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. 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.

Why the Deity of Christ Matters for Christianity

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 I. That'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 of context or the or being ignored or only part of them being responded to and and. It's like hey, you know what I can respond to this stuff and man I I I really want to.

So it actually made me go faster. It's pretty unusual listening to anti-trinitarian rhetoric rarely makes you go faster. But it did today. I was climbing Mount Humphreys and Flagstaff Which is the road from well to the bottom 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 and.

But.

Climbing that thing will get you will get you working. And I was listening to material as I said preparing for an encountering and be having next week and.

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 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 to 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 Bible works logos or whatever other Creatures are out there e sword is still out there and so on 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 worlds 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 he's not eternal. Or he's not personal in his eternal existence there. One of the things about this book that sort of really bugs me and I am referring to a book by Patrick novice 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 the Trinity does answer It 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 as a 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 and in the mind of God and there's some people who believe that he existed as a as a person.

But came into existence at a point in time and and you know, it might be this it might be that we really don't know and I Was gonna I didn't have enough time I literally I I did stop the house long enough to put on some other clothes because I didn't want to be sitting here in my writing stuff and and throw all my stuff in the house in the car, but That it was just straight here.

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 we have plenty here to say about Jesus and and He might have been this and even 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 want to use and take potshots of the people who do but when you don't have a Well, you know, he might have been this and he might have been that and some people think this and some people think that.

That's 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 little less than that is prologue of John and John chapter 5 and once again people might be saying hey, aren't you supposed to work 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 this book is. No, no offense attended. It's it's nothing new. Those of us have 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 they're 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 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. Just 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 and Electronically, but nothing 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 taking the task numerous times I I don't know that we're really gonna 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 ice Jesus and in fact, it is one of the things very fascinating.

There were pages. I haven't taken a look here Again I just came running in here but pages and pages on 1st Corinthians 15 28 All based going after me all based upon a single phone call the dividing line and Yet what we're gonna look at in John 1 1 my entire argument as a 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 a god translation Blow his his position rather water not even mentioned.

So 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 gonna really deal with all that. That's That's disappointing disappointing indeed anyway.

Here is Here is the section a couple 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. But that was you know a little while ago now Anarchy in halaga sky halaga same prostant.

They aren't I say us in halaga. In the beginning was the word and the words with God and the word was God now, that's the standard translation I Want to draw your attention to the fact there are three clauses in John 1 1 Anarchy ain't halaga in the beginning was the word.

Now.

Obviously parallels have been drawn to Genesis 1 1 in beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But what you have here and this is this is where I I have to fault. Mr. Novice's attempts at Exegesis is is one thing that's so far and I'm about 280 pages into this beast and I've listened to some radio programs 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, you know, they will they will make incredible claims about the languages I remember well, I won't use a specific example, but it's it's been my experience over the years been doing this for a while now.

That's so many of these folks that that seems so confident in. Saying well at this, 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 ask them to translate just someplace else just on You know narrative in 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're experts on just these things and The result is an isogetical 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 again at our anthropos There was a man. Now again, it all comes from Ginnomai and again, it's all is in the heiress form and Then that one came that's ale thin and Each time you have something about creation It's placed in time using the heiress for example Panta DL to again, it's 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 gonna address his Colossus chapter 1 and some of the comments He made about Greek prepositions. He better be ready for his Greek prepositions, but that way. And apart from him again, it's a Buddha hand with apart from him.

Nothing was made that was made. Ha get in it could be Rendered as that which made him was life. But anyway The point is that when you're talking about John you're talking about creation. Again it is used and it places it firmly in time.

But when speaking of the logos You have the little verb ain Nrk ain ha logos. Hi. Hello guys ain Prost on down. Hi. They asked ain. Ha logos. That's the imperfect form of I me and That's a little unusual I.

Me.

Verb of being.

But in the imperfect It's not the heiress 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 logos, it's ain Until you reach verse 14 and Then when you reach verse 14 Kai ha logos sarks agenata and the word became Flesh. Now I suppose there would be many people would argue a 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 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 Ain versus again at all.

There was a point in time where the logos 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 logos?

Became well according to mr. Navas there was but not according to John according to John. The logos is eternal as far back as you want to push this beginning NRK some people say well, this is the beginning.

This is this actually creation. Well, the logos pre-exists that Any beginning you want to put the logos is eternal? Now I made this argument my book Mr. Navas Quotes of my statement of it, but doesn't refute my assertion of it.

So John 1 1 a the word has eternally existed John 1 1 B Kai halaga same prostant. They on and the word was pros God was with God and again ain you're talking about some kind of Relationship here because it's not a spatial relationship.

I mean pros can be used spatially. But it is a personal relationship. Whatever this logos is Just as long as logos has been the logos has been in relationship with Tom Thay on with God and Then you have of course the big argument Kai Thais ain't halaga and the word was God.

It cannot be and God was the word and This is this is what's amazing to me. This is a a basic fundamental point. I 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. Point to be seen in the text if both of the nouns and 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 and equating of all of God with all the word God and word would be interchangeable in equal terms. So if there was if if the third clause of John 1 1 was Kai hot Thais ain't halaga.

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 ain you have the nrk you have a summary of the preceding verse. Emphasizing that this one the log us 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 log us is eternal.

All.

Things are made by or through him. Do you have 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 of one way of punctuating it the other way of putting it as apart from his another thing made which was made in him was life and the life was the light of men and the light was shining the darkness and darkness did not Comprehend or receive it or overcome it.

There's all sorts of different ways when you look at cut a lab in now then you have a discussion of John and. You have the discussion of the gospel and truth and then you have the incarnation in verse 14 kaha log us sarks again at ah and the word became flesh and and tabernacled amongst us Scanao and we beheld his glory.

The glory is of the monogamous 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 para patras from the father full of grace and truth and John testifies concerning this one.

And he talks about the law of Moses grace of truth comes with Jesus Christ and then you have the end of the prologue and What you have in the prologue is something called book ending you have the first verse and then the last verse our book ends 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 gonna miss it everywhere else. It was they say the on Notice there is no article there. The on who dice he'll rockin popet a no one has seen God at any time. Manganese they ask the unique God.

Ha own ice tan kalpon to pratt patra patras a kynos XA gay Sata so no one has seen God any time. The unique God.

The one.

Who is ha own 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's a it is a restatement of what we had before with proston Theon 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 of which he's saying it. Recognizing he's a monotheistic Jew. You're not gonna go running off. Remember we were talking with prepping for Australia.

We we responded to some of the things that Abdullah Kunda said about the logos and philo and stuff like that. There's 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 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 any time 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 monogamous the awesome. 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 monogamous is very strong. But I'm gonna stay off now there have been some folks J green for example. That's Gnosticism, no, it's not in any way shape or form, but I'm gonna say us When we recognize the true meaning of monogamous and I was listening to a dia Muhammad fellow Down Australia, I guess Muslim.

Wow listening to him talking about monogamous and and begotten was painful. It was just painful to listen to. Not even close to anything even slightly scholarly on that. It was it was. I'd love to get hold of him and say could we dialogue about this?

This is this is bad but monogamous they ask you put the two terms together and Hey, I didn't put him there. John did you 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 the OS but he is uniquely the OS 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 your 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 know as I thought you were creature.

I just feel Don't want to go there now with that said let me address two things real quick because I still gotta get John 5 and I Knew I'd start preaching and I apologize. Although I know 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 fellow by a name of Jason de Boone That Dune excuse me B first D second by Dune From up at 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. But Dune how 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 hot to the word God to us Making it the God and therefore capital God.

End of quote. Um, let me see if that's not the end of quote. He could have simply written ha theos ain ha Ha lagos ain ha theos word for word The word was the God or ha lagos ha theos ain 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 lists. Anarthur's theos used definitely in the New Testament while this may be true of an Arthur's theos in a genitive or dative case.

Two forms that freely dispense the article in a number of uses. It is not the case for an Arthur's theos in a nominative case the form used in John 1 1 C. 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 would argue this one at all. If he had written What he suggests here ha lagos ain ha theos.

That makes lagos and theos interchangeable. If both have the article or both don't then you have interchangeability. Doesn't matter what the order of. Where the predicate nominative. What. Now you can't even you don't have a predicate nominative.

You have a position. He's wrong. Now the the information demonstrating is 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 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 pronounced. I don't think he realizes how much Jehovah's Witness language he uses.

But he's it he's he. His first experience was Jehovah's Witnesses, so he just never got out of it. That's that's all there is to it. He may have ended up at masters, but that doesn't matter. I'm sorry.

I don't is there something over here. Oh.

Yeah.

Okay, anyway, I Don't think he realizes just how How condescending much of his language is it really is it's bad. But here's here's 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 half a house equals the father. Well, I who was who was saying anything like that? But rather God is to his substance essence or that the word was the OS in the exact same sense as the father.

But still not the same person as dr. White puts it quote the person of Christ as presented in John's Gospels indeed of an exceptionally high character. John asserts that Jesus is the word became flesh John 114.

He says that this word is eternal has always been with God Prostantleon. And indeed share is the very being of God John 1 1.

Quotation.

Now that actually is from purpose and meaning of ago. I mean the gospel of John reference to these Christ from our website. Now maybe. That will be the excuse it'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. Novice means One with my presuppositions not yours. I really think he thinks that I don't think he's recognized it. He has this massive semi-tractor trailer truck of Unitarian presuppositions sitting right behind him.

But it's only the Trinitarians who have presupposition. However, a simple reading the text will reveal that John neither says nor asserts that the word is eternal without beginning. Nor 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 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. Well, you know, there's a lot of problems 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 you just you you encounter it all the time. Well, that's just your interpretation. I'm just reading the words 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 don't even recognize and 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 on the website. I Discussed ain, I discussed again at ah, is there is there even any recognition anywhere in this section?

Of the difference between ain and again at ah 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, 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.

The whole.

You know, you know my big question to mr. Navas If and He substantiates the word was a God argumentation. That's what he that's how we should understand. The word was a God 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 Badun citations wrong because if you put an article in front of theos now, you're making the log-offs and theos interchangeable and Exhaustive to one another so that ain't gonna work.

So tell us how could you have done it? If you can't tell us I read that then you Your your your position is not even worth consideration. So that would be every 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? 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 depth that as I have in the fat in the past I think I do now think about it have.

An.

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

But if you really want to grow in your confidence and 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 on.

Oh, I gotta get gotta get ready for me. Oh, they're gonna go after me on this one. And oh man, I I mean, let's face it, you know, 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 and over again with Mormons that just you know, have it tattooed on the back of their forehead, you know.

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. You just what was the guy and on Twitter this past week? I'm too shrill. You know, I need to be 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.

I That ain't happening in my life time. Now I can have John chapter 5 begins with the healing of the man by the pool of Bethesda and Be prepared for John 5 for if you're talking to a Muslim. Remember there's textual variant there.

I loved I don't know how many times in in 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 then they start getting this strange look on their face and 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? Have their attention that but be prepared for that not to talking about that today. We we have many times before The abuse of John 5 26 and a pan canonical nature of Christian truth this video.

Mm-hmm. Sounds good. That's definitely me I use that term pan canonical. I've never met anybody else who does I must have named it. So that's probably it Ralph. He's in channel and that's that's probably it.