Answering Questions about Scriptural Sufficiency and Sola Scriptura

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602. Or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Calendar Updates, Upcoming Debates, and Ministry Travel

Hey, good morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line on the 1st of March, 2005, here in Phoenix, Arizona. 57 degrees this morning, heading for a high in the mid -70s someplace. It's going to be a gorgeous one.

It finally stopped raining. And for us, anyways, it's been pretty rough. You know, all that rain coming down, everything's green. What? Green? This is Arizona. It's a desert out here. No, everything is green, which means it will all turn brown by the 3rd week of May.

And then it will burn by the 4th week of June. That's what, that's actually all that hot here is just all the fire that keeps everything quite toasty. 877 -753 -3341. I was a little surprised when I mentioned the upcoming debate on the blog between myself and Robert Wilkin, one of the leading anti-lordship advocates, one of the leading people saying that faith and repentance live on different continents, and that while repentance is a good thing, it is not necessarily connected with faith.

And in fact, I heard him in a debate with Daryl Bach say that he, Daryl Bach said what I said, and that is while we must distinguish between justification and sanctification, we dare not separate them.

And he very openly said, I'd gladly separate them. And so Dr. Wilkin represents the position that we are frequently misrepresented as holding by Roman Catholics and others. It is an unbalanced position, and we will be debating in Oklahoma City on April 22nd.

I was a little surprised how many people went, wow, that's exciting, that's great. And what that means is you aren't checking the calendar page. Now, okay, I put my hands up in admission that you may not bother with the calendar page, because for a long time the calendar page was actually a history page.

And in fact, there was a time where really the calendar page was more of an ancient history page, and it was telling people what we had done about two years ago. But I've repented of my ways, and generally these days it's pretty close to being right where it needs to be.

I mean, we've got everything up through the Great Debate up through June 9th is currently on the calendar page. So it's right there. It's in the bar on the left side of the website. You see calendar there, and that will help you out, okay?

So in case that's not the NCIC, I'm the one that updates that, so I just sort of assume everybody knows what's going on, which obviously is not the case at all. I just clicked on it here. And the next thing coming up is next week, March 9th and 10th.

That is Wednesday and Thursday, if I am recalling correctly. And Southern Baptist Founders Conference Midwest, St. Louis, as I recall, on the sufficiency of scripture. So those of you in the St. Louis area will be preaching on those subjects at the Founders Conference, Midwest Founders Conference, over that direction.

Then barely a week later, I head for London, England, and the current itinerary in England and Scotland is linked there on the calendar page. I got an email today, and I'm thinking about this. Roger, who is my English host, he writes.

Now, Roger normally listens to the dividing line, even though it's like an eight-hour difference. And Roger doesn't write like an Englishman. He writes like an American. And we seem to communicate very well.

I'm not sure when I get there what that's going to mean. But he writes to me and says, James, are you still interested in doing a dividing line from here, assuming you will still be awake and able to talk at 2 ,300 hours on Thursday night?

I have no idea what you need. So if you want to explore the possibility, tell me what would be required this end. Wow. Now, it's a shorter flight over than it is back. It's from Phoenix to going the way I'm going, it's a 12-hour flight over, and it's a 14-hour flight back.

And jet stream, of course. And after a 12-hour flight, add minimum two hours on this end. I always get to the airport early, and especially when you're traveling internationally, you have to. So add two hours to that.

So that's 14. And then however long it takes to get from landing to, I guess, Roger's house afterwards. And die, die, die. The question is, will I be able to find sufficient sleep aids to get enough, yeah, the dividing line with jet lag.

But at least I could do it to my British accent. You know, the only problem with doing it on Thursday, right when I land, right when I get there, is I don't see anything. What am I supposed to talk about?

Well, I flew over water and then land, and I haven't seen anything yet. So we will definitely think about that. I don't know. Maybe later on. The problem is I'm not sure where we're going to be later on, like on Tuesday morning, which would be Tuesday afternoon or something.

Whatever time it is in England now, I would think that would be a little bit better because I've spoken a few times, maybe had a chance to see something that I could tell you about, something like that.

I don't know. We'll find out. So that's coming up March 17th to the 24th. Then for those of you up in the Toledo area, Metropolitan Toledo, I'll never forget the first time I went there. Oh, man, what a nightmare.

The Ambush in Toledo, that was the title of the article that I wrote for our newsletter. We had a newsletter once. It was called, guess what, The Dividing Line. That's right. We're really and, in fact, that's always what the program's been called, too, for how many years.

