“Dinner Table Debate”

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

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

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

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

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

James White. And welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday afternoon, a little afternoon work here because, well, we're still working on that book and we're down to the last two major chapters, a conclusion.

I will write a glossary while I'm doing my read -through, but we're getting there. I'm really, really, really hoping if things go really, really well that by next

Thursday it will all be done, I'll be able to do my read -through on the travels over to London and we go from there.

It's starting to push around 300 pages or so, but that's just the way that it is.

And hopefully it'll be very useful. Speaking of London, should have all the details up as soon as possible.

Confirmed for the 24th, 24th of September, Twin Home Baptist Church, Twin Home Baptist Church in London.

Not 300 pages yet, but once you do the bibliography index and everything else, it should top out right around 280, 290, something like that, right around 300.

Anyways, Twin Home Baptist Church, September 24th, 7 .30 p .m., two debates similar to the double header we did with Shabir Ali with Adnan Rashid.

First has the New Testament been corrupted? Secondly, has the Koran been corrupted? And that will be at Twin Home Baptist Church in London on the 24th.

On the 17th of September, East London Mosque, debating

Zakir Hussain on, does the Bible prophesy the coming of Muhammad?

You can look up where the East London Mosque is, we'll be putting this hopefully all into one or two banner ads or something like that as soon as possible.

But that'll be on September 17th. I'm not 100 percent certain of the time. I don't have any of these details in front of me. I'm going off the top of my head.

And that's not really good right now because I have other things on the top of my head first. Well, actually,

I don't have anything on the top of my head, but that's another issue. It falls off easily. Yes. September 19th,

Trinity Road Baptist Church, also in London near Wandsworth, Trinity Road Baptist Church, where we've had a number of debates before.

I'll be debating Sami Zaatari and that will, I think they're 8, 7 .30

or 8. One of the two. They like doing things late in there. And we will be debating Surah 4, 157 and the

Crucifixion at Trinity Road Baptist Church. Trinity Road Chapel.

Excuse me. Sorry, I'm talking too fast. Trinity Road Chapel, TRC, Trinity Road Chapel on September 19th in London.

I am not certain where I'm going to be in Berlin. I believe I am speaking either Thursday night, the 20th or Friday night, 21st or maybe both.

I'm not sure. I hope to find out soon enough to let somebody know.

But there will not be a debate there. I will just be speaking there in Berlin at one of those two places.

And that'll be the 20th or the 21st or maybe both. I'm not 100 percent certain. I will be preaching at Trinity Road Chapel on the 23rd of September morning and evening there.

And as I said on the 24th, the debate then at Twin Home. And then

I've got something important to do on the 25th you could pray for. And then flying home on the 26th of September.

So that's what's coming up for that. And that's why I have to have the book done before I go there.

And hopefully the editing process will be fairly, fairly quick. And my hope, of course, is that the book might be available by the holidays.

But that's all up to my publisher. That's not up to me. Literally, as soon as it's done, I have to move on to the next book because we have a second book also with the

Bethany House publishers that I need to jump right into. I mean, I can't take a breath. Just got to head straight into that because October and November into December is going to be very busy.

And then, of course, sometime in December, I'm Lord willing going to become a grandpa.

And that's going to make me busy for a while, too, because my daughter keeps talking about this thing called babysitting.

And is she expecting me to change diapers? Really? I've forgotten how to do that, especially because she's doing this cloth diaper thing.

What is that? I mean, I mean, I know how to, you know, wrap up the old disposable ones, but this cloth stuff,

I'm not sure about all that stuff. Really?

Really not. Just wanted to make a comment here. I've got a bunch of stuff in front of me, but we also have the phones open at 877 -753 -3341.

It's been so long since we've had them. 877 -753 -3341 is a phone number to call.

We'll get there eventually, hopefully on subjects somewhat related to things we're doing. I am not your call -in pastor or anything like that.

Let's make them apologetics -oriented, something that I've actually addressed that's relevant to Alpha Omega Ministries.

On the culture front, just absolutely stunned today.

I see this, I don't know where I got it, I don't know if it was Twitter or one of my

RSS feeds or whatever, but Massachusetts judge approves taxpayer -funded sex change for inmate.

Now, as soon as it says Massachusetts judge, I'm ready to throw my hands up in the air because it does seem that all common sense has abandoned the state of Massachusetts on so many things, but Massachusetts judge approves this taxpayer -funded sex change and they've got a picture here.

And the picture speaks a thousand words. It's 20 years old, it's from a 1993 court appearance.

OK, it's 19 years old, but it says Michelle Kosliak, formerly known as Robert, is pictured here during a 1993 court appearance.

Robert Kosliak was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990. And here's this guy, very clearly a guy,

I mean, and not in any way, shape or form a handsome guy by any stretch of the imagination, but with long hair, earrings and dressed as a woman.

And it says a federal judge and that in and of itself should strike fear into the minds of everyone.

As soon as you read that anymore, it seems. A federal judge on Tuesday ordered state prison officials to provide a taxpayer funded sex reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.

U .S. District Judge Mark Wolfe ruled in the case of Michelle Kosliak, who was born as a man, but has received hormone treatments and lives as a woman in an all -male prison.

Robert Kosliak was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990. Well, if it's now

Michelle and it was Robert who was convicted, why don't they just let him out? Her out, I guess, because it's not the same person anymore, is it?

