Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.
Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.
Here is James White.
And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line Thursday afternoon. Got a little not scratchy throat. I'm just been coughing all day but It's you know Not too bad and if it's like it's been over the past 22 months It won't get really really bad and that's because I found the magic stuff that allows you to fly in airplanes.
And I get sick all the time. What. It's probably allergies, you know, not everything's blooming around here. It's dusty. No, there's no snow and there's no ice on the road.
No, in fact the weeds started growing all over the place in the yard while I was saying that's my point. How can I do that in January? That's not fair. When do you ever get to not we have our two weeks of winter?
We did have our two weeks of winter and it's back to spring so Anyhow, so I will be using this cough thing right here. It's now like see how it works it that way I can cover over the coughs and it's called a cough drop.
I sort of I've always thought that was a rather Funny way to name something. But anyway Yes, I have magic stuff and it really does has helped me a lot. And basically I still I this is the fifth time so I started taking this stuff called epic or and This fifth time I've felt something I've started a little sick, but it never gets full-blown.
So Lord alone will be fine again tomorrow. It's normally about 24 hours. So that's right. That's great. That's wonderful. Anyway, lots of stuff to do today. Don't know why I'm wasting time. Then I need to talk a little bit more slowly than normal or I'll start coughing all over by and y 'all get sick.
I wanted to. I was playing with Bible works 8 last night and I I discovered a few interesting things while I was doing that I have used the figure 138 ,162 words for the critical text of the Greek New Testament According to Bible works is one hundred thirty thousand and twenty.
So I'm gonna go with that because that way I can compare apples to oranges when I compare the various Greek New Testaments. I have mentioned the fact that That when you look at a Greek New Testament when you look at the critical text Which is any 27 UBS for when you look at the Westcott Hort text from 1881 when you look at Tischendorf's text When you look at Stephanus when you look at the TR.
You're talking about a printed Greek text you're talking about a text that is actually made up by an individual who is collating other manuscripts and He is putting together a collection and he has to choose to managers people need to understand.
We're going to talk about this a little bit later. I Once again, I've been reading some Reformed folks and it's a little bit scary sometimes to see Reformed folks using Argumentation that is normally used against us bad circular types of argumentation to promote a particular perspective.
And and they don't seem to understand the history of what's called the TR. They just do not understand that it is a A Greek text that was created Through the very same mechanism just not as thoroughly done and not nearly as many manuscripts to deal with.
But it's still a Collection that men put together. It's not some it doesn't glow in the dark. It you know, no one's found the TR at In a burial site outside Jerusalem with the Apostles saying, you know each one signing off.
This is it. This is it I'm sorry that that's a you know, not what happened and When Erasmus produced the first edition of what became known as the TR those line of Greek texts up until the point where the Elsevier brothers called it the TR and I'm not sure how in an advertising blurb that's supposed to somehow represent the mature decision of the church, but anyway It went through a process Erasmus had Differences is manuscripts.
There are errors in the TR. That's just a fact folks I mean if you can't deal with facts, then there there's you know, you got a problem at that point, but although each one of these printed texts has a certain number of words in it and Obviously when you're looking at the modern critical text and it gives you the variance and you can look at the variance.
You can see that frequently. The variance in the manuscript in the manuscripts that is not put into the text is Longer than the one that is one of the standard Rules of text criticism is the shorter reading is to be preferred why because there was a tendency especially in older manuscripts to expand rather than to contract if There isn't any reason why home I tell you time or something else comes in to where something would have been accidentally omitted.
Then What you see is the what I've described as the expansion of piety where you have Someone who you know that the original text says Jesus and later text will say the Lord Jesus or if it says Lord Jesus later text the Lord Jesus Christ and It just keeps expanding and so the later Byzantine texts are longer than The for example the Alexandrian text for reasons like that.
Anyway Let's also do the fact that later manuscripts would frequently conflate readings where if you have two manuscripts in front of you They have similar readings to one another why just put both of them together that way you've got everything there and so they're longer so I was playing with Bible works finally getting right back around my point and Was looking at the relative numbers of words in the text you can do that with Bible works.
It has a point. Oh, I haven't had time to figure out all the new stuff yet I haven't had time to play with the new features stuff yet but I was just Letting it do its thing. It has a whole statistics area that I think is new at least the graphical statistics stuff I know by work seven had some of that but this seemed to have more options in it than we had before anyway, I looked at five printed texts and I looked at Tischendorf Westcott Hort the critical text Stefanos and a TR here are the numbers here the numbers.
Tischendorf is the shortest at a hundred and thirty seven thousand five hundred and forty-eight words one hundred thirty seven thousand five four eight Tischendorf Westcott and Hort one hundred thirty seven thousand six hundred eighty ones there's Seventy eighty word difference there Critical text one hundred thirty eight thousand twenty.
That would be your nasty all in UBS for what's used generally today the Stefanos text 1550 One hundred forty thousand seven hundred and twenty and the TR the longest at one hundred forty thousand seven hundred and forty five so if we Look at this With the modern critical text of the baseline and then compare each one to that Tischendorf is ninety nine point six five percent.
Westcott Hort 99 .75 Stefanos 101 .95 and the TR 101 .97 remember I used an illustration in the debate Rob Bowman had actually Did part of it? I sort of expanded it, but Rob Bowman talked about how the issue is not having.
If we have a jigsaw puzzle, it's not like we have too few pieces. We have too many and that's what the later textual variants are. They're they're accretions. So Tischendorf 99 .65 Westcott Hort 99 .75 Stefanos 101 .95 and the TR 101 .95 if you make the TR is the baseline if you compare everything To the textus receptus then Tischendorf is ninety seven point seven three.
