March 25, 2004

world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded

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

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

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

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

James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line 4 p .m.

Mountain Standard Time on a Thursday afternoon. I don't know if we've actually ever been at this time before, but hey, that's where we are right now.

That will leave pretty much everybody completely confused. But we have 49 people in channel at the moment, so that normally indicates something.

Oh, we lost one, gained one. So we're still at 49. I thought we'd gotten to 50 there. Anyway, probably not going to be quite as big a group as normal until people figure out the new time.

Therefore, this is your opportunity at 877 -753 -3341.

877 -753 -3341. We have open phones today.

We've been playing a lot of clips on the program the past few weeks. On the last program, we did a rather full response to a

Soulforce video. I was reading some of their literature as I was taking the material back to the person who had lent it to me.

And I was also reading a book. It's an excellent book. I don't think I've mentioned it on the program before.

The Homosexual Agenda, Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. Alan Sears and Craig Austin.

Alan Sears is the President, CEO, and General Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund. And the Alliance Defense Fund were the fine folks who assisted us when we had our legal battle with Mr.

Lin over the subject of our debate on the subject of homosexuality. There was a glowing illustration at that point of really how these people view this battle.

This is not a... If you think these folks intend to play fair, give up on it.

They have no intention of playing fair. They have a particular direction that they want to go.

And they have a particular agenda that they are pursuing. And listen to this on page 18 of the book.

While you're filling up the phone lines at 877 -753 -3341, the homosexual activists laid out a six -point strategy to radically change

America's perception of homosexual behavior. There are six points for it. Now listen to these. This is back almost 20 years ago.

Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible. Notice not homosexuality. Change the words so that the issue can be shifted.

Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers. That's why most media outlets won't cover the gay pride parades, because that's the aggressive side.

You don't want people to see that. Number three, give homosexual protectors a just cause.

That is, your liberals, give them a reason to get into this cause. And they'll really get into it.

They'll put themselves into it. Make gays look good. Make sitcoms about them where they're the only intelligent people in the group.

Make the victimizers look bad. Use terms like homophobe. And solicit funds.

The buck stops here, i .e. get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause. And that's what they've done.

And I was looking at the material from Soulforce, and the whole emphasis of this material they're sending out to people, is that if you believe what the church has always believed, if you believe what the

Bible teaches, then very clearly you are an aggressor.

You are creating victims. You are perpetuating spiritual violence. And no one wants to be accused of perpetuating violence.

And there are so many people in our society now, their thinking processes have been so completely destroyed by the public education system and the

NEA, that just the very mention of violence, even if it's a completely irrational mentioning of it, will automatically result in,

I don't want to touch that, I can't be viewed that way. And oh, we just see it around us all the time.

That's why you see people just collapsing to this stuff. It's really, really incredible. But this spiritual violence stuff.

I have a feeling we're going to be hearing that in a couple of weeks, actually just a week from Saturday, when

I debate the quote, pastor end quote of the Metropolitan Community Church in Salt Lake City on gay marriage.

He's going to defend the assertion that the Bible defends gay marriage.

And the only way you could do that is say, well, you see, the Bible says we're to be loving.

And the Bible says that we are to be accepting and that we are to accept

God's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered children. And therefore, we are to give equal rights.

The Bible says there's no male nor female and all the rest of that stuff. And then that's going to be the basis.

I can't think of anything else. I mean, outside of getting into some really, really horrifically bad eisegesis of David and Jonathan or the centurion and his slave or something like that, outside of really lame attempts like that, what else could you say?

I just I just don't know. That's what I'm that's what I am predicting. I spent some time on the

Metropolitan Community Church website looking for information, something that would give me some idea of some sort of biblical argument that could be presented, because everything on marriage in the scriptures is about man and woman.

It's it's about complementarianism. It's about about everything that homosexual marriage could not possibly be.

There is no such thing. It's an oxymoron. So I don't know. It's not going to be difficult to fill 20, 25 minutes, however long the opening statement is.

I need to look at that with positive presentation of what marriage is supposed to be. And human sexuality is supposed to be from a biblical perspective.

I don't know what the other person is going to spend 20, 25 minutes yammering about unless it's to complain about alleged acts of spiritual violence and all the rest of stuff.

I don't know. We'll find out. Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, thirty, three, forty one before we start taking our calls.

I love that cough button. Let me remind you once again of our cruise and the fact that time is passing us all by.

Normally we have over a year between cruises. We only had 11 months this time. And I've talked with so many people who go, oh, man,

I wish I could have gone. Oh, I wish I had done that. You know, we ended up taking a two week vacation driving around and had flat tires and it just wasn't anything exciting at all.