Wolfe is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide the surgery for a transgender inmate.

Well, yeah. Kosliak first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago.

Two years later, Wolfe ruled that Kosliak was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering surgery.

Kosliak sued again in 2005, arguing the surgery is a medical necessity. In his ruling

Tuesday, Wolfe found that surgery is the, quote, only adequate treatment, end quote, for Kosliak's, quote, serious medical need, end quote.

The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosliak's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.

Wolfe wrote in his one hundred and twenty six page ruling. May I say something?

I feel sorry for every tree that died that provided one sheet of paper for that one hundred twenty six pages of pure insanity, absolute idiocy.

I don't have an iota of respect for anyone.

Who can be so detached from reality, so detached from morals, ethics or any kind of meaningful understanding of right and wrong.

To call this person a judge is to say, well, we have been given the judges that we deserve. What an amazing thing.

The taxpayer money, this is a man who committed murder. He's been given three squares a day and medical treatment and probably gets to watch

TV, too. And now the taxpayers of Massachusetts are going to have to pay to alter him physically.

And he looks like I don't know how old he is, but in 1993, he looks like he's about at least 50 there.

So I'll bet you anything he's probably near 70. Can you imagine this? It is beyond all possible.

I mean, I don't I don't know how to mock the stupidity of this. I don't even know how to do it. It is it is beyond commentary.

It just illustrates just how far the radical left in the

West has gone. And how they will cram their immorality, their evil, their perversity down everybody else's throats and say, give me your money in the process.

It's it's I don't I don't even know. I don't I don't know what to say.

I just don't know what to say. Then since we're on the subject of the collapse of Western society,

I was directed to a YouTube video of a debate that took place within the past number of weeks where where Dan Savage, yes,

Dan Savage, the man who we addressed in regards to his vile behavior before high school students, not very long ago,

Dan Savage did a debate, quote unquote.

I wouldn't call this a debate. It's a real stretch to even get close to calling it a debate. But he did a debate in his kitchen.

OK, front room, living room, whatever you want to call it, over the dinner table with Brian Brown, the

Roman Catholic head of the National Organization for Marriage. Evidently, at some point,

Brown had tweeted out a challenge or posted a challenge or blogged a challenge or whatever you do in these days.

You know, it's it's it's what Luther did long, long ago when he put that he put that notice up on the castle church door, a little little debate challenge on indulgences.

Well, he did the same thing, but he did it electronically. And as a result,

Dan Savage said, all right, I'll debate you on this, he said, I'll debate you on basically what he said was

I debate you on the things you said about the Bible. Well, Dan Savage is a homosexual and he lives with a another homosexual in a relationship that I refuse to call a marriage because it can't be by definition.

But and they have adopted a child. Who, therefore, has no mother figure to learn from, and so.

Obviously, I would never have accepted this invitation from Dan Savage, if he wants to debate, then you go to a neutral location and you have a moderator and you don't do it like this.

I think that that Mr. Brown was rather foolish to do it in this way, because just even to show up and to have dinner is legitimizing the very thing that you're you're seeking to say is is not a legitimate expression of human sexuality or legitimate expression in our society and any moral society that desires to have

God's approbation, God's blessing. And I am not going to go through it.

It's not very long. You can find on YouTube. I think it was an hour and eleven minutes, as I recall, something like that, an hour and eleven minutes long, wasn't very long.

There certainly was plenty that you could go after in what Dan Savage said and demonstrate his ignorance of the

Bible and his reliance on secondary sources. And in fact, he doesn't know what he's actually talking about himself, but he's just quoting other people and things like that.

That would be easy. But at one point. They finally got into something that I felt was worthwhile and.

So I want to I want to play a portion of the commentary at that point. And I won't spend too much time on this.

I know that we have, I think, if the phones are working here, I've got a number of phone calls already in line on a number of different topics.

But I did want to address this and listen to, you know, one of the things

Dan Savage is saying is, look. Letting us marry isn't going to affect you, and that's one of the big arguments that proponents of the redefinition of marriage, the overthrow of marriage and then the redefinition of marriage.

This is one of the arguments they make. How is your marriage going to be impacted by allowing me and my male partner to get married?

And to be said to be married as well? I mean, it just allows it just makes things easier for us. It doesn't affect you at all.

And most people sit there going, yeah, I guess he's right.

I guess it doesn't really. And the only way you can come up with that conclusion is that you don't understand what marriage is.

Or you don't honor it or you don't see it as the God ordained covenant of man and woman and the responsibilities the husband has toward his wife and the wife toward the husband and how all of this then provides the foundation for family and that that then provides the means by which the offspring are able to see how woman is to is to relate to man and man's to relate to woman.

And and and that's that's what makes it such a tragedy. It's really it's it's sad when

I think about I've been doing a lot of reading about World War II recently when I just can't listen to Hadith studies anymore.

So like that, I switch over my iPod to some audible books that I've purchased and primarily the

South Pacific campaigns. I'm reading a book on Tarawa right now. I just finished a book on Peleliu and was sort of backwards,

I realized. But anyways, and I'm thinking about some of these these incredibly brave men and the the sacrifices they made.

And one of the great tragedies, of course, was how many people were left without a dad by war.

And yet when you redefine marriage. And you have two lesbians adopt a child, then you're putting them in a position where they're never going to have a dad.