Percent of that Westcott Hort ninety seven point eight to the critical text ninety eight point zero six and Stefanos Ninety nine point nine eight. Now, what does all that have to do with almost anything?
Well part of what that has to do with is again this issue where we talk about the perceptions that people like Bart Ehrman and others produce when they talk about the text of the New Testament and when they give that bare figure more textual variance than there are words in the New Testament a Large number of our fellow citizens and remember they now get to talk to more people than we do in one sense.
You know, we don't get to go on NPR that does anyone listen NPR. So I guess somebody does I think most Bart Ehrman does? Yeah, that's true and Other people do too I just found that at least amongst our friends most people most people who actually do are afraid to admit that they do.
You've I can't understand what you're saying. I've never met anyone who listens to NPR. Not on purpose anyway.
Well, but I I really think that there are more people who do they're just a little ashamed to mention it. That's that's all I would be now if they listen to pull out your hair. America. Then they're likely to listen to NPR when they're bored.
You're not gonna come in there, okay, that's probably a good thing anyway. Our Fellow citizens hear these people talking and they think that when you pick up one manuscript it has a whole different storyline and Text that something else is like picking up two different books.
Or let's do it this way. There it seems that the textual critical scholars are really bad at coming up with names for books and I may be just as bad myself but Almost every book on you tested textual criticism is Called something along the lines of the text of the New Testament.
They don't come up with. I mean, how do you come up with really interesting topics or titles for something like that? And so I have a bunch of books called the text of New Testament and then it'll have a different subtitle.
But most people think that it'd be sort of like grabbing two of those books. They're on the same general topic, but once you open them up everything is different on every page and That's what people think is actually going on With the New Testament and it just simply isn't the case.
The the Range of agreement is. Is what? People got a number of interesting pictures of dr. Erman making funny faces. At my text when I was talking about the range of agreement between the two broadest point of the spectrum.
The Byzantine the Alexandria manuscripts and and this was one of those questions I wished I'd asked him but I I didn't because I figured we'd wander off into the bushes someplace if I did but if you took the most Alexandria manuscript and you take the most Byzantine manuscript and You Interpret an entire book of the Bible.
Let's say Romans. Let's say you take Romans take the most Byzantine manuscript Romans most Alexandrian manuscript Romans and you apply the exact same methodology of Interpretation to both will you come up with a different gospel?
The answer is no. And I'm so convinced of that I think I'm going to include in the book a section where I do exactly that not the entire book of Romans, obviously but take a representative sample pick a 15th century Byzantine manuscript fact what I can do probably is is take one of the manuscripts that that Erasmus used and Then we'll compare that to Vaticanus which Erasmus would like to have used.
I remind my TR friends of that and exegete a period of a Section of text see how different they are from one another and see if it how it would make any difference. That's that's what's got to be done.
Maybe that'll help to illustrate it and I got to find some way to include some of these graphs and charts and graphics that I've that I've produced for the The debate and presentations I do into the book.
So it's got to be there because we live in a very graphically oriented. In fact, you know what? We ought to see if we can whoever ends up publishing this and I've got some ideas we ought to include a DVD or a CD or at least CD in it with a with presentation.
With the with the. You know, we can put it if you just put in PDF everything reads PDF. I love how my Mac is just massively PDF oriented. That's how when I pro I saw that little shake of the head out there that little dismissive.
Oh, he said something about the Mac again. You know, they're like with the Mac. You've got that huge machine sitting there. It looks like a race car. It looks like something straight-up transformers.
I think eventually it's gonna be now that's out to come something. It's gonna shoot you but anyway That's we got to do because people need to see this stuff we live in a graphically oriented society. It's scary how many people.
Okay audience question here. We turn on the audience cameras. How many of you have read? 500 pages in the past six months. I know there are people who do that. But let's face it a lot of people have not.
And so you just go hmm, well you still gotta get this information out somehow so maybe that's the way to do it so anyway We'll think about doing it along those lines now. Next thing I wanted to address the 12 manuscripts actually 13.
In fact, you could probably make an argument for 14, but Since this has come up and I noticed that Some of the Muslims are jumping up and down and having a hissy fit to which I found So odd I gotta admit It's been encouraging to me over the past couple of months to be having some conversations with some Muslims where there is Respect and there's not the wide-eyed Jump on everything no matter how inconsistent it is grab anything type thing.
It's really nice and I really hope I really am hoping To have that debate announcement. I've mentioned you in the not-too-distant future still want to work toward that in but there's something else That's developed and I'm hoping to be able to mention that Pretty soon.
We continue to work on stuff because some people said what's your next debate don't have one scheduled right now in that unusual Did 13 last year? Obviously the urban one was big I'm trying to pursue some way of setting something up in in Australia for the trip in August when I'm down there And we're hoping Lord willing toward the end of the year somewhere between October November to go back to the UK as well and Probably have as many debates but at least one or two and make them big debates make them worthwhile In that sense, so we continue to do that.
But anyway the the manuscripts that we made reference to and That I did not have the list available to me I did I now realize that I had it in two separate programs on my computer. But since I had Taken it out of a book.
That was the first thought crossed my mind. I just didn't realize I have that same book electronically I'm still I'm sort of in that in-between Generation where the the generation younger than me. It's just gonna be natural to think of the electronic version first, but it This despite the fact I use a lot of electronic media now and books in electronic form It's still I still default to the paper stuff.