And yet it cost all this money. If we had just done that, it would have been so much more enjoyable. We've gotten so much more out of it.

Well, now's your opportunity. The conference that we are seeking to put together, that we are putting together, we have put together, is going to be a very important conference.

We're hoping that the Lord is going to bless that effort. And this cruise is going to be an opportunity of following up on that and really having.

If you've talked with any of the folks, some of the folks on the channel, talk to the folks who went on the cruise and just had a grand and glorious time.

We're going to be the only group in our group. So, in other words, just Alpha Omega Ministries.

And so I'm really hoping that some of you who haven't signed up yet, who've said, I'm going to,

I'm going to. You need to need to get hold of Michael Fallon and you need to start making some arrangements there.

It's very important that you don't put these types of things off to the last moment.

A lot of folks think cruises are like taking an airplane flight or something like that. It doesn't really work that way.

And the best prices and the best ability to get on the cruise is early on.

So the early bird catches the worm, shall we say. And so we're definitely looking forward to that, getting a chance to meet you and to being a part of the cruise.

So make sure that you hit the beautiful web page that Mr. O 'Fallon and Mr.

Pierce put together. And see the information that is available there. So don't forget about that.

We have mentioned it in a couple of programs. And I need to remind you of that, that it's very important that you take a look at that early, early on.

That's on the website. Also, one other thing, I did blog this morning, or maybe it was late last night,

I don't know. An article that I posted in regards to one

Dr. Douglas Cowan. Dr. Cowan is a professor at the

University of Missouri -Kansas City, as I recall. A professor of sociology.

And he's written a book in which he discusses the counter -cult movement from a sociological perspective.

And I mentioned on my blog about a month ago that he had taken some shots at me.

Spoke of my presenting egregious distortions of Roman Catholicism along with Dave Hunt and Jack Chick.

Now anyone who knows anything about the field immediately realizes that at that point Dr. Cowan has demonstrated a substantial misunderstanding.

At least of the difference between doing serious research and not doing serious research.

And I wrote to him and asked him and said, hey, would you like to document this? And got no response. So I wrote again yesterday, yesterday morning.

And the documentation, the emails, I think there was about four rounds of email communication that went back and forth.

Those emails have been placed on our website, linked from the blog. And I think you'll find it fascinating to look at.

He's a secular scholar. He says in there that he was a minister in the United Church of Canada.

But then proudly says that the United Church of Canada was the first Protestant organization to accept gays and lesbians into its membership and ministries.

That tells you something about that particular church. And so it is fascinating to see what the world would call real scholarship that completely and totally ignores the meaning of words, rationality, any type of meaningful use of language.

It was just a fascinating exchange yesterday. It truly is. I think we've got our lines filled up now, actually.

Yay. At least we have four callers online. Maybe there's a fifth line. I don't know. But if you're getting a busy signal, then wait until somebody hangs up, and then give us a try again.

Let's go ahead and start going to our phone calls in the order in which they were received.

So let's go to Alan in Oklahoma. Hi, Alan. Hey, Dr. White. How are you doing? Doing good.

Good. Hey, quick example of great eyes of Jesus for the gay marriage thing. First Samuel 20, 41, you've got

Jonathan and David weeping together. The Hebrew word, apparently, they claim for David wept the more.

It's something in relation to sexual relationships. So you might want to take a look at that. I've had that used on me before.

It's great. All right. It's a side splitter, let me tell you. Okay. Anyway, I didn't want to get carried around that.

My call is about full scriptura. I am pretty much a

Southern Baptist, and I've got a friend who converted from pretty much a

Southern Baptist belief to Eastern Orthodoxy. I've read quite a bit of your stuff on Roman Catholicism.

I've looked at a bunch of your stuff on the website and listened to pretty much all your debates on Catholicism. His deal is we've been arguing full scriptura in particular.

When he looks at 2 Timothy 3, 16, it says that so that the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work or adequate and equipped for every good work.

He is saying that Scripture is not necessarily the thing that all by itself will equip the man of God for every good work.

He'll look at places like James 1 where patience must finish his work so that he may be mature and complete, not lacking in anything.

He'll look at Ephesians 4 where the preaching of the elders also makes the church complete.

I didn't really know how to answer him on that particular point. He has no answer, for example, for Matthew 15 and the argument about judging tradition by Scripture.

I was curious if you could give me a little insight on that argument. Actually, I think he's probably just borrowing that from Robert St.

