The Deity of Christ in John

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. And straight from the slopes of Mount Humphreys to the

Dividing Line studios, I wasn't going to do the program today, but I hurried.

It's what happens when you are spending your time listening to attacks upon the faith, which includes specific citations of your own work in preparation for something you'll be doing next week.

And you get more and more frustrated because your arguments are either being taken out context or being ignored or only part of them being responded to.

And it's like, hey, you know what? I can respond to this stuff. And man, I really want to.

So it actually made me go faster, which is pretty unusual. Listening to anti -Trinitarian rhetoric rarely makes you go faster, but it did today.

I was climbing Mount Humphreys in Flagstaff, which is the road from the bottom to the top is a little over 2 ,000 feet, 6 .5

miles, very steep. And it was very cold, very, very cold this morning when

I started. But climbing that thing will get you working.

And I was listening to material, as I said, preparing for an encounter I'm going to be having next week. And there's much, much, much, much

I would like to be responding to. I don't want to get into that before that encounter next week specifically. So the material

I want to cover today on the program is not going to be the primary material that we're going to be looking at or even secondary material.

It may come up. I don't know. But we have some specific topics we're going to be addressing over the course of two and a half hours next week.

And I'll let you know where you can listen to that, so on and so forth. But especially since I am one of the most often quoted people in this particular book,

I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to some of the things that I've read here and hopefully help you out a lot in the process, too, as far as Bible study goes.

I do hope you have your Bibles with you. Or if you are listening on a computer, you've fired up Accordance, BibleWorks, Logos, or whatever other creatures are out there,

Esword is still out there, and so on and so forth, and are able to follow along as we look very closely at a couple of texts in regards to the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the

Trinity. We should not be overly surprised that the person of Jesus Christ is very much the focus of the attacks of those who would seek to undermine the biblical message.

Without a divine savior, you do not have Christianity. You have just another one of the many world's religions that has a great founder who had special insights or special closeness to God.

But as long as Jesus is on the creaturely side of the divide, he's not eternal, or he's not personal in his eternal existence.

One of the things about this book that sort of really bugs me, and I am referring to a book by Patrick Navas is his name, and one of the things that really bothers me about this book is that it refuses to answer the questions that the doctrine of the

Trinity does answer. It criticizes Trinitarian apologists and theologians for being dogmatic, and thereby excluding those who don't believe in the

Trinity from Christianity. And yet, A, it's dogmatic in saying the one thing it can't be is the

Trinity. And then when you go to asking the serious questions, well, it might be this and it could be that, we're not really sure.

There's some people who think that Jesus existed as a plan in the mind of God, and there's some people who believe that he existed as a person but came into existence at a point in time and, you know, it might be this, it might be that, we really don't know.

And I was going to, I didn't have enough time, I literally, I did stop at the house long enough to put on some other clothes because I didn't want to be sitting here in my riding stuff and throw all my stuff in the house in the car, but other than that, it was just straight here.

I just didn't have time, there was a whole section I wanted to read through, which I'll get to eventually, where, you know, the argument was being made, well, you know, we have plenty here to say about Jesus and he might have been this and he might have been that, we don't know, we don't know,

I could probably search on we don't know and pull it up in the electronic version I have in front of me.

But it's very easy to sit on the sideline when you don't have a dog in that hunt or a horse in that race or whatever analogy you want to use and take potshots at people who do.

But when you don't have a, well, you know, he might've been this and he might've been that and some people think this and some people think that, that's real easy.

It really makes me wonder how perspicuous and clear the Bible really is, to be perfectly honest with you.

But as it may, the two sections I want to look at today on the dividing line in the hour that we have together, a little less than that, is the prologue of John and John chapter five.

And once again, people might be saying, hey, aren't you supposed to be working on a book on Islam? Yes. This is part of it. I am making it part of that because I'll be perfectly honest with you.

With very, very few exceptions, my Muslim opponents just borrow from folks like this.

They just, you know, they grab. And by the way, this book is, no offense intended, it's nothing new.

Those of us who've been around for a little while, I remember when I first started saying Jehovah's Witnesses, when

I encountered Nelson Hurley's big, huge book. And these books are always about four times bigger than they'd need to be if they had an editor.

I'm serious. I mean, there's just, there's so much extraneous information repetition that some people write books.

I'm not saying this of this particular author, but I know people who write books to make them just huge.