I'm old enough that you know, I Didn't have access that kind of stuff for until you know, anyways, I'm just more accustomed to using a library. So anyway That's why I was looking for it and I I didn't pull it up.
So I post them on the website a number of people on the on the blog a number of people sent them to Ermin. Is that some of those are third century? Couple things first of all when we talk about within a hundred years of the completion of the New Testament we're basically talking about the second century and Obviously if you are going to say well, but Galatians was written around 50.
So a hundred years has to be 150 and there's not 12 within range 150 duh. This isn't this actually that's what sort of caught me up about this. In fact most of his questions Really had nothing to do with actually establishing his position.
Everybody knows that when you look at the dating of manuscripts that you are given a range and That differing scholars will have a different bit a different range. And so often you you take what is essence a 50-year range?
And so When Dan Wallace and I was gonna cue this up and I didn't I apologize. But when if you'll listen to the Greer heard debate from March of 2008 when Dan Wallace mentioned 12 manuscripts than a century of the completion of the New Testament Bart Ehrman ever said a word.
He didn't he didn't object. He didn't even note it. It wasn't like he was even listening or he didn't care or it was a given if If he had challenged that I would have put all the manuscripts on the screen.
That's just if you if you look at my presentation if you download a little movie along with the mp3, you'll see that my entire presentation Anticipated his own and so I would provide anything where there is where I thought there was any kind of controversy or argumentation or anything like that.
I Documented it and gave you the references, but didn't think there was going to be an issue there. Anyway, I put them up on the on the on the blog I'd like to briefly discuss them and then move on to a Little another little area of discussion and that is how reformed folks are responding to the debate.
There was a review post on the Puritan board and it really catches my attention because as In even though these folks may not be King James only. The kind of argumentation that again, I keep encountering is so so filled with double standards.
You will use one set of standards to examine the modern text like the critical text. But then when it comes to TR, oh, we can't talk about where that came from. That's that's just what the Apostles passed down.
That's just all there is to it. Well, this is not the case. Well, that's what that's what the confession in 1 8 says. Well, is that really? What it says there and so I want to I want to I want to be consistent and To talk to my reformed brethren about this because some of you may not be aware of this, but there are a lot of reformed churches Presbyterian even reformed Baptist.
That I will never be allowed. I will never be invited to darken the door of. When I tell people this they get they look at me like, huh? Yeah, there are a lot of places That I would never be allowed in and it has nothing to do with my having to pay the baptism a few times because every Time I've done that I was challenged by the other side to do it.
But it has really has nothing to do with that. It has to do with my writing the King James only controversy. Which by the way the galleys of the second edition are sitting on my desk and I'm having to work on them lost an entire line of Hebrew trying To find it right now.
It's a typesetting process, but I need to be saying them back to them hopefully by Monday so that's what I'm trying to do and Working on that and so on so forth. So anyway, I want to get to that there's just a lot a lot of folks who won't have me in because of my views on textual critical issues and I'm a liberal see.
So we'll talk about that back to the manuscripts. There is no question about p52. We can leave that one the side that one is is universally accepted. The the next manuscript is actually three different papyri numbers because Most are convinced.
They all came from the same codex p4 p64 p67. Dated about 150 to 175. Robert put him at 200. Then a number of others have the second half one as early as the second half the first century. That's really early.
Bell Skeen and Turner around 200. Roke a plague who is I think that was. I think he was the one who published it was six seven sixty four one or two. Sixty Seven yeah second half the second century. P4 is provenance.
Definitely puts it in the second century and if they all are together. Then it really puts in the second century. Because it was actually used to line another book and since it was the Gospels and the book was a Christian book.
They wouldn't have used a currently in-use manuscript to do that. It would have had to been one that was already considered to be worn out and old. And so we pretty much know when that book was made and therefore that would that would give us the date in the second century.
So p4 p64 p67. That's the second of the manuscripts that we have in that second century. P32. It's put in the second century of a bell skeet. Kenyon P32 is one that actually I started to make reference to in response to Irwin's question.
It's from Titus. And then the fact I used a picture of p32 in the presentation now that I think about it. It wasn't identified, but it's just over on the side of the thing sort of decoration. P46 is. One of those that I'm sure Irwin is saying what's not that's third century.
Wilkin put it around 200. Kim the end of the first century. Mid 2nd century on comparison with with other relevant documents. P66 same as p52 according to hunger. Turner puts it as late as 200 to 225, but Cavallo and cider in the mid 2nd century for p66.
P75 Martin early on put in the early third yet. It's connected to papyri fluid 19 which is specifically dated 145 to 146. Cider put it in second third as well. The next is p77 late second century for Parsons very similar to the Oxyrhynchus papyri 1622 which is pre 148.
P87 very closely related to p46 so the same dating would apply there. P90 skeet put in the mid to late second century. P98 2nd century according to Wagner and Hagerdorn. P104 Thomas puts in late second comfort in the early second fact comfort.
It seems the view p104 is even earlier in p52 possibly before p52. P10 p108 2nd century Wilkin Roberts Kenyon put in the early third and p109 has the same dating information basically as p66. So all of these have been placed into that time period by relevant authorities and Textual scholars you can look.
Since this is available in both Bible works and in Librarian X the text earliest Greek manuscripts comfort and Barrett you can read the relevant argumentation. You can look at the various Oxyrhynchus manuscripts that are cited as being similar and you can go online and look at them for yourself if you want to.