Genes or Pat Madrid or somebody else. It almost sounds like possibly the

Eastern Orthodox organization he's dealing with or representing.

There's sort of an Americanized version of that. They just basically utilize the same kinds of arguments against solo scriptura that Roman Catholics do.

I've talked with some Eastern Orthodox folks that don't really think that those folks are actually really

Eastern Orthodox. That's something to keep in mind as well. Is it the

Frankie Schaeffer type Eastern Orthodox that he's gotten into? Do you know? Actually, he doesn't go in too much for Frankie Schaeffer because he finds him too vitriolic.

That's pretty standard type of argumentation. That is an argument that we hear a lot.

David King deals with that in Holy Scripture, Volume 1, when he exegetes that passage. I need that.

My friend lent me the Book 2 and I used that to throw a bunch of patristic quotes to show that there's no consensus patrus,

I guess. Book 1 is the biblical part, so you'll have to track that one down. In essence, the answer is fairly close at hand.

That is, when we're talking about the sufficiency that is mentioned in Scripture regarding the man of God, that is a part of a sentence.

That is a Hinnah clause following the previous part of the sentence. The description that's come before that says that all

Scripture is God breathed, or breathed out by God, and is profitable. Then you have this list of four things.

For teaching, and that's the same term that is translated as doctrine. For reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

These four words taken together give us the entire orb of the preaching ministry of the elder within the church, the explication of the

Word of God, the application, the discipline, so on and so forth. When it says that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work, then the

Ergon Agathon, the good work that is being discussed here, is within the context of the proclamation of the

Word of God, and the teaching of doctrine. That's what we're talking about when we talk about Sola Scriptura.

We are not in any way saying that trials and tribulations that are made real to us, and through which we are sanctified by the

Holy Spirit, are somehow irrelevant. That's a completely different area. We're talking there about the creation of Christian character, the whole issue of how we as believers apply the

Word of God in our lives. So just what they've done is they've gone looking for the word perfect, or complete, and gone, oh, well,

I found it over in this over here, and therefore I ignore the context in which it is found initially, and just attach it to all these other words, or they'll use instead of the term that's used in 2

Timothy 3 .17, ex artidso, they'll use a related term and think that they're actually looking at the same thing, all the rest of the kind of stuff.

So really the question has to be, and this is a question that I asked Patrick Madrid many years ago in our debate in San Diego when the

Santa Ana winds were blowing and everybody was about to melt from heat. I asked him, is preaching the infallibility of the

Pope a good work? And he said that it was. Well, how do the scriptures then equip you to teach the distinctive doctrines of the

Roman Catholic Church? Oh, I remember that, that's right. Yeah, the infallibility of the Pope, or the Marian dogmas, or whatever it might be.

When Paul is writing to Timothy, he knows his time is short, he knows this is probably the last communication he's going to have with him.

When he says to Timothy, look, evil times are coming, there are going to be men who are going to arise from within the eldership of the church, and they're going to drop people away, they're going to deceive people, deceive in being deceived, all the rest of the stuff.

At that very time, when he should have been directing Timothy to whatever external, non -biblical source that he was supposed to be referring to, at that very time,

Paul says, look to that which is theanoustos, that which is God -breathed, as your source for your teaching, and your reproof, and your correction, and all the rest of this type of thing.

And that is what's going to make you equipped as the man of God.

That's what's going to give you what you need as a man of God to pursue your ministry within the church. To confuse that with other passages about how

God uses suffering in our lives and brings about patience and things like that is to compare apples and oranges and to not even begin to really show any understanding of what the actual issue concerning Sola Scriptura is.

We're not saying that God just simply flew by, dropped off the scriptures, and then has left.

There's no Holy Spirit, there's no work of sanctification in our lives, nothing like that. That's not the issue. The issue, of course, is what is the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine.

What is the sole infallible rule of faith? The sole infallible rule of faith cannot be the Holy Spirit's creating

Christian character in me because I'm not going to be here 50 years from now. So obviously the issues there are being confused when they use that kind of an argument.

They're just ignoring the context itself. And I would try to bring them back to the context and say, where does scripture say that in the work of teaching, the work of expounding doctrine, the work of correction and discipline in the church, that there is some other

Theanoustos source that we are to refer to, and how can we have certainty knowing what it is?

And there's no possible way they can answer that question. None at all. Okay?

That's extremely helpful. Thank you so much. Okay, well, I hope it's helpful in talking to your friend. Appreciate it. Alright, God bless.

Thanks. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341 Hey, I haven't been where Joseph is in quite some time.