So the size of it looks very intimidating. I could mention a certain Roman Catholic apologist in that vein, but be it as it may, every generation has a bunch of these that are produced and people, oh, you found all the

Unitarian citations. Well, okay, great. A few more acres of trees just got cut down for that.

At least today now it's not quite as bad. We have to waste photons or something, electrons and store them electronically, but nothing new about it.

But what is somewhat unusual is this was put together after the Forgotten Trinity came out. And so the

Forgotten Trinity is cited a fair amount of times. I am taken to task numerous times. I don't know that we're really going to get an opportunity for me to refute each one of these.

It wouldn't be difficult to do, to be perfectly honest with you. It is a little bit frustrating to have a section that you wrote on the necessity of exegesis quoted while you're being accused of being engaged in eisegesis.

And in fact, it is one of the things that are fascinating. There were pages, I haven't taken a look here, again,

I just came running in here, but pages and pages on 1 Corinthians 15, 28, all based, going after me, all based upon a single phone call, the dividing line.

And yet what we're going to look at in John 1, 1, my entire argument, this whole chapter in my book, it's never even presented, shows no understanding of it.

Certainly didn't refute it, didn't even try to refute it. Major portions of it, they would just blow his position because he defends the

AGOD translation. Blow his position right out of the water, not even mentioned. So it's sort of odd that you'd have pages and pages of pages on a single phone call on the dividing line.

But then you've got a published work, entire chapter, and we're not going to really deal with all that.

That's disappointing. Disappointing, indeed. Anyway, here is the section, a couple of things

I wanted to, well, let's, before I look at this, let's take a look at John 1, 1.

And let's remind ourselves, not everyone in the audience has read The Forgotten Trinity. Those of you who have may not remember everything that you read in The Forgotten Trinity.

And I don't remember everything in The Forgotten Trinity either. And I wrote the book. That was, you know, a little while ago now. Anarchein halagas, kai halagas ein prostan theon, kai theos ein halagas.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Now that's the standard translation.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that there are three clauses in John 1, 1.

Anarchein halagas. In the beginning was the Word. Now, obviously, parallels have been drawn to Genesis 1, 1.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. But what you have here, and this is where I have to fault

Mr. Navas' attempts at exegesis, is one thing that so far, and I'm about 280 pages into this beast, and I've listened to some radio programs that he did.

So far, I have not found him to follow narrative well, or follow arguments over larger portions of the text very well.

John 1, 1 is a part of the prologue. You have to look at the entirety of the prologue.

You cannot isolate things. So much of what you will read on the internet, and especially anti -trinitarians, they will focus upon a single verse.

And the idea of, you know, they will make incredible claims about the languages.

I remember, well, I won't use a specific example, but it's been my experience over the years, been doing this for a while now, that so many of these folks that seem so confident in saying, well, you know, the

Greek here means this. If you got them out of a text that was

Christologically relevant, or a part of a Christological debate, and asked them to translate just someplace else, just on, you know, narrative in Mark, or something like that, they're completely lost, because that's all they focus on.

They don't actually read the entirety of the text. It's just these things. They are experts on just these things.

And the result is an eisegetical confidence, that you've got that one nailed down, but the problem is you may not even know how that one verse relates to everything else.

In this prologue, it has been observed appropriately, that when speaking of, for example,

John, in John 1 .6, it says, ἐγένητα ἄνθρωπος There was a man.

Now, ἐγένητα comes from γένοι. And ἐγένητα is in the aorist form.

And then that one came, that's ἔλθον, and each time you have something about creation, it's placed in time, using the aorist.

For example, ἐγένητα, all things were made by him or through him, and there's a whole other,

I'm looking forward to, because this is one of the topics we're going to address. It's Colossians chapter 1, and some of the comments he made about Greek prepositions.

He better be ready for his Greek prepositions, let's put it that way. And apart from him, ἐγένητα οὐδὲ ἐν

Apart from him, nothing was made that was made. ὁ γεγενὴ It could be rendered as, that which was made in him was life.

But anyway, the point is that when you're talking about John, you're talking about creation, ἐγένητα is used.

And it places it firmly in time. But when speaking of the λόγος, you have the little verb ἔν.

N -r -k, ἔν ὁ λόγος. Καὶ ὁ λόγος ἔν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Καὶ θεὸς ἔν ὁ λόγος.

