that point.

The problem is it creates all sorts of problems, and there should be much more freedom to say. However, in fact,

I don't even remember where I was reading this now, but sometime within the past year I was sent a

URL to a computer study, a literary computer study, where they used an algorithm that had been developed outside of New Testament studies, as I recall, for indicating dependence.

It sounds like the mothership's beaming you up now, too. But they applied it to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and as a result, the computer said

Luke was the first one that was written, and Mark and Matthew were dependent on it. Oh, that's good.

Yeah, you know, so, you know, I think we need to, you know, it's interesting to theorize about such things, but when those theories become the very lens through which then exegesis takes place, that is where I start having a major problem.

Okay? Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, man. Okay, well, thank you very much. I hope to see you on channel. All right, thanks a lot.

God bless. Take care. All right, bye -bye. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

You can't talk to me, so I don't know what your point is. I was just going to say that we want to make sure that we understand that Algo says that he was wearing a blue hoodie when he left channel.

Oh, okay. I totally agree about it when he listens to this in the playback.

Yes, and, okay, all right, I appreciate that. Well, anyhow, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

I've noticed that sometimes, well, I can't predict it, but sometimes when I do a series, it really kills the phone calls for the rest of the program or something like that because they're just expecting that I'm just going to, you know, do my thing and I'm going to continue on and blah, blah, blah, blah, and that's not what

I was doing. That's okay. I understand. The morning program is less of a, though sometimes you never know.

You cannot predict what's going to happen with those phones. So what we'll do, we've got 12 minutes left, and I have a clip, and it's one of my favorite kinds of clips because what it does is allow us to listen to the poor

Roman Catholic apologist stuck with modern Vatican II theology and trying to make

Vatican II fit with historical Roman Catholic teaching. This is Tim Staples, our man

Tim, the man of Catholic answers pedigree, formerly of St.

Joseph Catholic Communications. If we had a sound of a phone hanging up, that would sound really familiar to you,

Rich. Last communication we had with St. Joseph was when the head of that organization hung up on you, as I recall, after the second debate with Tim Staples.

But anyway, that's neither here nor there. I don't even know that he's still involved with it for that matter. But anyway, one of the reasons

I like this particular clip is because it's talking about two of my favorite subjects all at the same time. We have a

Roman Catholic apologist talking about Islam. Yes, indeed, boys and girls, children all across the world.

How does the Catholic apologist explain what Vatican II said, and post -Vatican II documents that specifically talk about the fact that we and Muslims adore the same

God? In fact, that reminds me, two things.

I'll never get to it. Two things. One hour after the dividing line, David Wood and Bassam Zawadi will be back on Iron Sharpens Iron.

So you need to be listening to that. Very interesting program yesterday. I heard that. And then one other thing.

I mentioned a number of weeks ago, and I put it on the blog. Got to get to London.

Have all sorts of wonderful opportunities there. Two debates, which in fact David Wood mentioned on the program yesterday, in London.

But got to get there. And we priced out tickets. And I about fainted.

Let's just say that fuel costs have risen just a little bit, and the exchange rate is really bad.

So I just throw that out there again to the people of God. We've got to get to London, and it ain't going to be cheap.

So just thought, yeah. Rich is in the other room going, hey, pick me. Got the thumb out.

We'll hitchhike across the United States, and that's how we'll get to London. Nah, it ain't going to work too well.

So we thought we would mention that in passing. Oh, so I'm not going to. But I've already mentioned that I'm going to get to Tim Staples.

Well, maybe we'll. Well, let's go ahead and take the call, and then maybe we'll still get to some of Tim Staples. Maybe we won't. We'll find out.

Let's talk with Jason. Hey, Jason. Hey. How are you doing? Pretty good, pretty good.

Thanks for taking my call. Yes, sir. I'm real new to Reformed theology.

I guess you'd call me a recovering dispensationalist. My question is, it's about atonement.

And I read in the Potter's Freedom, and I read it elsewhere in Hodges and other places, that the argument is that Jesus' death is what actually saves you.

It didn't provide a provision for salvation. It's what actually saves. So, am

I correct in that? Well, in the sense that the atonement is substitutionary, and therefore it is personal.

That is, it is not just some amorphous mass of people who are joined to Christ.

Or it is not just some pool of merit or pool of grace that is created by His death.

The specific people of God were united with Jesus Christ in His death upon Calvary's tree.

And this is one of the problems I have with open theism and things like that. Because if God doesn't know the future, then if God doesn't have a specific people

He's uniting to Christ, the personal aspect of the atonement, my union with Christ.

Paul said that he had been united with Christ, and Christ died for him.

His death was, he died with Christ, therefore he's raised with Christ as well. So, that personal element of the atonement means that the point where the wrath of God is poured out upon my sin is the cross.

Now, let me anticipate for a moment. What most people have a problem with that is, but wait a minute.

Prior to my justification, prior to my regeneration, I'm described as a child of wrath, as the rest.