And it's not because of some tragedy. It's not because of someone giving their life to defend the the nation. It's because you are so selfish and so focused upon the fulfilling of your own lusts and desires that that child's needs and the needs that that child has to be able to see father and mother.

Well, they're just who cares? I want to get to have a kid. I know you're sitting there going, well, there's all sorts of heterosexuals and they don't do what's right with their husband, their wife.

That's exactly right. They don't. That's sin, too. It all is sin. That doesn't change the fact that you're putting in a situation where they can't even see the healing of those relationships.

They can't even see how when there is sin and every child knows their parents are sinners, seeing the forgiveness that takes place.

And the healing that gives them an idea of what they're going to have to be able to do. See, you can't do that because you're so focused on yourself and your lusts and your desires and your perversity that you don't care about any of that.

Shame on you. Just absolutely shame on you. It is amazing to me.

It truly is. Anyway, I started preaching there. Apologies. They start talking about the redefinition of marriage.

And I want you to listen right here toward the beginning. Brian, I think I'm starting with Brian Brown speaking.

If I queued it up right. I hope I queued it up right. And then listen to Dan Savage as he defines what marriage is.

You can call a cat a dog in the law, but a cat does not become a dog.

Marriage is by its definition. It is intrinsically something. It is not simply about your desires.

It is not about my desires. So marriage is a simple a package of civil rights and legal responsibilities.

No longer for any people there. There is Dan Savage. Marriage is a package of civil rights and responsibilities.

That's what marriage is. I thought that's what a corporation was.

Isn't that what a corporation is? You see, Savage is going to say, well, he believes marriage is a relationship between two adults.

Well, then why isn't a basketball team in marriage? Why isn't a baseball team in marriage, a football team in marriage?

Why not? If that's all it is, just it's just a relationship. And see, that's what I've been saying.

When you look at the European nations that have already collapsed on this level, that have already devolved down to the animal level at this point, marriage has been reduced to nothing more than forming a corporation.

That's it. Nothing more. Now, interestingly enough, he's going to be challenged.

Why just two people, Dan? And he's arbitrary. He has no moral foundation.

And it comes out very clearly. I want you to hear. There's Dan Savage. What's marriage? Folks, if you can't see how many light years beneath real marriage that definition is, then you shouldn't be involved in discussing things with people in the culture wars, because you're missing the point.

But that's all he's left with. And I would say even then, when he limits it to two, he does so arbitrarily.

So for Dan Savage, I'd say he has no way of getting around saying that, you know what, the Minnesota Vikings, there's a marriage.

Because it's adults, and they're voluntarily associated together. That's a marriage, right?

But we continue. What about three people or four? The merits of polygamy.

And, you know, if you want to ban polygamy, most polygamous marriages have been heterosexual. Now, I just stop right there.

Could someone... Dan Savage is not a stupid man, but that is a stupid statement. He made a number of really stupid statements.

And I'm not saying that as ad hominem. I mean, that's just dumb. What is the meaning of that?

You know, most polygamous marriages have been heterosexual. Um, yeah, so?

What does that have to do with anything? The point is that the man is asking you for some kind of objective foundation for your limitation of marriage to two persons.

And you see, once you start redefining marriage, who are you to say?

Who are you to say that it's only between two? Who are you to say what the age limit should be?

Every point here starts becoming real squishy and subjective. So, so pointing out that polygamy is normally heterosexual is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

So if you're worried about the slippery slope, it's heterosexual marriage that puts us on the slippery slope. Did you catch that? It's heterosexual marriage that puts us on the slope to polygamy.

I just have to applaud this kind of thing. This is what, I mean, liberals eat this type of stuff up, but it's because there's, there's a flat line going on in the moral section of the brain and the logical section too.

There really is. Come on, people. Heterosexual marriage is what puts you on the slippery slope to polygamy.

Really? And how do you, how do you substantiate that again?

Is that what, is that what Christianity developed into over all these years? Was polygamy?

I mean, we look at the Mormons, we go, whoa, those people are odd. I mean, they stuck out like a sore thumb. It wasn't, well, you know, that is the natural progression of heterosexual marriage.

Wow. Amazing. I'm not making a slippery slope argument here. I'm making an argument based upon logic.

I'm saying, if your argument is that you want the rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage, and therefore you deserve them and should have them, then why should not someone who wants to marry three, four, or five people?

Equal protection of the law. Everyone has a right to marry. Everyone who's straight has a right to marry someone. Right now, as a gay person,

I have a right to marry no one. Well, what about the right? Now there's, there's the victim argument. We've heard it many, many times before. And we know it's a lie.

We know it's a lie. Dan Savage can get married. He just wants to redefine what marriage is.

Because again, a person who just looks at you with tears in his eyes is this, I just,

I love my horse. And I, I, I want to be with my horse.

And I want to be married to my horse. Can say the exact same thing. I need equal treatment under the law.

It's who I am. And you say, that's ridiculous. No, it's not ridiculous. Oh, you're making, you're making homosexuality equal with bestiality.

I am making the arguments equal because they are equal. You are arguing in the exact same fashion.

You're overthrowing the exact same moral laws and rules and standards. That's the problem.

I see a microphone, sir. Yes, quickly. You're talking about his corporate style of marriage or idea.

And over the weekend, there's a channel on TV that wife and I like to watch every now and then.

