Continued Debate Reviews

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

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

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line We press on with our study of two different debates the

Fernandes Comas debate on Reformed theology and the Perkins slick debate on oneness theology on Thursday Lord willing we'll do another jumbo

DL and I just finished queuing up in fact the audio from Dirk Junkins and his

Discussion of a very interesting element of Bart Ehrman's arguments

I linked this in the Monday miscellaneous article yesterday. It's a three and a half hour

Seminar worth dirt with Dirk Junkin was the second speaker. The first was

Peter J Williams and the last was Simon Gather call and Just excellent excellent material doesn't you know when

I you know people sometimes think in all black and white categories, it's sort of like what's going on with the with certain

Wars going on the blogosphere right now People will not allow for nuance or anything else and when they when

I When I when I recommend something, well, I remember mr. Kenny, mr Mr Kenny thought that since I recommended the

New King James as an excellent translation of its underlying text that it therefore follows That I agree with everything the

New King James says about everything and so it's different than anything else That I you couldn't possibly recommend two

Bibles that are not absolutely identical See, it's that kind of utter incapacity to rationally think and to recognize categories that that Unfortunately is out there a lot and so when people

Will hear me you say wow you you said I should listen to that but do you agree with every single thing that Peter Williams or Dirk Junkin or Simon Gather call said in that or said in anything they've ever written

Just want to go No, actually, but that really wouldn't follow would it

Anyway, it's good stuff. And if you didn't read the Monday miscellaneous blog post,

I Would highly recommend that to you in in passing

So anyway, we will take a look at will listen to what Dirk Junkin had to say and I'll expand on it

I thought it was pretty clear But I'd like to give you a few more details on it because ironically this was a point

I a I should have thought to raise this Because I reread the orthodox

Christian corruption of Scripture prior to our debate I should have thought to raise that in the the

Q &A section and I didn't but it was something that I had come up with back in the 90s Ironically in response to guess what

King James only ism and a lot of people are surprised There is a direct connection between King James only ism and Bart Ehrman Now you would think those two would be on the far end of the spectrum

But they are but the spectrum is like a circle and they it spins around almost comes to the same point again Because fundamentally they they have the same erroneous presupposition and that is

That if God inspired the scriptures we would have one photocopied version of it they both assume that now the

King James only guy says I will take the King James and Bart Ehrman says ah, there is none. So I reject the

Bible But both assumptions the assumptions that both make that one assumption both things are in error

So we'll take a look at that on on Thursday Lord willing So that will be the extra half hour that we do at that point

Okay, so let's get back into the friend Fernandez comas debate. We are Phil Fernandez has finished his opening statement.

So I haven't heard back from you Phil. I've sent you an email I'd love to hear back from you Especially on the William Lane Craig stuff

I keep forgetting to send it, you know Normally when you resend the email with a second attempt type thing that normally I gets my attention

Anyways, I'm so far behind and by the way, if you're waiting on emails for me, I've got 55 and Yeah, that's it.

You know, I have so I feel so good when I get it down below 10. It's like ah, man I got weight off my shoulders and then

It comes in and something happens and you get farther and farther behind and it gets really really ugly and that's just the way it is alright, so Phil Fernandez has finished his opening statement and now we have the rebuttal period and That once you get into the rebuttals and the questions and stuff you get into some more of the really important stuff

So let's let's pick it up Just a few things I like to say here

He mentioned Romans 9 and you look at Romans 9 10 and 11 Paul's answering the question

Well, if salvation is your faith in Christ and how many then how can the Jews be the chosen nation of God and so many of Them reject

Christ He's not answering the question. Hey, I'm gonna solve for you predestination and free will

Except to answer that question is to address the issue. I Agree completely wholeheartedly

I agree with John Piper When he said years and years ago the key of this text is the very question that is raised at the beginning of chapter 9

And the statement the key statement They are not all of Israel who are of Israel and his discussion of what that means.

That is exactly right But to answer the question Paul's response is to go through the history of that promise once it was given and God's sovereignty in the application of those promises in Individual lives all the way through.

Yes. He deals with nations, but he deals with nations as Representatives, for example Pharaoh. Yeah, I wouldn't have wanted to been one of Pharaoh's soldiers gets drowned the

Red Sea I wouldn't have wanted to have been one of the firstborn in Egypt all the rest that stuff but the point of Romans 9 is

I raised you up for this very purpose that in you I might demonstrate my power and so there is a direct application to these particular subjects that comes directly out of The very argument that Paul makes in Romans chapter 9 but in the process of answering that question

He does touch on things. He says God is sovereign He's the one who makes the choice of who gets saved.