That's the imperfect form of Ἀιμί. And that's a little unusual.

Ἀιμί, verb of being, but in the imperfect, it's not the aorist, it's the imperfect, which normally refers to continuous action in the past.

Now it can be iterative, there's all sorts of syntactical categories you can break that down into. But when talking about the λόγος, it's ἔν.

Until you reach verse 14. And then, when you reach verse 14, καὶ ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετα.

And the word became flesh. Now, I suppose there would be many people who would argue, ah, big deal.

You know, we can't give John too much credit for really thinking through his use of verbs and things like that.

I give John a whole lot more credit than that. And it's very obvious that he is seeking to communicate something to us by this use of ἔν versus ἐγένετα.

There was a point in time where the λόγος became flesh. That's the incarnation. So if there was a point in time in which the word became flesh, then by using a different verbal form for John 1 -1, was there a point in time where the λόγος became, well according to Mr.

Navas, there was, but not according to John. According to John, the λόγος is eternal.

As far back as you want to push this beginning, n -r -k, some people say, well this is the beginning, this is actually creation.

Well, the λόγος pre -exists that. Any beginning you want to put, the λόγος is eternal.

Now, I made this argument in my book. Mr. Navas quotes my statement of it, but doesn't refute my assertion of it.

So, John 1 -1a, the word has eternally existed. John 1 -1b, and the word was with God.

And again, you're talking about some kind of relationship here, because it's not a spatial relationship.

I mean, προς can be used spatially. But it is a personal relationship.

Whatever this λόγος is, just as long as λόγος has been, the λόγος has been in relationship with with God.

And then you have, of course, the big argument. And the word was

God. It cannot be, and God was the word. And this is what's amazing to me.

This is a basic fundamental point. And I mentioned this in the

Forgotten Trinity. And on page 53, yeah, here you go.

It starts on page 53. I'm explaining the significance of the article. And I said, stay with me now, for there is another important point to be seen in the text.

If both of the nouns in a predicate -nominative construction, like this one, have the article, or if both lack the article, this is significant as well.

In that case, the two nouns become interchangeable. That is, if word had the article and God did too, this would mean that John is saying that God was the word and the word was

God. Both would be the same thing. Or, if neither of them had the article, we would have the same idea. An equating of all of God with all the word.

God and word would be interchangeable in equal terms. So, if there was, if the third clause of John 1 was then we could translate that as was

God was the word, or the word was God. And the point would be that the two terms are interchangeable and exhaustive of one another.

That would be exactly what Roger Perkins would wish it says. That's exactly what the

Oneness folks would want that to say. But it doesn't say that.

It doesn't say that. Now, this one, then in verse 2, this one was in the beginning with God.

So you have again, Ein, you have the N -R -K, you have a summary of the preceding verse, emphasizing that this one, the

Logos, this was the one who in the beginning was with God. All the arguments you want to make about wisdom or creation at some point in time, you're stuck with the fact that the

Logos is eternal. All things are made by or through him.

Diablo the genitive, look up means, syntax, it's all right there.

And apart from him, nothing was made. That which was made in him was life, is one way of punctuating it.

The other way of putting it is, apart from him was nothing made which was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men and the light was shining in the darkness and darkness did not comprehend or receive it or overcome it.

There's all sorts of different ways we can look at it. Catelebin. Now, then you have the discussion of John and you have the discussion of the gospel and truth and then you have the incarnation in verse 14.

Cahalogos sarx agenata and the word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us, skenao and we beheld his glory, the glories of the menaganus and the meaning of that is not overly disputable, even in its form.

There's only one new in there. It comes from genos, not genao. As of a unique one parapatras, from the

Father full of grace and truth. And John testifies concerning this one.

He talks about the law of Moses, grace and truth comes with Jesus Christ and then you have the end of the prologue.

And what you have in the prologue is something called bookending. You have the first verse and then the last verse are bookends.

They are explaining and defining for us what the author wants you to hear from the prologue to this book.

And since this is the prologue, this is the lens through which John wants you to read everything else.

You miss it here, you're going to miss it everywhere else. And what does he say? Theon, notice there's no article there,

Theon udais herakon popate. No one has seen God in any time.

Menaganes theos, the unique God, haon aiston kalpon tu patras ekainos exegesata.

So, no one has seen God in any time. The unique God, the one who is, haon, present participle, existing.

It's literally in the bosom of the Father. I like the close to the Father's heart, at the

Father's side. It is a restatement of what we had before with prostantheon.

That one has exegeted him, has explained him, has made him known.

Now, when you listen to the entirety of the prologue, when you listen to what the author is saying in the context in which he's saying it, recognizing he's a monotheistic

Jew, you're not going to go running off. Remember when we were talking, prepping for Australia, we responded to some of the things that Abdullah Kunda said about the

Logos and Philo and stuff like that. And we said, there is a significantly more direct connection for the background of Logos.

It's not Greek philosophy, though I'm sure John had some concept of that. It is the word in the

Old Testament. God's speech, God's speaking. And so, when you allow

John's context to stand, what has he told us? Well, is it true that no one has seen

God at any time? In the Old Testament, there's a number of places where men saw God. And so, if it stopped right there, you'd go, well,

John, what do you mean? But then he uses this amazing phrase, monoghanes theos. Now, there is a textual variant there.

But, interestingly enough, even Mr. Navas does not try to argue that point. He recognizes that the papyri evidence for monoghanes is very strong.

Monoghanes theos. Now, there have been some folks, J. Green, for example, that's

Gnosticism. No, it's not. In any way, shape, or form. Monoghanes theos, when we recognize the true meaning of monoghanes, and I was listening to a

Diya Mohammed fellow down in Australia, wow, listening to him talking about monoghanes and begotten was painful.

It was just painful to listen to. Not even close to anything even slightly scholarly on that.

I'd love to get a hold of him and say, could we dialogue about this? This is bad. But monoghanes theos, you put the two terms together.

And, hey, I didn't put them there. John did. You've got to deal with that. And there's something about this relationship between the logos and the father.

Because we know the theon here is the father. That's what it says. He is at the father's side. So patras, right there in the text.

You can't get around that identification. That's the same identification in John 1 .1. There is an intimate relationship that exists between the logos and the father.

And it's such an intimate relationship that not only is the logos described as theos, but he is uniquely theos and he has the capacity of exegeting and explaining the father.

I say to you, no mere creature. And if you're on that side of the creator creation divide, you're a creature.

No mere creature can exegete the father. No mere creature has ever been close to the father's heart and then became flesh and exegeted him.

Don't talk to me about Michael the archangel or anything else. These are not words fitting for a creature.

You can make all the excuses you want. They're not fitting for a creature. And I would not want to have to stand before him and say, oh,

I thought you were a creature. I just don't want to go there. Now, with that said, let me address two things real quick because I still got to get to John 5 and I knew

I'd start preaching and I apologize. Although I don't apologize. That's why I rushed down here to do this. I'm not apologizing one little bit.

One of the works that has been produced and is constantly quoted by a fellow by the name of Jason Deboon Bedoon, excuse me,

B first, D second, Bedoon from NAU, which is ironic since I was just in Flagstaff, which is where NAU is.

He is quoted on page 273. In his book on Bible translation, Bedoon also remarked, if John had wanted to say the word was

God, as so many English translations have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article the, ha, to the word

God, the os, making it the God and therefore capital God. End of quote.

Let me see if, that's not the end of the quote. He could have simply written ha theos, ein, ha halagos, ein, ha theos, word for word the word was the

God, or halagos, ha theos, ein, word for word the word the God was, but he didn't.

Others have argued that theos does not require the definite article be definite and that there are examples of article -less, anarthrotheos used definitely in the

New Testament, while this may be true of anarthrotheos in a genitive or dative case. Two forms that freely dispense the article in a number of uses.

It is not the case for anarthrotheos in a nominative case. The form used in John 1, 1c the nominative case is much more dependent than other

Greek cases on the definite article to mark definiteness. End quote. There's the end quote. He's wrong. W -R -O -N -G.

A first -year Greek student knows that he's wrong. Because as I've pointed out, and there's nobody that I can think of that is a credentialed scholar in this field that would argue this one at all.

If he had written what he suggests here, ha logos, ein, ha theos, that makes logos and theos interchangeable.

If both have the article or both don't, then you have interchangeability.

It doesn't matter what the order of where the predicate nominative, now you can't even, you don't have a predicate nominative.

You have apposition. He's wrong. Now, the information demonstrating he's wrong is right there in the

Forgotten Trinity, which gets quoted a lot in this book, but didn't seem to get picked up there. He's just wrong.

Then on the same page, page 274, I will thank

Mr. Navas for a nice word here, even though he has just blasted me in this book numerous times.

I don't think he realizes it to be precise. I don't think he realizes how much Jehovah's Witness language he uses, but his first experience was

Jehovah's Witnesses, so he just never got out of it. That's all there is to it. He may have ended up at Masters, but that doesn't matter.

I'm sorry. Is there something over here? Oh, yeah. Okay. Anyway, I don't think he realizes just how condescending much of his language is.

It really is. It's bad. But here's a statement.

According to the more refined argument put forward by Trinitarian apologists, thank you very much, since this is my argument,

John is not trying to say that the Word was God, haotheos equals the Father. Well, who was saying anything like that?

But rather God as to his substance, essence, or that the Word was haotheos in the exact same sense as the

Father, but still not the same person. As Dr. White puts it, John asserts that Jesus is the

Word became flesh, John 1 .14. He says that this Word is eternal, has always been with God, and indeed shares the very being of God, John 1 .1.

Quotation. Now that actually is from Purpose and Meaning of the Gospel of John in Reference to the

Deity of Christ from our website. Now, maybe that will be the excuse he'll use, but if he read the chapter in the book that he quotes from all the time, he wouldn't make the following statements.

However, a simple reading of the text, and I've discovered that simple reading of the text for Mr.

Novos means, one with my presuppositions, not yours. I really think he thinks that.

I don't think he recognizes it. He has this massive semi -tractor trailer truck of Unitarian presuppositions sitting right behind him, but it's only the

Trinitarians who have presuppositions. However, a simple reading of the text will reveal that John neither says nor asserts that the

Word is eternal without beginning, nor that the Word shares the very being of God. Strangely, in this case,

Dr. White simply claims that the Apostle says something that he does not actually say. So, I just simply made the claim.

I didn't back it up anywhere. Hmm. He has a footnote right there.

It says, Dr. White would probably have better off saying that this is what he believes the text means or that this is how he interprets the text.

Now, let me just stop for a moment. This is again one of the you know, there's a lot of problems with the book. This is one of them.

For this fella, when he reads it, well, that's just what it means because I'm just reading it simply.

When you read it, that's just your interpretation. I can't tell you how many times

I have encountered this over the years. You encounter it all the time.

Well, that's just your interpretation. I'm just reading the words for what they mean. No, you're important. A truckload of stuff in there, and you accuse me of doing that, but when you do it, you don't even see it.

You don't even recognize it. Don't even try to defend it. Now, the reality is, if you've been listening carefully, why did

I say that John asserts that Jesus is the word become flesh.

He says that this word is eternal. Now, did I substantiate that? I did in my books.

I did in the specific article on John 1 .1 on the website. I discussed Aen, I discussed Genetau.

Is there even any recognition anywhere in this section of the difference between Aen and Genetau in the

Prologue of John? Not a whisper. So, I've presented an argument substantiating why

I believe in John 1 .1 the word is eternal and all we get is, in this case,

Dr. White simply claims that the Apostle says something he does not actually say. No refutation of the argument.

Not even a recognition that the argument is there. And that happens, unfortunately, a lot.

A lot. There's much more to be said about this. My big question to Mr.

Malbus, if, and he substantiates, the word was agod argumentation.

That's how we should understand it. The word was agod in the class of divine beings.

How could John have said that the word was as to his nature deity according to you?

We already know that your Badoon citation is wrong because if you put an article in front of Theos now you're making the

Logos and Theos interchangeable and exhaustive to one another. So that ain't going to work. So tell us, how could he have done it?

If you can't tell us how he would have done it, then your position is not even worth consideration.

So that would be the question. Before that, that is, before the discussion of John chapter 1, there was an extensive discussion of John chapter 5.

And have we gone over John chapter 5 before? Yes, we have. Primarily, why? Well, again, much of what

Patrick Navas says is identical to what is said by Muslims.

That does not make him wrong. It just makes the positions very, very similar. And hence, we can respond to them in very similar fashions.

We have to respond to them in very similar fashion. And I have, on this program, and I will not be able to get into as much depth as I have in the past.

I think I do, now that I think about it, have a YouTube video on John chapter 5 of about 20 minutes or so in length.

I think. I think. I'm pretty certain of that. Folks, if you want to really prepare yourself for doing apologetics, there are certain texts.

And I feel this myself. I can think of other texts that I feel weak on, that I know people expect a lot from me because of what

I do. But if you really want to grow in your confidence in engaging in apologetics,

John chapter 5 is a text you need to understand. Remember, it even came up in the

Doug Wilson -Dan Barker debate. It'll come up with Muslims. It'll come up with Unitarians.

It'll come up with one -nosed Pentecostals. I mean, it is just so often abused and misused that you have to understand what's going on in it.

Remember, you always have to be able to... Whenever you start looking at a text, step back and ask yourself the question, where is this text in the context of, say, the

Gospel of John? Where is this text in this chapter? In the chapter before and after?

Because remember, chapter divisions, they're all artificial. And if you keep this in mind,

John chapter 5 will become, I believe, one of your favorite texts of Scripture. Not one that you're like, oh, they're going to go after me on this one.

Let's face it. Sometimes it's easy as an apologist. Man, I wish James 2 .20 wasn't in the

Bible because I just get tired of going back over it over and over again with Mormons that just have it tattooed on the back of their forehead.

If you will enter into it, at least when you're responding to it, you can do so with passion.

And people can sense when you're passionate about something. They really can. A lot of people do not like the fact that I get passionate about things.

You shouldn't be passionate about things. What was the guy on Twitter this past week? I'm too shrill.

I need to be one of those post -modernists. Well, it might be this and it might be that.

I sort of feel it's like this. That ain't happening in my lifetime. Nah, it ain't going to happen.

John 5 begins with the healing of the man by the pool of Bethesda.

And be prepared for John 5 .4 if you're talking to a Muslim. Remember, there's a textual variant there.

I don't know how many times in talks

I have asked people who has an NIV or an ESV here, could you read me John 5 .4?

And they sit there and they look and they look and they start getting this strange look on their face.

And then I go, there is no John 5 .4. It goes from 5 .3 to 5 .5. And they're all sitting there going, and boy do

I have their attention then. But be prepared for that.

Not talking about that today. We have many times before. The abuse of John 5 .26

and the pan -canonical nature of Christian truth. This video? Sounds good. That's definitely me.

I use that term pan -canonical and I've never met anybody else who does. I must have named it. That's probably it,

Ralph. Anyway, this healing has taken place and we're given some information that the man who was healed isn't overly thankful for his healing.

And some of that information is given to us by Jesus himself, verse 14. But then verse 16, for this reason the

Jews were persecuting Jesus because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. Uh oh, it's another one of those

Sabbath healings. And Jesus answered them because obviously they raised the question to him, why are you doing these things on the

Sabbath? You're violating the Sabbath rules that we have. Jesus answered them, My father, until now, is working.

I also am working. So, same verb, the father is working until now, and I am working.

You've got the background of the Sabbath. And the

Jews understood God continued to work on the Sabbath. I mean, the sun still comes up and the moon still circles the earth.

The laws of gravity continue. It would be a little bit discomforting if on the

Sabbath day gravity stopped working and laws of physics no longer applied and stuff like that. So, they had already come to the conclusion that God works on the

Sabbath. But notice the language that Jesus uses. My father is working now, until now, and I, he associates himself with the very right that the father has to work on the

Sabbath day. For this reason, therefore, the

Jews are seeking all the more to kill him because he not only loosed the

Sabbath. Now, it's normally translated as broke the Sabbath, and this is one of the main arguments that are used.

It says, well, look, the Jews are wrong about that. Well, the Jews wasn't breaking the Sabbath. Well, he was certainly loosing their Sabbath laws. He certainly was not following their interpretation.

How many times did he get in trouble with this one? But here's what really bothered them.

Alachai Patera Idion Eligen Tantheon and the father, his own, he was saying

God, he was identifying God as his own father Isonhaoton Poyon Totheo, making himself equal with God.

Making himself equal with God. Now, the argument that is put forth, and it's put forth in Novelist's book as well, they just misunderstood, and what's going to come after this is

Jesus saying, oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I'm not making myself equal to the father,

I'm not making myself equal to God just because I'm calling God my own father just because I'm referring to God in a way the rest of you can't

No, I'm not making myself and certainly looking at John 5 .19,

this is a very, very, very very common interpretation, not just not just Patrick Navas but every

Muslim I've ever talked to, likewise interprets this text in this way, and Jehovah's Witnesses and so many others

Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them Truly, truly, I say to you the son is not able to do af heyaotu uden eon metiblepe ton patera poyunta

The son is not able af heyaotu from himself to do anything except what he sees the father doing for whatever that one the father does, ekainos

These things also the son does likewise.

Now, if you cut that off from 5 .17

and 5 .18 you cut it off from what comes afterwards then I can see how you might become confused but there is nothing confusing here and there is nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of the

Trinity here What else would you expect it to say?

You see, folks, you just I pray like Paul prayed for the

Ephesians and Colossians that God would give you divine understanding, a spirit of discernment of these things.

You've got to learn to identify the hidden assumptions and arguments against the faith because that's exactly what you've got here

The hidden false assumption is that if the son is truly deity then he could do af heyaotu anything he wanted to In other words if the son is truly deity then he should be able to do anything he wants independently from the father

That's only true if you're a tritheist or at least a di -theist If the doctrine of the

Trinity is true, that would not be true It would not be true that any one of the members of the

Godhead could act in disharmony with the other members of the

Godhead decide on their own, I'm just going to strike out, do my own thing

God would cease to exist and you see

Jesus' response to the Jewish assertion that he was calling

God his own father making himself equal with God was not to deny it but to define it

It was not to deny it it was to define it And what you must see in verses 19 and following is the essential unity of the father and the son not the identity

They've taken different roles but you cannot tell me that a creature who came into existence at a time in past whether it's in eternity or some idealized plan or whatever other weird thing you come up with still a mere creature is being described in the way that Jesus describes himself as the son of the father in John chapter 5 beginning at verse 19

The son does nothing off of himself separately from the father but listen to what the rest of the verse says

If you want to see an awesome example of how Unitarian presuppositions blind the mind to amazing light here it is

Put the rest of this verse in the mouth of a creature Well yeah

I'm Michael I'm Michael the Archangel I came into existence at a time in the past and what

I do I do what I see the father doing What is the father doing?

Keep with the context Maintaining creation itself on the

Sabbath day We're not talking about being sent on some little mission here

We're talking about doing that which only God himself can do

I'm Michael and I do what I see the father doing for whatever the father does that the son does likewise

Think about it for a second folks So often we get so sidetracked in trying to defend one little point that we don't hear the whole testimony of the verse

There is no created thing I do what God does A perfect harmony

Whatever he does, I do that too Really? A creature? Are you telling me that God has created a creature who is basically a second

God who is infinite and eternal It's like Hebrews 1

He is the exact representation of his person A creature?

An exact representation? He'd have to be infinite Wouldn't he? Isn't the person of God infinite? Absolutely perfect?

Could any creature by nature of not being eternal be an exact representation?

So right there in the very verse I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people go John I do nothing of my own

Do you know what the context of that is? Talking about going back into the presence of the Father? Did you catch any of that?

This morning I heard him talk about John 14, 28 in the book And I'm like, boy, totally totally ignore the context

You would have rejoiced I'm going back to the presence of the Father There's nothing in here about difference between position

No, that's just being all read in You mean going back to the Father doesn't have anything to do with position?

It's just really clear But here it is, I can't tell you how many times Does nothing of himself

And never stop to think Well, if he did do something of himself that would make him a second

God and that would violate monotheism and so maybe that's really not a good argument Yeah, it's not

That's not going to stop people from using it But it's not a good argument

For the Father loves the Son and shows to Him all that He Himself is doing and greater works than these

He will show Him so that you may you may be amazed for scroll it up here to where it's in the right place for just as the

Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the

Son gives life to whomever He will Now, they'll say Yeah, but this has been given to the

Son Okay, the Father is the fountainhead of of Deity There's no question about that In fact, this is where we start getting into what begotten really does mean and the depth of the doctrine of the

Trinity and the depth of divine revelation as to the relationship of the

Father and the Son And it's ironic many of the

Unitarians are more than happy to quote liberals When you want to find, and this man's a

Trinitarian Why is he a Trinitarian? They love to quote Mackenzie, the liberal

Roman Catholic And he's a Trinitarian, well why is he a Trinitarian? Because the church tells him to be Why am

I a Trinitarian? Because I believe all the Bible You think that makes a difference? It makes a huge difference