We started this when? 1980 boy, you start getting 87, really? We started on KXEG. We started on KXEG.

That sounds late to me. I think it was before then. We started on KXEG amidst Kenneth Hagen and Kenneth Copeland commercials. Oh, yeah.

We enjoyed mocking those commercials when they came on, too. It was fun. I'm sure they never heard about it, but who knew where we were at that time. Anyways, that late? Because I remember at one point going down to the studio at KXEG on my brand-new Suzuki GS750L, and that was early on in my married life.

That would have been before you ever met me.

I think so. I think it was even earlier.

I don't think you had a program until probably a year after I knew you. I don't know, man. I don't know.

That's not sounding quite right. But, anyways, it was a long time ago. Actually, now that I think about it, what I was going down to there was the Concerned Christians radio program. I was doing their thing.

Anyways, we've been on KXEG and KHEP and KPXQ. So we've been doing it for a long time. Anyway, I remember when I went to Toledo, Ohio in 1991 to debate Art Sippo at the university there. What a disastrous time that was.

I mean, I get there real late, and everything's closed, and I'm driving around this outer loop trying to find this hotel. Oh, it was just horrible. We had just lost the vast majority of our ministry funding.

I was paying for all this stuff out of my own pocket. Of course, the debate itself was a joke because of the behavior of my opponent. Oh, and on the way in, I'm on one of these little puddle jumpers in the middle of the worst thunderstorm I have ever flown through.

There's a 16-year-old kid sitting next to me, Ralph and his guts out. Honestly, that was the worst trip experience I have ever had in my entire life. No two ways about it. It was an omen of things to come.

Sorry about all that about Toledo. I'm going back there again. Flying into Detroit. I'm not sure how I'm getting from Detroit to Toledo yet. Anyway, April 1st to the 3rd, the heart of the gospel. A bunch of good folks there.

I'll get to see Steve Camp and the boys again. There is a link there if you want to go take a look at what we're going to be doing. I was there. I forget how many years ago it was now. At least two years.

Maybe a little more. Maybe three. I don't know. But anyways, very, very good conference they had there. Some neat folks. I'm looking at the thing right here. Try to blow it up a little bit here. Phil Johnson is going to be there.

Don Kistler is going to be there. Don Whitney and, of course, Campy is going to be there. That means we're going to have some good music to sing along with. I remember I had him sing Living in Laodicea for me when I was preaching last time.

Then April 22nd, the Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield Memorial Lecture Series 2005, Debate on Regeneration Against Dr. Bob Wilken, Minder's School of Business, Oklahoma State University. There is a link there that you can look at that.

Then the next big thing is the trip to Italy. I have not spoken with anyone about doing The Defining Line from Italy. I do not have an Italian accent that I can really use. That sounded more like someone from a horror movie.

Anyways, I'll be flying into Milan. The nice thing is I like Italian food. I'm not going to starve there. I figure I'm going to be doing good in England because I asked... I'm watching everybody. That was Dracula.

The Transylvanian accent. Sorry. Anyway, I'm not even going to try it again. I have been thoroughly humiliated. Next month, Dr. Oakley is going to Bavaria. Yes, that's really good. Anyway, I asked Colin Smith what I should expect in England.

He said, well, the English are mainly meats and potatoes, people, and so are you. So you should do just fine. I probably will. And then, of course, I love spaghetti. I just like Italian food. So everything will be cool.

If I ever end up in Singapore, that's when I'm dead. It's all over with. I will be on a fasting diet for that particular period of time. Anyways, that's in May. And then June 9th, the Great Debate 2005, which, for those of you who have been watching the blog, has resulted in all sorts of interesting commentary from odd, interesting people.

I just love it. We have a Minnesotan. And he's truly a Minnesotan, because he has a Minnesotan sense of humor, which means he doesn't have one, named Gary. And he just asked in Channel, when's the show starting?

Thank you, Gary. I would just love to hear a Gary program. Can you imagine a Gary program? He normally speaks in monosyllabic stuff anyways, and it's always in third person. So Gary says hi. Gary says welcome.

Gary says, what shall we talk about today? That would be lots of fun. That would be wonderful. Anyway, it is the debate against Bill Rutland that has gotten certain people really, really up in arms, including sending out all sorts of emails about how this is a silly debate between two unregenerate men.

