“Mormonism As a Cult” Controversy

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:22

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

00:28

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.

00:37

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

00:43

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

00:52

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

00:59

James White. And welcome to The Dividing Line, the last one in a while, maybe, you know, maybe once I get over the jet lag and the 17 hour time shift and figure out what time it is back here, we might be able to find a way to do something.

01:23

That would be nice, but we'll see. And it would have to be a Skype type thing.

01:30

But we'll see. We'll see. But first things first, much, much, much to do down in Australia, leave tomorrow evening.

01:41

And you got to get psyched up. You really got to get psyched up for a trip like this, because I'm going through San Francisco, which is, you know, it's a short hop over San Francisco, that's not very far.

01:54

But then from San Francisco to Sydney, and you just have to have, you have to be sort of mellow, you know, just, it's going to be, it's going to be 15 hours in a plane.

02:06

Just, just relax and go with the flow and stuff like that. And take lots of sleeping pills.

02:14

That's, that's, that's the best way to handle that one. But looking forward to, let's see, next

02:20

Monday evening, the debate with Abdullah Kunda, the following Friday evening, the debate with Roger Perkins.

02:28

Speaking at a retreat this coming weekend, speaking at St.

02:34

Augustine's Neutral Bay Anglican Church on Sunday, then the debate on Monday, 19 television episodes to record starting

02:43

Tuesday, fly to Brisbane, have the debate with Roger Perkins, speak at two different churches there in the

02:52

Brisbane area at a conference for one, Sunday morning service for the other, fly back to Sydney, and have just enough time to sort of vegetate before the flight back, where I arrive before I leave on Monday.

03:05

And then I have all day Tuesday here in Phoenix, and then 6 .45am flight out for Louisiana on Wednesday.

03:13

Who scheduled this? Someone who doesn't like me, oh wait, that was me, never mind.

03:18

Aye yi yi. Sitting here today wearing my What is

03:23

Hadith 2425 microfiber t -shirt. I must say it is very comfy and looks really good.

03:32

I didn't have a chance to look, could someone check and see if the page for this has gone live so we don't have to go through Carla's blog anymore for it, because if that's so then

03:42

I will link directly to that, because I'm sure there are some folks that are just planning on going to, then again,

03:55

I'm starting to think about the people that are speaking at the big national apologetics conference for Veritas, and I'm just not sure that we have too many folks who listen to Regulated Valuing Line that are big

04:08

Tim LaHaye fans, and so I'm really not, maybe, but if you're planning on going and you'd like to get in some very interesting conversations, something tells me if you're wearing a

04:22

What is Hadith 2425 t -shirt that, there we go.

04:33

Okay, I was concerned about this, we might want to pray for Paul Edwards. We were going, the whole reason we started this early, the whole reason we started this early was because I was going to be on the

04:44

Paul Edwards program at 2 o 'clock, 2 o '5, to discuss the

04:51

Mormonism kerfuffle, I mean, what else are we going to call it? When Al Mohler on Friday is saying he's getting deluged with calls, all because of this, what was it, voter values thing?

05:06

Rich would know the name of it, but there was, I did not keep up with all the details, but there is a big debate going on because a,

05:18

I believe, Southern Baptist pastor, in introducing Governor Perry, after the introduction, in later comments, and Al Mohler has a discussion of this on the briefing this morning,

05:34

Values Voter Summit, 2011, yeah, made reference to Mormonism as a cult, and the world has gone insane that anyone would ever identify any religion as a cult, because, folks, we just have to understand, we just have to understand that there is no such thing as truth in the religious realm, and therefore to say anyone else's religious beliefs are wrong, that is just as politically incorrect as can possibly be, and that is so pervasive now in our society, that our younger generation is extremely hesitant, they don't want to be like the firebrands, they don't want to be like the nutcases out there that just go out there and try to offend everybody and their second cousin, and it's very difficult for them to find a balance between a bold proclamation and that kind of silliness and compromise, and so I was supposed to be on the

06:43

Paul Edwards program today, notice I say was, I just checked, just logged into Gmail, because I had received some emails from Paul this morning, and we need to pray for him, he is in the

06:56

ER with an abnormal EKG waiting to see a doctor, so I will not be doing the program right afterwards, so instead of a jumbo, we'll go ahead and do the regular, what was actually scheduled,

07:09

I was going to do a mega anyways, and we'll get done at 2 .30, so we'll just, and I'll still talk about Mormonism, but just briefly here at the beginning, and then we'll dive back into Roger Perkins materials, but we'll pray for Paul, that's no fun to be sitting in an

07:28

ER with an abnormal EKG, we don't want abnormal EKGs anywhere, and that's just not something we want to see, and I was up with Paul at his church, just, was it earlier this year?

07:43

I think it was earlier this year, I think it was like January, February, March, somewhere around in there, and so maybe we'll take a break at some point, and I can write back to him, we want to know if we can do it

07:53

Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday if I'm cleared, well the problem is I'll be in Australia, so what time, could someone do me a favor please, and jump online, you're already online, but somebody in channel please, could you tell me what time it is in Australia?

08:16

I believe it's 17 hours from now, so it would be about 7, no, 538 a .m.,

08:26

is that right? So if they want, if they want to do it at 5 o 'clock their time, 5 o 'clock

08:37

Eastern Time, somebody tell me in channel what 5 p .m., it's 537 a .m.

08:43

right now in Sydney, so that would be an hour and a half from now, so it would be 7 a .m.

08:53

in Sydney, is, if someone can verify for me that 7 a .m. in Sydney is 5 p .m.

09:03

Eastern Time, 7 a .m. in Sydney is 5 p .m. Eastern Time, if someone can confirm that for me, then maybe

09:12

I could, if Paul has the ability to do

09:17

Skype, be with him, but we haven't done Skype before, I think he only does regular phone stuff, and a long -distance phone call from Sydney there would be a little bit on the expensive side,

09:31

I'm not sure, I'm not sure he wants to, I could give him the number, you know,

09:38

I'll be at this retreat center south of Sydney with the folks from Neutral Bay Anglican Church, so, what can

09:47

I say? Oh, Mutato tells us there is a Mormon on the Limbaugh Show right now, well I'll bet there is,

09:52

I'll bet there is a lot of Mormons out there, but just a few thoughts on that, and then we'll dive back into the oneness thing, because I, I would assume that the vast majority of folks listening to this program, this is, this is not, at all, an issue, really.

10:16

I think most people here fully recognize. See, now I'm getting two different times in the channel right now,

10:23

Ralph and Vicki, I need to get on the same page, because they're contradicting each other.

10:30

One says it's 5 .39, the other says it's 6 .39, and so I just need, maybe

10:35

TurretinFan will have time to look for me, because TurretinFan's a bot, and therefore he's, he's automatically timed, he, he sets himself daily to the atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado.

10:48

As soon as he wakes, it's just, and he's, he's timed in. Sydney, I'm going to be south of Sydney, Australia, not

10:57

Brisbane. I didn't know Brisbane was in a different time zone than Sydney. Really? It's not that far away, it's a very short drive, or flight,

11:04

I'm sorry, not drive. Where's Cranmer? He can tell us. Well, that's just it. If it's 5 .37

11:10

in the morning there, he's probably, if he's wise, still asleep, I don't know. But I'll have to let

11:16

Paul, Paul Edwards, know. But I would assume most folks in this audience are, are fully well aware of the grossly unorthodox nature of, of Mormonism.

11:31

And it is, unfortunately, a function of the ignorance of the mainstream media that they, they know so little about the issues that they would be coming unhinged that a, an orthodox

11:47

Christian would, would have any questions about the nature of Mormonism. I have said more than once that Mormonism, because of its belief in the plurality of gods, so much so that the, the, the best

12:06

Mormon apologists that I interacted with extensively years ago actually promoted the concept of an unlimited number of gods.

12:16

Literally, literally an infinite number of deities. And if the most basic element of a religious affirmation is the difference between monotheism and polytheism, and I believe that that is a true statement, then it would follow inevitably that Islam, Islam, which affirms monotheism, affirms that from the

12:49

Islamic perspective, the God of the Old Testament created the universe by His power.

12:58

They would identify Yahweh with Allah. And that God is dependent upon nothing else.

13:09

He has eternally existed as God. He is the creator of all things. And that, as a result of this,

13:20

He is able to communicate via Scripture, and He did so in the

13:26

Torah and the Injil, and that Jesus is a prophet of Allah who was virgin -born.

13:33

There was no human intermediation in the creation of the body of Jesus from the

13:39

Christian perspective and the Islamic perspective. Now, He did not die for our sins.

13:45

He was not the Son of God. There is no redemption in Christ. There is no resurrection of Jesus Christ in the sense of having been slain upon the cross.

13:57

I'm not in any way, shape, or form minimizing the major differences that exist between us. I'm just defining what they are.

14:03

And that on the spectrum of religious belief, Islam and Christianity share a foundational assertion that there is only one true

14:15

God who is the creator of all things. And that that God does not depend for its existence upon anything outside of Himself.

14:26

At that point, Mormonism denies all of that. All of that.

14:32

They have no eternal God. They do not have any way of really explaining creation.

14:39

Matter is eternal to them. God has not eternally been God. While He may have existed as an intelligence, so did you and I.

14:49

They do not believe in a self -existent deity.

14:55

He became a God by obedience to gospel rules and principles. And the worthy

15:02

Mormon man, Mitt Romney, clearly married in the temple, clearly a holder of the

15:11

Melchizedek priesthood, if he has remained an Orthodox Mormon, believes that upon his death he can be resurrected and organize a planet and begin producing spirit offspring and start the process all over again.

15:30

And yet now he will be the God of that planet and he will be worshiped by his spirit offspring when they're placed into the physical bodies of the people who live upon that planet.

15:42

And this means there is an ever -increasing number of deities in the universe.

15:51

Jesus is not virgin -born, because the miracle of the virgin birth is not a virginal conception.

15:58

That happens every day. Yet in Mormonism that's all you have, because the early leaders of Mormonism were very clear, all the way up to this period of time.

16:08

They are embarrassed by this now, but it has been the teaching of the LDS Church, and continues to be the belief of the

16:16

LDS Church, that God the Father physically begat the body of Jesus Christ, that He was for a period of time the legal wife of the

16:23

Virgin Mary. Remember, God the Father in Mormonism has a body of flesh and bones, tangible as any man's. And so there was a natural union between Elohim and Mary that created the body of Jesus.