I agree with that God, but how can he agree with that? I'm sorry, but a

Molinist Explanation of this that that doesn't follow Because the only choice

God makes in Molinism is to actuate a particular world The particulars of that world are presented to God based upon middle knowledge not upon the good pleasure of his will and There's a vast difference.

I would argue between the good pleasure of God's will and the limitations provided by middle knowledge

Are those the same thing? I Cannot possibly see how they are righteous

What he does is righteous because it's in accordance with his goodwill. I agree with that Paul also says that the

Old Testament predicted that many of the Jews would stumble over Christ and That many of the Jews would be lost.

So it was nothing to be surprised about but Paul closes Romans 9 With these passages verses,

I'll at least read verses 30 to 32 What shall we say then that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained to righteousness even the righteousness of faith?

but Israel Pursuing the law of righteousness has not attained to the law of righteousness

Why and then he explains why they're not elect why because they did not seek it by faith

That it actually says this is why they are not elect I Don't I don't recall that in the text that was just quoted.

I don't remember anything But this is why they were not elect because they did not pursue it by faith

The the point that is being addressed here is no longer what was being addressed earlier as far as that particular argument was concerned

But even even at this point What is what is the the conclusion

Notice notice let's let's just back up to 929 and as Isaiah predicted if the

Lord of Hosts had not left us offspring We would have been like Sodom and come and Sodom and become like Gomorrah So the

Lord of Hosts leaves us offspring Not the Lord of Hosts foresaw that some of us would freely choose to believe and therefore we would still have offspring

That's not the same thing What shall we say then that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it that is a

Righteousness that is by faith faith in opposition to Works, which has been the point all along.

What are the what are the Jews doing? The Jews are seeking after a works righteousness But that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law

Why because they did not pursue it by faith as if as if it were based on works They have stumbled over the stumbling stone as it is written behold

I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame so What how is this relevant to the rest of Romans chapter 9 how actually it should be the real issue should be

How does this flow naturally from what was said in Romans chapter 9? Because it's one thing to say.

Oh, yes, it says nice things about God's sovereignty But you have to be able to put 9 29 through 33

Together with what was said earlier about who are you a man who answers back to God?

Well, that is what is molded say to its molder Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay to make out the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use

If you if you fall back on the well, it's it's the free will act of faith thing and then

God responds that That's the exact opposite of what the first part of the chapter said

Before the twins had done anything good or bad Before any preachants before any

Molinistic middle -knowledge running the possible world's stuff You have

God's will and you have the sovereignty of his will and his good pleasure So that his purpose in election might stand it was said so you have to you can't just skip over the tough

Spartan the tough tough stuff and go to the easy part at the end and and say oh, we'll see this this fits with my interpretation of what faith is and And then basically read the text backwards, which is what we just got you go to the end of the chapter

Read your interpretation similar what Norman Geisler does with John 645? He puts his interpretation of 645 and then reads it backwards through verse 37

That's not how you know again I I don't believe that Phil Fernandez or Norman Geisler any of these guys would ever do this with the

Resurrection or the deity of Christ or something like that, but when it comes this one issue all of a sudden all the the rules of exegesis are off and We just we just go all sorts of different directions including even reading the text backwards

To get your your position, but as it were by the works of the law For they stumbled at the stumbling stone, and then he shows how that was predicted in the

Old Testament and so basically God is sovereign

God is the one who regenerates who justifies But he does that in response to our acceptance of his free gift

I think the key point of departure that's going to be here Well the two things I think number one which view is more biblical and I would argue that Calvinism Once you accept the

Calvinistic system of thought it forces you to reinterpret words. So world doesn't mean world anymore

That's just not true. Like I said last time there are at least 14 Identifiable uses of cosmos in the

Yohannan corpus alone and that's true Whether you're a Calvus Calvinist an Arminian or anybody else

The idea here is is as I would my my pushback to to Phil Fernandez is can you establish that the term world always?

Means the same thing can you establish the term world always means every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live?

Then then Jesus did not pray for the world I pray not for the world, but those who've given me out of the world How do you how do you how do you make those fit you if you're saying there's only one meaning?

Then how do you make those fit you have to recognize that there are multiple uses and multiple meanings and It doesn't matter whether you're a

Calvinist or Arminian now will that impact where you lean in that? Yeah, of course it will But you have to go to the text themselves and say hey when when you have

First John saying if you love the world The love of the Father's not in you that's different than God's to love the world, right and so each context

Determines these things so it's just it's just not fair It's it's unfair to say the

Calvinist changes the meaning of world when any Arminian exegete must recognize a shift in the semantic domain of Cosmos in its usage throughout the on Yohannan corpus as well as beyond that into Paul or Peter whatever else

It only means the elect of the world the loss doesn't mean the loss It just means that the non elect and the non elect of the world and then no

But all of us were lost. I mean that is a description Does not Paul include himself in Ephesians chapters 1 and 2 as having been under the wrath of God We're all we were all under the wrath of God all the elect run to the wrath of God All the elect were lost some have been found that is the elect

How is this how is this an argument I I still don't understand it not elect sinners

Or that that that will be lost and he will save the elect sinners the elect world and so on But the key the other key here, so you gotta ask what is the

Bible teach, you know? And when you look at the Scriptures Hebrews 11 6 but without faith

It is impossible to please him for he who comes to him must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of those

Who diligently seek him? I find that hard To reconcile with Calvinism.

He has said why I I'm just about there myself. I'm in chapter 10 in Hebrews, and I'm sure we'll we'll spend a

Sufficient amount of time on on that verse. It's the of course it in the context of the book of Hebrews You're you're now into the exhortation to steadfastness and faithfulness and I would just point out to Phil Fernandez That in Hebrews chapter 11

There are all sorts of different kinds of faith commended. I mean it's it's it's a real mistake to think that that every example that the writer brings up is saying the same thing about Faith or even talking about the same kind of faith

The whole thing is an exhortation to faithfulness and continued steadfastness But you you've got to look much more carefully at these texts, and I just want to what's what about?

Romans 11 6 Does the Calvinist not believe I? Mean Is this something about saving faith?

It has to be the ability of every single human being is is that the argument that's being made? Do we need to go go back and deal with the text that describes saving faith as the gift of God?

I? Think that would have been very helpful that didn't really come out in this debate a lot of things didn't come out this debate and again

I recognize the primary reason for that Was of course the fact that it was just too short

It had too broad a topic and was just too short and was you're limited to just a number of verses

But again, if these are objections Then the assumption that we're gonna we're gonna make is that the person making the objection understands what the response to the objection is and So if you're gonna make an objection based on Roman on Hebrews 11 6 it might be a good idea to have at least attempted to address what reform people believe about saving faith and Spiritual deadness and all the things that are associated there with Again John 12 32, what does that mean?

Deal with the fact that that the Bible also says the cross is repellent To the unbeliever.

So what does all men mean here? This this is an excellent example. I would challenge any Arminian to exegete

John 12 32 don't ignore the fact that Jesus is Dealing here with the Greeks coming to him and that he never speaks to them.

He hides himself. No, don't skip that You've got Gentiles coming in this situation.

That's why Philip is the one is Greek name. That's why he's come to Jesus and Jesus does not reveal himself to them got a deal with that Because now you have kinds of men.

It's right there in the context. Don't skip it. Don't just just go Oh you Calvinist it's right there deal with it and then answer a question the question it needs to be answered is

When Jesus says this and he says I will draw all men to myself.

Is he contradicting? Not only the biblical teaching of Paul About how the cross is foolishness to whom to those who are perishing to stumbling block a scandal but our own experience

The cross is hated Detested by so many today

It doesn't draw people and what's the difference? Well, I would go to first Corinthians chapter 1 and and let

Paul explain it to those who are the called That message of the cross the wisdom of God power of God to those who are perishing foolishness scandal on there it is

Those were the called who does the calling God does Be consistent with that calling issue

Golden chain of redemption Romans 8 as many years called justified glorified Phil's already agreed just fine glorified go together.

There's connection. Well, it's chain and Those who are justified are those who were called that's an effective call

That's God's sovereign call and it's not to every single person. Otherwise, everyone's saved. Everyone's justified, right?

Got to be consistent here. He says what makes the ultimate difference? He says if I'm right the cross is unnecessary justification is unnecessary.

He says it's self Salvation if the person accepts God's grace, I disagree.

I think that it's it is Excessive To say that if you don't believe in the doctors of grace and none of these things are relevant

You would have to be able to demonstrate that And demonstrate that in essence the person

I know what's being said That and and I've said it I've said

Phil Fernandez was inconsistent here. For example, he believes in eternal security has no reason to we pointed out the many inconsistencies given his view of free will and so on so forth has no reason to believe in it and So there's inconsistency.

Well, thank God for inconsistencies Because there ain't a one of us and if you if you're sitting there listen to me going.

Yeah, I've got my theology. Absolutely. Perfect I don't miss a thing. I've got every

T cross and every I dotted no, you don't if you think you do then you're just ignorant and I don't either and So I am thankful That's why that's why again

You know, we like to put the lie to those who call me a hyper Calvinist because they know they are

It's the hyper Calvinist that makes that kind of perfection of theology claim as if I can

I can look for signs of the elect and I can draw this circle so tightly around myself that only

I can stand inside it in one foot and Sometimes I even fall out of it that kind of thing

That's not where I have been or ever have been which is why the hypers dislike me so much and that is been documented for many many years on our blog and On the dividing line and so on so forth when we've ever gotten into conversations with them

But anyway With human gifts you have the freedom to accept them or reject them

Even if you accept the gift, it didn't mean you earned it It does not mean that you and I agree it but he's shifting the ground to earned it

The the argument had been made in mr. Comas's response period That that fundamentally what you've got you've got going on here is and and I'm not sure that that Phil understood exactly what his point was is that When you come down to the the final issue

You come down to the eternal state and you have those who surround the throne and they are absorbed in the worship of God and you have those who are

As far away as they can be because that's where they want to be as far away from the holy presence of God and they are

Being consumed in their own self loathing and loathing of God and so on and so forth what's the difference between the two and What mr.

Comas was saying is the difference between the two in the Arminian perspective is found

Not in the sovereign grace of God Not in his purposes, but in the individual there was something better There was something more sensitive.

There was something more repentant something more spiritual about those who end up saved

Than those who end up apart from God so the idea is the the fundamental issue is not to be found in God is to be found in the creature and That really was the argument that that he was making

Right now as much as I deserve the flames of hell before I was saved now,

I say I disagree here I disagree with with Phil this point because I Understand what he's saying, but I I don't

I don't buy this at all If I have been united with Christ then his death becomes my death his barrel my barrel his resurrection my resurrection and So I stand before God.

Yes. Yes clothed in the in the righteousness of another I I Outside of that just viewing me separated from Christ Yes, but you can't view me as separated from Christ and he's talking as a

Christian and so I I Don't I don't

I don't buy this I'm just as deserving now as before because that denies the reality of the union with Christ that is ours and what has been

Objectively done it makes the the the atoning work of Christ merely hypothetical and I don't

I don't believe in a hypothetical atonement I just I I don't believe I Understand that from our

Arminian perspective. That's pretty common, but I I don't believe in a hypothetical atonement

It was a free gift by God's grace I wouldn't even seek him but through prevenient grace and God's drawing and the convicting of the

Holy Spirit Prevenient grace God's drawing and the convicting the Holy Spirit evidently

God's drawing and the convicting the Holy Spirit are not part of prevenient grace Do you need the drawing and the convicting apart from prevenient grace so to be fair doesn't

God have to apply all of that to everybody and Does God draw everyone equally does

God bring equal conviction to everybody? These have been would have been the questions

I would have been pressing Because I would be pressing for consistency and I've listened to Phil, you know, you know, he says, you know

This really isn't my area in my you know, my I focus on the resurrection approves the resurrection existence of God things like that Okay, what's he looking for in those areas?

consistency So shouldn't we be applying those same things in this area?

Which is the fundamental area we want to be bringing those people to Which is the gospel itself.

I Accepted the free gift Okay, if there's ten guys on death row and the governor says

I'll pardon any one of you guys as long as you'll accept my Pardon if if seven if three of them accept the pardon

They can't say that they earned the pardon The problem is no gubernatorial pardon is based upon acceptance by the inmate

Richard's going what? If if the governor pardons you they take you out of your cell

They give you your money in your clothes back and they chuck you out the door. Okay, that's it Because the governor has the power to pardon you and you be pardoned whether you accept it or not is

Absolutely irrelevant. So that's actually a Illustration I've liked to use for a long time because if the governor pardons one

Do the others on death row have the right to say you need to pardon me, too No, because pardoning is a sovereign and gracious act and therefore.

Yes, the governor ain't gonna spend another dime feeding you That brings up a whole nother issue we which we can't get into right now, but yeah, you're exactly right

They just accepted the pardon freely given. He said Arminianism has led to secular humanism who says yeah,

I I Understand what? Mr. Comus was saying but there are

Arminianism It's such a long Chain to make the connection that you wouldn't even have time in a debate like this and so you just don't say things you can't prove and besides that That's not the only way to secular humanism

Look at the Netherlands. Those weren't a bunch of Arminians up there. Those were a bunch of Calvinists and What that proves is that the

Christian faith whether reformed or otherwise can never be made something that is genealogical and Once you make it genealogical

You got a problem. It Cannot be passed on by culture

You cannot pass it on to your infants merely by being a Christian And if you want good evidence of that look at those

Northern European nations that had sound theologians and sound theology and great theology and they are the very essence of Humanism today.

So is there a direct connection? No, but there is a direct connection between people

Having a surface level faith and embracing whatever the current movement of the world happens to be secular humanism or whatever else so Who says if you could find every heretical guy that started off in Calvinism You can find as many as every heretical guy in Arminianism or whatever else you want to call the different non -Calvinist views

He keeps talking about the covenantal aspect of salvation and just for those of you who are just tuning in haven't listened to this before just so you understand we're talking there about a a

Federal vision perspective that I would not hold and that I think does a does fundamental injustice to The message that we are attempting to present

I think I do not think that it is consistent with a biblical interpretation

And that is one of the problems here is that it introduced Well, it meant that the debate really wasn't it didn't go the directions that I would have taken it

Obviously because there are some fundamental differences. That's why mr Comas is a student of Doug Wilson, and that's why

I debated Doug Wilson on those very issues back in 2004 in Los Angeles Basically He's talking about that.

God has decreed that through Christ's death on the cross and through repentance and faith The non -elect can enjoy can be saved within a community and can enjoy some benefits here on earth

But they're if they're not of the decree to elect If they're not of the elect that Jesus Actually planned to save they're gonna burn in hell forever

That's not too That's not too appealing to me I Don't know if that's an argument, but I agree

Either I would just simply you know obviously my response to that is that's not what the

New Covenant is and it's a confusion of The extent of the New Covenant and membership of the church and you know, there's all sorts of you know, it's

I'll have to tell you pretty much. The only people that have been the front lines of this are non federal visionist

Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists and The rest of evangelicalism goes what?

That sounds weird, yeah, well you all just know and it yeah, that's sort of The working out so I think

I'll do just one more section here And then we'll have to switch over because we only get we only get a half an hour and I I spent a little extra time introduction, so okay

And it seems to me to be inconsistent with the scriptures. I Actually think we need to take a second.

Look at Jacob Arminius. He was a little bit unsure about the fifth point I believe that we're we're securing

Christ, but I believe that Arminius Was God centered his theology not man -centered he

Arminius was not nearly as Arminian as Arminians are today There's no question about that. He came from Reformed background.

He was much more balanced doesn't mean he was right but He was he was he wasn't no

Ergon Kanner, let's put it that way didn't he didn't seek to defend human free Will he sought to defend

God's goodness and God's justice and he thought that unconditional election calls that into question

Yeah, and and he was exactly wrong about that for the same reasons that Phil Fernandes was wrong in his opening statement about that but I would agree that Jacob Arminius is considerably less anthropocentric in much of what he says than Most of the people you hear rambling on against Calvinism today

And the list is very very long from the archives of Radio Free Geneva I agree that we're spiritually dead that we inherit a sin nature

From Adam in the garden, but being spiritually dead means exactly what it says in Ephesians chapter 2 verses 1 to 10

It means being separated from fellowship with God without Christ without God Without hope far from God and no access to to the

Father. Does it also mean enslaved to sin? Does it also mean as Jesus said incapable of coming to Christ does it also mean not able to hear his voice

All those Unables who dunatized in the Gospel of John that is the question that needs to be asked does it mean all of that and I just don't see how a

Molinist can actually come up with any of those particular things. Okay, let's

I'm looking at the clock and that's right about the halfway point. We'll be able to get about 25 minutes here in on the oneness debate and We are getting closer to the end of the opening statement

By Roger Perkins and then that'll allow us to get into the rebuttal periods Which I think again just as in this debate brings out more because you're having to respond to something that's what that's the value of debates and that's why

I when when Certain people say I'll debate them. We just not gonna have that cross -examination stuff anymore

I'm just like no You don't want to debate you want to have competing little sermons and sermonettes and that's not the same thing as a debate but anyway, so Here we go with Roger Perkins and his opening statements.

And yeah, I know I know the quality is not all that great But hey, you got it. You got a you got to work on it

You got to listen a little more closely and catch it catch the context and you can start following along Now he's talking about Hebrews chapter 1 there and has in these last days spoken to us by his son

We clearly believe that the son was active in the Old Testament Who was it that who was the

Yahweh who rained fire from from Yahweh in heaven Who was the one according to John 12 seen upon the throne?

but the Identification of the person's father son and spirit is due to the incarnation and therefore it takes place in time in that way

Well Of course that is if you take a variant reading at that point at 1st

Timothy 316 where you have Theos rather than Haas the evidence is

You know, there's there's evidence for the reading of Theos But even if you take the reading Theos at 1st

Timothy 316, that does not mean that the father was manifest in the flesh That that does not follow because it is

Paul who over and over and over and over and over again Distinguishes between the father and the son not in the sense of Jesus was two persons

One divine one human and they talked to each other and so on and so forth and in fact

His very use of the term Kurios of the son in distinction from the father

His Trinitarian names are Theos of the father Kurios for the son given that distinction and the

Elevation of that name Kurios being representative of Yahweh in the Old Testament Clearly indicates Paul is not operating on a oneness foundation at this point at all

Colossians 2 9 when it's You got it, you know when when our when when when the

Pentecostal start talking fast You need to listen very carefully Because sometimes they're they're sticking something in there.

It isn't quite there The term Godhead and this came up with mr.

Mr. Kinney very briefly It is interesting that mr. Kinney was seemingly arguing the same way that mr.

Perkins is arguing That's why I said that mr. Kinney though. He's Trinitarian doesn't seem to really understand that The question is what does they are they toss mean

Ponte I play Roma taste they are they toss all the fullness of Deity dwells in Christ and bodily form now

I believe that they are they toss means that which makes God God the very the very being or essence of God and Trinitarians do not believe that each of the divine persons only has one -third of The being of God We do not believe the

Son is one -third or the Father is one -third You cannot divide the being of God into parts

And so it would have to be all the fullness of deity That dwells in Jesus Christ and bodily form because deity cannot be divided up into parts so If that is indeed the case

Then from the Trinitarian perspective if Jesus is truly God of the second person of the

Trinity dwelt in Jesus Christ in the sense of became incarnate and In fact, it's interesting.

This is present tense and I would I would Wonder what Roger Perkins view on this is

I mean it it might come up in the debate. I don't know We'll see but this is present tense.

Kataikai is dwelling Hati anato kataikai ponta play Roma taste that it has some articles is dwelling

This is this is a slap in the face of the Gnostics Because well the proto

Gnostics view might say well the real Gnostics didn't develop to later okay, but the the concept of dualism was coming in even at this early period and Paul is using all the language

That would eventually Come into fruition in the Gnostic movement that we have in the second century

Such as play Roma and Aeon and so on and so forth They they use all of this stuff and this is a slap in their face.

They could never accept what Paul is saying here because in him is dwelling all the fullness of deity in bodily form that means currently

Resurrection post resurrection Jesus still has a soma. He is still somatic

OS and All the fullness of deity dwells in him. I thought one this guy has thought that the role of the father now is spirit

He's the spirit so if they are they toss means The fullness the

Godhead in the way that Roger Perkins just used it then That's now located somehow spatially in a body somewhere or something

This wasn't asked of him, so I'm not sure how he would understand it. I would be interested in knowing But again, there is there is nothing in Colossians 2 9 that identifies the son as the father

That distinction has already been clearly made in the preceding context So there's you know, you can quote that at high speed as you go zooming by but that only again that my my my

My statement to Roger Perkins and everyone else In a debate when you just fire these things off that that's not proof that's not really an argument

You you may get your base, you know, we're in the political season now, you know and Firing up your base red meat for your base.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Well, I hear that in debates all the time I hear people and it becomes very very clear.

They're arguing solely to excite their own followers They've lost sight of if they've even had it why they're there

If I speak the truth I expect that those who are on my side will resonate with that truth, that's great

That's wonderful, but I'm not there primarily for them. I I hope they're edified. I hope they're encouraged. I hope they're Encouraged to evangelism and equipped and all that rest that stuff

But I don't want to lose sight of of the people on the other side not the people in the far spectrum the other side

They're not listening to me. Anyways, I I never can worry about the people who have no here ears to hear anyhow

But there are people I want to communicate with I Want it. I want to get some information out to them.

I want them to hear something in language. They can understand and Well, I'm just simply firing up my base throwing red meat to my folks

I'm not doing that and Unfortunately a lot of folks Romans 9 5

So evidently any reference to the deity of Christ at all And of course,

I believe Colossians 2 9 Romans 9 5 are references to the deity of Christ So any reference to the deity of Christ identifies

Jesus as the father I strongly disagree now

To them belong the patriarchs and from their race according the flesh is the Christ who has God over all blessed forever

I think the ESV does a very good job NET who is

God over all blessed forever. I think that's very good. I don't think the King James translation is very good there

Which I'm sort of surprised didn't make make reference to them but That nowhere identifies

Jesus as the father Now the argument was well, he's

God over all not God Oh over all but two Which I guess wouldn't be just one even from his point of argumentation because They they want to use the overall stuff when you're talking about either deity of Christ.

I'm like that Well, and that that means that there's you know the that would make the

Sun above the father or the father above the son or or you know stuff like this and Is that really what the phrase?

Epiphanton When it's found of God being overall that's what it's it's about It's it's to be assumed to be a statement of Unitarianism because well if God's overall

Then it must only be one person to Godhead because then you'd have one person being over the other persons Is that what overall means?

When when you when you hear the angels and Revelation Praising God in that way.

Are you supposed to parse? You know all blessing and honor and glory be thine Well, you know

We can find places where men blessed other men in the

Old Testament so that wouldn't be all blessings and and you know, they're kings and they have power and so the power can be divided up and And really is it do you really parse things like that?

Or do you recognize? What's actually being said? That all power and honor and glory belongs to you.

This is the language of praise and it's not going Well, okay. That means that anything else is just derivative from you and that's that's not really what's going on.

Is it? No, I don't I don't think that's what's going on either. But anyway Yeah, the word became flesh but the word had been differentiated from the father and his fact is

Differentiated within just a few verses in John 1 18 when it says no one has seen God any time the binog in a stay us now

I know You know, I know that Roger is is going to reject that reading be well, okay,

I take that back I don't know that I would assume that Roger Perkins being a part of standard oneness movement

Tends to be King James, maybe even King James only I don't know And therefore would reject

The reading of monogamy stay us at John 1 18, but there is a major textual variant there

It's a very important textual variant. That's between monogamy stay awesome and I can ace we us between the unique God or the only begotten

Son and That becomes the question really I Would be interested in knowing how

Roger would understand that phrase if no one has seen

God in a time But let's take the King James reading The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the father.

He hath declared him Okay How is the only begotten

Son in the bosom of the father? Because according to one of theology, it's the father that's actually in the bosom of or in dwelling the only begotten

Son So I my guess would be trying to be as fair To the other position as I can here would be my guess.

Well, what it's saying is we we didn't look at the uncreated essence of God There was a veiling of that in Jesus and so the only the the so God was in the only begotten

Son and And that is what is being referred to he declares him in that That Jesus can therefore accurately represent the father that's within him.

That's my guess I Would assume but how would he deal with the earliest reading the manuscripts monogamous?

They ask? Because there's a clear distinction between Theon who is not seen the reason

Theon's in the accusative at the beginning of John 118 is because it's the direct object of hey, hey

Iraq. Hey, or I can which It's actually saying it hasn't seen but still even with the negation it still takes the the accusative and so there's a clear distinction between the

Theos who's the father and The monogamous Theos who is the son? so I would assume he would just have to Reject that textual reading because I cannot

I Would be interested in seeing if that other fellow that I mentioned before mr. Anderson Who reads a little bit more widely in in less conservative sources?

I'd be interested in seeing if those thing on his website. I haven't looked where he addresses Maybe textual issues or maybe this variant readers like that be interesting.

I'd be interested in know If you take if you are convinced and I it's hard not to be in light of the textual evidence

Monogamous, they ask p66 p75 both have it Um If you're convinced that I wonder how one this folks handle that It might might be a question worth asking depending on how the debate goes and whether times

Amendable to us, which I don't think it's gonna be but we'll see. I Think he threw an eye in the father one there and I've already mentioned s men's plural.

I and the father we are one Yes, he was seen me has seen the father

John chapter 14 again the classic oneness text John chapter 14 we believe just as John 118 says that The role of the son is to reveal the father perfectly.

That's why he is the exact representation of In Hebrews chapter 1 his his who pasta sis

There is that correct air that that taking of the the ring and pressing it into the wax that exact representation but is there not clearly in John chapter 14 a

Differentiation between the father and the son is that it is it fair to read

John chapter 14 and say ah This is if anyone just read this they would never think

That the father and the son are distinct persons that they are that there is communication

Let not your hearts be troubled believe in God believe also in me. I guess that means believe in both of me

Because he is God right in my father's house are many rooms

If we're not so I would have told you would I have told I go to Perry place for you my father's house, so this so This is just the human aspect of Jesus speaking.

It must be because believe in God that is the one dwelling in me Believe also in me.

So you need to have equal faith in God that you also have in a created

Created being And if I go over a pair of place for you I will come again and we'll take you to myself that where I am you may be also

So we are going to be wherever the human Nature of Jesus is because that's who's speaking and you know the way to where I am going

Thomas said to him Lord We do not know where you are going How can we know the way and Jesus answers says

I am the way the truth and life No one comes the father except through me. So again, this is must be the human aspect

And so even the human aspect just the one who created Who was created came into existence at Bethlehem is here being described as the way the truth and the life

Let's see what happens when you divide Jesus up into parts if you had known me you would have known my father also

He doesn't say you would have known that I am the father You would have known my father also

From now on you do know him and have seen him Philip said to him Lord show us a father and is enough for us

Jesus said him have I been with you so long and still you do not know me Philip Whoever has seen me has seen the father.

How can you say show us the father? How much how much clearer can that be did not Jesus just identify him as the father?

Did he not just say I am the father? No, he didn't say I am the father he did say that if you've seen me you've seen the father and We believe that that means that there is a perfection of representation on the son's part of the father

But it's a huge leap This is my phone going off right here You know, it's been many years

Since this has happened that my wife has called during the dividing line. Hi, honey. We're on my air right now Hello, no, no, oh she hung up She realized you know when

I put it down there I said to myself I'm gonna forget and It has been how long

I think the last time was back in the in the garage. I Really think is back in the garage.

Yeah Well poor thing She's gonna say you shouldn't have picked up the phone while I was anyways back to the back to the point here

Do you not believe that I am in the father and the father is in me? Now from the one is perspective half of that is absolutely true

The father is in me, but how is the son in the father? Because you see is the divine essence dwelling in the human body

Dwelling in divine essence the words that I say to you I do not speak in my own authority

But the father who dwells in me does his works Believe me that I'm in the father and the father is me or else believe an account of the works themselves

Truly truly I say to you whoever believes in me Will also do the works that I do and greater works than these will he do because I am going to the father

What do you mean going to? What do you mean? I am going to the father If the father is in me

How can you be going to the father if you are actually one person with two persons in you?

Whatever you ask this is after the resurrection whatever you ask in my name this I will do

That the father may be glorified in the Son so the father so when we do the works that God has ordained that we are to do and when we ask after the ascension of Jesus we can pray to Jesus so we can

I guess we we can pray to the human nature that's another question of it when we pray and John 14 14 is an important issue anybody who deals with Jehovah's Witnesses knows

And I've told the story before John 14 14 the one verse that has gotten me physically attacked

In a witnessing situation the only verse that has ever caused physical touching slapping hitting

In a in a witnessing situation was John 14 14 if you ask me anything in my name

I will do it so Jesus is talking about prayer to him So we can pray to a human nature or a human person

Separate from the father How does that work? This I will do that the father may be glorified in the

Son so that that the father would be glorified in the human nature When we pray to the human nature

After the ascension, I honestly don't know exactly how they would answer that I Don't know if you love me you will keep my commandments and I will ask the father so the

Son the human nature will ask God and He will give you another helper to be with you forever even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him

Nor knows him. So in the oneness interpretation of this you have the human nature

Praying to the father for the father To give himself

Who is the helper? Who will take the role of the spirit of truth?

Okay, so the human nature is asking the father to switch roles is How I would understand this to switch roles and become the helper

Whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him nor knows him You know him for he dwells with you and will be in you so the father will become the spirit who will dwell within us

Okay, so there's there's how how that works Now I think there is good evidence that the

Justice in the book of Revelation You have clear distinction between the Father and the Son The Revelation is given to the son by the so on so forth

You also have those places where you have such close unity That I can understand

Why a oneness person if they do not take the whole counsel of God and if they they choose by their traditions or whatever else

To only see a part of what the scriptures say I can understand where they get their confusion.

I really can't But you don't go to the 14th chapter of John without having read the first 13 chapters

John chapter 5 I can do nothing of my own self The words

I speak come from the Father The unity that exists between the Father and the Son they are not two separate deities and yet Jesus clearly is

Claiming deity for himself and he is distinguishable from the Father. All these things are right there

You have to read all of it. Not just portions of it and just simply quoting a bunch of verses at high speed

You know that doesn't accomplish anything for anybody it may again it may rev up your base

But it doesn't really accomplish anything. Well, we didn't get as far as I wanted to because Yeah, no we still got we've still got

I don't know let's see here about Two three minutes left in the opening statement and then we'll get to the cross -examination we

I Will we get it done before October? I don't know Where is what what comes after a jumbo

DL a mega DL Marathon DL. I don't know but what what do you want two hours?

I mean, how what would you call that? We'll have to come up with a we'll call it a long time.

That's Double, that's just a double DL a double a double dipper. I don't know

Anyways, we will press on we will press forward and we will try to do a jumbo

DL on Thursday As I said Lord willing. We'll see you then. God bless The crossroads let the small away

We must contend for the faith of fathers fought for we need a new Reformation The Dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

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

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

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