“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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Writing the Book and Upcoming Travel to London

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday afternoon 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 and starting to push around 300 pages or so, but That's just the way that it is and hopefully it'll be very useful.

Everybody speaking of London. Have some should have all the details up as soon as possible. Confirmed for the 24th 24th of September. Twin Holm Baptist Church. Twin Holm Baptist Church in London. Not 300 pages yet, but once you do the bibliography index everything else.

It should pop out right around right around 280 to 90 something like that right on theater. Anyways, Twin Holm Baptist Church, September 24th 730 p .m. Two debates similar to the to the double header we did with Shabir Ali with Adnan Rashid.

First has the New Testament been corrupted. Secondly has the Quran been corrupted and that will be a Twin Holm Baptist Church In 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 certain the time I don't have any of these details in front of me.

I'm going off top 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 any on the top of my head, but that's a 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 will be debating Sami Zatari and That will.

I think they're eight. Seven thirty or eight one or two. They like doing things late in In there and we will be debating surah 4157 and the crucifixion to 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 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 a hundred 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. 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 I can't take a breath just got him 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 gonna become a grandpa and that's gonna make me busy for a while, too. Because my daughter keeps talking about this thing called babysitting, and I'm is she expecting me to change diapers.

Really, I I've I've forgotten how to do that. Especially especially because she's doing this cloth diaper thing. What is that? I mean? I mean, I I know how to you know wrap up the the old disposable ones, but this cloth stuff.

I'm not 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 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 it's been so long since we've had them 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 4 1 is 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 in That's relevant to Alpha Omega Ministries On the culture front just absolutely stunned today I See this 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 as taxpayer-funded sex change room, and they've got a picture here and the picture That speaks a thousand words. It's 20 years old is from a 1993 court appearance. Okay.

It's 19 years old, but It says Michelle Kosliak Formally 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 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 hearts 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.

US 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 Koslik 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. Koslik first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later Wolfe ruled that Koslik was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering surgery.

Koslik 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 Koslik's quote serious medical need.

End quote. The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Koslik's eighth amendment right to adequate medical care. Wolfe wrote in his 126 page ruling. May I say something.

I feel sorry for every tree that died that provided one sheet of paper for that 126 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 he 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. I it is beyond all? Possible. I Mean, 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 know what to say. Just don't know what to say then.

Dan Savage’s Dinner Table Debate and the Redefinition of Marriage

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. It's within the past number of weeks 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. Okay front room living room, whatever I 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 will 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's 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 a legitimate expression in our society in 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 11 minutes as I recall something like that an hour and 11 minutes long wasn't very long. There there certainly was plenty that you could go after in what Dan Savage said and and demonstrate his ignorance of the Bible and his Reliance upon secondary sources and the 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. Yeah, we 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. Um. This is one of the other arguments they make how is your marriage gonna be impacted by allowing me and my male partner to get married and To be 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 That's that's what makes it such a tragedy.

It's it's really it's it's sad when I think about I've been doing a lot of reading about World War two 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 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 gonna 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 I want to get to have a kid. I Do what's right with their husband their wife that that's exactly right.

They don't that's sin to 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 gonna 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 started preaching their apologies. They start talking about the redefinition of marriage and I want you to listen right here toward the beginning Brian. I think I think I'm starting with Brian Brown speaking if I cute it up, right?

I hope I cute it up, right? And Then listen to Dan Savage as he defines What marriage is marriage by 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 so marriage is a simple a package of civil rights and legal responsibilities. No longer great people there.

There's Dan Savage marriage is a package of civil rights and responsibilities. That's what marriage. I thought that's what a corporation was. Is that what a corporation is? You see Savage is gonna 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 not even 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 gonna be challenged why just two people Dan and he's arbitrary he has no moral foundation.

And it comes out very clearly, but 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 to 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? Though we continue. Oh, what about three people or four? The merits of polygamy and you know if you want to ban polygamy.

But 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 what is the meaning of that? You know most polygamous marriages have been heterosexual. Yeah, so What does that have to do with anything? The point is that the man is asking you for some kind of 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 every point here starts becoming real squishy and subjective. 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.

It's heterosexual marriage that puts us on the slope. 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 flatline 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 the Mormons we go. Whoa, those people are odd, you know, I mean they stuck out like a sore thumb. It wasn't well, you know, that is the natural progression of heterosexual. Wow. Amazing.

I'm not making a slippery slope argument here. I'm making a 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.

I want equal protection under the law. Then why should not someone who wants to marry three four or five equal protection 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 for 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 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 gonna sit here and watch this. But over the weekend, I found it fascinating that this guy and a gal.

The new norm. 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 realtors become taking the place 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. Oh, I'm right at 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, okay, 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 and abuse them in that way because that's what it is. What's what's the gonna be the the The foundation here the objective Moral foundation is it because they do actual harm because high-status men then collect dozens or hundreds of wives like.

This is the same. No, I know this is unfair to say to a gay marriage advocate that then we have to make the defense. For a polygamous marriage or multiple marriage when that's not my argument or my fight.

Let them. 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 would like that.

How much money you got there? Okay, you know, all right. But it causes harm. By whose definition. What. 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 through 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. 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 sent a tad bit of hypocrisy that the polygamists make that argument and those polygamists are all straight. Okay, 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? Thanks, 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 the 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. It's 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. Okay, his polygamous marriage come to Canada, which is had same-sex. Oh, there's a push for polyamory.

Judith Stacey and a number of scholars wrote a whole piece on beyond gay marriage.

Public Policy, Falsifiability, and the Limits of the Marriage Analogy

So let me interrupt and say I think I think the answer to that as someone with with you know Who's married and not gay and there's no dog in this fight and particularly I think the answer 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 roses are 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 there? So this is Karl Popper's test of falsifiability, right?

Okay, then he goes on from here and it becomes really boring because he asked 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 he came around 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.

Then to see what 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 is over with before I go to the calls one other note here very quickly.

Claims About Mark 16:9-20 and Textual Corruption

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 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 and okay, so we're talking about something here that textual critics have been talking about for you know 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 okay I admit. It's just so funny, I mean it 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 that was 1995.

So To take a clip out of my debate with Shabbir in Toronto. He admits 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 and 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. Oh, wow. That's great the issue of course is 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 in 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. They'll 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 some early text, but we also have a lot of discussion of Oh Abdullah Ibn Masood's readings and Ubaid and Cobb and and and we see variations and early manuscripts and 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 verses, you know, five one nine five ten 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 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 most of my 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 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. 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.

I 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 he said 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 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 is judged by man and the whole issue of The Arminian presentation is that it is based upon how man? interprets the character of God.

Olsen's comments all these guys, you know the car I was gonna. I haven't had chance to really do it yet. I probably won't be able to until it's really old news. But the stuff where Olsen's going after Piper and 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.

Calls on Predestination, Mariology, and Witnessing Outside a Catholic Church

Okay, eight seven seven seven five three three, three, four one. 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 it is in the third edition of Chosen but Free has a an appendix called extreme Calvinism and voluntarism. I was wondering if you could comment on on his accusation that the reformed view of God would would be a view of voluntarism.

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 volunteerism 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 says is a view called essentialism.

So 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 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 exists 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 that so it's really difficult for me to invest a whole lot of Weight in that type of situation Given given what's really going on there?

Yes, he had atheist arguments about We're right and long comes from whether it is something that's higher than God that he has to submit just by God.

Well that neither neither one of those the right option.

Dilemma. I understand. Yeah, but uh, so. But then it was it surprised me to see going through this book.