16:36

That's why Jesus had the ability to take up his own life again, because he's immortal. He has an immortal father and an immortal mother.

16:45

Now if you're sitting here going, wait a minute, okay, where does this God live? He lives on a star, he lives on a planet that circles a star named

16:51

Kolob. And you go, Kolob? That sounds like Kobol from Battlestar Galactica.

16:57

That's exactly where they got it, because Battlestar Galactica was originally written by Mormons. I'm not sure if you can do that.

17:02

You know, Adama ruling over the Council of Twelve, and glowing beings say, as we are, as you are we once were, as we are you may become, and all that fun stuff.

17:11

I mean, once you realize the Mormon background of the original Battlestar Galactica stuff, I've got it on one of my iPods.

17:17

I've got all the old, well not all of them, but most of the old episodes of Battlestar Galactica, and it's sort of fun to sit there and watch it and go, oh yeah, oh boy, these were return missionaries writing this stuff.

17:26

This is cool. So anyway, on that basis,

17:33

Mormonism is much farther away on the spectrum of religious confession from Christianity than Islam is.

17:42

It truly is. And so the issue, and I see we've got folks on the channel.

17:51

Now, Rookie, I'm sorry, Probie. Hey, Probie is better than Rookie, because, you know, and like I said, the guy on NCIS who's called

18:01

Probie is brilliant. Okay, he really is. I just wouldn't say that I'm on probation, though.

18:07

Now, just, if when I start walking past you and slapping you upside the back of the head, then you'll know that I'm taking it a little bit too far.

18:15

And you don't need to call me Gibbs. But other than that, okay, thank you. You didn't seem to know about what

18:24

I was just saying about Mormonism. Did you know about the denial of virgin birth?

18:30

Okay, you did know about that. All right, because you were looking, the way you're reacting is like, you got to be kidding me. But we've got people in channel saying,

18:36

I didn't know about that. I knew about it. It's just incredible. Every time I hear it, it's just so divorced from the biblical understanding.

18:42

It's just, how could I can see how people could make this up? And how could people ever ascribe it to a reclaimed form of Christianity?

18:52

Well, that would take us way too much time to answer. Because if you really start digging into what the the old farms boys cranked out and, and, you know, they were trying to draw parallels to the ancient

19:05

Gnostics and stuff like that they really did. It's not easy to do, but they have people who have done it.

19:11

And of course, the people that are running around with Richard Mao, people might have seen my article this morning about Richard Mao, the shill for Salt Lake City.

19:21

They, they minimize these things. They they really try to say, well, you know,

19:29

I mean, you know, Brigham Young said certain things. They almost want to go toward a

19:34

Sola Scriptura Mormon position, which you just can't do. I mean, I understand they're trying to go that direction.

19:41

I understand why they want to. Mormonism is in transition. But it's just not what historic

19:48

Mormonism was, was was all about. And we could go into all that stuff.

19:54

But the point is, and I think Al Mohler had a very good point this morning in his program, is he addressed the use of the term cult.

20:05

He very strongly came out and said exactly what I have said over and over again, Mormonism is a false religion.

20:12

There is no there is no salvation in Mormonism. There is no gospel in Mormonism. It is utterly, it must be completely distinguished from historic

20:20

Christianity, biblical Christianity, anything that's Christian at all. It is it is Christian in name only.

20:26

And by completely redefining the words, you've taken a pagan polytheism and put a veneer of Christianity.

20:36

That's Mormonism. But what about this cult thing? Well, certainly when I first started studying

20:42

Mormonism, there wasn't hardly any argument about the use of the term cult.

20:48

And for most Christians, the term cult implies a specific deceptive attempt on the part of a particular leader to mimic something about Christianity, especially when you're talking about a pseudo

21:06

Christian cult. So for a long time, there were all the people go around and you give talks on what are the marks of a cult.

21:14

You see, the problem is that language changes, and language is changing really fast.

21:20

I mean, I remember as late as 89, 90, 91, giving a talk at the

21:34

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church on why I'm a fundamentalist. I don't use that term anymore. Even then,

21:41

I had to define it very, very, very, very strictly. But the reality is that term has changed in meaning over the past two decades.

21:53

And so has the term cult. There is absolutely no compromise on my part, regarding the nature of Mormonism.

22:05

But once you have a religion that is 13, 14 million members strong, and once the initial generations have passed, where you had claims of, and I know they still claim prophetic leadership and all the rest of that stuff.

22:25

But let's face it, when was the last time there was a real revelation? I'm not talking about the

22:33

Bible. I'm not even going there. I mean, when you stick it in the Pearl of Great Price and Place, instead of sort of as an addendum, rather than thus sayeth the

22:43

Lord, Mormonism has left that initial stage.

22:50

And the problem, as I see it, is we already have a massive mountain to climb, to explain to almost anybody in our culture anymore, why we identify

23:04

Mormonism as a non -Christian religion. I mean, they're barely going to give us, we have to get a foot through the door so quickly.

23:15

We have to soak with such clarity and succinctness, lay a claim to even be able to explain why we're saying what we're saying.

23:27

That to have the door slammed, even with our foot in it, through the use of an emotionally laden term, is where the problem really lies.

23:38

Because is anyone seriously considering what this pastor said?

23:45

No, because their emotions are up and all they're hearing him doing is being a bashing bigot.

23:53

Now, it doesn't matter how carefully he might explain himself from this point forward, there are lots of people that are never going to listen.

24:00

Again, there's no question about that. But we need to be careful about the terminology we use so that we don't stop people from listening to what we have to say so we can explain, look,

24:17

Christians have always believed there is one true and eternal God who created all things. And Joseph Smith told his followers,

24:25

I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you might see. Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion

24:31

I've ever encountered in all of my studies. There's nothing in Eastern religion even comes close. And since Mormonism is just so fundamentally different in its view of who

24:45

God is, in his view of who man is, in his view of who Jesus is, in his view of what salvation is, it may use our lexicon, it may use our dictionary, but it's, it's like taking all of our words and completely redefining them.

24:59

No Christian has ever believed that God was once a man who lived on another planet.

25:05

And that that planet circles a star named Kolob. That's not what

25:11

Christians have ever believed. That's not something that's taught in scripture. And you really have to get to some of those really definitional claims really quickly, if you're going to get anybody to listen to what you you have to say.

25:29

Now, some of you remember that four years ago, a little bit more than that, back in 2008, especially,

25:36

I did a whole series of blog articles, once again, laying out as clearly as I could, what

25:45

Mormonism teaches what Mormonism is all about. Because Mitt Romney has been running for president now for about seven years.

25:55

He didn't, he didn't stop. And obviously, the big question that everybody has is, well, what if he's the candidate?

26:07

What if he's the Republican candidate? Well, we've already got a heretic in the

26:12

White House. Okay, we do. Does anyone remember the video of Barack Obama addressing

26:22

Old Testament issues? I mean, does anyone remember Jeremiah Wright?

26:29

Okay, so we've already got a heretic in the White House. I don't think we have much of a choice most of the time in being able to actually vote for a

26:39

Protestant evangelical anymore, who actually has a has a political or a theological spine.

26:46

Right? We're forgetting about George Washington. The man was an out and out Mason. Oh, well, there's been, look, history is filled.

26:56

History is filled with folks who, you know, would not exactly be where we would want them to be on the theological spectrum.

27:07

But the question you have to ask yourself is, what about the people that are already there?

27:18

And I was a little concerned that there are so many evangelicals who would say, well,

27:23

I just, I just can't vote for a Mormon. You can vote for a pagan. I mean, let's face it, most of the most of the presidents, they may have been nominally something other than Mormon, but they were theologically pagans.

27:39

They did. I mean, they're just, that's all there is to it. So I don't quite track with the thinking there.

27:46

I really don't. Well, if you can be silly enough to believe that there are space gods living on Kolob, then you shouldn't be president of the

27:54

United States. Well, if you can be silly enough to be a secular humanist, should you be president? Do you really think this incredibly complex thing called life just sort of developed out of slime?

28:06

I mean, you can find anything. In fact, if you want to go far enough, you know, you could have somebody with whom you have theological differences.

28:14

And if you're silly enough to believe in that thing, you know, you could have somebody who's, you know, really has a, has it out for the dispensationalists.

28:24

And well, if you're a dispensationalist, then I can't vote for your president. Well, if you're a covenant theologian, I can't vote for your president, and blah, blah, blah.

28:31

You know, where do you, where do you draw the line? Now, I would prefer that Mitt Romney not embrace a false gospel.

28:40

But you know what? I don't even know where most of the other people are in the race as to, and sadly, during the during the primaries, they'll tell you all sorts of stuff.

28:51

And they'll, they'll have television cameras with them when they show up at church and all that kind of stuff. And yeah, it's politics, man, it's politics.

29:00

But be that as it may, there is no question about the nature of Mormonism, if you allow

29:08

Mormon leaders to define Mormonism. But there are a lot of people that aren't willing to do that anymore.

29:16

And that sort of ties in, ironically, with the issue of Richard Mao and his, his comments that I commented on on the blog this morning.

29:27

Before we dive back into the debate, there is one other thing. I mentioned my

29:32

Hadith 2425 t -shirt. I also, I'm not sure when the banner ad will be up.

29:42

I have contacted the powers that be on that subject and said, please go ahead and put it up.

29:49

For a number of years, well, I started teaching for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in 1995.

29:58

And at the time, I was teaching for Grand Canyon.

30:04

I was, wow. Ooh, cool. I just saw,

30:10

I just saw a banner ad I had not seen before. That was, that was really very nicely done. I'm impressed.

30:16

There's some great, great banner ads on here, but there'll be a new banner ad up here pretty soon. I was just seeing the one for the

30:21

Louisiana thing for Phippians. Audubon Drive Bible Church. There it is. Look at there.

30:27

Laurel. Ooh, 19th. Ooh, very nice. October 28th to 30th.

30:33

There it is. Reformation celebration. Wow. Very nice. That's actually not Phippians' thing. We need to, we need, there's

30:38

Phippians' thing right before that. Wow. Cool. We're going to have some great banner ads going here pretty soon. Anyway, I was a scholar in residence at Grand Canyon University when

30:49

Golden Gate opened its extension campus there, well, here in Phoenix.

30:56

And at that time it met at Grand Canyon, because Grand Canyon at that time was associated with the

31:01

Southern Baptist Convention. And I taught Greek and Greek exegesis, systematic theology,

31:09

Hebrew, Hebrew exegesis, started teaching up the main campus, Christian philosophy of religion in summer terms and sometimes

31:18

Jan terms. I've taught Christology, introduction to patristic theology, some really neat classes for Golden Gate over the years.

31:30

And then as Golden Gate got larger and was hiring full -time staff, then I moved more toward the area of my expertise, and that is teaching apologetics.

31:42

And last time I taught for Golden Gate was in January of last year. And about every other year or so,

31:49

I've been teaching apologetics either up in Mill Valley or here at the

31:56

Arizona campus. And it's that time again for the apologetics class during the

32:04

Jan term session here at the Arizona campus. And so we will have a banner ad up.

32:13

Now, of course, you can enroll and take it for full credit.

32:20

You can audit the class. I know a number of folks that that was the first class they took with Golden Gate, and they said, hey,

32:27

I sort of like that. And so they ended up enrolling and things like that. But if you're in not just the Phoenix area, but since it's a

32:34

Jan term class, which means it's going to be Monday through Friday, five to ten, so five hours a day for five days.

32:43

So it's intense. And then the neat thing is I am scheduled to then jump on a plane and fly to Dallas the next week to debate

32:55

Adam Dean on Trinity versus Tauheed. And what I want to do is

33:00

I want to arrange for the folks in specifically the folks in that class to get to listen to the debate live.

33:10

And part of the classwork will be the review of the debate. So I when

33:16

I was in seminary, I really enjoyed when my professors had a personal, not just interest, but role in what they were teaching.

33:26

For example, my church history professor, I loved the stories of him being in Europe and visiting these locations during medieval

33:33

Reformation church history. And you could just tell he was very, very passionate about that. And so I would think that it would be pretty cool to have the opportunity to take an apologetics class from someone who then is going to be taking what they just taught you.

33:53

And the very next week going to be engaging a Muslim apologist in a major debate in Dallas and get to listen to that and review that as part of the coursework.

34:06

And there will be, obviously, coursework. And one of the questions in the final will obviously be, what is

34:16

Hadith 2425? But no, I won't. It would be so fun to assign as part of the coursework, go through Ergen and Niemeyer -Kanner's book and try to see if you can figure out which one of the

34:29

Hadith citations actually is. That would be a lot of fun, but we won't do that.

34:35

I apologize. We won't do that. So anyway, the banner ad should be up hopefully later today or tomorrow.

34:43

And there will be contact information, how you can get hold of the folks there at the Arizona campus,

34:49

Golden Gate, and sign up for the class, which, as I said, is a Jan Term intensive class.

34:54

And that means five hours. Yeah, don't worry. We take breaks, just not very long ones.

35:00

But five hour intensive class. That will be the second week of January. In other words, those of you who know what my schedule is know that I will get off the boat because, of course, we have our cruise the first week of January.

35:16

I will get off the boat. I will rush to a plane. I will fly home, and the next day the

35:21

Jan Term class starts. And that goes through Saturday, and then we head for Dallas for the debate.

35:28

I'm not sure exactly when the debate next week is going to be because they're still working on that. But who is in charge of my schedule?

35:36

I do not understand. It is going to be wild. But if you're in Southern California, Arizona, if you're able to get away for an intensive class like that, we would very much like to have you with us.

35:52

And obviously, if you're in the Phoenix area, then it would be a lot easier for you to take that. But the second week of January, Apologetics through Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

36:02

I've been doing that now for, this will be, let's see, 1995 to 2011.

36:10

I've been doing this for a little while now. It's always an honor and always a joy.

36:17

All right. With all that said, I'm sitting here being somewhat distracted by the stuff going on in channel because no one's listening to what

36:31

I'm saying right now. Everyone's still talking about Mormonism and Mitt Romney and all the rest of this stuff.

36:39

Now Glenn Beck, please. Can we leave Glenn Beck out of this? I mean, that really confuses things.

36:44

Ignore the politics behind the curtain. Yes, yes. Beck 2012. Great. We better get into this debate.

36:54

We've got one hour left to go, less than one hour to go, and no wait a minute, 1230 to 230.

37:01

So I've got an hour and 20, I've got a little more time than that. We'll hopefully get through a major portion of this.

37:07

Now, switching gears to, okay, did you see that in channel?

37:13

Hey, is somebody talking? That is just, you know, here

37:19

I am trying to do a program and boom, there it goes. Anyways, the neat part about multitasking, the neat part about this particular portion of this debate is this is where Roger Perkins gives his positive presentation.

37:36

I want you to listen, especially at the beginning. I want you to listen and ask yourself the question, does he consistently avoid the use of non -biblical terminology?

37:53

Because he has criticized Mr. Reeves over and over again. There's nothing about person and why are you using all this unbiblical language?

38:01

Listen to him and see if he somehow is able to get through this or if he has to use terminology to answer questions, to find things that doesn't necessarily exist in the

38:17

Bible itself. So here's the positive presentation. Let's jump back. This is the

38:22

Tuesday night portion of the debate between Mr. Reeves and Roger Perkins. Here we go.

38:28

Do you agree that God used the word method of revelation, that words convey ideas?

38:34

Yes, but 1 Corinthians 4, 6 says that we should not exceed that which is written. Also, the spirit of God has to be involved in the word of God.

38:42

Luke 10, Jesus said, no man knows of who the father is save the son and vice versa. And then he said, and he to whom the spirit of the son will reveal.

38:50

So there is a spiritual revelation involved in the word of God. Number two, do you think that the Bible only teaches by direct statements?

38:57

No, there are approved examples and so forth. Number three, is the son a self -conscious, rational individuality distinct from the father?

39:05

In our view, as I said last night, the son is the one Old Testament God manifest to us in the flesh.

39:11

But there's a distinction in his divine consciousness and his human consciousness. There is a distinction in his divine consciousness and his human consciousness.

39:20

That's not biblical terminology. I don't have any objection to it because it is addressing a biblical topic.

39:29

But it's not biblical terminology. So don't be complaining when I talk about persons when you have to, to explain what is found in the biblical text.

39:41

Mr. Reeves said last night that his humanity is not his deity and that is our view. We do not believe that his humanity is ontologically his deity.

39:49

Who was exalted in Philippians 2 .9, the Messiah? Based on your argument last night, do you believe that John 10 .30

39:55

requires one? Now I wish, I know he's just going through this quickly, it's almost a perfunctory thing.

40:02

Who is exalted? There's, clearly there is a purpose in Mr. Reeves asking this question.

40:09

Who was exalted in Philippians 2 .9? And we went through the Carmen Christi rather carefully last time.

40:16

Well, we went through it. And the question for a oneness person, and the question we must be asking, requires more than, well, just the

40:30

Messiah. Who was the Messiah? The whole debate here is that from his perspective the

40:37

Messiah was two persons. Who exalted whom? The Father exalts whoever it is that's being exalted.

40:46

So who was exalted? If it was the Messiah, and you're including the

40:52

Father as the Messiah, did the Father exalt the Father? Or did the Father exalt the human nature?

40:59

So there was a reason for the question, and that kind of answer isn't an answer. And especially when you know why your opponent is actually asking the question, when you give an answer that really isn't an answer, you're not really engaging the debate.

41:16

And, in fact, I would say you're missing an opportunity to make an important point unless that's a weak area for you.

41:27

And therefore you're trying to avoid what's actually being said there. And I really think that's the case here.

41:33

I'm a divine person. I'll be dealing with John 1030 here in a moment. But to answer that question, yes. I first want to appeal to two primary forms of effective argumentation.

41:44

There is what's called an inductive reasoning, and there is what's called deductive reasoning.

41:50

I want to deal with both of these very briefly here tonight. Inductive reasoning begins with specific observations and moves to the more general level.

42:00

It works from the micro to the macro, in other words. Deductive reasoning begins with general observations, more general, and it narrows to the specific, sort of like a funnel.

42:11

It involves a syllogism of a major premise and a minor premise, which then brings you to a very sound conclusion.

42:18

It works from the macro to the micro, to the more specifics. If the major and minor premises are correct, the conclusion absolutely cannot be false.

42:30

Let me illustrate this to you tonight. A. Every wasp has a stinger. That would be a major premise.

42:36

B. This thing is a wasp. That would be a minor premise.

42:42

C. This thing has a stinger. That would be your sound, airtight conclusion. It's a syllogism.

42:47

The goal of deductive reasoning is to arrive at an airtight conclusion based upon a valid chain of reasoning.

42:53

Each link in the syllogistical chain must hold up to very close scrutinization.

42:59

Only if one of these premises is in error is the conclusion false. And I want to apply that tonight, this form of reasoning, to the topic under consideration.

43:08

I first want to refer you to Ephesians chapter 2 and verse 20. It says that the New Testament church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, of course a reference to the

43:18

Old Testament prophets, upon which the New Testament writers built.

43:24

The Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles had the same foundation. The Old Testament prophets did not understand

43:30

God to be numerically one individual, and then the New Testament apostles come along and add two more divine individuals in God.

43:38

Now, once again, this is, again, it's his, he's making the assertion. And his assertion is there can be no added revelation,

43:48

I guess, in regards to the nature of God. So if the Old Testament prophets only had

43:54

X amount of knowledge of God, New Testament prophets, the New Testament apostles can't add anything to that.

44:01

And yet, even from his own perspective, the Old Testament prophets, how did they experience

44:07

God? Well, you know, they did experience his Holy Spirit, but God hadn't taken that role yet from a oneness perspective.

44:12

So I'm not really sure how that works. Maybe something I'll have to ask a question about. But my assertion has and will remain, my assertion is that the revelation, the specific, public, documentable revelation of the doctrine of the

44:31

Trinity takes place in the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and that takes place between the two

44:37

Testaments. Are you really going to defend the idea that if God does something major, as he must admit he did, even from his perspective,

44:46

God took on a human nature? That's a big thing. God didn't do that in the Old Testament. But I guess the

44:52

New Testament writers, they can't allow for this major thing

44:58

God has done because if you're going to be consistent, but obviously that's not the case.

45:09

And what is the unity? The unity is there's only one Jehovah. We don't believe in three

45:14

Jehovahs. We don't believe in three gods or anything like that. But do we learn more about God in the incarnation and the outpouring of the

45:21

Holy Spirit? We certainly do. And if you just say, well, but that's not allowed, well, then you're just limiting the data that can be given, and you're creating a hermeneutic that you would never follow for almost any other subject.

45:36

Can you imagine applying this hermeneutic to the subject of, say, justification? How about atonement?

45:43

How about applying this to Hebrews? Hebrews is pretty much just, well, forget about Hebrews. You just can't do it, and there's no reason to do it.

45:51

And I reject the idea that you can just ignore God's entire breaking into history and say, well, you can't really expand on anything.

46:01

There can't be any further revelation. You just got to stick with whatever the Old Testament prophets had. I don't think so.

46:07

They had the same foundation, not different foundations. And I will tell you respectfully tonight that at the outset, that the

46:14

Trinity doctrine has a faulty foundation. They always start with the New Testament and bypass the

46:21

Old Testament, which is foundational. You will see repeat. No, we do not bypass the Old Testament. We just do not insist upon reading into the

46:28

Old Testament Unitarianism. And there is a difference between absolute monotheism and Unitarianism.

46:34

And yet oneness, I can guarantee you that Mr.

46:40

Perkins will confuse the two and make category errors between the difference between Unitarianism and monotheism in just a matter of days because his position is based upon the necessity of doing so.

46:56

So unless he shows up in Brisbane and says, you know what? I don't believe any of this stuff anymore. He's going to have to make those category errors because oneness, in essence, is a category error.

47:04

It's based upon one repeatedly in the New Testament that Paul, Jesus himself, et cetera, et cetera, would propound the doctrine.

47:12

And then they would support that doctrine by saying, for it is written, referring back to the

47:18

Old Testament scriptures to support and buttress that New Testament doctrine that they were expounding upon.

47:23

So you cannot bypass the Old Testament and go straight to the New Testament and not take into consideration the

47:29

Old Testament. My first and major premise is that the Old Testament Jewish writers and prophets believed that there was one individual in God.

47:37

They had absolutely no understanding of three divine individual persons in the Godhead. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, let's put aside all of the prophetic texts, you know, kiss the sun and the spirit and the sun passages and the prophecies of Isaiah and stuff like that, and Isaiah 7,

47:56

Isaiah 9. Let's put all that aside. The Theophanies, Jehovah on earth, raining fire and brimstone from Jehovah in heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah and that stuff.

48:07

Put all that aside. Let's say that the

48:12

Old Testament prophets were, well, were they even addressing this issue is the question.

48:21

The oneness of which they spoke, was it Unitarianism or monotheism? I would argue in light of the context of the religions against which they were fighting, it was monotheism, not

48:33

Unitarianism. If you can show me that they were fighting against false gods, where those false gods were said to be one

48:47

God existing in multiple persons, then you'd have an argument. But the reality is, when you look at the gods of the

48:58

Babylonians, of the Amorites, of the Canaanites, of the Egyptians, you have no, you have nothing even slightly approaching the concept of the

49:08

Trinity. You have polytheism. You have multiple gods who might unite together to do certain things, but they are ontologically separate from one another.

49:21

So, the context of the repeated assertion of the

49:27

Bible that you have one true

49:33

God is not an assertion of Unitarianism. And this is one of the major problems here is that Mr.

49:41

Perkins assumes that it is, that this is Unitarianism. Not that there's one being of God, which is what the assertion is, but that there is one person, and he is going to take any monotheistic text and read into it

49:58

Unitarianism. That does not prove Unitarianism. It just proves you have to read it into these texts.

50:08

I utilize and know the monotheistic text of the Old Testament very, very well, because the first group with whom

50:17

I had extensive interaction and study was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. And so,

50:24

I well know where the Bible says that there is only one true God, and what the context of those things were.

50:32

And we believe there is only one true God, as much as Mr. Perkins would like to insist, we are not tritheists, either conceptually or confessionally.

50:42

We believe there is one true God, and hence citing monotheistic texts is irrelevant.

50:51

Because like I said, what is really the way to determine, what is the way to find out whether oneness is true or false?

51:03

It's real simple. Did the second person as a divine person preexist his birth in Bethlehem?

51:12

If that's the case, then everything else is secondary. Every other question becomes irrelevant.

51:21

If there is a second divine person differentiated from the Father, preexist his birth in Bethlehem, then oneness is over with.

51:33

It's just not an option. It's taken off the table, and now we have to deal with the biblical text from another perspective.

51:40

Just the way it has to happen. So, keep that in mind as you listen to this plethora of assertions.

51:46

And if you want, it's sort of like one of those, I guess there are these drinking games you can do, where someone says something or other, and every time they say something or other, you have to, you know, it's just water you're drinking.

52:02

It's while you're on a bus trip, and, you know, who can survive to the next pit stop or something like that. But it's one of those things where you're marking down how many times someone does something.

52:10

You might want to just start marking down how many times, without having substantiated this, will

52:18

Mr. Perkins confuse the statement of monotheism, one true

52:24

God, with a statement of Unitarianism, one person that shares the being of God.

52:32

Just find out how many times. I lost count, but you might be better at this than I am.

52:38

The Hebrew word most often translated, God, is from Strong's number 430, and it is

52:44

Elohim. You can look in Strong's, Vines, Brown's, Driver's, and Briggs, and so forth, and they will define this term as a plurality of God's attributes,

52:54

His majesty, and His greatness. In its plural form, Elohim means multiple gods.

53:01

But in its singular form, it means the one true God, which is why Elohim is translated in the singular.

53:08

There is no such thing as a singular form. I think he was just misspeaking there.

53:14

When it's used with a singular verb, as it most often is, that is the primary indication.

53:25

There are some places where there is some confusion as to whether Elohim should be translated as God or gods, because it can make good sense either direction.

53:37

But there is no singular form, as if you have Elohim, and that's the plural form, and Elohim, that's the singular form, or something like that.

53:45

It's the verb number that makes that determination, most of the time, in the text of the

53:50

Old Testament. Elohim is the plural form of the singular Eloha, number 433, which is the singular form denoting a numerical one.

54:01

El, number 410, is the shortened singular form of Eloha, which is, again, the numerical singular one

54:09

God. But El, number 410, is the shortened singular form, meaning the Almighty, denoting the one singular

54:16

God of Israel. You can go to Brown's Drivers and Briggs, page 41 -43, for more on this.

54:24

So, we see that Elohim is a plurality of the one God's attributes, and El and Eloha is the one singular individual

54:32

God. Approximately 265 times, ladies and gentlemen, El and Eloha is applied to the

54:39

Old Testament God, using the strongest term available to denote His singular numerical oneness.

54:46

There was much said last night about pronoun distinctions, and, ladies and gentlemen, I will...

54:52

Now, did you catch that? To refer to His singular oneness. What does He mean by that?

54:57

Unitarianism. What is the actual reality? Monotheism. You see?

55:03

So, have we heard anything that's yet really directly relevant to our subject? No, not really.

55:10

I submit to you tonight, and you can look this up for yourself, there's approximately 4 ,000 singular personal pronouns applied to God.

55:19

So, if we will use a plurality of pronouns to prove that there's more than one person in the

55:25

Godhead, what does 4 ,000 singular personal pronouns prove? What does it prove,

55:31

Mr. Perkins? If you have both plurals and singulars used, it seems

55:38

Mr. Perkins has the idea that, well, if I've got the biggest number, then I win. That's not how you do biblical interpretation.

55:45

You take all of what Scripture teaches. And if you have plurals used, and they're used in a significant fashion, then that needs to be taken into consideration.

55:56

I don't care if you have 40 ,000 singulars. Because what are the 40 ,000 singulars referring us to?

56:04

One true God. And yet, differentiations are made. And those differentiations are explained and expanded upon in the

56:11

New Testament. That's doing real exegesis, rather than taking one particular position and forcing it on the text, and in essence, decanonizing, kicking out of consideration, all the data that contradicts your pet theory.

56:28

That's not exegesis. And so every time I hear this, well, if I've got 900, this is going to come up in regards to Echad.

56:39

Mr. Reeves goes through, and he illustrates a number of places where Echad has a composite unity involved.

56:47

Echad is, of course, what's found in the Shema. Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Echad. Yahweh is one.

56:54

And Mr. Perkins wants to make that mean Yahweh is Unitarian.

57:02

And hence, Echad, since it often means just one, must always mean that.

57:08

And even if there are places where it doesn't, then you add up the numbers, and in my places, in my text, then it has to have this meaning of Unitarianism.

57:17

No, you take all of the uses together. You build a semantic domain for the meaning of the word, and then you place the meaning in any particular translation in that spot in the semantic domain that is demanded by context.

57:35

You don't say, well, it's 900 versus 40, or 700 versus 50, or whatever else.

57:42

The fact that that 40 or that 50 or that 10 or that 5 is there tells you you cannot exclude that information from the construction of a proper and honest semantic domain for the meaning of the word.

57:58

I mean, we're just talking here, you know, we've got a graduate

58:03

Hebrew student in channel, and I think he will verify, we're just talking basic lexical semantics here.

58:10

We're not talking anything overly advanced here. It's allowing the text to define itself rather than bringing in external sources.

58:21

That would prove that there's one person. Isaiah 43 and 12, the Bible says, You are my witness.

58:26

Now, did you catch that? That would prove that there is one person. No, that would prove there is one

58:31

God, not one person. Further category errors.

58:36

Witnesses saith the Lord that I am El, singular, God. Genesis 14,

58:43

Melchizedek says that you are, was called the priest of El, singular, God most high.

58:49

So we have one individual person being called the most high. Now, consider this. Catch that?

58:55

One person, one infinite person. He's already just, he hasn't established unipersonality.

59:03

He hasn't established unitarianism. He's quoting verses that promote monotheism, but he's just assuming the very thing he has to prove rather than providing us with the real evidence.

59:18

From a Trinitarian perspective, if one singular individual is called the most high

59:24

God, would that not be offensive to two other persons in the Godhead to ignore them and only call one singular person in the singular the most high?

59:32

So we assume unitarianism in the address and then say, wouldn't that offend the other two persons?

59:39

Well, if the other two persons, if again, if my position is true and that the revelation of this is found in Jesus Christ now pouring of the

59:48

Holy Spirit, then in the Old Testament, you have collective speaking on the part of Jehovah.

59:55

Most of the time Jehovah speaks in the singular and we can look back with New Testament eyes once in a while and make differentiations.

01:00:07

John did, he did in John 12. John specifically looked back into the

01:00:15

Old Testament revelation and he said, you know who Isaiah, whose glory Isaiah saw?

01:00:21

It was Jesus. But most of the time, we're not given that kind of a inspired interpretational lens to be able to go, well, who's speaking in this particular text or who's speaking?

01:00:35

It's just God speaking. And we can't make a differentiation.

01:00:42

Sometimes we can because of functional things, for example, Isaiah 53, but most of the time we can't and wouldn't need to and don't have to.

01:00:52

It's not something that was necessary at the time for God to give that information and it's not a necessity even now to go that way as well.

01:01:07

Nehemiah 9 says, you are Eloha, singular, God, ready to pardon, one singular individual.

01:01:13

Isaiah 40, no, one singular God. 44a, is there an Eloha beside me? Listen, is there a singular person,

01:01:21

Eloha beside me? Singular God. There is no other rock. One singular individual and person says there is no other

01:01:29

God. One singular God says there's no other God. Beside that one individual. Isaiah 45 and 21 tells us, now listen very closely to this if you would, there is no other

01:01:40

Elohim, plural, besides me, a just Eloha, singular.

01:01:47

So one individual El says there's no plurality beside me.

01:01:53

Imagine how the two other divine persons felt if one of them declared that there was no other plurality beside me.

01:01:59

No, there is no other God besides me. Again, Isaiah 40 -48, who is this an argument against?

01:02:07

This is the trial of the false gods. I've done a lot of work in this text. And it's a trial of the false gods.

01:02:14

Who is the aim here? What's being aimed at? A plurality of divine persons in one being?

01:02:22

No. That's not what is even being addressed. So it is a grossly out of context utilization of these texts to read into them

01:02:34

Unitarianism rather than monotheism and then apply them to the New Testament revelation. It's just, it's really an abuse of the text.

01:02:44

Ladies and gentlemen, I can take you to over 200 verses where the one singular individual

01:02:49

El speaks. I can also take you to, we can consider tonight, the Hebrew word

01:02:54

Echad. Hero Israel, the Lord our God is one. The Hebrew word is Echad.

01:03:00

It is mentioned over 900 times. And in that over 900 times, it means a numerical singular one.

01:03:10

And it's the same word again that is applied to Hero Israel, the Lord our God is Echad.

01:03:15

One singular. So that the Old Testament Jews knew absolutely nothing about the

01:03:20

Trinity or multiple divine individuals in the Godhead. As I mentioned last night, the

01:03:26

Jews, Jesus said rather, that the Jews Edo, full knowledge. The Jews know what they worship.

01:03:33

So Jesus him. I remember last time we addressed the syntactical abuse of the overlap between Oida and Gnosko on the part of Mr.

01:03:43

Perkins at that point. Himself endorsed at that time the Jewish concept of God. You can read in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ where noted scholar

01:03:52

Ben Witherington III and you can also see elsewhere where Richard Balcom, both of whom

01:03:59

I've had personal e -mail dialogue with, they both say that the

01:04:05

Jews in the New Testament times knew absolutely nothing of the Trinity or of three persons and they only knew of Yahweh or God.

01:04:14

That would be a simplification, oversimplification of what both men

01:04:21

I think would say because I think both of them would agree that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ certainly involved a radical, at the very least, a radical addition to the revelation that God had given.

01:04:40

If what he's saying is, prior to the coming of Jesus there was no Trinitarian concept, again, we can spend a lot of time dealing with the understandings of what the

01:04:54

Memorandum, all the concepts of Ruach and the intertestamental period saw some very interesting developments amongst the

01:05:05

Jews in regards to the wisdom of God and creation and the

01:05:12

Word and all these things. There's a tremendous amount of material that's been written on it.

01:05:18

I'm not sure that anything is absolutely definitive but the point is that we can point to developments that were taking place at that time that certainly are relevant to the themes that the

01:05:31

New Testament writers plug into as they now express in the New Testament what they've experienced in the revelation of the

01:05:39

Trinity. Like I said, the New Testament writers are experiential Trinitarians. Someone like a

01:05:45

Peter, he's walked with Jesus, he's heard the Father speak from heaven, he's now indwelt by the

01:05:51

Holy Spirit, he has experienced the doctrine of the

01:05:56

Trinity. And so, the New Testament documents are not there to reveal the doctrine of the

01:06:03

Trinity, they are a part of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense that they flow from the historical action of that revelation in the

01:06:14

Incarnation, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And so, when we understand that, then we can see the unity that exists in these texts and see them for what they really are.

01:06:26

The Old Testament repeatedly prophesied that the Messiah would come and that he would be the one

01:06:31

God of the Jews. Now, you know, I agree that in light of the

01:06:40

New Testament fulfillment, you can say that. I sort of wonder, because I remember when

01:06:47

I first heard this statement, when I first heard this statement, I sort of,

01:06:54

I remember exactly where it was on South Mountain, right toward the really tough part, but I still remember it thankfully.

01:07:00

I was an oxygen deficit, but not that bad. And I remember thinking to myself, I didn't say it out loud,

01:07:05

I remember thinking to myself, I wonder if either Witherington or Balcom would agree with that statement, that is, that the

01:07:16

Jewish expectation was of an incarnational appearance of the Messiah, because there were all sorts of different views of what the

01:07:23

Messiah was to be. And in fact, one of the main problems that the Jews had was Jesus' claim to be the incarnation of God.

01:07:33

I would argue that probably by the time of Jesus' ministry, the prophetic understanding of most of the

01:07:43

Jewish people regarding the nature of the Messiah was not so much deity as a political redeemer from under the foot of the

01:07:52

Romans. And while those other texts are still there, so also were the suffering servant texts, and that really wasn't a major part of what was being looked forward to at that point either, which again explains

01:08:08

Peter's response to Jesus' statement, I'm going to Jerusalem, I'm going to be handed over and killed and rising on the third day.

01:08:13

Far be it from you, Lord! Why? Because that represents the Messianic expectations, which did not include a lot of the

01:08:23

Old Testament texts. The Jews just weren't 100 % certain what to do with much of what was found there in the

01:08:31

Old Testament text. Isaiah 35 prophesies that your God will come, the

01:08:37

Jews' God will come, then shall the blind eyes be opened, the deaf ears shall be unstopped, the lame shall leap, and folks...

01:08:43

And of course, those texts were interpreted by a lot of folks as saying, well, yes, he will come in his representative.

01:08:51

And I would think that would be the normative Jewish interpretation now, and I don't know how

01:08:56

Mr. Perkins can be consistent at this point because he's already given the Jews a normative interpretational status repeatedly by accusing

01:09:05

Mr. Reeves of, you can't find a Jew today who would believe what you...

01:09:11

Well, do you really think you'd find most

01:09:16

Jewish interpreters today that would read these texts as if in an incarnational sense?

01:09:24

I think the vast majority of them would not, which only makes us question the normative nature of the

01:09:31

Jewish interpretational role. When Jesus Christ come, he was doing it every day because he was the one

01:09:36

Old Testament God manifest to us in the flesh for the redemption of mankind. But notice here with us tonight that Isaiah prophesied that not that the second person in the

01:09:48

Trinity would come, but that the one singular God of the Jews would come. I would ask tonight, was this prophecy fulfilled or was this prophecy left unfulfilled?

01:09:58

If it was a second person in the Godhead who no one knew anything about until the Old Testament came, then

01:10:03

I would submit to you tonight that the prophecy was left unfulfilled. Jesus said, I came to fulfill all things.

01:10:10

So, Isaiah prophesied that the Son would be born and that he would be given. Then he gave the attributes of that name.

01:10:17

He gave the attributes. He says, wonderful, counselor, the mighty God, the eternal

01:10:24

Father. Did you hear that? It said tonight, I will repeat it again,

01:10:29

Isaiah 9 and 6. Here we go with Isaiah 9. I think this is very important.

01:10:37

And it's one of, I would say, John 14 and Isaiah 9 are probably where these folks like to camp the best.

01:10:54

To us, a child is born. To us, a son is given. I have often said,

01:10:59

I cannot prove it. But it seems to me that, Ki yeled yu lad, you hear that root, which

01:11:08

I've mentioned a number of times, is shared with Arabic. And for those that are interested, the third ayah of Surah Dhaliqlas, Surah 112.

01:11:21

Lem yeled walem yuled. You hear that? Yeled. Lem yeled walem yuled. Here you have, Ki yeled yu lad in Hebrew.

01:11:29

To us, a child is born. To us, a son is given. The root there is

01:11:36

Nathan, just like Nathan, the prophet, Nathan, to give. And the difference between the giving of the child, which is a natural birth thing, and then what you have in the giving of a son.

01:11:54

I see significance in there, and I think I could defend that in light of what we have in the rest of the text.

01:12:06

Even Kyle and Delitch, in their commentary, has to admit that there seems to be, here in the prophetic voice, a going beyond what could have possibly been imagined by the prophet himself, especially with the names that are used here.

01:12:23

Now, there is an interesting textual variant when you look at the Greek Septuagint, but we're looking primarily at the

01:12:32

Hebrew at this point. And it's interesting that he emphasizes the, the, the, whereas, and I think at one point,

01:12:45

I'll listen carefully and see if I can catch it, he talks about the definite article. The mighty

01:12:52

God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. I'm looking at the ESV, it's

01:12:57

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. I don't see the there. I'm not sure if the King James has it or not, but that is certainly not demanded by the

01:13:06

Hebrew forms that are used. Especially when you have some, the key text here is

01:13:13

Aviad. You have El Gabor, which is used of Jehovah in Isaiah 1021.

01:13:22

There's no question that not only is this a Messianic prophecy, but it is a prophecy of the deity of the coming one.

01:13:31

But the question is, what does Aviad mean? And I would argue that since the, the roles of father, son, and spirit, even from a oneness perspective, require the incarnation to be visible to man, that those offices, those names, you know, from the oneness perspective, they're just offices.

01:13:58

Yeah, but who in the Old Testament knew about them? From our perspective, the role of father in the

01:14:08

Old Testament is primarily in the creative sense. And I don't mean offspring.

01:14:14

I mean, normally when of is used of Yahweh, the context is creative.

01:14:22

You have made us. You are our father. It's talking about God as creator.

01:14:28

And if El Gabor refers to God's power, the fact that he has divine power, then

01:14:39

Aviad, I think, most consistently fits into texts such as Colossians chapter 1 and Hebrews chapter 1, where you have an emphasis upon the creative role of Jesus in his preexistence.

01:14:58

Now, you can't understand Hebrews 1 or Colossians chapter 1 outside of a recognition of the preexistence of the

01:15:06

Son as the Son, but be it as it may, Aviad, eternal father, to me would be the one, again, of being in the creative sense, who is the creator, is the means by which creation has taken place and who himself is not created because he is aviad.

01:15:33

Just as Paul says in Colossians chapter 1, for by him were all things created, whether in heaven or earth, visible, invisible, principalities, powers, dominions, authorities, all things created by him and for him.

01:15:45

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. There is the post -incarnational, backward -looking interpretation of what

01:15:55

Aviad tells us all the way back 700 years before Christ. And that's why this is just, for me, this wraps up for me my incarnational celebration each year is

01:16:15

I spend much time at the holiday season contemplating the condescension that is found in these words which were written so long before their fulfillment.

01:16:35

And yet we're so filled with latent meaning that we have the privilege, looking backwards, in light of the

01:16:46

New Testament revelation, to see. And I really have to wonder in light of Mr. Perkins' earlier comments, it's almost like he's robbed of having this.

01:16:56

Because, well, you can't have any fuller revelation. Well, I think you do.

01:17:07

But anyway. Wow. Now, second person in channel.

01:17:15

Well, not in channel, but second person that we know today with EKG issues. So now we get to add

01:17:23

Chris to the list of folks to pray for. Well, just, hmm.

01:17:30

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We are wonderfully made and we can wonderfully short -circuit sometimes too, unfortunately, as I have proven myself.

01:17:43

It's amazing the Lord sustains us, yes. Well, that's just because you had an overabundance. You had a surplus of a natural heart.

01:17:53

Oh, I've got a lot. Oh, yeah. Let's not bother telling anybody the new world record

01:17:59

I set for my heart rate last Friday. Let's not go there.

01:18:04

Anyway, don't worry, folks. I'm good. Even my cardiologist was sort of ho -ha, yawn -yawn stuff about it.

01:18:14

Anyway, I really love Isaiah 9 -5 in the Hebrew, Isaiah 9 -6 in our

01:18:19

English translations. But I would point out the emphasis upon the idea that there's a definite article there.

01:18:32

It's not inappropriate necessarily to supply it, but it's certainly not demanded by the grammar form that it actually has.

01:18:40

So you, again, have to be very, very careful and specific in how you're going there.

01:18:48

Mr. Proby -person, you want to cue up something so we can take a break long enough to rest the voice in a few moments after this next section we play, and then

01:19:00

I'll give you a high sign that we can do that. He called Jesus. He referred to the name, and he puts the attributes in that name, and part of that was the mighty

01:19:09

God, not a mighty God. No, it's mighty God. Again, I would challenge the assertion that that's even relevant to what the author is saying.

01:19:28

When you say, well, it's the mighty God, not a mighty God. Well, okay, all right. I would agree that saying a mighty

01:19:36

God would be a mistranslation. But that's in light of the use of El Gabor elsewhere, so you'd have to argue contextually at that point, from my opinion.

01:19:46

And the Eternal Father, not a Eternal Father. This would be very strange language, ladies and gentlemen, if it was a second individual in the

01:19:54

Godhead being called by the name of the first individual in the Godhead. The mighty

01:20:00

God. No. What's the assumption there? The assumption there is that the name of the first person is a part of the

01:20:08

Old Testament revelation, and it's not. The whole point is that of, in the

01:20:15

Old Testament, is a creative term in regards to God's role as creator either of all of creation, individuals, or of Israel especially, covenantally, in the creation of the nation of Israel.

01:20:28

It is a huge leap to go, Oh, I'm going to take the specific names of the persons in the

01:20:37

New Testament and read them back here so that calling

01:20:43

Jesus Aviad makes him the Father when Jesus never makes that identification himself, though he's going to assert that here in regards to John 10 .30

01:20:52

if we get to it, and I stop interrupting him so much. God and the Eternal Father, and I would ask tonight respectfully, what is the first divine individual doing wrapped up in the name of the second divine individual?

01:21:04

My opponent's position would have Isaiah's prophecy unfulfilled. If Isaiah is not calling

01:21:10

Jesus the Eternal Father, ladies and gentlemen, then is he also not calling him wonderful? Is he also not calling him counselor?

01:21:17

No. This is a complete red herring. It has nothing to do logically with my belief that this is fulfilled.

01:21:24

The assumption, the errant assumption that has been made is that Aviad is meant, that Av in Aviad is meant to be the direct parallel to the term

01:21:35

Father in the New Testament in contradiction to or distinction from the Son or the

01:21:40

Spirit. There's no evidence of that. The normative use of Av is in creative context.

01:21:47

We gave a, I think, perfectly understandable interpretation of what the fulfillment of that would be in Colossians 1 and things like that.

01:21:55

Hey, we're going to take just a brief break. We've still got about 39 minutes left in the program.

01:22:00

I'm going to get as far through this opening statement as I can because we head for Oz tomorrow.

01:22:06

So we'll be right back. This portion of the

01:22:24

Dividing Line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

01:22:34

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

01:22:41

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

01:22:46

Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30

01:22:54

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

01:23:02

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

01:23:09

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

01:23:16

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

01:23:23

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

01:23:31

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

01:23:39

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

01:23:49

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

01:23:56

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the papacy, the

01:24:03

Mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the

01:24:10

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.

01:24:20

Incorporating the most recent research Letters to a Mormon Elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional

01:24:29

Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

01:24:40

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

01:24:46

With well -defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the

01:24:51

Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism, and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

01:25:02

LDS Church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons.

01:25:11

Letters to a Mormon Elder Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

01:25:18

Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the Gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program, the need for a no -nonsense presentation of the

01:25:28

Gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday, yet they have never been confronted with their sin.

01:25:37

Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the Gospel in a clear and concise manner, making no excuses.

01:25:44

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior, and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior.

01:25:52

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well.

01:26:03

Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

01:26:09

Thank you. Well, I'm not sure if I can continue on, personally.

01:26:21

Both Vicky -Ann and Ralph are going to be leaving channel. So, you know, it's like one of those, you know, those

01:26:28

Santa things that you run the fans and it blows up and it moves around at night, and then all of a sudden they turn the fan off and it just goes...

01:26:36

That's sort of how I feel when Ralph and Vicky leave channel. But Gracie's still there, so I guess maybe

01:26:44

I can press on. I love my channel family in there.

01:26:50

That's why we sort of protect it a lot and kick people out. Mutato's still there. Yes. And Rosie's still there.

01:26:59

And that's about it. Anyway, we will press on. And Scott's there.

01:27:05

But, of course, Scott was the one who was making fun of me earlier. And so I had to kick him out when he was making fun of me earlier.

01:27:13

And I just kicked him out again. So he may not come back. Turretinfan's still there.

01:27:19

So we will press on. Okay. Let's keep going because we're almost halfway through the opening here, but not quite.

01:27:28

And there's still stuff, especially in regards to the Greek we want to get to. We've got about half an hour left.

01:27:34

Is he also not calling him the Prince of Peace? Will my honorable opponent be consistent and say that Jesus is also not wonderful?

01:27:41

That Jesus is also not the Prince of Peace? Bad, bad argumentation. Not relevant to our position.

01:27:46

The actual text itself ties the Eternal Father to the name of Jesus.

01:27:52

So we have a clear demonstration here of the duality in Christ Jesus, that he was simultaneously the

01:27:59

Son given and the Eternal Father and the mighty God. So, and I could take you to Zechariah 14, 5, where he prophesied that this selfsame

01:28:08

God, not a different individual, but that he would come. So that my first premise tonight is well established based upon the actual grammar of the

01:28:17

Old Testament Hebrew, and the Old Testament Jewish writers believe one echad, individual,

01:28:24

El of God. Individual God, not an individual person.

01:28:29

There has been nothing that has been given to us that substantiates the assertion of Unitarianism.

01:28:35

All we've gotten, properly anyways, are assertions of monotheism.

01:28:41

They're not the same thing. And I really think that Oneness folks need to step up at that point and realize this is what the whole debate's about.

01:28:49

We believe the monotheistic point. You've got to prove the Unitarian point. That's my first premise. My second premise in the chain of syllogism is that the

01:28:56

New Testament writers saw Jesus as simply that one individual God, indivisible

01:29:02

God rather, manifest to us in the flesh, and that the only person or individual that was in the

01:29:09

Godhead was Jesus Christ because Paul says in Ephesians that the New Testament apostles had the same foundation as the prophets, the

01:29:18

Old Testament prophets, which was monotheism, not Unitarianism.

01:29:24

You can see how the errors just build upon themselves. And the point has not been proven, not even attempted to be proven.

01:29:32

It's just been asserted. Now if my honorable opponent will say that it doesn't say the

01:29:37

Old Testament, well, it's talking about the establishment of the New Testament church. The New Testament church was not established on prophets.

01:29:44

It was established on apostles. And it said they had the same foundation as the Old Testament prophets.

01:29:51

So the second premise tonight is that Jesus is that one Old Testament God. Jesus himself affirmed this in Mark chapter 12 when he said that the first of all commandments is,

01:30:01

Hero Israel, the Lord our God is one. Now, ladies and gentlemen, you have three Greek words for the word one.

01:30:09

You have hes in the masculine singular, you have hen in the neuter singular, and you have mia in the feminine singular, which is really irrelevant to the topic of the

01:30:17

Godhead. It basically denotes the union between a man and a wife after marriage. So it's really irrelevant tonight.

01:30:24

That is not, of course, the only use of mia. But as we've already documented,

01:30:30

Mr. Perkins is in error here. Hes, mia, hen is one term. Those are just simply gender forms of one term.