But I hadn't made this list up. It's published in various works. It is in in fact This was the let's see do to do give you the exact name if you want to take a look at it. I'm sorry that exact page. And Here it is a manuscript state of the 2nd century page 23 of the introduction to that particular work which as I said is Widely available.
In fact, that's one of the works I gave to Shabir Ali and our debate in London is that particular volume? So take a look at those you will Be able to find that information there. I promised to give you that information and it is generally available to folks Where I take a phone call, but before we do that Just again if you happen to have access to the Puritan board if you want to look at the thread that I'm looking at this is a thread that was begun the 24th of January and It's in the translations and manuscripts section TRCT debate Which was split off in the white ermine debate thread and the fellow by name of Calvin and Hodges Posted this.
I believe that he has called the program before we've had some discussions and that's Robert Paul Weiland from up in Colorado Springs is the one who Started the thread. We'll be taking a look at that In just one moment if you want to look that up.
But let's actually take a phone call here and let's talk with Johnny. Hey Johnny. How you doing? I'm doing great. How are you brother? I'm about 98 here. So we're doing all right.
I'm actually I was actually very excited. I actually wanted to go to that debate with you in Florida.
But unfortunately, I was not able to make it. But and since you're from California, that's on the other side of the comment.
Yes, and you know, I've obviously been. I do remember when I had mentioned to you airmen years ago and you at that time We're so busy with some other things and I was really really happy when you finally got around to dealing with there Head-on and finally debating him but some of the things that caught my attention and listening to I think I got to listen to maybe the first half of the debate today and One of the things that caught my eye is that I remember a few years ago when I was doing some research on the stuff that you did on the watchtower chronology and you know over the kings of Babylon in their 1914 stuff and I noticed that when you when you study the Babylonian history of the Kings you have to go to a historic historians and one of them, of course is Burroughs's.
But according to my understanding we don't even have a copies of roses is writing and so all we have are quotations From other historians that did have access to his writings when his writing was still there, right?
I'm just using Burroughs's as an example, but I mean if if we're using Bart Ehrman standard.
Do we know anything about history at all? No, I don't think we do. And in fact, that's one of the sections I played that's that's in essence what he said he he basically admitted That that is that is where you have to go.
And I I just don't see too many people In in the historical fields other than just ranked postmodernists who are very open in saying. Hey are our only Given is that there is no given there is no knowledge.
There is no way of really knowing anything. The rest of them are just fine using resources like that now Obviously when you have someone quoting someone who's quoting someone who's quoting someone. Once you develop a chain if you have people along that chain that have a reason for altering things then that begins to enter into stuff, but Especially in the area of study that you mentioned where you are.
You do have hard facts in the sense of rocks. You've got clay tablets That were chiseled, you know 4 ,000 years ago and Not passed down since then. They've been buried in the sand someplace. Then when you can use written material that was passed down in another format To try to put all that stuff together.
It does demonstrate that that kind of transmissional Line can still give you extremely valuable information. So yeah, and and you're talking there about stuff that wasn't Reproduced nearly as often as a New Testament text was and so it has a significantly Less full manuscript tradition, but yeah, it would seem to me that You know, one of the things I try to tell people is if you listen to this man speak and if you're not willing to embrace rank agnosticism concerning all of history then What really has he presented to you today other than his personal opinion I mean because he himself admits look most of the stuff he talks about isn't new.
Okay, great. It was stuff that we all knew about already great. But it's the conclusion he comes to and that conclusion is a radical form of agnosticism that he may very smugly say Yes, well many people join me in that Congratulations as I as I've pointed out many times and one of the reasons I made this reference in in the In the presentation itself was if I had been Around in around Oh You know the mid 1800s in Germany I would have been told that the assured results of scholarship tell me That I The Gospel of John was was a late second century production.
And that's what everybody believed in Germany, and I'm sure there was many a scholar who you know sniffed and You know put his nose up in the air at anybody who thought that John had anything to do with either the Apostle John Or John the Elder well, that's not the case anymore, so you know dr. Ehrman can can sip lattes with French textual critical scholars all he wants that doesn't change the The face of the actual discussion these needs to needs to be undertaken.
Well I would think that he would well he doesn't really Use that a lot. I Pointed out that he had in orthodox corruption scripture made reference to various early church fathers. He made reference the fact that origin Said the majority of the manuscripts in his day contained chorus.
They you instead of Karate they Hebrews 2 9 I pointed out that wasn't the case. That's not what origin actually said I really think he's misrepresented origin at that point, but anyway. He will make reference to it but patristic References are not really important in in most of the argumentation that he That he uses other than as sort of background information that he can use and it was it does illustrate something to me and that is that the in what one of the people asked him a question in the course of the Greer heard stuff, and they said I don't find a real consistent methodology in your argumentation.
Are you a reason to collect it? What are you and his response was well? That's because I decide what I think the text is and then I argue for it. And so he picks the information that he he wants to use and goes from there, so at least he's open about that.
But I'm not that didn't really come up as far as the his specific view of patristic information. And and how relevant that would be to his his perspective I That's a good question. Okay, very much. Okay.
Thanks. God bless. Bye. Bye. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We need to take a break don't we my goodness times going by and I haven't coughed all over a bit yet. That's probably a good thing.
We're gonna take our break and then take a Darren's call and your calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We'll be right back.
How the pilgrims progress is not an easy way? It's a journey.
The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book the Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.
It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Admit today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.
The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike.
Highly recommend it. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org.
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 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. Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.
Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior. 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. Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.
Thank you. 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 a omin org.
And welcome back to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon,. I was just trying to find this This particular post on my website, but unfortunately, I have been unable to locate it. It's in there someplace.