So, how can that be if I was actually saved 2 ,000 years ago? And of course, the issue is the difference between the eternal perspective and that of a temporal perspective.

We know that it's God's purpose to use specific means to bring us into the

Christian life. There's a point in time where through the proclamation of the gospel, the work of the Holy Spirit of God, we hear the gospel, the

Holy Spirit causes us to be quickened, to be alive, and we are regenerated. We have faith, and we're justified, and so on and so forth.

Up to that point in time, that application of what is absolutely certain, because we were united with Him.

But you see, that's in the past. We weren't there. It has to be applied to us in this life, in God's providence, at the time, the means that He chooses to do so.

And so, I think that's how, if that's where you're going, and if not, then that just gave you a little extra information.

You can go from there. No, that is probably where I'm going. My issue was, I was talking to some other people, because I want to tell you, your ministry is really helpful, because around here,

I live about an hour from Memphis, and when you just say the word Calvinism, you can hear the ominous music in the background.

Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do. I mean, there's no, if it wasn't for the

YouTube videos and the posts on the blog, I mean, it's just extremely helpful.

No, that's great. What I was talking to this person about was that it wasn't just a provision.

He didn't die to make us savable. Right, right. Like, that's what she said in the pot of freedom. But then, the question that they raised to me that I couldn't answer was that, okay, let's say that I am one of the elect.

I'm, as of yet, unregenerate. Let's say it's God's determined decree that I'd be saved three weeks from now.

Isn't it just a provision for me now, because I'm unregenerate, like at this moment? Again, yeah, that was where I was going, because what that is confusing, how is it a provision now, since you're unregenerate?

God, in the same sovereign decree that has marked you out from eternity, found in Ephesians chapter 1, not because of anything in you, but because solely of God's purpose and grace and the kind intention of his own good will, that very same sovereignty has also determined the very point in time where, undeserving, he is going to break into the life of a rebel sinner.

He is going to bring about spiritual regeneration, open blind eyes. Lazarus comes forth from the grave.

He's going to change you from being a God -hater into a God -lover, and at that point in time is when you are justified, you're forgiven, you're regenerated.

I mean, you could make that argument about all these things, but what makes it possible for God to regenerate a sinner, to give him spiritual life, to adopt him?

It's all based upon the fact that his wrath has been fulfilled because of the perfect work of Christ in his place.

And so the point, I would respond to them by saying, you're confusing the fact that I wasn't alive at the time of the cross.

However, I was known to God, and I was joined to Jesus Christ in the same way that Ephesians chapter 2 says, right now we are seated in the heavenly places.

That's present tense. Well, I don't know about you, but I don't look like I'm seated in the heavenly places right now, but there is a sense in which that is true because of the certainty of what is going to happen in my glorification, the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8.

So the certainty of the application does not make it a mere potentiality because a potentiality can fail.

And the application of the work of Christ can never fail.

That's the point. You see, the Geisler view that he made us savable doesn't actually bring about our salvation unless, well, what else happens?

Well, some people have a real short list of things you have to add to the work of Christ. Some people have a very long list of things you have to add to the work of Christ.

But the point is, it's not the work of Christ alone that saves, especially when you make the saving faith something that's separate from the work of the

Spirit of God within you anyways. So in all of these situations, the only consistent way of hearing all of what

Scripture says to the honor and glory of God is to recognize that as Hebrews chapter 2 says, most often misused, they just go to verse 9, but they don't continue reading the rest of the chapter.

Who has he tasted death for? It's those who are his friends. It's those who are the elect.

It's those who are called. He has tasted death for them if he has tasted death for every single individual.

Then as the Arminians after Arminius fully understood, which is why they developed a completely different view of atonement, they understood that if Jesus Christ died on behalf of those individuals, those individuals will of necessity be saved.

It has to be that way. They recognize that. And it is just, it honestly is just very much an emotional tradition on the part of so many in your part of the country and all over the place where you'll say

Jesus died for me, but you won't realize what that really means. And you won't really think through what it means to say

Jesus died for people who will end up in hell, which means God placed their sins upon Jesus.

Jesus suffers the penalty of their sins, but, but he does this fully knowing that he's also going to punish those very same sins upon that person in hell for eternity.

And that makes no sense. Doesn't make a bit of sense at all. That's right. Yeah. Hey, well, thank you.

Well, thank you, Jason. And I'm glad we're an encouragement to you. You're an encouragement to us.

We're an encouragement to you. So see, it works both ways. So I appreciate it. Keep listening. Thanks for calling the program today.

God bless. All right. It is great to hear from the folks that appreciate what we're doing, the

YouTube videos, the Dividing Line, the blog. It's very, very encouraging.

It really is. Those aren't just words from me. I'm very, very encouraged when people call in and say that we are assistance to them.

And we're going to try to do that again on Thursday afternoon here on the Dividing Line. God bless.