I don't know. It's about houses and gardens. Yeah, my wife does too.

And I try to run. Yeah. And a lot of times I just go, we're flipping the channel.

This is just no way. I'm not going to sit here and watch this. But over the weekend, I found it fascinating that this guy and a gal, the new norm or what marriage or being together is the life together into the future.

Isn't getting married. It's we get a house together. And so the contract is we've decided to go get a realtor.

The realtor has become taking the place of the pastor and the house is the church. And this is where we're going to.

This is how we're going to commit to one another. And and if two people can buy a house, why can't three people buy a house?

Why not? That's that's all marriage is then. Then great. Cool. The right of the person who believes that they they're in love with two, three or four.

Jonathan Roche makes a great argument against polygamous marriages. Now, now notice this isn't his.

His argument, Dan Savage is having to go second second hand here. OK, that's fine. So what's the argument?

Given that Dan Savage is saying that two men should be able to marry and steal children from other people and make them their own and abuse them in that way, because that's what it is.

What's what's going to be the the. The foundation here, the objective moral foundation, this is because they do actual harm because high status men then collect dozens of hundreds of wives like David in the

Bible or Solomon in the Bible. This is the same. No, this is it's unfair to say to a gay marriage advocate that then we have to make the defense for polygamous marriage or multiple marriage when that's not my argument or my fight.

So the argument he makes is that high status men would gather all the women.

That's the argument against polygamy, the high status men would gather, you know, I know a lot of women who like that.

How much money you got there? OK, you know, all right. But it causes harm by whose definition?

And and. You as a as and I've seen this guy's column.

He knows about the disease that is rampant amongst especially male homosexuals.

So if you want to start Dan Savage talking about harm, why don't you talk about?

The harm that homosexuality brings to the lives of people who practice it. Oh, no, we don't want to talk about that.

We don't want to talk about that. We don't want to talk about the fact that the vast majority of male homosexuals do not are not monogamous and don't want to be monogamous.

And have dozens and for many hundreds of sexual partners all their lives. Don't want to talk about that.

Don't want to talk about the lessened life expectancies or any of that kind of no, no, no, no.

We don't want to go there. But we do want to talk about the harm of higher value men collecting all the women.

I've sensed a tad bit of hypocrisy that the polygamists make that argument. And those polygamists are all straight.

OK, but just because there are no gay people out there making an argument for polygamous marriage. Just because who cares?

Who cares, Dan? Think for a moment here. Think, sir, if you can. The point is not that you.

Are being asked to defend polygamous marriage. The point is, if you want to redefine marriage, then we need to see what the objective moral foundation of your definition of marriage is.

And you don't got one. That's the problem. Because it's not your argument doesn't mean that it naturally follows.

If marriage is based primarily about the wishes and of the self -fulfillment of adults.

And if the adult definition of marriage and desire for it produces this right, then why doesn't someone have the right to marry two, three or four people?

This the reason I bring up this point is not because it's going to happen tomorrow. The reason I bring up this point is because if marriage is not intrinsically about bringing the two sexes together, if it is not, that is not what it is.

And once you go off into this other area, then you have completely destroyed marriage because it is whatever you want it to be.

Has polygamous marriage come to Canada, which has had same sex? Oh, there's a push for polyamory. Judith Stacy and a number of scholars wrote a whole piece on beyond gay marriage.

So let me interrupt and say, I think the answer to that as someone with, you know, who's married and not gay and there's no dog in this fight, particularly,

I think the answer to that might be that the government should evaluate what's good public policy empirically speaking.

Right. I know that neither of you will. Which is Jonathan Roche's argument. So let me, let me say, I think that that could end up with bad answers for both of you.

As if society can determine what is good empirically without having a worldview upon which to agree as to what is good and evil.

In principle, it could, it might not, but in principle it could. So I actually want to ask each of you, is there any evidence, right?

So this is Karl Popper's test of falsifiability, right? If you're making an honest argument. Okay. Then he goes on from here and it becomes really boring because he asks the silly question, what would, what would the falsification issue, what would prove you wrong in this?

And that has nothing to do with moral and ethical questions. It has to do with scientific assertions or things like that.

And it's a, he just went off into the non island at that point. So it became, it became irrelevant.

But if you listen to it, you will, you will see that Dan Savage never can provide a meaningful defense for his arbitrary limitation of marriage to two adults.

Other than to say, well, it causes harm. Well, I say homosexuality causes harm. Therefore, that's it.

You know, that's easy to do. And I'm glad that that debate is over with. Before I go to the calls, one other note here.

Very quickly. There is a YouTube channel called

Muslim by Choice. I have mentioned him a number of times before, responded to, refuted a number of his videos.

He never, to my knowledge, I could be wrong, but I do not have any reason to believe that he actually pulls videos once they've been refuted and he just sort of leaves them out there even when they've been refuted.

But anyway, for some reason, he tweeted me recently and I took the time to look at his channel and I saw this recently posted that was posted

September 2nd. So just a couple of days ago. Video. Christian apologist Dr. James White admits the

Mark 16 9 to 20 is a all caps forgery with two exclamation points. Must watch.

All in caps. Ah, and OK, so we're talking about something here that textual critics have been talking about for hundreds of years and that I, you know,

I just love this. James White admits. Yeah, they put me up against the wall and they turned the light on me and I just had to.

OK, I admit it. Oh, it's just so funny.