But anyway sometime over the past couple of months it was in December January, I don't know I Tried searching for it and for some reason it didn't pull it up, and I don't know why I Made reference to William Lane Craig and a Article that was found on his website.
It was an answer to a particular letter as I recall and I quoted from it and My recollection is that someone had cited it as Clear evidence of just how bad a person I am and all the rest that stuff which is Actually been sent to me probably about three times.
I would imagine in over the course of However long it had been posted there. So I think as soon as it had been posted someone had pointed out to me I had sort of put on the list to maybe deal with it someday and just never really got around to actually doing it and So anyway, my understanding is that our next caller is the the atheist who wrote to dr. Craig is this Darren hi Darren?
Hi, James. How are you? I'm doing just fine. How are you?
I'm okay. I'm a little bit nervous is the first time I've ever been on a call-in radio program. So you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit jittery, but okay. Yeah, I'm in fact the person in question. Alrighty, so what can we do for you today?
Well, I wanted to point out first of all, I did not and if it seemed that way when I I Wrote the question. I did not mean any disrespect towards you as as a person. I really did not wish to do that at all.
And but but most of all I've met Bill Craig in person. He's a good friend of mine a very kind person and he at that at the same time. He is not at all receptive of my position. He's receptive of me and my general attitude.
But he is not receptive at all of my beliefs. He actually put me over the grill about them when I met him at the ETS conference in Providence so he Your differences with him over Molin ism are Kind of beside the point here at the position that I'm Seriously exploring and really haven't thought out consistently yet, but as far as the actual.
The position he's taken on atheism. There's other Q &A's there there's why I remember one from another atheist that he ended up grilling on on the spot for it was a list of questions about the resurrection or something and it was pretty obvious that the atheist is just there to sound off and and Dr. Craig made that quiet appearance that he saw that so.
So when you say grilled you what what what would you. How would you define grilling? Well, I.
This will probably make you laugh. Also given you are I am talking to one of the leading reform out there dr. White, but I Actually Deconverted literally, I'm one of the rare people who deconverted literally overnight.
This is 12 years ago. I've since come back over the past year to Seriously rethink my reasoning behind this. I ditched the whole new atheism and everything like that. I'm tired of the kind of evil argumentation that they've been doing and I want to seriously consider Such a a question of the gravity like this.
But in the beginning 12 years ago when I deconverted I actually deconverted over Romans 9 really because I read Calvinism into it. I'd had no idea I grew up in a hometown that didn't even talk about Calvinism.
I had no idea it existed outside of a historical position Puritans and my history book you had and I had no idea that people still believed in tulip. I thought it was just something I memorized for u .s. History and nobody even talked about it.
It was all I Completely conscious. I was totally unprepared when I read Romans 9. I'll tell you that whatever the actual position is I was totally unprepared when I read it. Let me ask you what emotional rejection.
Yes.
Let me ask you a question. Were you a part of a church or something?
Yes, sir. I was part of Southern Baptist Church, so I there in my hometown won't name the church For obvious reasons, but it was a prominent Southern Baptist Church in my hometown and Like I said, I had never heard and I don't know if it was a Controversial position as much as it is now as back then 12 years ago.
Well, certainly I never heard nothing.
I heard it from a youth pastor. No, I would imagine not but. So you just you just read that chapter the Bible for the first time.
That's right, I've read the Bible I decided I would read the Bible independently for the first time And by the time I made it I made it through John and was kind of like hmm I wonder what's going on with a few of these things and then when I got to the book of Romans by the time I Got to chapter 9. I didn't just cross chapter 8.
Of course. I Was at the position where I was just like I cannot believe in a God like this It's impossible for this being to even exist and I I threw it all out. So dr Craig I have to tell him dr. Craig this he has a of course a non-reformed Said that I had and and dr. Craig was speaking truthfully at that point.
He said I had not considered Really any other case? Other than Calvinism the whole time. I've been reading Calvinism and the Bible talking to him about it and he said that it seemed to him That I was using that Positioning to justify not returning to the faith and accounting for my sin and That that's a nice way of putting it.
Dr. Craig was Pretty hard on me for that and I can see from a non-reformed point of view how? You know how he could say that so he did from his point of view I guess you could acknowledge he did give me a grilling does not respect atheism as such.
I think he was quite relieved at least to see someone coming on. They're not acting like Christopher Hitchens. I think.
Well, they probably wouldn't allow you to bring alcohol into the ETS meeting anyways, so that probably.
But anyway debating Christopher Hitchens interesting. April 4th, yes.
Now I'm I'm a little confused though because I'm most of the people listening the program are hearing what you're saying. They're hearing a particular understanding of it that that confuses me as well.
The If you were had never heard of Calvinism How could you read Calvinism. Quote-unquote. Read Calvinism into something if you weren't familiar with it? Doesn't sound to me if you're in a Southern Baptist Church, you would ever read the Institute's or ever read any book.
Presenting this material it almost sounds to me like you started reading this material. After you became an atheist.
Well, I read the material Calvinism proper actually start a year ago, I didn't.
Okay, Darren, I are you on some sort of a wireless.
Yeah, I am. Sometimes it cuts in and out. I apologize. What I was saying was I at that point of time and you know Calvinism I thought it was only a strictly historical Position because I had never heard of a single person out there who had actually believed that way, you know.
And you know in the present day. I thought that it had been you know passed on annals of time and. That the Puritans believed. I knew of it. I had to memorize to look in high school and everything. I didn't know any of any depth what it was, but I did understand the implications that to look had.