And the reason I'm unregenerate, it's easy why Bill Rutland is, from their perspective. But from my perspective, it's real easy as well, because I don't automatically condemn every Arminian to being an unregenerate enemy of God.

And therefore, I am not regenerate. And hence, if something absolutely precludes you from being regenerate, that means it is central and definitional of the gospel. And so some of you have been following that particular discussion on the blog, and the fact there are some people who don't think there's any room for growth and grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, including the subject of the extent, meaning, so on and so forth, of the atonement, as if these certain people had that all figured out themselves.

I can assure you that they do not. So that's what's on the calendar right now. And of course, then you add to that, very shortly thereafter, the debate. We have the cruise and conference, and you may recall that on Thursday afternoon, Michael Fallon joined us, unwillingly, but he joined us anyways.

And he pointed out to us the fact that we have some real-time pressures on this cruise that we did not have before. The reason is, it's Alaska. That's all there is to it. Alaska is Alaska. Alaska is extremely popular.

Alaska is gorgeous. Everybody wants to go to Alaska, and our ship is sold out. Our availability is the last availability on the ship, and the cruise line wants it, basically. And hence, we're under pressure.

And in the past, we've been able to try to stretch things out and do accommodation and that kind of stuff. Not going to work this time. If you are the procrastinator, you're the one who's going to lose out on this one.

And there's nothing we can do about it. It's not like we control this, okay? Even though we have some pretty decent groups that go on these trips, the fact of the matter is that there are lots of folks that are a whole lot bigger than us, and this particular route that we're taking is just extremely popular.

So if you want to be on that cruise, if you want to hear the debate on the cruise, if you want to be there with Steve Camp and all the stuff that we do on the ship, then you've got to do it now. You've got to hit that link and you've got to get it taken care of.

You've got to let us know. Time is running out very, very, very, very quickly. I think absolute drop-dead date on that is two weeks from today. So don't put it beyond. Don't even do it now. Don't even say, oh, wait till the 14th.

No, don't do that. Simply can't guarantee anything given the popularity of this particular trip. So we need to get that stuff taken care of. And don't forget about the conference. Some of you are going, I can't go to Alaska.

And I understand that. Believe me. I was not a cruiser until Michael Fallon started arranging these things. And if it wasn't a part of my teaching, what I'm doing, I probably couldn't either. And, therefore, I fully understand that.

But there's also going to be a really neat conference. And just because you don't get to hear the discussion on the ship doesn't mean you're not going to hear a full debate and an excellent conference.

And so please make sure to hit the pretty picture. In fact, I was just noticing, I hadn't noticed that Mike had changed the picture. There's a picture of us on the last cruise. You can see me somewhere.

There's Mike. There I am. And I think I had just beaten Mechadise into a pulp. And I think he's laying on the ground down there. He needs to get some pictures of whales.

He needs to? Mike or Mechadise? Either one. We need to get some pictures of whales up there. I mean, I'll bet you see a lot of whales up there. I told you I'm in the picture. Now, here I'm trying to be serious.

I would think that one would see a lot of wildlife on this cruise. I told you.

I'm looking forward to that. I see the people in the picture who were a part of the wildlife as well, yes.

And I'm going to be bringing my 10-year-old, and I'm hoping that it's going to be an educational experience for him, not only just observing the beautiful scenery, but being able to see something that he couldn't see before.

Anywhere else. Or around here, either. The kind of whales you only see in Alaska, not in Phoenix. Yes, yes.

Well, believe me, in the first cruise I took up there, I saw whales, and they were very pretty. But you've got to spend a little time out on the deck to catch them. I think we plan to. Oh, yeah. Well, I think what he's going to find just incredible are the glaciers, because that's what blew me away.

The first time I saw, it wasn't Mendenhall. It was, oh, which one is that? We're going to visit it again, and it was one of my favorites. It was absolutely, positively humongous. And the sound that those things make is just absolutely, positively beyond any way of describing it.

You just can't, I just don't know how to describe it. You just really cannot explain to folks exactly what is involved there. So it's, see, I'm not, Glacier Bay was a catch can, yeah. No, there was a specific one, and I thought we were seeing it, and I just don't see it on the website here at the moment.

But anyway, that's what I think he's going to find absolutely fascinating. It's because it's just incredible. So anyhow, 877 -753 -3341. We have one caller online. So let's, actually, you know, I didn't pull my, I didn't quite get all of my stuff.

I've got so much stuff on my desk these days. I've got some stuff I'm trying to get taken care of here. So we're just pulling this thing out here. It looks like one line is ringing. Actually, now two lines are ringing, I think.

I'm going to hit the one that's blinking slowly and hope that this works. Hi, Caesar. How are you? Hello, Caesar. Yeah, hello. How are you, sir? I'm fine. How are you? Doing good. All right. I'm just calling to...

You mean Scripture Alone? Oh. That's okay. Just making sure we're talking. Because I contributed to a book called Sola Scriptura from Soli Deo Gloria Publishers. So it's always good. I've gotten into some real problems in the past, assuming that someone was asking about book X and they're actually asking about book Y.

And sometimes your responses can end up being downright hilarious, especially when you've written books like The Same-Sex Controversy or something like that. You know, it can really end up causing a major problem.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. I meant Scripture Alone. Okay. I don't know if you had seen your review on...

I, A, do not read any reviews unless someone actually asks me to. I recently read Art Sippo's attack on Amazon. But, no, I've never looked at Barnes Noble, no. Okay.

Well, like, the only thing was it says, for example, arguing from the Greek text of the New Testament, he holds that the Bible was inspired because the Bible says its text is breathed out by God. My question would be, like, how do you respond to someone with God?

Mm-hmm. I'm actually pulling it up here to see what's from the publisher, synopsis from the critics, Library Journal. Yeah. Since much of White's argument contrasts the authority of the biblical text with that of human teachers, it is significant that it does not explain how this breathing out by God of the text differs from God's breathing into such humans as Adam or the Apostles.

That's untrue. I very, very clearly, and I would write a response to this, I very clearly differentiated the concept of Scripture being theionistos, that is, God breathed, with that from that. No, it says breathing into such humans as Adam or the Apostles.

Uh-oh, we got a problem here. Just a second. Boom. There we go. Anyway, sorry about that. There is absolutely nothing in the text whatsoever that explains inspiration as a breathing into something. And I explained that, the idea of God breathing into Adam.

The Apostles were not inspired. That's common, sloppy theological language. Nowhere does the Scripture use the term theionistos or inspiration of the Apostles. The Apostles speak forth from God, but it is the Scriptures that are theionistos, it is the Scriptures that are themselves God-breathed.

And it's very disappointing that Christopher Brennan missed that very important difference. Now, there's a difference between recognizing what it is that the Scriptures are and how it is that we know which Scriptures are, or the whole body, how we know that that is the Word of God.

There's two different, the problem is people normally lump all that stuff together and they lump the issue of inspiration in with the canon. And while they are clearly related to one another and one flows into the other one, the confusion for most people comes in not properly differentiating various aspects.

Now, have you read the book? Yeah, I've read it a couple times. Okay. As you read the book and as you think about what's being said, one of the problems I had, and I always have, and in fact I'm chatting with someone right now in another context about the same issue, so many people come to this with what I would call a, and this is going to sound bad, and I don't mean it this way, but they come to this subject of the authority of Scripture and the nature of Scripture and how we know things with so much baggage that I've almost come to the conclusion that the only way you could ever break through all this is if someone were to be subject to solid teaching within the context of their church on a regular basis.

And what I mean by that is, I don't know that I, in a short, brief period of time, can undo all of the false assumptions that a large portion of folks, and it's evangelicalism's fault, it's the way we've approached this, it's the way we normally talk about this, that has resulted in this.

We've talked about the canon as if it's something that's human. We've talked about the canon as if it is something that is dependent upon the decisions of a council or something like that. Most of us have never even thought of the canon from a biblical perspective.

Most people wouldn't even, when you go, what do you mean from a biblical perspective? It came after the Bible, so you can't have a biblical perspective on the canon. Well, I say you can. You can because of the fact that God says he's given us his word for a purpose.

And if he's given us his word for a purpose, then he would have the very same purpose in leading us to have an accurate knowledge of what it is. That part is very, very rarely addressed, and if you've read the chapter on the canon, that's something I tried to emphasize, but even then, because especially of post-modernism and various unbiblical theories of knowledge, people still struggle because we don't view ourselves as creatures.

When it comes to the issue of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, how we know what we know, when it comes to that, there is a, like I said, I don't think it's something I can deal with in a brief period of time, not because it's so complex, but because it's something that we are so used to doing that it's become a habit of thought, and that is we struggle with the radical nature of the Christian worldview.

I mean, let's face it, if you're a Christian, you believe that not only is there a personal triune God who has created for a purpose this entire huge universe, and the purpose that's being worked out there is the creation of a people in Christ Jesus who are zealous for good deeds, a peculiar people for his own possession.

Not only that, but that creator entered into his own creation, and he is said to be the one in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. That's radical. That is so different than the way the world around us speaks and thinks that when we start talking about such issues as what is an ultimate authority, if God speaks, we put his speech on the very same level as our speech, and we think we can judge God's speech on the level that we would judge a man's speech.

And because of all of that, you get three or four or five major unbiblical problems coming together, and no matter how clearly you go, no, wait a minute, when God speaks, if God were to just all of a sudden appear in the heavens so that everyone on earth could see him, and were to, in some supernatural fashion, speak to us, and you heard it in English, and Spanish people would hear it in Spanish, and German people would hear it in German, but he speaks to us, what would be the basis for believing what God is saying?

You see, from a worldly perspective, man sits around going, well, I guess the fact that there's miracles associated with it, and I guess the fact that we all can see this at the same time, that might be a sound basis.

But you know, there is a theory that was floated in Alien vs. Predator, that the Predators used to come here and build the pyramids, so maybe it's just an alien super race, and maybe God doesn't exist, but there are alien super races.

Once you get to that point, you're always judging these things on the basis of making them human words, and judging them on a human standard, and I put myself in the position of judging that. The problem is, if God is God, and God speaks, there is no higher authority to which God can appeal, so as to guarantee the truthfulness of what he's saying.

When you and I walk into a court of law, we put our hand, well, maybe in some places, at least in Texas anymore, I guess you still can, you probably can't do this in California, but when you put your hand on that Bible, and you are swearing to tell the truth, you are calling a higher authority than yourself, as witness that what you're saying is true.

And so you're recognizing, I am not the ultimate authority, I will call a higher authority. Or if, in the same situation, a court of law where we're talking about truth, one side brings in an expert, well then the other side wants to trump that by bringing in a better expert, or a better known expert, maybe the teacher of the other expert, to contradict what he said.

There's always this idea of appealing to a higher source to establish the truthfulness of what you're saying. Alright, then here's the question then. How does God do that? Well, by nature, if God is the creator, there is no higher standard than what he says.

He can't say, I swear by the creation. Well, the creation isn't as great as God, that's lesser than God. He made it. He can't swear by anything but himself, because he, by nature, is the ultimate authority.

And so, when we talk about establishing the truthfulness of God's word, that's something we have to keep in mind, because if it really is what it is, then what are we asking? What is the standard of truthfulness?

What are we asking God to do? Are we asking him to swear by something greater than himself? We can't do that. What kind of external appeal could God's word make to prove it's true? And if it can make that appeal, then is it truly God's word?

Because if God's speaking is going to be the ultimate authority, it is the final authority in all things, then if it can appeal to an external source, it is no longer the final authority in all things, that external source becomes the final authority in all things.

It's one of the main problems of the Roman Catholic concept of tradition. You don't have a final place to put your ultimate authority. An ultimate authority by nature has to be sufficient in and of itself.

It's own nature has to be sufficient to explain why it's authoritative and why it can stand on it's own.

Scripture Alone and the Authority of God

Okay, go ahead. I was just wondering, case for faith, case for creator. It just goes through all the different kinds of scientific arguments, historic arguments, to try to verify that the Bible is true.

Would that be a biblical way?

It would be biblical for Christians, but you're going, in my opinion, you're going the wrong direction. You see, those books, I think, have a lot of impact upon believers in confirming their faith. And a person whose life the Holy Spirit is working, who is revealing Christ to that person, that can be utilized to aid them and assist them and so on and so forth.

But, really what you're touching upon here is the fundamental difference between what has historically been called evidential apologetics and presuppositional apologetics. And that is, when you present, well, what's one of your favorite arguments from one of those books concerning what makes the word of God different than the Koran or something else?

What do you think was particularly well-argued in one of those books? Just sort of pops into your mind.

Like the historic script.

Okay. It can work. Now, I would agree with that 100%. I mean, I don't know if you follow my blog or not, but I've been talking about Codex Sinaiticus and the attacks of Muslims upon the transmission of the text of Scripture and all the rest of it.

I agree completely with that statement. However, an appeal to history is A, always subject to new findings or things like that, but B, is it history that makes the Bible the word of God? The Bible is the word of God when it was first written, before it had any historical background or the first manuscript had been copied, correct?

Yeah. So, it can't be history itself that demonstrates the Bible's word of God. Now, the fact that the Bible's word of God is consistent with its historical validity, with its historical transmission, it's consistent with its prophecies, it's consistent with the fact that it is internally consistent with itself in the presentation of redemption, the resurrection, etc., etc.

All of that stuff is all true. But, if we ground the authority of the word upon those secondary sources, then the authority of the word can have no more authority than those secondary sources have. And that's where I struggle with evidentialists, because in essence what they're trying to do is they're trying to step onto an allegedly neutral ground and bring someone to seeing the true God.

A, I don't believe there is such a thing as neutral ground. Any fact that is a fact, is a fact because God made it that way. Any scientific truth, historical truth, philosophical truth, anything about the truth about the manuscript, all those things are that way because God made them that way, and I would argue you can't know that they are facts without the Christian God in the first place.

That's the first problem I have with evidentialism is its entire epistemology. But secondly, that person standing across from me on this allegedly neutral ground, first of all, I can't be neutral. There is no neutral ground because my God made everything.

And he can't be neutral either because of what? Because he is the slave of sin. He is suppressing the knowledge of God. He is a creature. He is a cup that the potter has made, and on the bottom of that cup it says, but he is doing everything he can to cover that up, and he will take any factual information that I give to him, and he will twist it, and he will suppress it, and he will fit it into his world view, all with the purpose of hiding the fact that he knows the true God is there, and he refuses to acknowledge that true God.

He can do that in a religious way. He can do that in a secular way. It does not matter. The fact of the matter is, that's what he is going to do. And so he and I can stand on an allegedly neutral ground all we want, but we're actually just floating in midair.

He's not on neutral ground. I'm not on neutral ground. The connection that I have with that person is the fact that both of us are made in the image of God. That's the connection. The connection is not, I'm not going to give up my world view and say there's such thing as a neutral ground and stand there and try to argue with him.

My argument is going to be, you are suppressing the knowledge of God. You are not acting in accordance with the fact that you've been made in his image. You can't live consistently as a creature of God while you are not acknowledging the one true God.

That is the apologetic connection as far as I see. So when those books do what they do, the problem is, once you get them into the faith, now you've got to go back and you have got to basically say, you know what, in my arguments with you to get you into the faith, I wasn't being quite honest with you.

Because I really wasn't arguing in a way that is consistent with God. I really wasn't arguing in a way that is consistent with what I'm now going to teach you you need to believe. And I don't think that's how you should do it.

I don't think that Christians should use an apologetic methodology that will end up causing us to have to apologize and say we weren't being quite honest with you. We need to be up front right from the beginning trusting that once again, it's the spirit of God that is going to bring about conversion in that person's life.

It's not anything but that. I think it's really a matter of just trusting the gospel. So when, getting back to your original question, we've been going quite some time now and we've got another caller, but getting back to your original question, it is a two-fold thing.

And yeah, we're going to go ahead and take a break once we're done here. It's a two-fold thing. We can utilize all that argumentation that you were talking about if we place it within the proper context and if we make sure that people understand that we are not attempting to say that these things are the foundation upon which the Bible stands, but that our knowledge of everything is based upon what God has said.

Even Adam and Eve were dependent upon God's revelation. They were dependent upon God speaking to them and letting them know what his law was and what they should and should not do, what their purpose was, and so on and so forth.

This idea of man running around as if he is the final authority in all things, that's the thing that we really need to avoid. All right. Thank you very much. Hey, thanks for calling Caesar. God bless.

All right, bye-bye. All right, we're going to take our break real late here, but we need to do it anyways and be back with Alan and his call right after this.

Ministry Promotions and Book Advertisements

Alaska, the unspoiled land of nature and immensity. Both in its realities and its possibilities, Alaska can stir our hearts and minds like no other place on earth. Join us this summer for the 2005 Alfred Omega Ministries Alaskan Cruise as we cruise the inside passage to the great land of Alaska with Dr. James White and Christian recording artist Steve Camp as they explore the great doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

For our guests, the journey north is an odyssey of glorious landscapes and majestic wildlife as we sail on the luxury five-star Sun Princess by towering glaciers into some of the most remarkable points on earth.

All this, and at prices beginning at $624 per person, plus port taxes and fees, half the price of other offerings to Alaska with other groups. Contact us today at aomen .org or at 877-SOV-CRUISE.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God, James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

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

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