Joseph is in Lynchburg, Virginia. I was there a number of years ago at the Founders Conference.

And how are you doing, Joseph? Good. How are you, Dr. White? Doing good. Great to talk to you. I was first introduced to you by listening to the

George Bryson debate on Hank Hanegraaff's show. Oh, really? A couple months ago, yeah.

I remember it well, yeah. We may actually, we've been talking about possibly carrying that because we can still purchase them from CRI.

But, yeah, well, you know, like I said, I spoke in Lynchburg at the Founders Conference about four years ago or so.

And so, glad to make your acquaintance. Yeah. Anyway, I've been doing a lot of stuff the last couple months.

Just on Reformed Theology. And I'm just really, like, I don't know if I say liking it, but I really agree with that and trying to learn all that I can.

Anyway, unfortunately, at our school, there's a bunch of, at Liberty University, there's probably a bunch of different theologies taught by the professors.

It's not very cohesive. But anyway, we were in Acts class today, studying the book of Acts.

And one of the professors was talking about, because we were talking about the Jews and when they were being converted in Acts and all this.

And he posed the question whether the law of Moses should be kept by the

Christian Jews. And so he stated that he thought it was necessary for Christian Jews in the

New Testament to continue offering blood sacrifices for cleansing from their sins.

Just during the apostolic period or to today? Well, no, he said not today, only because it's not available because they don't have a temple.

If it was available, like if they rebuilt the temple today, then they should start doing that.

And so I asked the question. I don't know if I asked it right. I don't know hardly anything. But I asked the question.

I said, well, how does that play into the atonement? And I'll ask you, I know the atonement, if it pays the penalty for our sins, then he said that we are not judged in Heaven.

In other words, Christ pays for our sins, so we go to Heaven, but we'll still be judged for those sins as a

Christian. And that would be true whether or not we're a Christian or a

Christian Jew. So does Christ's death take away the judgment for my sin?

Will I just be judged for my works and stuff? Or how does that work?

Well, I've never heard of that particular perspective.

I really don't know what to say about the assertion that Christian Jews were supposed to be doing such things.

Obviously, the first thought across my mind is, is there a problem with the canonicity of the book of Hebrews, which makes such a clear argument that where there has been a change of law, there's also a change of priesthood, and that Christ has fulfilled that priesthood, that the sacrifices were merely a foreshadowing, and that indeed the entire purpose of the book of Hebrews is to encourage perseverance on the part of those who were basically being told to do the same things that your professor was saying as you presented there, to go back to the old ways, and that doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

So it's difficult to know exactly how to respond to that, since I really don't understand what is being said and how it could be promoted in light of the thesis of the book of Hebrews.

But as far as judgment goes, judgment for sin is indeed what takes place upon the cross of Calvary, and if we believe in substitutionary atonement, then the wrath of God is poured out upon our substitute in our place, which is why we do not fear the wrath of God for our sins.

Instead, what we fear is a fear that's born out of love and thanksgiving for what

God has done for us, and that is we hate our sin because we know what God sees it as.

We want to be holy as He is holy. It is a love relationship. It is a recognition of our new nature and what we desire to be, rather than this servile fear that, well, you know,

God's keeping these certain accounts, and I have to have a certain amount over on this side or a certain amount over on that side. So as far as judgment is concerned, that judgment would be based upon what

God has done in us by His Spirit, not in regards to our standing before God and the issue of salvation itself.

Jesus Himself said that those who believe in Him shall not enter into judgment, but have already passed out of death and into life.

And so that would be the issue there, but I really don't understand, in regards to what your professor said, what his doctrine of atonement is.

I'm not going to ask for a name here because, to be honest with you, when I was there just, I don't know, I think it was no more than actually three years ago now that I think about it, some of the students that I met with from your

Institute of Higher Learning indicated that they were almost having to sneak in because they knew of people who had been removed for promoting quote -unquote

Calvinism. So I wouldn't want to get you in any trouble or anything like that.

But my question, of course, would be, what is the consistent teaching of this individual on the subject of the atoning death of Christ?

What was God's intention in the atonement? What was the result of the atonement? Some of those things would sort of help a little bit in understanding what kind of background was behind the statements because the statements as you have represented them sound very, very odd.

Right, because he's off on a lot of stuff. He doesn't believe in a calling to Christian ministry for a pastor.

And that's like, in the Southern Baptist Convention, you have to demonstrate evidence of a calling to be ordained.

Yeah, except in the Southern Baptist Convention, all you've got to do is say, I feel that way, and that's more than, that's all you need.

I mean, from my perspective, at least on that particular issue, within Reformed Baptist circles, it's not enough to say,

I feel that way. Then the elders are supposed to look at you and say, okay, but God gifts the men that he calls to ministry, and therefore, where is the evidence of your gifts?

Which I think is what the elders should do. But again, is this teaching

New Testament theology? What field is this person teaching? Well, he's an

Old Testament, like, that's his specialty is Old Testament. I mean,

I don't care, I can tell you who it is. I don't know if you've heard of him. Do you want me to tell you? I don't care, that's fine. It's Dr.

Donald Fowler. Hmm, the name sounds a little bit familiar. Okay, I mean, he's like, he's writing a commentary on 1 and 2

Kings right now. I mean, like, that's his specialty. He studies Hebrew and stuff, but like, he just, I don't know, he brought up the book of Hebrews, and he quoted, like, chapter 9,

Simon Carver. It says, like, the blood of bulls and goats and stuff sanctifies, like, present tense.

Okay, well, hey, you know, I hate to tell you this, but we're losing your signal, and I would think that Hebrews 9 would be the place to go, because it's talking about the fact that he has entered into the heavenly tabernacle, and as such, that's, the finishedness of the work is emphasized there.

But, hey, I sort of wondered when Joseph called, I said, but that signal sounds odd, and he was on the cell phone, and not all cell phones and systems have quite gotten up to full speed yet, but thank you,

Joseph, for your call, and keep listening with discernment, and hopefully you'll have an opportunity of engaging some of those subjects in class.

877 -753 -3341. Let's go ahead and take our break.

When we come back, we'll be talking with Aaron and Damian, and your phone calls, don't do what you do all the time, that is, wait until the very end of the hour.

Get your call in now. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the Church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived, bodily assumed

Queen of Heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer, is fresh insight into the woman the

Bible calls blessed among women and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at aomin .org.

This portion of the 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.

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

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

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

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

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

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

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

My name is

James White. It's 4 .32 on a Thursday afternoon and we are live taking your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

Let's talk with Aaron in California. Hi, Aaron. Hello. Hello, I'm here.

Yes, sir. Hi, I have a question. The concern is a long one.

Haskell's Wagers methodology applied to Sola Scriptura and its prophecies?

I take it you're familiar with Haskell's Wager? I am familiar with Blaise Pascal and his writings and his wager.

I'll summarize it very quickly. It's based on you take some...

It's better to take an option that has a possible gain even if it might fail rather than taking something that's guaranteed to fail.

Yeah, generally most people understand the wager to in essence say that it is significantly better to believe in God than to not believe in God and risk the consequences that come with such non -belief.

I know it sounds quaint and many people disagree with it. Well, disagree with believing in God just for that purpose.

I'd also argue being Reformed it's impossible to believe in God for that purpose. But I hear many complaints lodged against Sola Scriptura and also atheists lodging complaints against arguments against the

Bible prophecies not being complete enough not being clear enough many things on that level and I'm wondering if the argumentation which

I'd like you to either give me the error in my logic or verify because I have not read as much as I'd like to on Sola Scriptura if the

Roman Catholics and atheists I'll start with the atheists they tend to say well because it does not seem like the prophecies in the

Bible have been completed perfectly and there's some argumentation on how some may not have been some may have been fulfilled at two different times therefore we don't need to trust the

Bible and again the Roman Catholic would go over and say because the

Bible is not complete there's some parts with different interpretations well not really on that level rather than because it's a fallible list of infallible books they say well because we have a fallibility in there therefore we can go over to the magisterium and so on now the argumentation

I usually present is usually it's pretty much why we can verify

Roman Catholics have a guaranteed list of problems in the failures of the

Popes even things they themselves admit so how does the argumentation on their side work to say since we have something that's only guaranteed on many parts but not completely perfect we can go over to something that is promised to be imperfect whereas it's not about we need to constantly verify that the

Bible is perfect it's rather what better do we have what human made prophecies are there that are more verifiable than the ones in the

Bible well I hear what you're saying the problem with each of the two arguments is different the

Roman Catholic argumentation in regards to the scriptures on the nature of the canon is a very circular one

I'm sure we'll be hearing it in just a matter of weeks on Long Island when we debate the issue of the Apocrypha because fundamentally the argument is the

Roman Catholic canon of the scriptures is correct because Rome says so it is the fact that the infallibility of the church and her authority really becomes the issue there and they don't believe that they're going to a less certain thing when they go to the