Okay, and I always wondered how it could have been read into the Bible and just thought well nobody believes in it now so hmm, I don't have to worry about that kind of stuff until I actually read the Bible independently and and saw that.
There's a definite grounding of that position at that time. Even then I did not know that. Anyone beyond the Phelps's even believe such a thing and I really didn't know what the effect is believed. I know you they're not exactly, you know favorites among you.
Thank you as part of them, but I Don't think that it was anything but a very extreme point of view. I know better now, but I knew of Calvinism there. What I didn't know is that Calvinism was still a Extant and then actually a.
Popular position in a sense. Well, what kind of a high school? Did you go to where you have to memorize the tulip in high school? I mean, I I can't even think of Christian high schools when that happens.
The high school I was just my hometown high school in Texas and 12 years ago. It was a part of a history program talking about the colonization the United States describing the type of religion that the colonists.
Amazing amazing that almost no one is aware of those things. So, all right, so you say that you're in a position now where You're looking at things a little bit differently. Maybe not as much of a Dawkins fan as you once were a Hitchens fan or whatever else might be.
So you look at Romans 9 and You say I can never believe in a being like that. What about that being can you never believe in? Well, I.
Don't need that. That's what I used to say. I can see now how that being is is viewed under the world view of Calvinism. He's the one that made everything he has the right to do. With his creation as he pleases because he is the creator.
I mean as long as it's consistent with his.
Identity, of course. Well, yeah. Yeah, I it's interesting. It sounds almost exactly like what a Mormon said to me guy by the name of Van Hale On his program many many years ago in Salt Lake. He said oh, hey, yeah Romans 8 and 9 Starting with certain presuppositions like the Bible's Word of God makes perfect sense and it's very consistent.
But what was it? What were you reading in Romans 9 that could deconvert you overnight? Was it did you understand this to basically be saying that there that that there's no justice involved? That that did did you not understand that the The the perspective that that Paul has already presented preceding in Romans and you said you read Romans through to 9 so you had gotten that far then if everyone's under sin and God can bring judgment Against anyone and we love our sin and and it's God that has to turn our hearts toward him because we're so focused upon ourselves and and And and so on so forth that that even the the good things that we do come from God's grace and all the rest of stuff then why.
Was it was it when you read the phrase Jacob I love but Esau I hated. Why do you focus on the Esau? I hated part rather than the Jacob. I loved part I mean it strikes me that what's amazing about what Paul says there is Jacob I loved because there's absolutely nothing lovable about Jacob before a holy God in the first place.
In fact Jacob's a bit of a scoundrel in fact for most of us. We'd like Esau better. He was the hunter you know he was the guy out there doing you know he's a man's man. You know and and Jacob's sort of like the bean counting deceitful icky guy in all of our movies, so the the what amazes me when I read Romans 9 is Jacob I loved but it sounds to me like what?
Sort of blew you away for over a decade is Esau I hated but If you started with Romans, then you already knew why that was right, so I'm what what was it was it That wasn't something else help me out.
That that was the one of the keys and Romans and in fact just as you described it, and I do understand the yeah, I don't know what kind of lapsarian position you take but If you're super lapsarian I don't know how you can even be amazed at Jacob I'd love since all the choosing was before actions happened at all.
But in any position you know the general Calvinist position I think is in for lapsarian and I can see at that point you know after the fall of man and everything that resulted how Unusual it would be for God to love anyone, so I understand that passage what I still can't put together in my head Looking at things from a Calvinistic perspective, and I think at the time 12 years ago.
What was the actual? Removing of the keystone from me was the highlight of God's actions for Pharaoh the Potter Analogy I took that to mean I think the term Associated with it is can't remember right now.
I'm nervous on a radio program, but it's the one word where God decrees and Every single action all all yeah reprobation I took it to mean that God was the one that a man a Pot doesn't make itself you know the God makes the good pots and the evil Like and so God was actually the man behind the curtain so to speak behind Pharaoh.
And God's gonna burn Pharaoh for all eternity God ultimately Was the cause of I mean I know that Pharaoh's actions were Proceeded internal and I know this point of view. But in the end I Paul used the Potter clay analogy and a pot doesn't make itself.
God has to form the common-use pots as well so The evil actions just as he I think the Calvinist position is that God is the one that brings about all actions. They may never originate within a man. I don't know if they you guys believe in a believer, but.
You're familiar with the term compatibilism. Yes, compatible with right and so. Even before. Well of course. I don't know what your quote your Bible study was like prior to this, but oh.
Hardly a Bible. Study it. I actually like to tell my mother. Who? Curiously. Went from the Southern Baptist Roman Catholic recently. I Actually like to tell my mother. I studied the Bible three times now.
Darren you broke up. You broke up. There you you studied the Bible. What I?
Like to tell my mother I like I studied the Bible three times as much now as I did before and and it's not just a Cherry-picket. I try to look and understand it now and and that's one of the things. That's one of the most.
Difficult passages, but I've been reading lately. Okay, so at that very one in in light of that then Obviously Paul is writing to people that he expects to have a knowledge of the Old Testament. Because he'll quote the the Greek Septuagint, and he'll he'll use these illustrations, and and so that's that's the background information.
He's he's not starting some new religion. He's he believes that he is perfectly in line with what the what the prophets of the old Had said and so when you look back on God's dealings with Israel you have a number of instances you have the situation where Joseph When when he when his brothers are afraid he's going to kill them after Jacob's death.