01:30:37

If you were to look up hen in Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker, or Bauer, Donker, Arndt, and Gingrich, he would find it listed under hes.

01:30:46

Same with mia as well. So it's not three different terms. Because there can be some, in context, semantic differentiation and usage between heis and hen.

01:31:02

But again, it's context that makes that differentiation, not merely the grammatical forms or gender forms of this one term for the word one.

01:31:14

The focus on heis in the masculine singular and hen in the neuter singular. Jesus purposefully employed the masculine singular heis whenever in Mark chapter 12 when he said,

01:31:25

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one. And we want to see tonight, and it doesn't really matter what

01:31:31

I say, so we want to see what the New Testament says about heis. Well, is he saying that that's not the

01:31:37

Septuagint translation or something? I'm not sure what the significance of that is. The New Testament Greek lexical authorities say about heis tonight.

01:31:45

Bower's Greek -English Lexicon, page 230 -231, which, by the way, is the most authoritative lexicon on the planet, pretty much.

01:31:54

It says that this word heis means numerical singular one, alone, in contrast to more than one.

01:32:02

It's the same Greek word, ladies and gentlemen, used in Mark 14 when Judas is called one, heis of the twelve, denoting one person.

01:32:11

Of course, Judas was one person. Spyros Zodiades, Hebrew and Greek study Bible, number 1520.

01:32:17

He says that this word, masculine singular heis, is a first cardinal numeral and numerically one, and then he goes on to say one person.

01:32:28

Now here we have more lexical abuse, and hopefully everyone has learned to recognize this now, and hopefully

01:32:34

Mr. Perkins will not repeat it in our debate. You do not go to a lexicon and find meanings that the lexicon does not apply in the context of your particular usage of a term, and just simply in a blanket way just grab and go, well, that's what it means here.

01:32:54

Every word has a meaning in its context, and if you're going to say that this always means one person, then you're going to have to demonstrate that from each of the contexts where it's found.

01:33:07

You can't just derive it from, well, hey, I found a lexicon that says it can mean one person.

01:33:12

Well, of course it can. Does it always mean that? Well, no. Does the lexicon itself demonstrate that?

01:33:19

Well, yeah. Well, then that's lexical abuse. When you take general meanings and apply them to specific texts, especially as we saw last time, when the lexicon makes specific application as to that particular text and contradicts your interpretation, that's rather embarrassing.

01:33:37

Vine says of heist, it is the first cardinal numeral, a singular one. Strong's number 1520 says that this word is a primary numeral, meaning one.

01:33:47

Thayer's, page 186, says that this word… Okay, how long have we taken now on establishing that heist means one, which isn't the issue and is pretty much irrelevant?

01:33:59

…word is a cardinal numeral one, singular, all alone.

01:34:04

And then he translates heist, which is one of my opponent's favorite scholars that they quote from, he translates heist in Galatians 3a as one person.

01:34:14

So does the New English Bible translation, by the way. The New English Bible translation.

01:34:21

I never expected to encounter a oneness person quoting from the

01:34:31

New English Bible. That's scary, actually, from my perspective.

01:34:42

Most oneness folks I know of don't even… What was the… I went past that too quickly, and I'm actually going to have to back up just a second here.

01:34:53

I apologize for doing that. …numeral, meaning one. Thayer's, page 186, says that this word is a cardinal numeral one.

01:35:02

One, singular, all alone. And then he translates heist, which is one of my opponent's favorite scholars that they quote from, he translates heist in Galatians 3a as one person.

01:35:15

I actually did have the right reference there. Galatians 3, verse 8, one person.

01:35:26

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying,

01:35:32

In you shall all the nations be blessed. I think maybe we have a miscitation there, possibly.

01:35:49

Yeah, 318 doesn't make any sense either that way, so I don't know what the reference is supposed to be there.

01:35:56

Hmm. It's the reference where God is one, but that's not…

01:36:03

He's given the wrong reference. Must have misread it or something along those lines. Maybe he'll repeat it later on. Who knows?

01:36:09

We'll find out when we get to it here. And so does the New English Bible translation, by the way.

01:36:16

A .T. Robertson's Word Pictures, volume 5, pages 186 to 278, says that heist in the masculine singular means one person.

01:36:24

Now, again, one person in what context?

01:36:31

This is lexical abuse. It's frustrating after a while, because the only people that engage in this type of thing are the people who actually can't read the text themselves, because they would know if they read more widely outside of disputed areas that you can't follow rules like that.

01:36:54

You can't just willy -nilly grab something from this context and say, oh, that means it over here, or something like that.

01:37:01

It's frustrating to listen to. This is the same Greek word that is used in Galatians 3 and 20, and all you've got to do, ladies and gentlemen, is just open up your

01:37:10

Amplified Bible, and I'll just tell you before we hear it tonight, it's not in the brackets. I'm well aware that what was in the brackets in the

01:37:17

Amplified is added by the translators and not in the original manuscript, but what I'm about to quote to you is not in the brackets.

01:37:22

It's in the Greek. The same Greek word here in Galatians 3, 20, where it says that God is one person.

01:37:31

Now, you can turn there yourselves and look in the Amplified. Jesus cares. If I might, as a critical consultant for the

01:37:40

Lockman Foundation, which produced the Amplified Bible, if I might comment at that point, it is clearly not the intention of the

01:37:54

Amplified Bible to promote Unitarianism. The context is found in the specific term, mecittes.

01:38:07

Hade mecittes henos euk estin, hade theos heis estin.

01:38:13

And the reason for this is found in the reality that henos is describing the intermediary, the mediator.

01:38:33

And the contrast then is now an intermediary or a mediator implies, it literally says, is not one, but God is one.

01:38:50

And the translation of the Amplified offered at that point, therefore, would not be in promotion of Unitarianism or the assertion of unipersonality on the part of God, but over against the plurality found inherently in the meaning of the term mecittes, especially when it's followed by henos euk.

01:39:18

The mediator is not one, but God is one. So I think it's a misuse of the

01:39:25

Amplified at that point to try to turn it into a proof text for a Unitarian perspective.

01:39:31

Carefully omits the other terms for the word one and commands us to believe the hero

01:39:37

Israel, the Lord our God is heis in the masculine singular, which means one person by the most authoritative grammars and lexicons on the planet.

01:39:46

Now that is, again, lexical abuse. You just said by the most authoritative.

01:39:51

He has not cited a single lexicon that is in support of Unitarianism. He has cited lexicons that talk a lot about one.

01:40:03

He's read into the concept person. And then what he's done is he's gone to places where, of course, one can be used of one person and then just transferred those uses over to relevant text.

01:40:15

You can't do that. Again, that's just abuse of lexical authority combined with human tradition.

01:40:27

I guess that's the best way to describe it. We want to notice tonight how heis is consistently used in relation to God.

01:40:33

Mark 2, 7 says that God alone, heis, forgives sins. Mark 10 and 18, Jesus says there is only one heis, good, and that is

01:40:41

God. First Corinthians 8 and 4 says there is no other God but one heis, one person.

01:40:47

First Timothy 2, one person, read in at that point. Mark 2, 5 says there is one heis,

01:40:53

God. And I could go on and on, but the grammar of each verse denotes God as one person.

01:41:00

No, it doesn't. That's pure assertion on his part. He's not just sitting there and doing rat -a -tat -tat.

01:41:09

How many times can I say one and how fast and strong can I do it? That's not the same thing as demonstrating unipersonality or Unitarianism and the utilizations of heis in these texts.

01:41:20

It's not the same thing. Assertion by speed is not assertion of scholarship.

01:41:27

I could further illustrate the word heis as translated into Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the

01:41:33

Old Testament Scriptures in the intertestamental period. And in Ezekiel 33 and 24, it uses the word echad in the

01:41:41

Hebrew, where it says Abraham was only echad, one. And you can turn to the

01:41:48

Tanakh, you can turn to the RSV, the NLT, the Amplified, the NIV, and you will see that this word echad is translated,

01:41:56

Abraham was only heis, one man. That is nothing more than an observation of what's obvious, and that is that heis is the

01:42:09

Greek term that is used to translate echad. Again, Abraham was one man.

01:42:20

This is supposed to prove something? That's the same word that is used for hero Israel, the Lord our God is one.

01:42:26

So one person. No, one God. Just as Abraham, what's his ontological being?

01:42:33

Man. One of him. One God. Can't make that leap to Unitarianism.

01:42:38

It's just not there. It's just being assumed, but so far no attempt made to actually substantiate the leap.

01:42:45

So heis is used almost 100 times in the New Testament relating to persons, and ladies and gentlemen, not one time is it ever used for more than one person.

01:42:54

It is always used to denote one singular person. Okay, now let's analyze the logic of that assertion for just a moment.

01:43:03

How many examples of the Trinity do we believe exist?

01:43:10

One. We believe that God's triune existence is absolutely positively unique, right?

01:43:18

So if it's being used of anyone other than God, could it be being used of multiple persons in that way?

01:43:27

Of course not. So how relevant is that great conclusion argument? Not very.

01:43:33

And I know we're going to hear about 1 Corinthians tonight, and I'm well prepared to deal with that. But this is the word that Jesus, ladies and gentlemen, used to identify

01:43:41

God. The other Greek word that is primarily translated one is hyn. It's in the neuter singular.

01:43:48

Young's Analytical Concordance, page 719, says this. One when the neuter means one thing.

01:43:54

It's Thayer's, page 186, says of hyn. This means one and the same thing.

01:44:00

Now this is the same word that Jesus used in John 10 .30. Now did you hear him say it?

01:44:09

He's memorized John 10 .30 in the Greek. But will you ever hear

01:44:14

Roger Perkins address esmen? It's a plural verb. Jesus never says,

01:44:22

I am the Father. So it's not there. I am the

01:44:29

Father, we are one. Yes, in the salvation of God's people. That's the context. But why does he say,

01:44:35

I am the Father? We are one. There would have been a perfectly logical way of saying,

01:44:42

I am the Father. But even in the response to the

01:44:49

Jews that follows this up. There's no confusion of the Father and the Son. The distinction is maintained while the deity of the

01:45:00

Son is asserted. Other are hyn, one. Thayer says this means one and the same.

01:45:06

Not different persons, but one and the same. Are you seriously asserting that you can find theological discussions in lexicons.

01:45:16

And that because it's in a lexicon, therefore it must be the final authority. This is what concerns me.

01:45:25

Because people will listen to this type of rhetoric. And how many people actually have access to Thayer's?

01:45:34

Now Thayer's is a very dated source. And there are questions concerning some things regarding that.

01:45:40

But be that as it may. Still, how many people are even going to bother to look?

01:45:47

Or would even know where to look, actually, now that we think about it. To find that kind of information.

01:45:58

Very difficult to do. And so they're going to take what someone says. And they're going to run with it.

01:46:06

Now, ironically, one of the problems you encounter when you...

01:46:15

I'm bringing it up in my program here. In Thayer.

01:46:22

And if you search on the word hen, it won't bring anything up other than n, the preposition.

01:46:29

Because there is no separate entry, even in Thayer, for this.

01:46:35

Because Thayer recognizes that it's heis mea hen and not different terms.

01:46:41

So you actually have to go in and enter your heis.

01:46:47

And interestingly enough, it has not just... It says heis mea hen.

01:46:54

It lists all those as one. Now I want to go back here. And I know we're right on time.

01:47:00

But I like to check these things out. And it's important. I want to hear exactly what

01:47:07

Thayer is allegedly saying. Here's the statement again. The word that Jesus used in John 10 .30.

01:47:14

Ego kai ho pater hen esmen. I and my Father are hen. One. Thayer says this means one and the same.

01:47:21

Not different persons, but one and the same. Bowers, page 230, says of hen, in contrast to...

01:47:28

Okay, one and the same. Not separate persons. Now, I'm going to take a wild guess.

01:47:35

I'm going to take a wild guess. And say that not separate persons is

01:47:43

Roger Perkins' own little addition. Because it didn't take long to scroll down and find

01:47:52

John 10 .30 listed in Thayer's materials.

01:47:58

Okay? And let's take a look at what Thayer actually says in regards to this term.

01:48:09

Universally, in opposed to many. Added to nouns after the manner of an adjective.

01:48:17

Okay? And then he goes through a number of texts. Let's get down to where he actually mentions John 10 .30.

01:48:25

With the article, ha heis, the one whom I have named, b. In opposition to a division into parts, and ethical matters to dissensions,

01:48:36

Romans 12 .4, 1 Corinthians 12 .20, 12 .12, 12 .20, n. I and I, to be united most closely in will or spirit.

01:48:47

Then we have John 10 .30, 17 .11, 21 -23, and henni numeti, mia suce.

01:48:56

Okay. And he gives a

01:49:01

Latin definition at that point. Then he goes to Luke 14 .18,

01:49:11

with a negative following joined to the verb, etc., etc. So, unless there's another entry, there was nothing there under John 10 .30

01:49:25

that is even close to what was reported. So, I'm sort of stretching here, but I'm scanning through the rest of it to see if there's another use that might be relevant at that point.

01:49:40

John 20, this is in distribution. So, this is a distributive use of heis, mia, or henni.

01:49:50

And, well, that's interesting. Like the Hebrew echad, heis is put for the ordinal protos first.

01:49:58

This is number five. John 20, verse one, that's first day of the week, and that's it.

01:50:07

So, unless I missed something, hiding somewhere,

01:50:12

I have no earthly idea where Mr. Perkins got that Thayer says

01:50:20

X, Y, and Z, because the only reference I can find is under the very first definition here in Thayer's, and to be united most closely in will or spirit,

01:50:33

John 10 .30. That's all it says. Is there any more? Oh, did you catch him?

01:50:42

Thad's looking. I need you to go catch that fellow. That's my son -in -law. I'd like to see him. So, anyway, this is a live show, folks.

01:50:55

That has now been... I just happened to look down, and it's a strange thing.

01:51:01

Did you catch him? Oh, Rich did? Okay, all right. I just happened to look over at the video monitor, and there's my son -in -law walking by, and it looks like he's confused as to where the front door is.

01:51:17

He may not have ever been here before, so he has something for me to sign here in a few minutes.

01:51:24

You know, Dad was a nice dad and gave the daughter a car and just never got around to doing that transfer of title stuff, so we've got to get stuff like that taken care of.

01:51:34

See, I have a regular life as well. Anyhow, so I question the assertion just made by Mr.

01:51:40

Perkins. He'd have to show me where Thayer made the applications that he did. I don't find it there anywhere.

01:51:47

Parts of which a whole is made. 1 Corinthians 3 and 8 says that each one, hen, will receive his own reward, referring to one person.

01:51:58

Ephesians 4 and 4, one hen spirit. James 2 .10 uses one to denote, and on and on I could go, but I'm pressed for time tonight.

01:52:07

John 14 and 8, Philip inquired of the Father's location. He said, show us the

01:52:13

Father and we will be satisfied. Now, if Jesus, ladies and gentlemen, is a second divine individual, apart from the

01:52:21

Father, he has a very strange response here. Imagine asking me tonight where my

01:52:26

Father is, and I respond by saying, have I been so long time with you and yet you have not known me?

01:52:33

Again, John 14, if it is isolated from everything else in the

01:52:38

Gospel of John, is about the only place that oneness folks have to go. Really is, because there are just so many places where Jesus differentiates himself from the

01:52:47

Father, addresses the Father, uses personal pronouns of the Father. So many places where Jesus does this. So when you have an emphasis upon the unity that is found, the common participation, the divine nature that is found, well then that's where we're going to go.

01:53:02

Even though, as we've seen when we went through John 14 before, Jesus still differentiates himself. And yet, remember, the

01:53:11

Gospel of John begins with the prologue. And that prologue is meant to function as the lens through which the rest of the

01:53:20

Gospel is to be read. And that Gospel prologue has already differentiated between the

01:53:26

Father and the Son, and it's also laid out the function of the Son as what? As the revealer.

01:53:34

The one who exegetes, explains, makes known the Father. And so Jesus' response really is responding to the fact that it seems that from the disciples' perspective, they don't realize how perfect Jesus' explanation of, revelation of the

01:53:59

Father really is. Just show us the Father, that's enough for us. You mean the revelation that you have received through me is not enough?

01:54:09

Philip? And so Jesus is not saying, I am the

01:54:14

Father. But he is saying, I am the perfect revelation of the Father. Is that not what the writer of the

01:54:20

Hebrews says? He is the exact representation of his apostasis. The Greek term there is charakter.

01:54:27

And it would be the imprint made by the signet ring upon the wax when you would place it upon it.

01:54:33

It makes that perfect representative impression there in the wax.

01:54:40

Now no mere creature can make that statement. And it's ironic that once again the oneness person is really stuck with a difficulty here.

01:54:51

Because evidently even in John 14, Jesus is bouncing back and forth, back and forth between his human nature and his divine nature when he is speaking.

01:54:59

Which one is speaking? The only one who could say this from the oneness perspective would be the deity.

01:55:06

Because the son is just a mere human being. He is not a representation of anything other than other human beings.

01:55:13

So there are some questions we dealt with there. But... You sure wouldn't be sitting here listening to what

01:55:20

I had to say tonight. But that's how Jesus responded. He did not hesitate. For he that has seen me has seen the

01:55:27

Father. And then he went on to qualify what he... He that has seen me has seen the Father. He differentiates himself from the

01:55:34

Father. It's a perfect revelation. But he doesn't say, he who has seen me has seen me because I am the

01:55:39

Father. He doesn't make that statement. He's talking about, for the Father that dwells in me, he's doing the work.

01:55:48

If you had seen Jesus, how have you seen the Father if he's dwelling in him? Again, this split personality of Jesus issue is two persons.

01:55:58

Very, very convenient how once in a while it's the human side talking and then...

01:56:03

Okay, now the deity has spoken. Now we're back to the human side. How do you even know? How can you even chart that?

01:56:10

I sort of wonder. And so, he's the Father, ladies and gentlemen. Because he is the one singular

01:56:16

L of the Old Testament. And the one individual heist of the New Testament manifests in the flesh.

01:56:23

In John 15 and 24, Jesus said, now have they seen both me and my

01:56:30

Father. How many persons did they see? Two or one? Well, let's take a look at that. I think that would be probably about as far as we're going to get because we're really running up on time here.

01:56:40

And we've been going for two hours anyways and my voice knows that. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.

01:56:49

But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. That's very different than what

01:56:57

I just heard. They have seen and hated both me and my Father.

01:57:03

He is not identifying himself as the Father. He is saying that they have seen and hated both me and my

01:57:10

Father. They hate Jesus. And what he's really saying, this certainly makes it...

01:57:16

This is similar to Matthew chapter 23. They likewise hate the very

01:57:21

God that they proclaim to love and to worship. But now they have seen and hated both me and my

01:57:29

Father. If he is the Father, why say this? Because, well, that's the human side and right now he's talking about this divine side as the

01:57:38

Father. Again, this type of schizophrenic division is very convenient but not really exegetical.

01:57:49

We got through, you know, I don't think anyone can complain. We got through about two -thirds of the opening statement.

01:57:59

We got through the whole opening statement on the Monday night. We got through most of the opening statement in the debate with Matt Slick.

01:58:05

We got through part of the rebuttal statement. We played portions of the rebuttal statement. We got through a lot of it.

01:58:10

A lot of it. And I am, honestly, I continue to be extremely hopeful that Mr.

01:58:17

Perkins will hear and that as a result our debate will be very focused. Not that he will just use these to have things to play and to try to pick on that and pick on that, but that he's learned and that as a result we will have a focused debate.

01:58:32

Hopefully that's what's going to happen. Folks, we may be able to do some dividing lines coming up from Australia.

01:58:38

We'll have to see. We'll see a dot in November. God bless. I believe we're standing at the crossroads.

01:58:46

Let this momentous flow away. We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for.

01:58:53

We need a new Reformation day. It's a sign of the times.

01:59:00

The truth is being trampled in a new age paradigm. Won't you lift up your voice?

01:59:07

Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise. We're pounding on Wittenberg's door.

01:59:15

Pounding on Wittenberg's door. Stand up for the truth and won't you live for the

01:59:21

Lord? Cause we're pounding, pounding on Wittenberg's door. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

01:59:29

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

01:59:34

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

01:59:40

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.