Massive difference And generally, when people liberals start backing away from belief in the

Trinity, it's because they abandoned the highest view of Scripture a long time ago

I'm sorry, note to all Unitarians who want to get my attention and who want to show me their great depth of knowledge, don't quote liberals to me who don't believe the

Bible is truly the Word of God I don't care. I really don't I mean,

I at least can respect some of those liberal denominations that have so far abandoned a belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture that they don't even believe in the

Trinity anymore It's just tradition. It's just this way we do things and they won't defend it There's no reason to believe these things unless you believe that there is a harmonious, full, deep revelation of God in Scripture that we have yet to completely exhaust and ever fully come to understand

I look over at the channel once in a while and someone just said I'm so uncaring Thanks, appreciate that.

I think it's because I said I don't care Is that what it is? That's why I'm so uncaring? Yeah, I don't care.

I don't care what the liberals say on this subject. I mean, I have to read them but I know why they say it.

If I believed that you can put Paul against James and John against Mark and, well,

John against John and Paul against Paul that's the real popular thing these days If I actually believed that all of that stuff was true and you could just chop the

Bible up into pieces I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you about the Trinity because I wouldn't care There is no reason to believe these things unless you believe in the divine revelation of Scripture that it is consistent with itself and if you want a quote from folks who are way out in left field who are willing to compromise on all sorts of aspects of this, you go ahead

I'll start listening to you again once you're done and you get back to relevant stuff because until then, whatever

Reason being get back to the point here Someone just mentioned

Hey, if someone mentions Deepak Chopra on channel that's going, kick that person out that's wrong

Back to the text People say, oh yes, the son gives life to whom he wills but you see that's been given to him of the father

You know, verse 22 says the father judges no one but he's given all judgment to the son that all may honor the son just as they honor the father the one not honoring the son is not honoring the father who sent him

This has just all been given to him So he's just a creature Folks, listen carefully when someone uses that argumentation

Are you telling me that God can deify creatures? He can make second gods that do things that only

God does He can elevate the will of a mere creature to the point where he is able to give life to whom he wishes

I thought God was the source of all life Jesus is just a conduit here So is that just like how

God uses doctors? Is that all Jesus is? He's like the big doctor and God uses little doctors

I've got the greatest chiropractor on the planet I'd be sitting here only the probie can see me

I'd be sitting here like this like the hunchback of Notre Dame if I did not have the best chiropractor in the world

She keeps me walking straight You all know how I beat myself up I'm almost 50 years old

I was climbing a mountain in freezing temperatures this morning at 9000 feet elevation That's the stuff that I do

My heart rate is lower than yours buddy I beat myself up and I need a good chiropractor

She does a great job for me I very much appreciate that John Calvin had a 27 year headache and I know why, he needed a chiropractor

That or Advil or both Are you saying that Jesus is just that?

He's a means by which God does stuff?

Just a creaturely means That's why we should honor him just as we honor the

Father The same way? Don't think so There's just so much here and I don't have time to get into everything that I'd like to be able to get into But hopefully what you've seen is when you listen to the arguments of those who oppose the faith once for all delivered to the saints and they may claim to be defending that faith but you know that they do not believe in the deity of Christ or the person of the

Holy Spirit or what the gospel is, whatever the situation might be The apostle

Paul warned us Do not be drawn away Do not be deceived by deceitful words of wisdom

Listen carefully and if you will listen carefully with a mind of discernment you will be able to see where the false presuppositions lie and where the texts themselves have been ignored

These are beautiful texts I hope you have been encouraged once again to think about who

Jesus Christ truly is via the testimony of His word These very writers, this very same

John will identify Jesus as Yahweh Who did Isaiah see?

John 12? He saw Jesus and that very one is the one who has given

Himself that we might have eternal life those of us who have repented repented and placed our faith in Him United with Him I'm awful glad that the one who stands in the presence of the

Father in my place today is not a mere creature That would concern me greatly

We have much to be thankful for Thanks for listening to The Dividing Line today We will be back Lord willing next

Tuesday We might do something on Monday because I'm not going to be here on Thursday It's Thanksgiving Day But we'll see.

Hey thanks for listening We'll see you next time. God bless The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries If you would like to contact us

Call us at 602 -973 -4602 Or write us at P .O. Box 37106

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 You can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org

That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks