The Future of Apologetics

This is the Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Your 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. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Here myself.

There I am. Hello. Good to be... It's good to be live with everyone today, especially after our experience last week.

We have beaten Sprint into the ground and they now tremble every time that the phone rings and the caller

ID says that it's a certain person from Alpha Omega Ministries. They simply call up their network administrators.

They get all their engineers together and now everything is working. And so we can actually have audience participation today.

Audience participation at 866 -854 -6763. That's 866 -854 -6763 is the phone number that you can participate in the program today.

Now, we have a number of evangelical apologetic outreaches coming up.

Of course, those of you who are familiar with Alpha and Omega Ministries know that March and April, depending on when

Easter falls, March and April are frequently very, very busy months for us.

Starting in, let me think here, it would have been 1983.

1983 was the first year that I learned about and attended the

Easter pageant of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day

Saints in Mesa, Arizona. And I remember it very well.

I had started studying Mormonism. I had started meeting with Mormon missionaries. I met my first Mormon missionaries, in fact, in the summer of 1982, which

I now shockingly realize is coming up on almost 20 years ago now. And I had a full head of hair there then.

I weighed 145 pounds, and those of you who know me know that both of those are no longer the case.

And as a result, I found out about this. And so I and my very young bride at the time, and of course, she still is young.

I wouldn't want to say anything other than that. I've aged. She hasn't. We got on the back of a

Kawasaki 440, and we made the trek from way northwest

Phoenix, all the way out to Mesa, Arizona. And if any of you are listening locally, you will find it to be somewhat humorous,

I hope, that at that particular time, what's called the

Superstition Freeway ended at Country Club Road. Now, any of you who travel that much farther than that today will realize that this was quite some time ago.

And so we got on the little Cowee 440, and we went out to the Easter pageant. And I could not believe what

I saw as we parked in the parking lot of the

Arby's there at the corner of Main and Hobson in Mesa, Arizona, a place that would eventually add many of the pounds to my frame that have been added over the years.

And people everywhere, just young people and older, just everywhere, there were people that you could talk to and you could share with.

And that really started things. It was actually about two years later, it was 1985, that we did our first fully organized outreach at the temple in the sense that we had specific tracks designed for it.

We had shirts. We named all the corners. Well, we actually numbered all the corners.

And we had, over the course of the week, we probably had at least 30 or more people who worked with us beginning in 1985 to share the gospel out there.

Now, that used to be, for a while, that was very often in March. It was during a cycle where the

Easter holiday fell in March for quite some time. Now it's been in April, and it will be again this year.

In fact, as I understand it, April 15th is Easter this year, somewhat of an ironic thing.

And that means that if the schedule is the same as it was last year, then a week prior to that, the

Friday, a week prior to the Friday before Easter, it will be the first performance. And then we'll have the five nights coming up Tuesday through Saturday evening of the week before Easter.

And so that's coming up. And then the first weekend in April, it's actually not the full weekend.

It's March 31st, April 1st, will be the General Conference of the

LDS Church in Salt Lake City. I'm really looking forward to getting back. I've basically had a year off, in essence, that's at least how

I feel. I missed the conference in October. I was in Florida at conference there and doing other things.

And so looking forward to the opportunity of going up there. That has changed a lot in the sense that now we have the huge meeting hall, the meganacle as we call it, across the street from Temple Square.

And therefore, instead of having about 30 ,000 Mormons over the course of a day, you've got about 90 ,000

Mormons over the course of a day, far more people. And I was very heartened to hear from Rich Pierce and Larry Vondra and our folks, our friends from San Diego who were up there in October, that the one thing that had me most concerned had basically righted itself.

And that is in April of last year, we just didn't have very many conversations. And I knew it was because the meeting house was new and people didn't really know how to get where they were going.

And so people were in a rush. And the last thing that you want to do when you're not sure what door to go through to get into the new meeting hall, and everything's new, and so on and so forth, the last thing that Mormons are going to want to do is want to talk to us.

So obviously, we didn't have a lot of conversations. And that's what, of course,

I enjoy. I enjoy the opportunity of getting into a conversation with LDS people concerning the gospel, concerning who

God is, so on and so forth. And so we have both of those outreaches coming up. And so what we want to be doing over the next period of time, as the

Lord gives us strength and allows the live streaming to work as it's working today, is to tackle the use of apologetics as a evangelistic means, as a means of proclaiming the gospel, answering objections.

And in the process, we will also address other apologetic issues, for example, issues being raised in regards to Roman Catholicism, issues being raised in regards to the gospel, and so on and so forth.

in regards to Jehovah's Witnesses, whatever it might be, we will be addressing those things and hopefully helping those of you who listen both live during the program and the many of you.

It's amazing how many emails we get from people during the week who are not able, due to maybe the fact that they don't have an internet connection at home or something like that, they listen during the week.

Hopefully not necessarily always at work, I'm not sure if that would really be a good thing, but I do know some folks who spend a lot of time at work talking to us.

But anyways, be that as it may, a lot of folks listen during the week. Hopefully these will be of great assistance and use to you, but before we get to that,

I did want to sort of update you on some of the issues that we raised last week.

I had mentioned last week the fact that there were rumors being spread around by, well, two people had contacted us, both had identified the same source of rumors, about five close associates of mine who one source said over the course of six months had joined the

Roman Catholic Church, the other source said didn't have the six -month part and said three. So there are various and sundry variations, shall we say, on the theme.

But we talked about the fact that there was a certain source of this information and that we had tried to contact that source.

Well, after the program we finally did get some contact from that source and we got some specific names.

And one of the names, there was only one individual on the list that could be said to have been a, quote, quote, close associate, end quote, of mine, who did in fact join the

Roman Catholic Church. Of course, this was about a decade ago. That individual actually had worked with us in the area of Jehovah's Witnesses, not

Roman Catholicism, and as I had mentioned, that individual made the decision to do so without sitting down with me and saying, this is what

I'm thinking about doing, what do you think about it, how do you respond to this, that, or the other thing. As I said, no one that I know of who has ever become a

Roman Catholic ever talked to me before they made the decision. I always get to hear about it after the decision has already been made, and that's not exactly a time where I can expect to get any type of meaningful or unbiased audience for anything that I would have to say to that particular individual.

So there was one person a decade ago who had not worked with us in regards to Roman Catholicism who became

Roman Catholic. The others, one was a name I'd never even heard of. I had been told that, oh, a pastor in your denomination had converted, and I'm like, who are you talking about?

Let's have some names here. And one name that was given to me, I've never even heard of this person. As far as I know, was not even a part of a church.

Our church is not a part of a denomination to begin with, which obviously caused me to raise an eyebrow when

I first heard it. Didn't even know who this person was. Another person I just had to laugh outrageously at, and that was an individual who was a

Roman Catholic when I first met this person. In fact, one of the first Roman Catholics with whom I had significant interchange and discussion quite some time ago.

And hence, the entire story that was being confidently spread about was made up of a mishmash of all sorts of rather silly things.

And of course, we were then told, there's three or four others, but we're not at liberty to say who they are, which

I, of course, find to be very, very, very interesting. So we again find ourselves up against that situation.

Now, we have learned, we were told, we were informed this week anyways, that St.

Joseph's Communications is now selling the debate that Mr.

Staples and I did in July of last year. It only took, what would that be, six or seven months? Yeah, about seven months.

We had it available the Monday after the debate, and it took seven months for them to make it available.

However, the debate has mysteriously grown.

We sell it on two tapes, and I think that would be ten dollars, as I recall.

I think we ask for five dollars a tape, so ten dollars, I think, is the correct amount. Amazingly enough, what we've been told anyways, because we got on to the

St. Joseph's website, and Mr. Pierce did a search for it, could not find the item offered on the website, but the website is very poorly constructed, and hence, who knows if it's there or not.

The search engine seems to be completely useless. So we've simply been told that it's been made available, but instead of being on two tapes like ours, or even three tapes, as it was originally designed.

See, we have, and we had to scan this thing, we have the tape container that had already been pre -made to make the tapes of the debate available the night of the debate.

We picked it up from the St. Joseph's table, and so we have the actual original cover.

It was going to be a three -tape series. They use 60 -minute tapes instead of 90 -minute tapes, so it's gonna be a three -tape series.

And I think it would be about $18 or $21, something along those lines, not sure. And so we have that, but it's not three tapes anymore.

It's not four tapes. It's not five tapes. Somehow, some way, it has become six tapes.

Now, that's what we've been told. Sources have indicated to us it is a six -tape series with three, count them folks, three added tapes by Mr.

Staples addressing the lies of James White. Well, let me tell you something, folks.

If you ever see us do a debate with somebody, and we have to add three hours of uninterrupted, unanswered, non -cross -examined material to the debate, let me tell you something.

That means we got murdered. That means I need to go into the computer industry.

That means we lost so bad that we really should just simply close the doors, turn out the lights, and go home because we got slaughtered.

If you ever see us do that, that's what it means, okay? Now, I would just simply ask someone to listen to the cross -examination period.

Now, only one of us did cross -examination. I'm the only one who did. As one of the people present that night who then picked up the tapes pointed out, over the course of the alleged 12 -minute cross -examination by Mr.

Staples, he only asked four distinct questions. That's one question every three minutes, and he spoke for well over half the time himself.

As we pointed out, this is one of the places where he can just completely blow away the rules of debate against what he himself had said.

But during the 12 minutes where I asked him questions, I asked, as I recall, somewhere between 31 and 38 distinct questions of him during that period of time,

I just simply asked anyone to listen to my cross -examination of Tim Staples, and then ask yourself the question, why would

Tim Staples have to add three tapes worth of non cross -examined material that I don't get a chance to respond to?

I don't get a chance to ask him for the consistency of his position. I don't get a chance to to present other facts that would demonstrate that the conclusions he's drawing are in error.

I keep mentioning this, and now that obviously Mr. Pierce is listening, and everybody else is, he'll be forced to do this.

It's sort of like when I mentioned Disputations, the Disputations book by Whitaker, and it's been doing real well for us.

It's a great book. We put together on the website an offer where we make available both the

Staples debate and the Sungenis debate, which took place in October, both on the same subject.

They're within, what, three months of each other? Ninety days, approximately? The contrast, not only in behavior, but in substance, would be extremely useful.

We need to make that an actual offer, where we have the four tapes, which

I guess if we did it like St. Joseph's did it, that would be, what, twelve tapes? Something like that, yeah. Boy, twelve tapes, that'd be a big, big, big thing.

So anyways, we need to make that available so that you can listen, and listen to the fact that these two apologists defend the case of Honorius in completely opposite fashion.

In fact, I don't even know that I would waste my time listening to these other three tapes once we would get our hands on them, but one thing is definitely certain.

I can pretty much guarantee you that a great deal of the commentary in those extra added tapes that we have been told have, we had been told that we were just waiting on one tape, now we've been told it's actually three tapes, that that, much of that material would have to be contradictory to the position taken by Roberts and Genes.

So as I said, I've laughingly said, but now we need to seriously do it, get three debates for the price of two.

James White debates Tim Staples, James White debates Roberts and Genes, and Tim Staples debates Roberts and Genes, all on four tapes.

You will know everything there is to know about that particular subject when you do so. So hopefully we'll be able to get that available, and of course, the best way to do that, if you don't see it up here very quickly, is to write emails to to the website.

Anyways, I got to be very careful, someone could just reach over and tweak a volume thing and just blow my eardrums off my head, so I need to be very careful about certain comments

I make while we are on the air. Watch it, watch it, I can tell that happened there. Anyways, so that's what's been going on on that front.

There are other things going on on that front as well, and it's a fascinating thing to note how

Roman Catholics simply avoid issues. They simply, simply avoid issues.

It's a sad thing. I did want to mention one other thing, and I need to find it on my computer here and read it to you.

There is a wonderful, wonderful book coming out entitled Sola Scriptura by William Webster and David King.

We did an interview with Bill Webster a few weeks ago on the program, and I have written an endorsement for the book, and I would like to read you that endorsement to evermore prime the pump, shall we say.

I truly, truly desire not only those folks that listen to this webcast, your folks who are concerned about the truth, you're concerned about church history, you're concerned about theology, you're concerned about being consistent in what you believe.

And I honestly believe in our post -Christian society where we see the gospel under attack constantly from every side, that you will want to get hold of the best material that is available, that will help you to be a sharp tool in the hand of the master to glorify him in the defense of the faith.

And this book coming up from Bill Webster and David King is something that is not going to be cheap.

It's not going to be cheap. Right now, as I understand it, we are looking at two volumes and twelve hundred pages.

And for a lot of folks, I'll wait for the cartoon version to come out. I'll wait for a white to write a shortened version.

And in point of fact, I will be writing a book on Sola Scriptura for Bethany House Publishers that will not be 1200 pages long,

I can guarantee you that. But given the material that is being produced by those who oppose

God's truth, we need to have the best material from our side.

And this set of books really does fill that void. Let me read you the endorsement that I have written for this particular book.

Great efforts must be put forward to defend great truths. Each generation of faithful believers is tempted to rest upon the laurels of past generations, especially when it comes to foundational truths of revelation that, well, everyone knows.

The result is always the same, the slow but certain degradation of the church's dedication to those beliefs that make up the very foundation upon which she stands.

At first, the decay is not blatant or even noticeable except to the most observant eyes. As it spreads and becomes more pervasive, however, it begins to impact the entire life of the church.

And history shows that God often uses the enemies of his truth to remind his church of the preciousness of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

We live in such a day. God is reminding us that we must cherish certain beliefs and embrace them with our whole heart or else lose the precious freedom of the gospel that has been entrusted to us.

On every hand, the defining truths of the Christian faith are under constant and often vitriolic attack. The Trinity and its constituent truths of the deity of Christ and the deity in person of the

Holy Spirit is more of a historical novelty in many seminaries than a definitional truth.

The gospel of grace and justification by faith without human works of merit has been placed in the category of the negotiable and non -foundational by major leaders of conservative denominations.

But underneath all of the compromises lies a deeper problem, a more fundamental erosion of Christian belief.

Christian theology by definition comes from the scriptures and as soon as one rejects the ultimate authority of scripture, the rest of Christian theology must be redefined and in the end denied.

The doctrine of scripture, its nature is God -breathed revelation, its resultant ultimacy in the realm of religious authority is always under attack from the enemies of the cross.

The reformers understood well the truth that the word must be allowed to speak without the addition of human authority or the church would be left without the clear voice of her loving husband.

The result they knew too well, a gospel encrusted in man -made tradition, a dead externalized church without the vibrant heartbeat of truth.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a divinely given bulwark against the error and traditions of men. It teaches us that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church.

This divine truth provides us with the walls of revelation outside of which we dare not roam if we wish to remain true to the only reliable source of Christ's voice to his sheep.

But since the doctrine quashes all additions to God's truth, all human traditions, and all false authorities, it likewise is under constant attack by those who seek to enslave

God's people. Each generation of Christ followers must be reminded why they look to the sure word as their sole infallible rule of faith.

William Webster and David King are passionate about Sola Scriptura, so passionate in fact that they have given the service of their hearts and minds to produce for this generation the very defense of the doctrine that is so sorely needed in the believing church.

In a generation where postmodern exaltation of feelings and emotions runs rampant, Webster and King remind us of the objective truth of a completed and perfect revelation in scripture.

Responding directly and forcefully to those of the Roman church who press flawed, illogical, unscriptural, and ahistorical arguments upon a gullible audience,

Webster and King demonstrate the truth of Sola Scriptura through sound and knowledgeable exegesis of the text of scripture and the writings of the early

Christians. No element of Rome's modern assault upon this divine truth is left without a full and simply overwhelming rebuttal.

The reader may judge from the sheer size and volume of the work the amount of effort and research that went into its production, but lest the girth of this document intimidate,

I wish to encourage the reader to realize its necessity. The enemies of Sola Scriptura, whether they be

Roman Catholic apologists, LDS scholars, or even evangelicals who have abandoned this truth, are never at a loss to come up with another argument, another twist on scripture and history.

A full work is therefore necessary and, given the need, more than warranted. You hold in your hands the veritable treasure of biblical and historical facts.

Read it deeply. Refer to it often. Thank God for those who labored so hard to provide it to you, and then make it all worthwhile by sharing its insights with those who need to hear them.

Well, that is the endorsement that I wrote for the upcoming book,

Sola Scriptura, by Bill Webster and David King. I do trust that those of you who are interested in such things maybe might start setting aside a few pennies.

Watching www .aomin .org, I can guarantee you, as soon as it is available, as soon as we get the word from Bill Webster that says, all right, we're taking orders, it will magically and suddenly appear on the front page of www .aomin

.org, and you will have the opportunity of ordering it from us.

I don't know, I can't tell you exactly when it's gonna be available. We are hoping for April right now, and when we are told you can take pre -publication orders, this is going to be the date, etc.,

etc., we will go for it. Believe me, we will make it available. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you hit us and you hit www .christiantruth

.com, between those two sources you will be able to find out exactly when it is going to be available and when you can get a hold of it.

And I would like to encourage you, and this may take a little sacrifice, but I would like to encourage you to consider not only getting a copy for yourself, and I don't make any money off this, so don't think

I'm doing anything untoward here. Buy two copies, one for yourself and one for your pastor.

It is the people in the church, it is the pastor in the church that needs to have this kind of information readily available to them.

But many of them don't have time to be looking into the information and the sources that maybe some of you do.

And so please give consideration to purchasing more than one copy, one for yourself because you need it, and one for your pastor because he definitely needs it as well.

And so keep an eye on aomin .org and we will let you know when that book is coming out, and it looks like it's going to be coming out very close to the time of another book that I'll talk about when we come back called

The God Who Justifies. 866 -854 -6763. We'll be right back.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God. James White, in his book

The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book The King James Only Controversy by going to our website at www .aomin

.org. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with us this coming

Lord's Day. Our morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and our worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday, and Wednesday prayer meeting is at 7 .00.

We are located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 26Grace, or look us up on the web at www .prbc

.org. And welcome back to The Dividing Line, my name is

James White. We're live, streaming, working, functioning, as we're supposed to do today here at 866 -854 -6763.

I was mentioning before the break, it looks like these two works will be coming out pretty much around the same time, the

Sola Scriptura book from Bill Webster and David King, and a project that I worked pretty hard on myself.

It was one of the most difficult projects that I have undertaken. I'm not exactly sure why.

I have some theories. I think the reason that my book, The God Who Justifies, took me as long as it did, and was as difficult as it was, has to do with its nature, the fact that I was constantly double and triple -guessing myself, second -guessing myself as to how

I should present things, the fact that I chose not to make it a...I

chose not to tie it into any particular publications that are out today.

What I mean by that is there are certain books that I could have responded to that attack the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, but I chose not to do so.

I wanted to make the book one that would have a lasting value long past this particular period of time, and so there are a lot of reasons,

I think. I think part of it also is I'm just simply doing a lot of teaching. I have a lot of other things going on.

My kids are getting into their teenage years, so for example, I will be busy this evening as my son's basketball team is in the finals for the championship of their division this evening, and are heavily favored to win since they are undefeated in their particular division this year.

Anyways, so I've got a lot of other things going on, and maybe that's why it took so long. I don't know.

But it looks like the book The God Who Justifies, which is,

I'm not exactly sure of its length, it's around 400 pages. It is going to be my first hardback book published by Bethany House Publishers.

Should be coming out around the same time, April, May. I'm not really certain. I'm expecting the galleys probably next week, and once I have an opportunity of working through them, that's going to be a very difficult job.

There's a fair amount of the original languages included in the typesetting, and so that always takes a lot of work.

But hopefully around the same period of time, and I'm very thankful that some endorsements have already been forwarded to me from folks who have had an opportunity to look at the book itself.

So let me just share two of these I found to be very encouraging, anyways. Dr. Joel Beakey is the

President, Professor of Systematic Theology and Homiletics of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and Dr.

Beakey said, quote, Finally, a contemporary, exegetical, doctrinal, and able defense of the historic

Protestant doctrine of justification by God's free grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

This is the best book on justification since James Buchanan's mid -19th century classic.

We Protestant pastors need to teach this material in a simplified version to our congregations, end quote.

That is particularly useful to me because the fact that I was amazed, as I began work on this quite some time ago now, that there was so little on the doctrine of justification by faith.

Since Buchanan's work, there's really been no meaningful work on justification in the sense of a biblical defense.

There's been, of course, McGrath's work and historical work. R .C. Sproul's Faith Alone is a much shorter work, of course, but it's not biblical in its orientation.

It's historical. As far as an actual biblical defense of justification, which from my perspective is the only kind of defense that can be offered, for the obvious reason that justification, just like the doctrines of grace, just like the

Trinity, are all doctrines that we hold to, not on the basis of tradition, but because of the exegesis of Scripture.

You have to defend it from the foundation of Scripture itself.

To discover that it's been the 1860s since a major work, and again, even

Buchanan's work had a tremendous amount of historical information. There's nothing wrong with doing the historical part, but I didn't have any reason to do that.