He makes reference to what they did and what what they did in selling him to slavery and in fact some of them wanting to Kill him and Joseph's response to them was you intended this for evil. God intended it for good all the way back there you have this idea that that God can have an intention in Accomplishing his overarching purposes that is always pure and yet when it interfaces with man their intentions were not good.
They meant it for evil. God meant the exact same thing for good and to save many people alive to this day. So you have in one action you have the intentions of God you have the intentions of man and unless you're going to presupposition Lee assume God cannot create in such a way that The creatures who are created do what they desire to do and yet accomplish God's purposes.
Then you have one example there you have another example in Isaiah chapter 10 when God brings an entire nation. That's what I've been talking about a small group of people here. We're talking about a big group of people he brings an entire nation against Israel the Assyrians who were bloodthirsty people just savage in their treatment of other nations and God makes it very plain.
I'm bringing them against you in fulfillment of the curses that are part of the covenant law. There they are going to punish you for what you have done in worshipping the Ashtaroth and so on so forth however.
After they have done this I am then going to punish them because of the attitude they have they do not see that. They are the instrument in my hand. They're arrogant in their heart they refuse to acknowledge me and as such I'm going to punish them for what they've done and so you have one action and Clearly the Assyrians are doing exactly what they want to do.
They're expanding their kingdom. They're they're raping and pillaging because they like raping and pillaging. And yet God says I've brought them against you to punish them punish you and then once they've done that I'm going to punish them.
This pattern has been established so much so that when the early church is persecuted in Acts chapter 4 for preaching in the name of Jesus they can pray in their prayers and prayer very frequently reflects what you really believe and they very clearly make the statement that what happened to Jesus in the conjugation of Herod and Pilate and the and the people of The leadership leadership of the Jews all people had very different purposes.
I mean look at the purposes between Pilate and the Jews totally different for one another and. Yeah, and yet the early church can pray and say. They did what your hand determined that they would do and so they acted as individuals.
They were they were they were following the the desires of their hearts. It wasn't that they wanted to do good and an evil God is staying behind them with a big cosmic gun saying do bad things. In fact I'd suggest to you Darren that that it is biblically accurate to say than the vast majority of instances God's Involvement in this world is in restraining the evil of man.
In fact I would suggest to you that if God were not restraining the evil of man. You probably could not walk out your front door.
Right the notion of common grace. I think I would like to ask one questions. One question I've always had burning in me to ask a reform. And is it is it the reformed position that God? decreed the actual wills and desires of men themselves.
Well every event in time I believe Is a part of God's sovereign decree. I do not believe in fact that the Westminster Yeah, the Westminster Confession of Faith is very clear that that all Events in time are a part of of God's sovereign decree the reason being that that God is has a purpose in his creation.
And that purpose is to bring about his own glorification through a people that are redeemed in Jesus Christ and so The whole story of the Old Testament is working with a particular people to bring Christ into the world and through them.
Demonstrating over and over again the fact that man is continually straying away from From his law and and man is continually going after the worship of other beings so on so forth now the idea of desires.
But by placing by making those Entities almost like rocks or things like that God has decreed how I am he he made me. Certainly we believe that for example to use modern modern terminology the the very DNA.
That the reason that My DNA formed as you know my DNA is unique yours is unique, and we don't really even understand scientifically why? In that fertilization process the the unique Coding actually ends up taking place.
That's still a little bit beyond our understanding of the mechanics of all this let alone How this has all happened for all these? All these generations without us knowing about but anyway the point is I do believe that he made me the way I am for his purposes in my life, and so if my DNA is such that I Have certain predilections and things like that that's part of God's decree.
That's part of how he does that now I don't believe that God is taking individuals and Saying well, I need you to be more evil than you already are and so I'm going to place more evil desires. And you know I again.
I I really think that it's the other direction that ever since the fall. It is a matter of having to restrain that evil and however you want to Understand where how that evil arises. That that God is restraining that in the accomplishment of his purposes not Promoting that and so I don't think God has to force any of us to do Any type of evil at all I know in my own life I'm I'm a wretched sinner.
And I always wonder why God is has given me so many blessings a wife and family and all the other things that he's given to me. I certainly don't deserve any of those it's all of grace and I Look at my at my own life, and I realized there's so many times When I could have done things that would have just completely Destroyed any possibilities of my ending up having the privileges that I've had and yet God protected me.
He didn't have to I mean He would have been perfectly just to allow me to go all these things, but he had a purpose he had a reason in the fact that I've been able to then be of an encouragement to other people and so on and so forth so I you know I I Understand where you're coming from and I I step back a little bit, and I I just say you know To an atheist to a person who has who just does not believe that there is a creator there I I hope that you you think about just how Magnificently large we believe God really is and I don't mean that physically I mean that in the sense of his creative wisdom.
I don't know if you've gotten into science and things like that. I'll just tell you a little story here. Maybe it'll illustrate what I'm saying. We've actually gone a little bit long just so I can Respond to your question fully, but I Was a double major in college Bible and biology, which was an odd double major.
I was department fellow in Adam in physiology and in my senior year was focused very heavily upon genetics as my area of study. I Raised over 30 ,000 Drosophila Melanogaster fruit flies for my senior project I can I still can remember the fly nap that I used to knock them out to do my studies on them many many years ago now, but anyway, I've always found science fascinating and Finished my major in in biology.
And so I I know more than the average bear shortly after I graduated I Felt that I needed to read Richard Dawkins the blind watchmaker Even though I went to a Christian College. I was the only non theistic evolutionist in the biology department and so I had been fighting this battle ever since I had been in public high school and Had had good teachers in public high school that had given me high-end college materials to read in high school.