I mean, you know, it's just like, come on, get some

Muslim by choice. Get some honesty, man. Try. You know, you're just I mean, when did when did the

King James only controversy come out that had an entire section of Mark 16 9 through 20 and a presentation of the reasoning?

I was like, I was 1995. So to take a clip out of my debate with Shabir in Toronto, I admit it's a forgery.

But then what makes the video dishonest is the very thing that comes up. I have it on my screen here right now.

Was the Bible corrupted as Muslims claim? Let's watch. That's a lie.

I never said anywhere that as Muslims claim the

Bible has been corrupted. Of course, they're playing with the word corrupted, which is going to come up a good bit on the 24th in my debate with Adnan, because they don't seem to understand that every single ancient document that was not inscribed upon stone in its entirety is in the scholarly use of the term corrupted.

That means there have been copyist errors. There are copyist errors in the Quran. There are copyist errors in the

New Testament, copyist errors in the Old Testament, copyist errors in Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus.

Shall we just go through the entire list of all works of antiquity? That's just a fact.

That's like saying there's oxygen in the air. James White admits that there's oxygen in the air.

Wow, that's great. The issue, of course, is what is the level of corruption and can we have assurance that we can obtain the original readings?

And that is a function of two things. First, the number of manuscripts and the state of those manuscripts, and secondly, the age of those manuscripts.

And that's where the situation gets very, very interesting, because it's the

New Testament that gives us not only the largest number of manuscripts, but the widest dispersion of manuscripts, and hence gives us great confidence because there is never a time when any one man or group of men controlled the text of the

New Testament. And so we continue to find earlier and earlier manuscripts. We're only a few months away now from the new book that will be coming out hopefully in February of next year, just a matter of months away, with even newer manuscripts of portions of the

New Testament. And we hope that will cast even brighter light on that time period. But we're excited about things like that.

But then we look at the Quran, and that's not the situation. Oh, we have some early texts, but we also have a lot of discussion of Abdullah ibn

Masud's readings and Uba 'i ibn Ka 'b, and we see variations in early manuscripts.

And we do have a discussion of editing. Yeah, we do have a discussion of editing in, not only in Sahih al -Bukhari,

Volume 6, 519, 510, but we also have it outside of Islamic sources, such as in al -Kindi's

Apology, where he gives pretty much the exact same story as you'll find in Sahih al -Bukhari.

So we have an issue of editing, and it is an important issue of editing.

And that would be relevant. But Muslim by Choice doesn't get to that level.

That's the problem. Muslim by Choice doesn't. Muslim by Choice deals with just stuff on a real surface level. And I know he's listening, because he quotes me all the time.

So hi, Muslim by Choice. You know what? I'm just saying to you directly, your materials demonstrate that there is a lot of Islamic dawah that proves that those who practice it don't really know much about the truth.

And you're an example of that. You really are. And you really need to step up your game. And I pray the Lord will open your eyes.

One last thing before we go to the calls. I'll be there in just a second. I just want to make a quick comment.

Someone sent me an email. I didn't bring it in here. But very quickly, I made a comment about the

Jerry Walls videos. And somebody said, and you got it all wrong. Jerry Walls.

I said, see, Jerry Walls starts the wrong place. He starts with man. And they say, he doesn't do that. He starts the character of God. No, actually, his video started with the issue of man's freedom.

And then he then did the normal Arminian thing. And that is, he said, it all comes back to the character of God.

Well, the problem is character of God as judged by whom? As judged by whom?

As revealed by God or as judged by man? And the whole issue of the

Arminian presentation is that it is based upon how man interprets the character of God.

Olson's comments, all these guys, you know, I haven't had a chance to really do it yet. And I probably won't be able to until it's really old news.

But the stuff where Olson's going after Piper and basically saying, you know, whatever those texts say, it can't say that.

Remember, he even said that in the book. That's what I'm talking about. It's not starting with what

God says. It's starting with what man is willing to accept as his final authority.

And then making the word fit that. And so I stand by what I said. You can say, yes, he attaches that to the character of God.

But as judged by whom? As judged by whom? That really is the issue.

Okay, 877 -753 -3341. Let's get to some of our phone calls here.

And just looking at the numbers, I guess we start with Tommy. Hi, Tommy. Hello, Tommy.

Okay, let's try that. There we are. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, Tommy. Am I there? Yes, sir. Norman Geisler, in the third edition of Chosen but Free, has an appendix called

Extreme Calvinism and Voluntarism. I was wondering if you could comment on his accusation that the

Reformed view of God would be a view of voluntarism. Uh, I believe

I did briefly when the book first came out, but I don't have the book in the room, so no, I couldn't. Okay.

Can I read you just maybe a sentence and you'd comment on it? Sure. Okay. He says, ethical voluntarism affirms that something is right simply because God willed it, rather than God willing it because it is right in accordance with his own unchangeable nature, which he says is a view called essentialism.

Well, again, neither term, of course, is biblical. And I would argue that if you want to take that perspective, then there is a definition of right that exists outside of God, to which he somehow is accountable.

And you now have to ask the question, where did that come from? It is right because God wills it, but it is whatever

God wills is in accordance with his essential nature. So it's not that God is simply a capricious being and that there is no true right or wrong.

That is reflected by God's being, but there is no right or wrong that exists outside of God by which God is judged.

So I don't find the entire argument to be relevant at all. And given that Dr.

Geisler has refused to accept the correction that has been offered to him for years now for the exegetical errors and the like that exist in his book,

I find it somewhat disappointing that he would include discussions of this kind of material rather than dealing with the biblical exegesis.

And I'd also point out, they removed from that edition of Chosen But Free the horrific appendix filled with errors in response to my book.

There is no apology attached to that. So it's really difficult for me to invest a whole lot of weight in that type of situation, given what's really going on there.

Yeah, see, I'm dealing with someone who's listening to atheist arguments about where right and wrong comes from, whether it is something that's higher than God that he has to submit to, or is it whimsical and just by God?

Well, neither one of those is the right option. And it's a false dilemma, I understand. But then it surprised me to see, going through this book, see

Geisler— Using the same argument. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, well, again, there's a lot of problems with Norm Geisler's, not only theology, but his philosophy as well.

And again, I've said it a million times, but I'll say it again, if your philosophy determines your theology, your theology is going to stink.

Your philosophy needs to be determined by your theology. It needs to flow from the living Word of God. It needs to flow from God's revelation.

If you start with a philosophy and then form the Bible to become a foundation of your philosophy— and that's honestly what

I believe Norman Geisler has done— it's going to create a mess. And you see that kind of mess in that kind of a false dilemma.

Okay. Okay. Hey, thanks, Tommy. Bye -bye. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341.

Let's talk with Bill in San Diego. Hi, Bill. Hi. Hey. My main question is about apologetics and evangelism.

But before I do that, can I ask you a question about what you think of the possibility of Jesus actually approaching the subject of homosexuality included in his statement of one shall be left behind and the other taken to judgment?

Because he was talking about—to me, he was talking about Noah, who was in a righteous marriage and relationship along with his sons, versus the paganisms who thought they were in a right relationship with approvals of pagan temples and pagan approvals.

And therefore, because they were celebrating these pagan approvals of their marriages,

Jesus is basically possibly making a statement that includes homosexual marriages that at the end of the age,

God is going to separate, just like he separated Noah, the preacher of righteousness, from the pagans and the pagan marriages.

I do not see how anyone could defend that from the text at all. I don't see anything in the text that even begins to suggest that's the background or the context or that you could make that kind of connection.

Even though he speaks of two men in a bed, two women hooked together in a business -type thing?

No, I don't see any—there's nothing in the context that would indicate that he's making any reference to homosexuality.

No problem. I wanted to get to my main idea that I wanted to present. Are we, as apologists, making the thing too lofty of a goal when we approach people in evangelism through apologetics by using our confession, our

Westminster shortened version or whatever, as to the chief aim of man? We're making it so lofty that it's hard to get the cookies down to the lower shelf for people who are mainly humanists.

We live in a world of humanism, so why not emphasize in apologetics what

God would expect of a man if there is a God, for example, speaking with people who don't know whether there is or isn't?

And I'm just wondering if the Bible isn't telling us that we should make the goal of, if there is a

God, that man should be more concerned about discerning spirits and eventually being able to judge angels.

Well, I'm not following you, Bill. I don't think there's anything lofty about recognizing that men are created in the image of God and therefore to call them to something higher than their humanism.

I don't understand what you mean by judging angels or discerning spirits or anything like that.

The chief aim of man, according to the shortened version of the Westminster Confession, says basically that we're to bring glory to God, which is debatable as to how do you do that for all different parties.

And then the other thing is to enjoy him forever seems to be actually something that's taken out of a hope rather than actual scriptural references.

Therefore, when Paul suggests that someday we'll be having to be called upon to judge angels, that brings it more down to the lower shelf as to why the importance of believing in a

God and what he expects of you as a creature who's basically wretched and so much lower than even the angels.

Okay. Well, I would say, Bill, that what you need to do in apologetics and evangelism is present the gospel, present the biblical

God, and allow the Holy Spirit of God to make application to the person's heart. I don't think that it's a matter of being too lofty in saying that our ultimate calling is to glorify

God and enjoy him forever. I think that this section of Scripture you're referring to really would not be something

I'd be discussing with an unbeliever because it has to do with judgment within the church and our role there in the body of Christ.

But thank you for your call today. Let's talk with Roy. Hello, Roy. Yes, hi,

James. How are you? Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, great. First, I want to say thank you very much.

This is a great opportunity to speak with you for the first time. I've had a headache here for about five days, so I hope that this question comes out coherent.

The topic of my question is the—I wrote a letter to you and Rich about this some time ago.

I got kind of shocked by the statement in your faith about all things come to pass by the decree of God, and I've carefully listened.

I think you had a debate with Hank Anagraff and George Bryson, and they were confronting you about child rape and things.

So that's the reason for my call. I'm in Southern California, and I feel quite led to be talking to various leaders of Calvary Chapel, for mainly it's been eschatological reasons.

But my question to you is this, is that my feeling is that this doctrine of decree is—first of all,

I don't see that as a New Testament doctrine, per se. I don't see it as set forth as a doctrine.

Now, I do agree with you 100%. You have, what is it, Isaiah 10? Is it

Isaiah 10? Yeah. The one passage that you use, and then in Acts where they spoke about the determined foreknowledge of God and so forth.