Magisterium we would say they are but that would have to be something that would need to be demonstrated historically which is possible to do and also demonstrated biblically

I don't think that really is relevant to the wager issue as far as the atheist goes well the problem is it's similar to something

I was going to mention earlier in regards to the homosexual apologists they will say, for example that no one can really know what arsenikoites means

I was noticing this in the Soulforce materials that I was reading the whole idea from their perspective is that look it is impossible to really come to any conclusions since there are disagreements therefore there is no reason to believe any particular conclusion since other people disagree and that's in essence what the atheist is saying is that okay well maybe you can come up with a consistent way of interpreting this passage or okay maybe we don't know enough about the particular context of a historical fulfillment to actually say it couldn't have happened this way or it didn't happen that way the very same type of argumentation and it requires some level of almost infallibility or exhaustive knowledge to make the kind of arguments they're making and as time has passed the number of arguments the number of passages they can refer to has gotten smaller and smaller as we have as the knowledge base concerning the historical context continues to grow and I suppose you could argue that someday that knowledge base would be wiped out if the

Lord tarried that long but still even at that point it's an irrational argument and I don't know that again you can just basically make the argument well it's better to believe it than to believe nothing at all because there's all sorts of other things out there that people would throw out that would say well why don't we believe this why don't we believe that why don't we believe an expansion on scripture with new books of scripture and Mormonism I didn't want to parallel it that closely just the methodology well what

Rome I'll stick with Rome because you're right they apply way too differently to the two examples

Rome would say that since Rome is arguing that we have to absolutely have the

Bible with perfect interpretation among all peoples and everything and if we don't have an absolutely perfected artistry of the

Bible then we have then it's okay to trust in something that's guaranteed to be flawed that's what

I'm wondering that's where they're trying to take it they're holding us to standard they're not holding to well of course and that's the nature of commitment to sola ecclesia on the part of Roman Catholics it's something that's very easily demonstrated but in reality what they're saying is is that they're not going to just automatically grant your assertion that this is imperfect they're going to in essence say that any imperfection is on a different level a different foundation than the issues that they are solving by making reference to the authority of the magisterium and so I'm not

I'm just not really role playing but I'm just playing devil's advocate their answer you would ask what do they say their answer is going to be somewhat along that very line and that is that well we may not have perfect unanimity in our own amongst our own people but that's not really the issue the issue is we have the ability to have it and that's what gives us the certainty about the scriptures and so in essence the argument would be we get the best of both worlds and of course in reality they end up losing both

I can work with that thank you doctor alright thank you alrighty bye bye let's talk to Damien in Albany, New York hi

Damien James? yes sir how are you? doing good just want to say that I deeply appreciate your ministry it's certainly benefited from it especially in a world as way as Christianity is today sometimes

I wonder how I even got saved well you know the Lord has a way of working through any mess we make he certainly does

I recently have been following a little bit of Mormonism because of your ministry and I got your

Witnessing the Mormon mp3 download and I was just wondering if maybe you could explain a little bit more about 1

Corinthians 15 29 yeah that's obviously a favorite of the Mormons they will quote it completely out of context all the time and that is it says otherwise what will those do who are baptized with the dead if the dead are not raised at all why then are they baptized for them and they automatically just assume without any contextual reason for assuming this that Christians built temples and that they had priesthoods and that they engaged in genealogical research and baptized people for the dead so that their dead relatives could continue on in the work of becoming exalted in the status of gods now the vast majority of non -Mormons would automatically recognize the lack of a background and foundation for that kind of interpretation but that doesn't necessarily mean that most

Protestants have any way of really providing any meaningful interpretation of course when I say Protestants I'm going to sneeze here in a second when

I say Protestants the reason I say that is Rome hasn't defined what this term means either and most

Roman Catholics end up just arguing ultimate authorities with Mormons anyways well my ultimate authority says you're wrong well my ultimate authority says you're wrong so anyway the issue is this there are some and I once took this perspective there are some that refer to the fact that the third person is used here and that is what will those do not what will we do but that Paul is making reference to an external group and that by their activity of baptizing for the dead that obviously there would be no reason to do that if the dead did not rise and that he's basically saying look even people outside the church recognize the resurrection how can you not recognize the resurrection and I know there are some who take that viewpoint

I don't take that perspective any longer the reason being I just don't

I can't see how Paul would make reference to an unorthodox sect outside the church and say well see even they know that there's a resurrection so if the heretics know there's a resurrection how come you don't know

I'm not really sure that's a really strong direction to go instead I think the two things looking at the