And did we lose? Ah. We lost him. Oh, no I'll bet the phone went down. I'll tell you what either he'll call back or we'll make sure he can listen to the Program because I want to finish this story up and hopefully he'll give us a ring back here and can hear the rest of it.
And we'll make sure he is able to if he's not able to do that He'll be able to listen to the rest of it on the podcast as soon as we get it to put up so There's there's it's it doth ring ring ring ring ring.
Is that is that our friend? Hello. It's not okay. All right. Never mind. So I'm gonna finish the story. He's still listening. Okay, good. All right. All right good. Do not expect this behavior for everyone.
I'm sorry. Cellphone died. Well cell phones die. My blackberry tried to die on me yesterday and that's first time I've ever tried to do that. So back to my story, I felt like I needed to read Richard Dawkins.
As I said, I had been given I think one of the best evolutionary educations as A Christian that you could possibly have. I I understand Neo-darwinian Micromutational evolutionary theory better than the vast majority of evolutionists do I really really do.
I had a teacher in high school Who was very clear in his explanations and he and I would sit over lunch As a sophomore and junior in high school and argue these things and I couldn't argue these. These things about understanding what where he's going where he's going where he's coming from.
So anyway, I Read the blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins very well written book it communicates very clearly and I read it as a person who just graduated with a major in biology and a major in Bible.
Actually, it's a BA in Bible. I could have just taken the BS in biology and I wish to heaven that I had It's called one day shortly for graduation. You want the BA or the BS and I made the mistake of saying I want the BA.
I should have taken the BS. In biology, I could have had it. But anyway Excellent book in. But as I was reading it I came to understand what its fundamental problem was. He describes very painfully the necessity genetically and I understood the basis for this genetically.
I understand how DNA is coded and and the the how it is transcribed in the in the Messenger RNA and transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA and all the rest that stuff. I know how that works. I understand that and therefore Mutation at that level is is extremely destructive almost all mutations kill the host.
You have to be very very careful in this mutation stuff. Because the DNA code is is extremely complex and and you need everything that it codes for. So anyway as I was reading this I started putting it together with the knowledge I already have had of biology and I realized that this single-step methodology simply could not explain How complex systems could come into existence because these Mutations would have to provide some kind of benefit to survive in In that particular species and that that particular realm and I the vast majority of changes would not provide any kind of positive benefit to the carrier.
Because you'd have to take step after step after step after step after step before you'd finally have a single thing That would be useful to the to the creature now most of you recognize that I'm talking about intelligent design that I'm talking about Irreducible complexity.
Well, I was reading this before that stuff was being published. I Came to those conclusions by reading Richard Dawkins for crying out loud and In that process I started going back over my old biology books.
Written by people who were not Christians who many of them I think by atheists and yet no matter what they did. They had to talk about the beauty of design. They saw it. They could see it I believe they're creating the image of God and they could see even in the DNA and the RNA and the and and the complexity of the of vision and the blood clotting mechanism and Allosteric enzyme systems and all these things that are so complex and so amazing.
We've only discovered them over the past number of decades. They saw something there now they would immediately try to find some way of Getting rid of what that absolutely means. But for me as a Christian and as a reformed Christian There is a perfect harmony here.
When I thought of the complexity of the creative decree that could create these mechanisms that you know, I remember as a as a as a senior we had senior boards and That was one of the most nerve-wracking things I went through was my senior boards as a biology major and and so what I had done is on one of those big white Boards we we actually had white boards back then they were fairly new but we had them I had drawn out what's called the Krebs cycle Krebs cycle Glycolysis electron chain transport the entire thing.
It's how we get our energy from our body. So we break food down and that's how we get ATP adenosine triphosphate and It's breaking down the ATP that gives us all the you know The the energy that our muscles use and the heart uses and so on and so forth.
I had drawn all that up on the board and then I didn't erase it before I went in to talk to the professors. That was stupid. Because what they did was instead of asking me general questions since it was still on the board.
Maybe they thought I would think they wouldn't realize it was on the board because it was behind them. They asked me very specific questions about it because I could look on the board and answer that and it made it a whole lot harder.
The point is the complexity of that if you've ever looked at it's absolutely mind-boggling. Well, I look at that. I understand that and then I think about the complexity of God's decree. That would allow the biblical presentation of the compatibilism that exists the compatibility that exists between his sovereign decree and his creature doing what that creature desires and I see it being no certainly no more complex Than the beauty in the order he's built into the into the physical creation itself.
And those are illustrations that were not available to preceding Generations of Christians because we just didn't realize in the days of Darwin. We had no idea the biochemical complexity of life. Now we know if God can make things that complex and order on that level.
Then I see no problem of believing in God who is so big That he can order this universe in such a way that Romans chapter 9 Makes perfect sense. So Darren, I appreciate your phone call today. We didn't get to Talking about the critical text versus the TR.
We'll do that next week Lord willing on Tuesday. But thank you very much for your attitude, sir. I never did take anything you said in your letter to dr. Craig personally at all I didn't get chance to ask Darren how he had read what I said about John 6 and the Romans 9 which he made reference To to dr. Craig, but maybe someday we'll be able to figure that out.
But also just very very Useful phone call today, and I thank you very much for it. We went a little bit long to answer that question, but that's okay. Hopefully you all can enjoy the conversation we had.
We will see you next Tuesday here on the dividing line. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries.
If you'd like to contact us call us at six oh two nine seven three four six zero two or write us at P Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omin org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. For the dividing line.