Yes. But here's my problem, is that I feel like that statement—well,

I know for sure that Brian Broderson, at least, if you say Calvinism, he'll say that God only has—there's only one will, and that's

God's. And he throws out all the five points of Calvary— Well, I wouldn't even say that.

There's not just one will, and it's God's. I know, I know, that's an oversimplification. But on the other hand, to say that all things that come to pass by the decree of God and then end up with a glory to God, that,

I think, I have a real problem with that one. Like, for example, what people will understand, they'll think is like, does that mean that every sin that every sinner comes up with in their sinful nature, they could say, oh, you know,

God decreed that, you know? Right. Let me stop right there, because what a sinner is going to do is irrelevant to God's truth, and how someone might misunderstand it is also irrelevant to God's truth.

I do not determine God's truth on the basis of how someone might pervert it, because every element of God's truth has been perverted by someone, and therefore

I wouldn't believe anything if that was my standard. My standard is what the Scriptures teach, and I do not believe that when

God created, that he created anything without a purpose. I do not believe that he created evil to exist simply for the state of evil to exist, and I do not believe that there is any evil that is without purpose in this world.

That's the other side. There's those who believe that God's decree encompasses all in time, and that therefore all has a purpose, and it will result in the glory of God, and that therefore at the judgment, everything's going to be set right, and then there are those people who believe that there's all sorts of things that God created that have no purpose, they have no redemptive value, they will not result in God's glorification.

They're just senseless evil, and there's all this senseless evil out there, and God evidently is either not in control of it, or didn't care enough to do anything about it, or couldn't stop it, or didn't know it was going to happen.

So you've got open theism and all the different forms like that. So when you say, well, you've got those texts, yeah, those texts in Isaiah 10 talk about the relationship of man's will and God's will, but there are also all sorts of other texts, such as Ephesians 1 .11,

where God reveals to us that he is the one who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

Now, if you want to try to limit what those all things are, okay, if you want to find something in the context, try to limit that.

But I choose to believe it, because that seems to be very consistent with the constant message of Isaiah 40 through 48, where God is emphasizing that the way you can tell who the true

God is, is because he not only knows what the future is, but he knows what all the purpose in everything that happens in the future and the past is.

And that means that it's not just God looking down the corridors of time and saying, well, this happened because of that.

It's because he has a purpose in it. And so, you know, could someone misuse—well, for example, the

Apostle Paul points out that when he preaches grace, there are people who say, and he says their condemnation is just, let us sin that grace may increase.

So should we not preach the grace of God because people will pervert it? No, of course not. So in the same way, if you say, well, couldn't someone say, well,

I just do this because God told me to? Yep, someone could say that. Does that in any way, shape or form change the truth of that?

Does that excuse them when they stand before God? Well, I just did it. And God's going to say, I'm judging you on the basis of your following after the desires of your own heart.

That's the only thing I'm basing. I'm judging. I'm not judging on the basis of my decree. You didn't have knowledge of what my decree was.

You did what you desired to do in your heart. And so if someone wants to pervert

God's truth, well, I don't like to see that ever happen, but I am not going to stop proclaiming

God's truth just because someone can misuse God's truth. Okay. All right. Okay, great.

Well, it's definitely, this is the hardest, because I think there should be six points of Calvinism, frankly.

I wish that there was... I've said that in my books. About that doctrine we're just talking about?

Basically, I've said that the only way for the tulip to be understandable is if you start with the absolute, kingly freedom of God.

I've suggested the stulip, the sovereignty of God first, yes. Okay, well, it's definitely, it's the hardest one for me, because, you know, like I said,

I'm trying to help, because they're stumbled by it, and I'm trying to help. Well, Roy, I think it was awfully hard for Joseph to grasp it, too, in those years when he sat there in prison wondering what in the world was going on and why

God had abandoned him. Well, I believe that all things, it says, you know, the scripture we have in the

New Testament, all things work together for good to them that love

God and are called according to His purpose. So that doesn't say all things work together for good to everyone at every time and everything in every place.

No, but the fact that he can make all things work to good for those that love God means he has control over all things.

Oh, he does. Yeah, I mean, he's absolutely sovereign over... I do believe, you know, we're in agreement, I believe about 100 % with you about how

God and, you know, like, you know, the Holocaust or what happened there in Isaiah 10. I mean,

God can sovereignly take the acts of evil men and use them, and God frequently calls them

His sword, you know, the evil, He calls them His sword. But there has to be a delineation, and I just, my concern is

I don't see it. So what would be accomplished, Roy, if you somehow found a biblical basis for saying that when

God created, He chose to create some evil with purpose, but then He chose to create other people, other evil, without any purpose?

What would be accomplished by that affirmation? Well, because, you know, some people, like, some people refuse to give glory to God.

Now, those people refuse to give glory to God. Sure, they're going to get glory when they're finally judged and thrown into a lake of fire.

I agree with that, but I just like to stay within the, you know, you were reading a passage from one of the

Church Fathers that says that we should, that he recommended that we should stop where Scripture stops.

That was actually not a Church Father, that was Calvin. Who, it was John Calvin that said that? Okay, yeah, so that's what

I like to do. So, well, anyway, I did not expect to get my answer on this on one call.

I did want to throw in one thing. Real quick, I got some more callers. Yeah, it's very important. You did a video, a great video, where you're sitting with someone, like, it was like a

TV show about Mormonism, and I couldn't believe how little

I knew. I mean, if that video was on CNN, Romney would be finished.

He would be finished if they knew what, it just bugs me that Mormonism is so glossed over.

What is the name of that video? Do you remember that one? Well, you're talking about the one on my blog. It's just a video that I shot in a whole series of videos that I did with the ministry down in Sydney, Australia last

October, and I did one on Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch on Islam and stuff like that.

I just happened to link to that one because there's so little meaningful discussion of what's actually going on in the subject of Mormonism that I thought would be useful to folks.

But I was really surprised at how many people did not know, because that used to be about all we ever talked about.

I mean, we were always up in Salt Lake City, always dealing with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and stuff, and I guess we've been away from that for so long that a lot of our current audience is not familiar with that particular stuff.

But hey, Roy, I've got to get to other calls real quick. Thanks for your call. Daniel and Vance, I'm going to try to get you in here real quick.

We'll go a little bit long, but we need to go really, really quick. So Daniel, yes sir. Hi there.

Good afternoon, Dr. White. I had a quick question about what was Athanasius' view of Mariology.

The question comes from, I've out of curiosity picked up Liguri's Hail Holy Queen, and it starts off with a quote from him.

Do you know what Athanasius' view of Mary was? Well, it would have been certainly more exalted than I would take, but it certainly would not be what you would have in modern

Roman Catholicism, because so many of the dogmas that have now been defined were utterly unknown at that particular point in time, and Athanasius was really not known as a real deep devotee of even the level that had been attained at that point.

I mean, you'd certainly have concepts in regards to Mary that are extra biblical at that point in time, but the later dogmas like bodily assumption and things like that wouldn't have even been thought of at that particular point in time.

So I've never done a deep study of Athanasius' particular discernible

Mariology, but he certainly would have been a man of his time at that point, and certainly having a lot of interaction with the

Desert Fathers, the hermits out there who tended to have very early attachment to the cult of Mary, probably would have had a number of debates on subjects like that, let's put it that way.

Okay. Well, thank you very much, sir. Okay, thanks. All right, real quick, let's talk to Vance.

Yes, sir. Yes, thanks, Dr. White. What I was calling up about is, I wanted to witness outside a

Catholic church, and I was looking for, you know, I was thinking maybe do I put a sign up and pay attention, or do

I dance? You know, what's something to do? Well, I'll be honest with you, from my perspective, if you're talking about being out on the public sidewalk outside a

Roman Catholic church, I don't know how many people are going to stop and talk with you. Signs, I would limit their effectiveness to dealing with groups that would never otherwise speak to you at all.

So, in other words, Jehovah's Witnesses. Standing outside of a district convention or something like that with signs for Jehovah's Witnesses, because they would not even be allowed to talk to you.

They would get in trouble if they were seen talking to you. They could not take literature from you. Okay, that's a good situation.

If you're at a Mormon event and you can't get to the Mormons, okay, then maybe that's a possibility.

But if you can actually offer somebody a tract, smile at them, dress nicely, have a

Bible, would you like to talk about the gospel? If you can do something like that, then signs generally are last resort in that type of situation.

If you're going to want to do something like that, then I would dress nicely, bring my

Bible and some tracts, and see if there's a place where people locally are walking to the church or something like that, and just make yourself available.

Well, unfortunately, there's no sidewalk. The only place I can really figure out how to stand is across the road.

There's no public sidewalk going up to the church at all. You only can drive into the church.

Yeah, I honestly don't know how effective signs would be even in a situation like that with Roman Catholics with whom you could strike up a conversation.

Normally, signs are pretty in -your -face, and hence are, like I say, a last -ditch effort to communicate with the people who are in a cult like the

Jehovah's Witnesses in the sense of not being able to access external information and you want to get through to them or something like that.

In a situation like that where you actually can't interact with somebody, there's a lot of Roman Catholic churches around, aren't there?

Are there other Catholic churches where you can? Oh, yeah. There's only one in my town, and there's another one like 10 miles away, and then there's several others within probably 10 miles.

Yeah, yeah. If you could find one where you could actually talk with folks, that's always significantly more effective because trying to communicate almost anything in a sign can be...

it's a challenge. It's a challenge to make good signs that are not offensive and that are actually going to communicate something.

Yeah, I was going to think about the Matthew 16, 18 sign saying, you know,

Peter is not the rock and Jesus, and then, you know, use the track with, like,

I found 33 verses directly indicating and indirectly indicating Jesus is the rock for the church.

Yeah, if people are driving in, it's got to be short and pithy.

Subtitles get lost, believe me. They really do. So, yeah, sorry

I don't have anything else already, Vance, but I really think actually getting to talk to folks really is more effective than most signages.

Well, that's good, yeah. Because I'm trying to figure out how am I going to interact with them across the road. Right. I can't go across the road.

Gotcha. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Vance, for the call. All right, appreciate it, sir. Bye -bye. Hey, thanks, folks, for all the calls today and for what came before that, whatever it was we discussed, the numerous things we did.

Lord willing, we'll be back on Thursday here on The Dying Line. We'll see you then. God bless. I believe we're standing at the crossroads

Let this moment of suffering wait We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for We need a new reformation today

It's a sign of the times The truth is being trampled in a new age paradigm

Won't you lift up your voice Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise

Won't you lift up your voice Are you tired of plain religion?

It's time to make some noise The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's a -o -m -i -n -dot -o -r -g, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.