There's all sorts of stuff that does that. The issue is the biblical defense of justification by faith, and that's what

I've attempted to do in The God Who Justifies. So I was very appreciative of that.

Richard D. Phillips, Minister of Preaching at the Tenth Presbyterian Church, said, But this one just tickled me.

I had to admit. Dr. J. Adams. Many of you know Dr. Adams from his many, many, many, many, many, many books.

Dr. J. Adams wrote, I lost sleep over this book! I simply couldn't put it down until I finished it.

James White writes the way that an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout. Greek abounds, and the student of Greek will be delighted in the work, but the one who knows no

Greek will get much out of the book as well. An outstanding contribution in every sense of the word.

And so I was very, very happy about that. Maurice Roberts, the editor of the

Banner of Truth magazine, said the Doctrine of Justification is a jewel in the crown of Christ's Gospel, which many hands have fought over.

Where it is lost, churches and nations perish. We warmly welcome the up -to -date and orthodox treatment by Professor James R.

White. There's also some from Dr. James Renahan, the Dean of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies and Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, and so on and so forth.

So very, very appreciative of the kind words that have been sent in so far, and looking forward very much to having that book available.

I must admit, it's an incredible privilege. I never saw myself as an author.

I did not see myself moving toward that realm as one who would be writing as often as I am.

I'm currently working on, currently have already set up five more books. I've got two articles due by the middle of next month.

Just wonderful opportunities. And in fact, by the way, let me mention, those of you who do not get the

CRI Journal, the next two editions of the Christian Institute Journal will have as their feature article a point -counterpoint debate on predestination, election, and free will.

And the point -counterpoint debate, the Reformed person is myself, and the non -Reformed person arguing against the doctrines of grace comes from the

Calvary Chapel movement. His name is George Bryson. He's the author of a book called The Five Points of Calvinism, Weighed and Found Wanting, and this will involve a 1 ,800 -word presentation in each article.

So there's, each article is one in the upcoming one, then the next one. So I had 1 ,800 words in which to present the concept of election and predestination in the first one.

Then, Mr. Bryson had his 1 ,800 words. Then we exchanged those articles, and I wrote a 950 -word rebuttal of what he said, and he wrote a 950 -word rebuttal of what

I said. Now, we see each other's articles, but we don't see each other's rebuttals until the journals appear in print.

So I don't know what he said about mine, and he doesn't know what I said about his. But that edition of the journal should be out in a matter of weeks, to my knowledge.

And then we did that for a second time, 1 ,800 words each, then 950 -word rebuttals, and that'll be in the next edition.

Those have already written, they've already been turned in, and so you might want to be looking for those as they will be in the

CRI journal. So if you haven't subscribed, I don't know what the number is, but it's

Equip .org. You would think I would know the number is. I do listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast, and it's they...and

the letters...one...is it what? 1 -800 and the letters to the word journal? Is that...that's

coming into my mind from someplace, I don't know where, and no, not over my headsets from anybody else, but I think that may be it.

I don't know. Be that as it may, 866 -854 -6763, and what I was saying was,

I never looked forward to becoming an author. I sort of figured after the first six books that I wrote for Crown, when when

Crown closed its doors, I sort of figured, well, you know, it was great while it lasted, that's fine, that's wonderful.

To have had the opportunity now, over the past couple of years, to write especially the

Forgotten Trinity, the Potter's Freedom, and now the God Who Justifies. Those three books address so definitional doctrines, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the gospel.

To have had an opportunity of writing three books, adding up to over a thousand pages on those particular issues, and to know those books are out, to know that people read them, that's a tremendous, tremendous blessing.

I've got to admit, it's wonderful to live in a land where we are able to have this kind of freedom, and I'm truly thankful to the

Lord for that. Someone has verified for me, 1 -800 -JOURNAL,

J -O -U -R -N -A -L, is the number, or you can write to Christian Research Institute, Rancho Santa Margarita, that's

Ranch with an O, and then California 991, well, go to Equip .org,

that's the easiest way to do it. You're listening on the internet, you can do the same thing. And we can just go from there.

866 -854 -6763 is the phone number, that is enough of announcements concerning upcoming books, and hopefully has got you interested in obtaining those books, putting them on your wish list.

I know that there is someone out there who likes wish lists, has a birthday coming up, and maybe you'd like to help that person out and buy them a book, too.

Those listening in the chat room know who I'm talking about, be that as it may. Apologetics. Applying apologetics when we are sharing with those of another faith system.

Obviously, the proclamation of the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel in a context where there is what might be called a competing untruth.

That is, where there is a belief, a doctrine being promoted, that is directly contrary to the gospel, requires of us, in the proclamation of the gospel, to engage in apologetics.

That's why apologetics cannot be considered to be an optional thing, which it is in the vast majority of churches.

In the vast majority of churches, apologetics is considered to be that area that is either left up to one or two specific staff members, if they're is such a staff member who even cares enough to be involved in it.

Or, what's even worse, is that it is left up to, well, how should we put it, the hard -nosed people?

Maybe the the unloving people, as it is often said. Certainly, we realize that in our post -modern time, our post -modern period, the idea of defending the truth is considered to be unloving, is considered to be something that is a demonstration on the part of a person that you are more interested in argument than you are in love.

And, of course, I've addressed many times the fact that, in reality, we show our lack of love for God when we treat cavalierly his truth, and that love is not a gushy emotion.

Love is a commitment, both in marriage as well as, I would say, in regards to God's truth.

And so, given the post -modern situation in which we live in our society, apologetics becomes a part of the task of the

Church in evangelization. When we evangelize, we must take into account the objections that are going to be raised.

This is clearly demonstrated to us in the ministry of the Apostles. When you read the book of Colossians, for example, you see very clearly that Paul is well aware of the background of the belief that is sneaking into the churches in the

Lycus River Valley, and he writes in such a way as to specifically emphasize those elements of Christian truth that are in danger of being denied.

Well, as we look around at our society today, we understand, given the way our society thinks, its fascination with subjectivism, its fascination with neo -Darwinian micromutational evolutionary theory and naturalistic materialism and all the rest of that stuff, we, if we are going to be like the

Apostles, must proclaim our message with sufficient knowledge of those things as to be able to define our terms and hence communicate with clarity.

And that requires an element of apologetics. That, of course, is why the

Apostle Peter told us that we are to be ready to give an answer, a defense for the hope that's within us, yet with gentleness and reverence.

We can't do it with gentleness and reverence if we do not understand the issues that are at stake.

A very important element of why we need to be involved in the apologetic task.

Well, someone has picked up the phone and dialed 866 -854 -6763.

866 -854 -6763. Brother Tim from California would like to chat with us today here on the

Dividing Line. You can do the same thing Tim has done. 866 -854 -6763.

And let's see if Tim is on the line. Tim, you there? I'm here. How you doing, sir?

Good, how you doing? Doing all right. Good to hear you're back on the airwaves after your little journey.

Well, I'll be taking another journey come May and instead of 17 days I've been figuring out it's going to be probably 21 days.

And many of those Saturdays, Mike Porter and Simon Escobedo and Rich Pierce and Warren and everybody else can fill in and do some good programs over there.

Anyways, what's your call about today? Well, today I guess it's part of the free will issue. One thing that I would like to get your opinion on is many times our brother

Hank, the Bible Answer Man, will say man has a free will but yet it's not mutually exclusive, not mutually exclusive, excuse me, he says but it's not morally neutral.

And I've never heard him explain that. And then in other speeches he would say man has a free will but yet God is sovereign.

You know, you've heard that. But he always says that on other occasions that only the

Holy Spirit can change the heart. Sounds kind of contradictory. Well, yeah, certainly the very use of that phraseology,

I think John Calvin was right that Augustine had made a mistake to basically give in to the philosophies of the philosophers and use that type of terminology in regards to man's will, especially in light of the fact that really what we should talk about is a creaturely will.

That the will of man definitely exists but the will of man by creation is limited to a creaturely will and the exaltation of the will of man to the point where it can control

God is one of the most common elements of the religions of man but it is the most unbiblical element of the religions of man.

The biblical revelation is directly opposed to that. And certainly in regards to the issue of the concept of the sovereignty of God and the will of man and things like that, certainly

Brother Hank knows where I stand on that. Anyone who has read both

Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free and the Potters' Freedom knows that there is a direct contradiction between Dr.

Geisler and I on that. And as I hear Hank talking about the subject, as I hear it right now, he would lean to Dr.

Geisler's side in regards to the issue of monergism and synergism. And I've had the opportunity, at least certainly

I know that Hank has the God -Sovereign Grace drawn by the Father and the Potters' Freedom. He has all three of the books that I've written that are directly relevant to that situation.

But we've never had a conversation where I could sit down and say, all right, let's talk about it.

In fact, about, I'd say about three months ago now, Hank mentioned on the air that there was going to be a discussion at CRI on the issues of synergism and monergism.

And that discussion, to my knowledge, did not take place, but at least there is that willingness to have that kind of conversation.

There are monergists involved in in the ministry of CRI, that is those who would say that salvation is solely the act of God, that it is not the result of a synergistic cooperation between the quote -unquote will of man and the will of God or grace of God.

So there's both perspectives that are presented there. Obviously, I believe that there is an inconsistency in asserting that there is not a single maverick molecule in the universe, which

I certainly would agree with, and then turning around and saying that there is a synergistic cooperation between a dead sinner and the grace of God that results in salvation, and that without that synergistic cooperation there can be no salvation.

I certainly would find that to be a contradictory position to take, as commonly as it is taken by, sadly, a vast majority of evangelicals in our land today.

But that's certainly the position that I've taken in a very public fashion. What do you think he means by, man's will is free but not morally neutral?

I would assume, I don't know, you know, 1 -800 -ASK -HANK would be the way to find out that particular answer, but generally that's a way of saying, of attempting to hold both the biblical truth that man's will is deeply influenced by sin, that he is not morally neutral, that is that there is a bent against God that then requires a remedial bending, shall we say, by the power of the

Holy Spirit. So it's a way of saying the work of the Spirit is necessary to bring a person to a point where they can then make a fair choice.

Of course, I would say that the bent of man is not merely away from God, it is that of spiritual death, and hence inability outside of regeneration to do anything like that at all.

So I would certainly take a more radical view in regards to what the issue of spiritual death actually means.

Let me throw this one at you, and I've never heard anybody pose this, why do you think, and you know, obviously

I'm a Doctrines of Grace believer, sometimes I often ponder, why does

God enlighten some to the Doctrines of Grace, not others, in the sense we know that there's our many and brethren saved?

Right. Well, I think that really none of us have been quote -unquote enlightened to all that there is in Scripture that we need to know.

I think on this issue, it's really, we're asking why does

God, why does not God extend to us a grace to be fully freed from the effects of the society in which we live that so greatly exalts the will of man and the abilities of man and so on and so forth.

And I don't know that any of us in this life ever gave all of the entanglements of the society and the thinking that is around us.

I really think that that's really what we're asking, is why doesn't God completely sanctify every believer?

And I think that there are some individuals, for example, in our many and bent who have understood certain elements of biblical truth far greater than I have in other areas of the

Christian life. And so I'm not in any way, shape, or form saying that the issue of the freedom of God's grace is to be likened to just some, you know, non -definitional area of the gospel.

What I am saying is that since we live in a context where there is so much tradition and so much emphasis upon this will of man, even within professing

Christianity, that it is quite understandable why it is that tradition goes without being questioned.

I see it every day. I see people every single day who, well,

I mentioned it last week, Dave Hunt. Dave just strikes me as just absolutely unwilling to hear any criticism of the tradition that is his from evangelicalism that simply isn't a biblical tradition.

It so deeply influences his attempts at exegesis that it's an amazing thing.

And so there's a good example of someone who the Lord has used in many other areas, but when it comes to this one area, we seem to be so deeply influenced especially by traditions that were held by the people who introduced us to the faith itself.

I have noticed that. If, you know, the original pastor that you had introduced you to the faith itself, if that person simply says, you know, watch that Calvinism, you know, it's just there's this automatic prejudice that is sometimes very difficult to break down.

Look at Peter. I mean, you get three visions on the rooftop, and still he pulls a stunt.

He pulls an Antioch. You know, if I were God, I don't know that I'd work with any one of us, to be perfectly honest with you.

I'd give up and turn us all into crispy critters a long time ago, so I'm glad God is long -suffering toward us and patient, to be sure.

Well, I really appreciate your comments. It's funny you mentioned Dave Hunt. I was just gonna make a quick comment.

I just got his brain and call, because it's a free newsletter, and I don't know if you've seen the recent one. I commented on it last week.

Okay, I didn't get you last week. The computer was acting funny. Well, so was ours. He's had some harsh things to say about Luther and Calvin and the like.

It was kind of a false dichotomy, it looks like. Yeah, last week I mentioned that all the information is pointing to the fact that he is publishing a book against Calvinism.

About two -thirds of the citations from those who've seen it are aimed directly at me and the Potters' Freedom, and people are contacting us asking us about that, and I told

Rich Pierce this week, I said, hey, official response, real simple. When Dave Hunt publishes, then he will have a standing challenge from me to engage in a two -night minimum six -hour moderated public debate,

I would prefer seven hours, three -and -a -half hours each night, moderated public debate based solely upon the exegesis of Scripture.

No citation from anything else but from the very text of Scripture on the subject of the doctrines of grace, and I will gladly defend biblical monergism over against his view of synergism, and knowing

Dave Hunt, I don't think he's the kind of person to back down from a debate challenge. And so while it may not be this

May, my gut feeling is I know that the folks who arrange the debates on Long Island, such as the ones we're having

May 24th and May 31st, one against Barry Lennon homosexuality and one against Father Peter Stravinskis on purgatory, those folks would love to arrange a full debate there on Long Island on the subject of the doctrines of grace.

I don't know that we may, I don't know we might want to wait that long, however. Maybe we can find someone else who would be willing to do it.

I can think of a certain church in San Diego that might be very interested in doing something like that,

I'm not sure. So anyway, so we will definitely be going that direction, okay? Well, I'll be graciously waiting for that.

Okay, Brother Tim, thanks for calling today. God bless. God bless you, too. Bye -bye. 866 -854 -6763 is the number.

As I understand, we have two callers online. 866 -854 -6763, the toll -free number.

There's a number of toll -free extensions now. Not just 800. 866 is toll -free as well.

866 -854 -6763. We have questions about the future of apologetics and the canon of the

Old Testament coming up in the last half hour of the dividing lines, so I hope that you will stick with us.

And if you have questions yourself, go ahead and call that number 866 -854 -6763.

We'll be right back. More than any time in the past,

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

The Conference on Rome, over 13 hours examining major doctrines and issues that separate Roman Catholicism from biblical

Christianity, featuring the leading Protestant apologists on Rome and America today. Listen to Dr.

Eric Svensson's presentation, Rome has spoken, the matter is debatable. When the Roman Catholic apologists insist that the principle of sola scriptura has resulted in over 25 ,000 denominations, we should in turn insist that the principle of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter has resulted in an even greater number of religious cults.

Pastor Rob Zins addresses the Evangelical romance with Rome. There was not a Roman Catholic Church in the first five centuries.

There was, to be sure, a Catholic Church, but this is the universal designation of the body of Christ.

It is not Romanism. Pastor David King, the impact of Romans 117 on Martin Luther.

How is one himself to have that righteousness which God requires, yea, demands, and which is utterly indispensable to salvation?

It is by faith, and by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we lay hold of the

Lord Jesus by faith alone. And Dr. James White examines the veneration of saints and images.

Do you think if such a person were brought before Moses, having just been caught bowing down before a statue and lighting candles and rocking back and forth in prayer, do you think

Moses would have accepted the excuse, I wasn't giving Latria, Moses, I was only giving

Julia? Other topics addressed in this tape series, is there something about Mary? Scripture's sufficiency, the Roman versus Protestant view, canonizing the

Apocrypha, an assault on Scripture, Rome's sacraments, an assault on Christ's gospel, and purgatory, an assault on Christ's perfect atonement.

Look for this tape series and many others at aomin .org, that's a -o -m -i -n dot o -r -g, the

Conference on Rome. Oh, I don't know,

I think we probably need to come up with some Gregorian chant bumper music, what do you think? Oh, anyways, let's go back to our phone callers and talk to Mike about the subject of the future of apologetics.

How you doing? Very good, sir, how about yourself? Oh, not half bad, my headphones are a little bit hot, but other than that I'm doing just great.

Well, amen. As we know that in the days of John Calvin, he wrote in the 1500s that men think less honorably than they ought, and today we live in a day and an age where many authors have written extensively on apologetics, as you have, and as I've read some of your works, and there are some who have written poorly, and I could name a whole bunch of authors on that, who have written poorly, but we seem to have many people who write apologetic work, and who do so, who do not think honorably, and we also have many who write their works and their apologetical books without extensive study.

For example, I was at a local bookstore in the city of Rochester, and I asked about a book that you had written, the

King James Version Only Controversy. The gentleman, and yes, it was a Baptist bookstore, the gentleman said, oh no, we wouldn't carry anything like that here.

Then I asked, well, what about a book by William Webster? And he said, well, that's too in -depth for us to carry. That's too what?

In -depth. Oh! And the point is, many bookstores and many churches have abandoned apologetics, and you've even made the point clear earlier in the program that it's left to maybe one or two people in the staff, but people have abandoned apologetics, it appears, and there are some who take apologetics lightly and do not think honorably.

But what is your opinion of the future of apologetics? Well, obviously, the future of apologetics is directly related to the context of the question.

If you mean within the United States, that has to do with what God's future plans for this nation are.

If this nation does not experience a repentance and revival and true faith in Christ, then the future of apologetics is directly connected to the future of the

Church. God does not need to bless a nation with a sound and discerning

Church. That's a blessing on a nation. And therefore, as a result, the future of apologetics will be that it will continue to move toward a defense of a less and less defined gospel.

And without a clear definition of the gospel, there can be no meaningful apologetic.

The apologetic can only be as strong and clear as the strength and clarity of the proclamation of the gospel that it is meant to defend.

So the future of apologetics, I think, is that you will continue to see the differentiation between the sliding evangelicalism that is continuing to present an ever less clear gospel, a gospel that is ever less biblical, and hence an apologetic that continues to defend a shrinking target, in essence.

And then there will continue to be, there will be ever more marginalized and ever more unpopular and difficult to obtain, but you'll continue to see those in whom

God's Spirit works willing to defend the gospel and willing to be biblical in their presentations.

So really, it depends on whether God sees fit to bring a revival of true religion to this nation as to what the future of apologetics will be, because it is directly related to what it is that we are teaching and preaching.

Indeed, it is definitely said when apologetics is taken lightly, defending the truth of God's Word, and when compromising positions are accepted for comfort and convenience.

And that seems to be the standard routine in many churches and colleges and universities, where compromise of the truth is important over defending the truth.

Yes. Well, that issue of compromise really starts first with what we ourselves say concerning the gospel, concerning the inspiration of Scripture, concerning those things that the natural man finds offensive.

In fact, it's not overly surprising to me that in reality,

Jonathan Edwards's statement that the best way to test yourself to see whether you're in the faith is to ask of your heart, do you truly love those elements of God's nature, of the revelation

God has made of himself concerning his own nature, that are the most loathsome to the natural man, or do you not?

Do you try to edit God to fit into your idea of what he should be, or do you love God as he really is in Scripture?

That same question, I think, could emerge as a whole, as a barometer of the church's dedication to the truth and the health of the church.

Is the church willing as a whole to present those elements of God's nature and those elements of God's gospel that are the most offensive to the natural man, or does the church desire acceptance on the part of the world?

As soon as that happens, as soon as the church forgets that our Lord himself said that we will be hated by the world, that there will be, of course, this constant enmity that exists between the followers of Christ and the followers of the world, once we forget that and attempt to desire to be accepted in the world, we have not only stepped onto the slippery slope of apostasy, we are hurtling down it at a speed far greater than we could possibly ever imagine in and of ourselves.

And so I think that really would be a good way of testing where the church is today. Indeed. All righty, sir, thank you for calling today.

Thank you, have a great day. God bless. 866 -854 -6763 is the phone number.

866 -854 -6763, and let's continue on and talk with Johnny.

Hi, Johnny. How are you doing, James? Doing pretty well, sounds like everything's working today and everyone can hear us, and my headphones have not exploded on my head yet, they came close once, but other than that, everything is working real well.

Yeah, I'm glad to hear that, I know you guys have had some technical problems, especially with me. Well, you never know, you know, maybe there's a connection there that we won't get into right now.

Okay, well anyway, I'm calling about the conversation that you had with James Aiken on the

Bible Answer Man. Mm -hmm. Back in 1995, you guys brought up the canon,

Council of Trent, so on and so forth, and Hippo and Carthage, of course, and the issue of the Apocrypha.

Now, I know that you've mentioned Roger Beckwith's book, I haven't got it yet, but I'm gonna try to go get it through that library program.

Interlibrary Loan. Huh? Interlibrary Loan. All right. But the thing is, one of the arguments that James Aiken has brought up, and also

Tim Staples, and also Mitchell Paco brought this up at the debate in December against you, was that in the

Jewish tradition, prior to the alleged Council of Jamia, that there were three different canons rolling around over in Palestine.

You know, one of them, with the Sadducees canon, only accepting the Torah, and the

Pharisees, I think they accepted the Apocrypha or something? No, no, the standard argument, or the standard line, is that certainly you have the

Pharisees, the Palestinian Jewish canon, which included, which in essence was the

Protestant canon, which did not include the Apocryphal books. They were not accepted by the

Jewish people in Palestine. You have the Sadducees, who were not really a religious group as much as they were a political group, and because of that, their view of the canon really is somewhat secondary.

I don't think anyone, certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective, has any reason really to point to the

Sadducees, because they would agree with everybody that they were completely wrong, that they were condemned by the

Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is no question that the

Psalms, for example, that are filled with Messianic prophecies, Isaiah's prophecy, Isaiah 7 or Isaiah 9, were clearly the works of the

Holy Spirit, in that they prophesied the coming of the Messiah. And then, of course, Lord Jesus, in walking along the roads with the disciples to Emmaus, opened up to them from the threefold canon,

Law, Writings, and Prophets, the prophecies concerning himself. And so, basically what you have with the

Sadducees is what might be called a political aberration. Well, what about the scribes? Okay, well, scribes, that depends on which group they were a part of.

The scribes and the Pharisees are normally listed together with themselves. There was not a scribal canon.

There is, in essence, only an argument about this, and that is, historically anyways, the past hundred years, it has been common for many people, and you'll still find this in many books, to say that there is a difference between the view of the canon that was held by the

Palestinian Jews, and the view of the canon held by the Jews in Alexandria, Egypt.

And since it is theorized that the Greek Septuagint originated primarily in the

Alexandrian area, that the Alexandrian canon then becomes the canon of the

Greek Septuagint, and hence becomes the canon of the early church. So, that's the primary issue.

The primary thing that they're bringing up is that there were two different canons, the difference between the

Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon. Now, let's...

And they're adding the Sadducee canon to make it three. Well, again, but that, I think, is utterly irrelevant.

The Sadducees are... I'm just trying to find out how they're phrasing their argument. So, what you're saying is that there really only was two canons, which were differentiated by the

Apocrypha, but they're just adding the Sadducees to make it look a little more uncertain. Well, if they want to, they can then talk about the

Samaritan canon. They can talk about all sorts of things, and you're quite right to say that their purpose in doing this is not to clarify the issue, but actually to make the issue look even more complicated, so that the average person will simply throw up their hands in the air and say,

I need someone to decide this for me. And then, of course, up walks the Roman Catholic Church and says, well, we'll do it for you.

The problem is, they didn't do it until 1546, which means that for 1500 years, no one had any idea what

Scripture actually was or wasn't, which I think is totally and completely absurd. But, be that as it may, the real issue, historically, for anyone who is concerned about the actual subject of the canon, is this issue, was there an

Alexandrian canon known by the Apostles and Prophets, or was it, or in fact, were the

Apostles of Christ and the Lord Jesus himself ignorant of this quote -unquote

Alexandrian canon? It does not appear in the pages of the New Testament at all. There is no debate in the pages of the

New Testament regarding this issue, because anyone who has studied the issue knows that while, and this is very interesting,

I think needs to be understood and presented, while it is clear that the writers of the

New Testament wrote these books, it is further just as clear that they never considered them

Scripture. And there is no indication, I would like to ask someone to please point me to some place in the

New Testament, where we are given an indication that a New Testament writer knows of the

Alexandrian canon. For example, let's say all the writers of the

New Testament hold the Palestinian canon, but they know of the Alexandrian canon. Would there not be some indication in the pages of the

New Testament that they hold the one canon and reject the other? Where would this come from?

See, these are issues that you don't see being addressed by Roman Catholic apologists.

They simply aren't looking for clarification of these issues. They are looking to complicate them as much as possible, so as to offer their paradigm of authority to allegedly, infallibly define these issues.

Now, further beyond this though, and what I've mentioned to you in the past in regards to this, is that there is a tremendous argument to be made against the existence of a formalized

Alexandrian canon. And that evidence is laid out by Roger Beckwith, and primarily it comes from the fact that you have a contemporary writer of the

Lord Jesus and the writers of the New Testament named Philo. And Philo the Jew was an Alexandrian Jew, and if you cannot find in Philo an

Alexandrian canon, then there is no Alexandrian canon. And the examination of the evidence demonstrates that there was none.

So this whole issue, I think, has to be brought past where things were a hundred years ago, and examined in light of much more modern understanding of issues, and the much more modern documents that are available to us.

And when you do that, you discover that those early church writers who knew the most about the

Old Testament are the very ones who reject the apocryphal books, including

Melito of Sardis. And Origen knows the difference between the two, and he knows what the

Hebrews held to. And of course, you're already aware of the argument regarding Jerome and his followers.

Yeah, I found out that James Bacon was an error there, because it turns out that Rufinus himself did not believe in the apocryphal.

Exactly, right, right, right. What I was going to ask you, though, is you've made the distinction in the past,

I've heard you many times make the distinction between Roman Catholic historians and Roman Catholic apologists.

Are you saying that if you were to ask a Roman Catholic historian or scholar concerning the issue of the canon, are they going to say the same thing that the

Protestants are saying in regards to the issue of the three canons? Well, it really depends on who you're talking to.

When you talk about Roman Catholic scholarship today, sadly, that is as wide a field as you can possibly imagine.

It's the same thing as saying Protestant scholarship. Sadly, even the

Jesus Seminar would be included by some people in quote -unquote Protestant scholarship, which of course it isn't.

But I do believe that you would find many an honest Roman Catholic scholar who would not embrace the dogmatic viewpoint and hence force that onto the historical information, who would admit that the

New Testament documents do not give us evidence of this alleged confusion in regards to the canon, that the discussions that went on at Jamnia were not a council, etc.,

etc., etc., and would verify not only those historical facts, but would likewise verify the historical issues regarding the early church fathers.

Jerome, Rufinus, Gregory, Melito of Sardis, Origen, the debate between Jerome and Augustine on those issues, all the way up.

In fact, I have here, let me just read this to you, John Cosson, in his book

A Scholastic History of the Canon, documents some 52 major ecclesiastical writers and theologians from the 8th and 16th centuries who held to the view of Jerome.

And I'm not sure if one of my good friends in the chat channel is listening today, but I'm wondering if John Cosson is not a

Roman Catholic, and if someone in the chat channel is aware of that and can verify that for me,

I would be interested in knowing that myself. But that really, when you get into those wonderful books that you only find in libraries and you don't find available for sale anymore, there really isn't a whole lot of argument about that.

Instead, what you find is when believing Roman Catholics who are under the authority of the

Magisterium interact with the historical facts, it's the historical facts that must lose, fundamentally, in that particular situation.

Okay. Well, I just wanted to let you know before I go, because I know your show's about to end, I wanted to let you know that when

I spoke to Tim Staple and Jesse Romero on the phone, and I let you know about this, but I was just listening to your show from Massachusetts, that the three tapes of the debate that you had against Tim on papal infallibility are available.

They have been for a few weeks now. And do they come with the other tapes with them? No. Unfortunately, what

Tim told me is that the other tapes that he was going to do, he hasn't been able to do them. He was going to hold them back until he was finished with them, but he's been so busy that he hasn't been able to attach the tapes to the three that are of the debate.

So they are making... And he's going to have to finish the three additional tapes.

So there are going to be a total of six tapes. But right now, you can get hold of just the three alone?

Yes. And then what are they going to do? Change it in the future, and it'll go from a three -tape series to a six -tape series?

I'm not too sure about that one, but I know that the other... They may have them like three, three, and also a package of six, but I'm not too sure about that.

I didn't ask them that. But it's going to be three tapes, not four. I'm sorry, six tapes, not four. Right, right.

That's what we've been discussing earlier on. That was the information that I had gotten. And again, as I said back then, if I ever have to attach three hours of uncross -examined dialogue to a debate that I've done, you can just simply write it down right now,

I lost. That's just all there is to it. The interesting thing is, if Mr.

Staples really feels that the issue is simply a lack of time, then what he would want to do is say, you know what, we didn't have enough time to do that right.

So let's do like what you and Jerry Matitix did in Denver in 1993.

Let's do a two -nighter, and let's expand the time parameters in it.

Or let's have you come on to the St. Joseph's Catholic Radio Program, or St. Etienne's Radio Program, and we'll do two weeks' worth on it.

And we'll do it perfectly, even amount of times, and we'll do cross -examination, and this time we'll follow the rules and the whole nine yards.

Let's do a much fuller issue of it. I can tell you right now, I didn't get that invitation in the mail to do that, but that would be the way that you would want to do it.

If you seriously believe that what the only issue really is, is we just didn't have time to get into all of it, if you've listened to the cross -examination period, that's not what the issue was.

Well, I was there, so I know what you're talking about. Oh, yeah. OK, man. All right. God bless you. Thanks for calling. God bless. 866 -854 -6763.

I duck away from the microphone for just a moment to look at the phone, and it's dark as can be, but that's probably because most of you are looking at the clock and going, you know, it's 22 minutes past 3 o 'clock.

They're in not -so -sunny Arizona today, and that means you're probably going to be wrapping things up.

And, yeah, you're exactly right, but there is actually time for another caller if you had something you wanted to add or ask at 866 -854 -6763.

Now, looking at—let me minimize something on the screen here. We're currently looking at the 17th, so we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 weeks 5

Saturdays prior to March 31st, which is when we will be in Salt Lake City.

Now, what we've done in the past—I have not discussed this with the

Grand Poobah of Operations, Richard Pierce, but what we have done in the past is we've done the program from Salt Lake, but I'm not sure how we do that because we're not on a radio station.

We are just here. Hmm. Don't know. Maybe we'll have to do a tape program.

I would sort of like to see if there's any way we could try to figure that out, how we might be able to do that.

I don't know. I don't know. We'll work on it, but anyways. And then there would be just one

Saturday. In fact, the Saturday, April 7th, would be the day after the first night, if I recall correctly.

Am I recalling correctly that the new schedule for the Easter pageant is the Friday night beforehand or is it the

Saturday night beforehand? I can't remember which one it is. It's either the Friday night or the—it's the

Friday night beforehand, so that would mean it would be April 6th and then the 10th through the 14th.

That makes sense. So Saturday, the 7th of April, would be actually in the midst, right at the beginning, of our work in dealing with the

Mormons out in Mesa. Maybe one way we could do it would be possibly to look at a new track for this year that would mention the webcast and invite people to be involved in the webcast at AOMN .org.

A lot of those folks walking into that Easter pageant have access to the internet, and it would also be somewhat of an anonymous way, maybe, of listening in to something.

That might be something we might want to think about because I don't think most of our tracks— they may have AOMN .org, but they don't point out the webcast.

Maybe we could make a special effort for the 7th and the 14th to invite

Mormons to call. That might be a nice way to do it. Let's think about that.

Yes, someone, a very wonky person in the channel—wonky is a technical term that this person initially seemingly misled us all in thinking he had made up, but wonky is actually an

Australian term, meaning somewhat non -functional, and if you've ever seen this person type, you know exactly why wonky is very, very appropriately applied to this particular individual because it's almost painful, absolutely almost painful to watch this person type.

But anyways, this wonky person is saying that we should have staff meetings off -air. Hey, Rush Limbaugh does it this way.

Why can't we do it this way? I think it works. Anyways, we do have a quick caller who has called in at 866 -854 -6763 after screaming in the chat channel that he doesn't know what the number is, even though it is on the topic line in the channel, but I will not embarrass him by mentioning that on the—oh,

I just mentioned it on the air, didn't I? Hi, Brandon. Hey, what's going on, man? Well, you're calling the webcast, is what's going on.

Yes, I am, and I'm calling really late. I love to do that to you. Yeah, that's okay. You complain about it all the time.

I do. You're definitely wonky, but not as wonky as that other guy. So it's almost time for you to come up here, man.

We are on our way. Yeah, it's almost general conference time. And so, in the spirit of it,

I thought I'd ask a question concerning it. Okay. I actually missed most of the program talking to a Mormon.

That's good. And so I decided I'd, you know, complain about my—give all my follow -up on the air.

Okay. Anyway, it has to do with authority and the Mormon Church. Mm -hmm. What do you think is the best way of going—they like to lay out this perfect presentation of,

Moses got the authority from Jethro, got it from Melchizedek, and it goes down to John the Baptist, who was given it by his father, to Jesus and his apostles, you know.

Right. And really, I'm trying to think about, what would be the best way to respond to that?

What's the best way in going about talking with a Mormon about the issue of authority? Two ways, and I'll be very brief depending on which direction you want to go.

Okay. The most effective way with Mormons who rarely encounter evangelicals knowing anything about authority, the biblical response is always a good direction to go, and that is to demonstrate what the biblical basis of authority is, that the elders in the

New Testament are not elders such as Mormons have, that the concept of a genealogical priesthood or a priesthood that's passed on by laying on of hands is neither biblical nor New Testament.

Another way to go, if you're prepared to do it, is to demonstrate that the actual claims of Mormonism on that account collapse upon examination.

That is, an address to all believers in Christ by David Whitmer points out the fact that the

Mormon Church was founded without a functioning priesthood, that Joseph Smith did not claim to hold the priesthood until well after April 6, 1830, that the issues of allegedly

John the Baptist and then Peter, James, and John coming along to give the priesthood authority to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, so on and so forth, were later stories that were made up that are contradictory even to LDS Scripture, Section 84.

Section 86, I mean, is contradictory to that. So there's a historical argument to be made and there's a biblical argument to be made in regards to the nature of the

New Testament offices and to the nature of the priesthood authority itself. So there's actually three directions you can go, two biblical and one historical.

Okay, Brandon? All right, man. Thanks a lot, man, for calling. We appreciate it. Bye. All righty. Well, you've been listening to The Dividing Line, and Lord willing, we will be back again next week and probably focusing more in upon Mormonism over the next few weeks.

Hope you'll be joining us then. Thanks a lot and God bless. 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 -0318 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.