Greek term otherwise what will those do who are baptized for the dead and that can be translated in behalf of when used with the genitive and also into the place of the reason that I take the verse the way

I do now is because of the fact that it's a series of questions there's two questions in that verse and there's a third question one of the problems we have because of the format of our

English Bibles is that we tend to only look at one verse at a time but if you have three questions in a row you probably might want to look at all three of them and we tend to skip the third question which is verse 30 why are we also in danger every hour now there is a contrast the those and the we but then he goes on to say

I affirm brethren by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord I die daily so that may be where the we comes from the point is why are we also in danger every hour or what is he referring to there

I understand the passage to in essence be saying this if there is no resurrection as Christians are dying and we baptize new converts into their place of service in the church why would we do this if in point of fact we are of all men most to be pitied as he says in this chapter if the dead are raised at all why in the world should we be replacing those who have died let's just eat drink be merry for tomorrow we die for this is a persecuted church and that fits with verse 30 when he says why are we also in danger every hour if all of this is just for this life then why in the world worry about any of this just give it up let's go party and let's have fun so central is the idea of the resurrection and the judgment and the life to come to the

Christian faith and so I think when you look at Huppert in that sense and see it in that context the context of the persecuted early church and the fact that they did know of people who were now striving to the point of bloodshed and certainly would for the next well until the peace of the church in 313 that this is going to be taking place that it makes perfect sense in that context we generally don't think in that way because we are not in that in that context but look at verse 32 as well if from human motives

I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus what does it profit me if the dead are not raised let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die there it is there to me is really the very essence of what 29 -32 is talking about basically he is using a form of argumentation similar to what he used in the preceding verses basically he is the idea of in behalf of the dead doesn't mean for their benefit it means into their place of service in the church why would we do that if there is no resurrection indeed we are being persecuted he has fought with wild beasts at Ephesus if he did that simply for human motives and not with an eye to eternity what profit does that give to him if the dead are not raised let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die that's just the way it's supposed to that's the way it should go but he doesn't do that because he recognizes that there is a resurrection and hence these things are important alright

Jim thank you sir 877 -753 -3341 we've got two more folks on the line depending on how fast the questions go might be able to sneak a few more in let's talk with James in Stockton California hi

James that's a nice name it's a great name actually it means deceiver

I thought it had something to do with my lord what did you get that at some

Christian bookstore probably I guess I prefer that one anyway my question is regarding Lawrence Vance's book

The Other Side of Calvinism which I have not read yet I have been this book has been thrown at me and since you've done a wonderful job in answering

George Bryson, Norm Geisler and Dave Hunt in their writings

I'm wondering if you've done anything with his book because in a little bit of research that I've done it seems like some of these others have gotten much of their arguments mainly from Lawrence Vance's book so my question is have you critiqued that book at all or do you know of anybody who has and what would be some of your comments regarding that book the critiques that I've done of it have been here on the program in essence there may be something tucked away

I don't recall if I responded to he wrote a review of The Potter's Freedom that was one of the most inane reviews

I've ever read it's actually at the Dr. Wilkins website somebody will pop it up in channel here eventually it's something about grace .org

not free grace somebody in channel will throw it up eventually when they do I'll repeat it to you but his review of it was literally based upon its cover and that's one of the reasons that I haven't really done anything with it it's been out for a long long time really it keeps going through various reincarnations and various versions and I've mentioned for example that when you look up john chapter 6 you discover that there's about the grace evangelical society is the name

I'm trying to remember what the website was and in reality faithalone .org

thanks john faithalone .org one word yeah look up Vance and you'll see the review there and if you've read

The Potter's Freedom you'll just sit there and read this and go how could anyone put their name to this and put it into the public realm

I mean I would be ashamed to do something like that it's truly amazing but anyway there just isn't any serious exegesis in it that's what

I was wondering they want $27 for it I know I own it believe me I have a

Dan Corners book and I have Vance's but I've got all these books and I look at them and I just go you know there's not enough hours in the day and the problem is the less the audience the bigger the book seems to be and therefore you end up just having the same argumentation repackaged in about 75 % of the book it just keeps repeating itself if you had a decent editor on it you could actually cut it down to a pamphlet in essence and the problem is from my perspective the reason that I am a

Calvinist is because of the exegesis of the text of scripture and if a book in essence ignores that and all it does is sit there and say well if Calvinism is true then that means we can't do this or we can't do that or we can't say this that's not the type of thing that I'm going to find first of all it's not challenging me it's pretty much irrelevant to me but not only that it's going to be more difficult for me to respond to it someone just pulled the reference up in channel as I knew they would faithalone .org

slash journal 2003 it's all right there just do a search on it you'll be able to pull it up vance .pdf at faithalone .org

again would you say he's doing more of philosophical like Dave Hunt was doing and yeah well

Dave Hunt was very dependent upon Vance and so if you've read Hunt you've already pretty much heard everything

Vance has to say it's just there isn't any exegesis to be taken seriously and the people that I know who are convinced the doctrines of grace are so because of the exegesis so they read something like that and they're like okay well

I'd like to know how to respond maybe to that particular argument there but there just isn't much here so it would be nice if someone would do something a little bit fuller than what

I've seen out there I think I've seen a few articles on a few reformed websites but just not enough hours in a day basically well yeah and if it's a repeat then it you know kind of makes you not want to spin your wheel right yeah no two ways about it well thank you

I appreciate that I've been searching the web trying to find something I haven't but this faith faithalone .org

is a place I will go looking for yeah well that's not going to have a response to it that's going to have his review of the

Potter's Freedom and that will give you more than enough to go okay alright well

I have most of your books so I can apply those to his thank you

James alright I think we're going to work it out just perfectly here because we have one call left

I haven't the foggiest idea however how to pronounce this particular name but from Raleigh North Carolina how do you pronounce your name?

it's Hermonte Hermonte? how are you? I'm doing well

I had a question about a comment you made a couple weeks ago you made a comment about ministers were going to a legislature and they were people in the legislature were upset because ministers didn't just say everyone loved everybody if I recall correctly

I'm just off the top of my head if I recall correctly I briefly mentioned a woman legislator in Georgia if I recall who was complaining because the chaplain of the senate or the whatever it was the house representative of the senate in the state house they had prayed a prayer that in essence mentioned

God's law and morality and this particular female legislator was complaining that they should only pray in such a way as to include everyone

I think that was the context of the statement I think so and then you said that you were not a theonomist but you had theonomic leaning yeah what

I mean by that is Baptists make lousy theonomists in the sense that theonomy has as a part of the vast majority of its expressions the idea of the state carrying the sword in regards to issues of sin and theology and Baptists automatically have a problem with that because especially in Europe Baptists have the longest martyrology of any

Protestant group at the hands of both Protestants and Roman Catholics so historically we have a little bit of an issue there but when

I say I have theonomic leanings what I mean by that is I do believe very firmly that every nation on God's green earth is going to be judged and its leaders judged concerning whether they did or did not take into consideration in their judging as judges or their ruling as presidents or legislators or whatever else what

God has said concerning how we should live I think that God has Romans chapter 2 talks about the fact that God has written his law upon our hearts so when legislators suppress the knowledge of God and adopt ungodly world views and as a result promote ungodliness

I don't think that at the judgment God is going to go that was political therefore there's no that's fine you may have been promoting ungodliness but it's politics and I stay out of politics

I don't have anything to do with that and so you get a pass there I don't think that's the case

I think that any ruler is going to be held accountable for their actions whether they are a

Bible scholar or not certainly God has made his will very clear when it comes to the issues of the morality of the nations okay so would that mean that it's like you would disagree over specific things than most theonomists and therefore you don't like the you wouldn't say you're a full theonomist well a full theonomist includes within that the concept of a how do

I you know like I said before the state carrying the sword it very frequently involves in many eschatological perspectives post -millennial perspectives the

Christianizing of the nations and some might say what if that was done voluntarily so on and so forth but still the issue comes down to does the state have the right to for example punish heresy and if that is what a theonomist is then

I could never be a theonomist because as I see the church in the New Testament the ultimate punishment of the heretic is the exclusion from the church, is exclusion from the fellowship and the table and the preaching of the word and it's not then you call the police and the police come and drag this person away so it's that sacralism in essence, the union of church and state that I object to in a fully theonomic perspective

I just don't see it that's what God's purpose of the church is, there are many people who obviously would disagree but I do believe that when it comes to how we should interact with our leaders that we should indeed be clear that they will be judged on the basis of what

God has revealed they should or should not be doing and that that should function as a wall in essence to keep them from doing well basically what we're doing in our nation right now so hopefully that clears up a little bit,

Hermonte thank you very much for calling from Raleigh, North Carolina and for everybody else who called today,

James in California and Damian in New York and Aaron in California and Joseph in Virginia and Al in Oklahoma thank you for making open phones work, we'll see you next

Tuesday Lord willing at 11 AM here on The Dividing Line, God bless ...

... ...

... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ...