Continued Deedat's Presentation on Muhammad in John 16

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 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James White And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 if you wish to get in touch with us today.

Oh That's just poor Bart was talking about a barber and he says it's a Arrogant can has a better barber than I do.

I'm my own barber So I suppose that's you know, anything would do better than that, but he had he had said barter

I didn't know what a barter was but trying to interpret Bart's spelling is

Interesting, it would require the supernatural gift of tongues to get it right at all times. But anyway We are pressing forward

With two things at once basically, we're listening to didat attempt to explain to us why

John 16 14 16 is about Muhammad and also listening to the

Bible answer man Broadcast as well. And so we'll continue on with that until we get some

Until or if we get some phone calls and so let's continue on we were listening first to Ahmed didat

And we're about 10 minutes into about a 20 minute. I you know, the scary thing is I'm not exactly sure where he ends

Because I'm not really sure when he stopped our king I Mean when you when you when you chase as many rabbits around as many corners as he does

What can I say It's it's hard to hard to say but let's let's pick up where we left off With John the

Baptist according to the Bible number two Number two

Luke chapter 1 verse 41 and Elizabeth It So it was not dependent upon Jesus going away it was it now for those who are not listening last time

Why would it be relevant that she would be feared with the Holy Ghost? I'm sometimes wanted a couple times if if he actually thought that Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit were somehow

Different or something along those lines. But again, what I've been saying all along is I could in less

Significantly last time I'd say in less than a minute I could summarize everything he's gonna say in 20 minutes It was the process for D dot that was the replacement for the substance

It was the process That replaces the substance and so It is this showmanship.

It is this let's talk about Afrikaan and let's talk about you know what about this and what about that and it's it's uh,

I Think in in essence, it's sort of an establishment of look at the range and capacity of my knowledge and That's meant to sort of replace actually providing substance in what is being said.

And so for those of you who weren't here last time The arguments being presented right now is that since Jesus said is necessary for me to go away because if I don't go away

Then I will then the Holy Spirit Will not come to you then what he's

Saying in essence is if there are any references to the activity of the Spirit prior to This point in the gospel narratives that this somehow disproves the point now, of course, he's completely misinterpreting the text

He's being inconsistent as use the text I mean whenever we point to something that is contradictory to something that Muhammad taught or something like that Well, then that text has just been changed.

It's been it's been perverted. So Why can you how can you trust anything? once again, we see

Islamic anachronistic eisegesis reading back through the lens of the

Quran to the New Testament and What still fits what you can still see through that chronic lens.

It's okay, but if you can't see it then Then it's gone and that's that's what's going on here.

And of course The whole thing is based upon a misapprehension of the idea That which is saying is the

Holy Spirit had never been in the world before even though Genesis starts with in the very beginning of Genesis 1 the

Holy Spirit is is hovering over the waters Obviously what is being referred to here is in reference, of course to the role of the

Holy Spirit Taking the place of the role of Jesus as the comforter of the disciples the one who's with them who keeps them

Guides them sanctifies them, etc, etc and it is not that therefore all these references to The Holy Spirit with John the

Baptist in his mother's womb and all these rest These things are of course from any meaningful perspective irrelevant to the point at hand, but They also make up the majority of his argument number three

The Holy Ghost was helping Jesus all along In Matthew chapter 12 verse 28

Jesus said but if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, that's the Holy Ghost Then the kingdom of God is come unto you

So he was doing all the job with the help of the Holy Ghost So it was not conditional that he must go before Holy Ghost can come.

It was helping him in his ministry number four It was also helping his disciples when he sent them out on the mission of preaching and healing

Jesus told them assured them is it for it is not he that speak when you won't speak to people is not you but the

Holy Ghost In you that's gonna speak So they had the Holy Ghost when they went out on the mission of teaching healing

It was not conditional that he must go otherwise he won't come Continued misapplication the whole thing's based upon this idea that well

What Jesus words demand us to believe is the Holy Ghost had never been here had never been involved in the ministry and Realize Anyone reading the

Gospel of John anyone reading the four Gospels would never come to this conclusion They would they would have seen all these and hence wouldn't it would never cross their mind

That what Jesus was actually saying all along Was that if I don't go then the

Holy Spirit won't come into existence Or won't be allowed to enter the world for the very first time. They would never come these these conclusions why then does the

Muslim because the Muslim is reading the text backwards and Seeking to find something in the text that cannot be found anywhere in the text itself, which is actually forced upon him by the

Quran because the Quran says that Jesus made reference to Muhammad and Isn't it interesting that?

Muhammad would say such a thing and is it interesting that that Joseph Smith had to say such a thing and and all these prophets have to come up with some way of Basically finding some references to themselves to establish their authority and so on and so forth in in the scriptures

It is a common ploy of those who would wish to disrupt the actual truth of the scriptures

Number five before Jesus departed

He says to his disciples and Jesus said unto them receive ye the Holy Ghost Receive you say it

So I'm asking when he said receive did they receive or didn't they? I said look yes and now I'm not, take it

I'm playing fools with you, but I mean it Can you see? He said receive, did they receive or didn't they?

This was long before he departed, but now he's talking about the comforter if I don't go he won't come

But if I go I will send him. So it is not the Holy Ghost Common sense you don't have to be very clever.

You don't have to be philosophical This is black and white evidence from the Bible Common sense black and white evidence from the

Bible Yeah, if you want to ignore everything that the

Bible actually says Pick and choose and turn the text into a self -contradictory mess.

No one would allow anybody no no Knowledgeable Muslim would allow anyone to get away with this kind of thing with the text of the

Quran, but they will Exalt to the highest level Identify as a scholar a sheikh

Akhmed didat when he would go about doing this kind of thing over and over again We are listening yes

Everything I have quoted chapter and verse chapter and verse chapter and verse if you want to refresh your memory at question time

Ask me I will do the reference again, so you can open up if you can't open faster fast enough now Verse 12 of that same chapter 16

Jesus says I have yet many things to say unto you But he cannot bear them now means you haven't got that capacity

I Have a lot of I can give you a solution to all your problems to doomsday human karma

But I can't see you because we haven't got the capacity. You haven't got the brain you have got the faith Is not me

If you the trouble is with you he's telling you disciple and the truth of that statement

That you haven't got that capacity you cannot bear them now. He's writ large in the

Christian scriptures a Matthew chapter 8 verse 26 he tells them ye of little faith you have no faith the

Iman Be Matthew 14 31 is a deal of little faith, but no faith no

Iman See Matthew 16 verse 3 the year of little faith. You have no faith

Again and again is provoked. You see you have no faith. You have no faith. You have no faith What does be talking to you faithless people?

be This is because of your unbelief Matthew 17 20 because of your unbelief you have no belief no

Iman he Matthew 15 16 the I even yet without understanding

What's only I'm explaining to you like explain to little children and still you can't follow.

I even yet without understanding and when it's provoked further he So Oh faithless and perverse generation.

How long shall I be with you? How long shall I be with you? It's frustration. Oh Faithless and perverse generation

That's Matthew 17 17 Oh Faithless and perverse generation. How long shall I be with you?

How long shall I be with you after this Jesus was a Japanese instead of a Jew? He would have committed that honorable hierarchy suicide

Endless trouble Literally demented I got many things to tell you in case you're wondering

I Think I just said what's it? Jesus was Japanese I Think I've heard that three times.

I always wondered what the Japanese reference was. I finally figured out there Nothing wrong with him

But how beat you how beat? When he the spirit of truth is come

He will Speak about the spirit of truth How beat when he the spirit of truth has come he will guide you into all truth, but he shall not speak from himself

But what thing so shall he hear that shall he speak and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come he shall glorify me

I Say now Before we answer we get the answer

Let me read that again to you with a little emphasis on the pronoun Okay here comes the the fact that the and I I could be wrong

I'll listen carefully here as well I don't think he actually makes the argument

That or maybe is not even familiar with the argument. We've played D dot misrepresenting the Trinity in the past so it's

I Don't believe that his knowledge of Greek was anything more than what he read in a couple of books

He certainly was not fluent in the language or able to read the language or deal with it on a scholarly level But I I believe that he's not going to mention the fact that yes the masculine pronoun is used here, and that is indicative of a person

He is going to assume That the masculine pronoun is indicative only of a human being

Obviously if he was familiar with Christian theology who is familiar with scholarly sources actually trying to provide a scholarly presentation he would feel the weight of the necessity of Demonstrating and arguing

That rather than this indicating the personality of the spirit Which had been discussed of course by Christians long before this and in the centuries before Muhammad He would have to Demonstrate that that the use of the masculine pronoun

Could not be used of a personal spirit but would be used only of a human being but That's what you'd want to have but that's not necessarily what you get

He says what's my fingers? How big when he? He will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak from himself

But what is racial he here that shall he speak and he shall declare and do you the things that are become he shall glorify me a masculine pronoun in one verse

It still befits a ghost Doesn't feel a ghost he he he's talking about a man a man a man a man eight times

There is not another verse in this vast volume of the Bible with a 66 book of the

Protestants and 73 of the Roman Catholics They don't want to say I got that book 73 there is not another word with eight masculine pronouns or eight feminine pronouns or eight

Mutual gender in one word there is it is an absolutely unique work for a unique personality

Muhammad now there you heard it for it all you get there is is assertion no argument and Unfortunately a lot of people

Struggle to tell the difference between assertion and argument he asserts that this must be a man

Muhammad And not a ghost That's just an assertion why why can't the

Holy Spirit who speaks in the book of Acts who has a will in the book of Acts and I mean think about what is really being said here

This must be about a man who will speak a different language live in a different culture

Over half a millennium in the future even though this text is talking about the disciples and will lead you and Will take my place with you even though it's in that context.

He can can move this 600 years down the road and Then have the gall to just on the basis of mere assertion.

It's a Dixit because I say so Say ah this has to be Muhammad. Here is Muhammad in the

Bible Have we found has anything that's come before this provide any foundation for this assertion any any background assertion?

No, nothing has everything that's come before This has done nothing more than to try to create the illusion in your mind that this person this man knows so much

He can quote so many verses the Bible that what he's saying must be true by definition not by substantive documentation and Unfortunately, that is a common form of argumentation

Where you try to build up this aura of all this person knows so much But then when you actually get to the heart of the argument where they're supposed to provide the meat the substance

They don't have it. And so they can only go on the basis of that kind of argumentation

It's not a ghost again the man for someone who can talk about Afrikaan and And Arabic and things like that you would think he would have at least taken some time to learn something about the languages about which

He is referring If you want to make I mean I could make a better argument than he could hear the best

Argument that he could have used here would have been to point out that Numa is not a masculine gender now

But I don't think even knew that Of course, it doesn't actually accomplish anything because that then would only point to the fact that the use of the masculine is therefore that much more significant but still at least he could have made an argument this idea of ghost ghosts can't have a

Have a you know a masculine pronoun attachment like that is is, you know Ghost is not a good translation of Numa, especially since there is a specific term

Phantasma that can be used of ghost and that's not what's used here. So Where is the beef can't find it here

Now catch this he's about to make the assertion the Muslims in Indian Pakistan When they start talking about this, here's what the

Christians did because this is such an overwhelmingly strong argument I realize he hasn't yet presented an argument.

He's made an assertion No arguments been presented, but you know one of the best ways to gloss over when no arguments have been presented

Now start appealing to the biases of your audience and start talking about conspiracies

She They translated as a she who did that having a clue never seen it

I would love to see some documentation that anybody any meaningful scholars anywhere ever translated as she

That that would strike me as a highly odd thing to say the least

But what is what is more than that? Is that here's here's the conspiracy?

It's such a strong argument it is so Overwhelming in its weight that the

Christians can't answer it. So they have to change the translation to she If you start talking about hey, hey, hey in Africa, hey, hey, hey, what do you think a woman in Africa?

So Evidently if if if you all start using my arguments here in South Africa My arguments are so strong and so good and so powerful that you know, what's gonna happen.

They're gonna change the translation of the Bible That that proves

That that proves beyond all question that this this must be an overwhelming argument Difficult Difficulty yeah,

I was listening to his debate with I may have been honest Roshan forget who it was with but He loves the

RSV. Why isn't using the RSV here? Because the RSV is not gonna use ghost Why why pick and choose your translations this way when in other contexts use other translations at least try to be consistent here?

You're discounted what I said, you know Making fish of one and follow the other just when it suits you the way you go around I said, you know this st.

John st. John is the gospel of St. John chapter 15 verse 7 to 13 The same

John In the first epistle of John Chapter 4 verse 1 he said

Beloved Believe not every spirit, but try the spirit whether they are of God for many false prophets have gone out into the world

So the false prophet is a false spirit a true prophet is a true spirit He is using the word prophet synonymous with spirit so if if in first John You he's interpreting

Test every spirit He's making spirit equal prophet Therefore the spirit of truth over in the gospel of John has to be the prophet of truth

Which means it has to be a prophet who's Muhammad. Did you follow that? I know what that assumes, of course

Is is that John always uses every word in the exact same way in?

Every single context and since most of us know that for example the Greek term cosmos World is used in at least a dozen possibly 14 different ways in the gospel of John alone

Let alone the first in the hunting corpus. Let's include the epistles there that really wouldn't follow with with looking at this particular argumentation here

As we saw last week, there is simply no way that you can look at the texts that refer to Who is being spoken of here the helper the

Holy Spirit teach you all things He will be with you forever

Muhammad's not with us forever The world cannot receive him, but the world can receive a prophet.

It does not see him the world's seen every prophet You know him because he abides with you will be in you.

No prophet has ever been in you I mean you can just go on and on and on It simply doesn't fit.

It can't work. The context are completely different, but that's not gonna You know, that's not gonna stop you because once you've got your overriding authority going well, you just don't you just don't stop

Believe not every spirit but try the spirit with the air of God because many false prophets have gone out into the world so the false prophets false spirit to prophet truth and this is the title of only and Nabiya sadiq al -wa 'ad al -ameen

The sadiq al -wa 'ad one who is true to his promise al -ameen the truthful the true spirit the true prophet

If you go for hajj, Allah take you one day on his tomb. There is a beautiful metal calligraphy.

This is la ilaha illallah al malik al haqqul mubeen Muhammadur rasulullah al sadiq al wa 'ad al -ameen

This is what the envy of the pagans this is the title they gave him sadiq al -wa 'ad one who is true to his word al -ameen the truthful sadiq al -wa 'ad al -ameen so because Muhammad is truthful and the spirit the the truthful prophet and that there's

There's a connection you're getting and that's that's pretty much all you're gonna end up getting out of that I don't think we need to go much farther with that one.

But there you have the kind of argumentation and You you listen to it and obviously if you are accustomed if you're if you're a

Bible student You know something about the original languages, you know something about exegesis this kind of argumentation strikes you as so laughable and so bad

That you wonder about how anyone a could ever present it and be could ever believe it, but you've got to realize

You you have to think about the audiences that are hearing D dot. I Background than your average modern post -evangelical and Your modern average post -evangelical by is the prayer of Jabez for crying out loud.

So there you go I mean the the level of discernment that is going to be applied here is is not overly large and guess who has to provide

The the background guess who has to be able to in a succinct manner and In a clear manner and on the fly without a whole lot of preparation at least for that particular encounter because you want to be able to do this when you're standing on a bus or a train or Whatever other context you want to be ready to give an answer for the hope that's within you.

You are the one Yes, you dearly beloved the listener to the dividing line you brave few

You're the one who has to learn how to give not only education But a clear answer all the same time can it be done?

Yes, it can be done but it takes boldness and it it takes

Preparation preparation beforehand, you're not gonna necessarily know when you're gonna have these opportunities and so there has to be preparation beforehand

You have to have thought these things through before you try doing it for the first time You know it that's why we send medical doctors to medical school

That they get to do these things, you know, hopefully on somebody other than a human being before they start slicing into me and So that's that's the sort of how you how you do it.

So That's how that That that works. So Not no reason to continue on with that we've got some phone calls that we're gonna go ahead and take and then move on to the

Jimmy Akin Bible Answer Man appearance from 1995 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number for you to call and That is the phone number that someone already did call

But I'm not sure that it would be wise for us to give a lot of information

About our first caller because our first caller is a marked man He's a marked man, he lives a life of danger

Yes, indeed. You all think that when we talk about Hiding out under Liberty University in the bunker that that we're just making this up No, we actually have some people there that keep an eye on things keep us informed on what's going on And so we're not going to give any names and we're only going to tell you that he's somewhere near Liberty University So in fact,

I'm not even going to use the man's first name. We're just going to refer to him as Lu bunker man.

Hello. Lu bunker man. Come in. Can you hear us in your bunker? Yes, sir.

Hey, I can hear you. You're coming through quite clearly, but don't speak too loudly Because we we know what might happen if if all of a sudden you disappear we will know what what happened

That's true, you may hear boots on the floor and a formerly

Muslim voice Formerly Muslim voice.

Okay. There's there's a description. I hadn't thought of before so, okay Well, we'll let everyone else figure that one out for themselves

Okay, Lu bunker man, what can we do for you today? I Was caught today because I've been trying to defend the idea that the only way we can have true

Christian fellowship is within The gospel obviously and a little bit like a certain article that appeared on a certain blog this morning

Yeah, a lot like that. Yeah and But I More than one person running around here that uh that would like to debunk that old idea and so anyway,

I've been being challenged a lot and what what it really comes down to is like the content of the gospel a lot of people at least in my neck of the woods are trying to say that the

Content of the gospel is just that Jesus is Lord you say that you don't need any theology you have a a true gospel and Well now let me let me let me stop you there right there for a moment because I just want to make sure people understand we being a little humorous, but There it is interesting that we sort of have two

Extremes of the spectrum here because this morning as I was responding to some folks in regards to What it means to be truly reformed and how

I am NOT reformed those folks tend to be highly Specific in areas of theology so specific to the point where they're willing to Identify a difference in Sacramentology as as heretical and so on so forth, but the irony is at the same time they then lack

Any confidence in the ability of the scriptures to define the gospel to any any?

Certain certain level you are looking at the opposite end of that spectrum where in essence you have such a diminishment of focus upon The New Testament revelation that basically as long as somebody says you know

Jesus is Lord enough times the idea that there is a Theological context in which that that phrase has meaning and that that lordship would have meaning and that You know it could have been really easy to send down the

New Testament if it was only you know three or four pages long And we've got all the rest of stuff. You know why why that's stuff

So confusing to why in the world of the Spirit sent it to us in the first place That's the other other end that it's the odd thing is they almost circle around and meet

To where you have the sort of anti intellectual side meeting the hyper overactive intellectual side somewhere around the backside in essence and So what you're saying is you have a lot of folks there who?

decry the idea That in essence the gospel has theological ramifications

To it and that there's there's more to it than just simply saying Jesus Lord now These folks probably though if I'm guessing correctly would recognize that there is something to the gospel in the sense of Jehovah's Witnesses and and Mormons and and even

Islam and stuff like that yes Exactly, and I tried to kind of point out the inconsistency in that position if you're going to if you're

Going to defend Christianity as it can be reasonably understood at all you need to be able to put those folks on the outside and but uh

What the response I got was they were trying to? accuse me of being inconsistent myself because they they said well, okay, you think that uh

That Calvinism is part of the gospel you think that that part of the gospel is

That You know that I have made the statement that I I don't like the sensationalism because of what it does

Oh, no That's almost that's almost a worse heresy there than Oh, man so So and So they're they're saying well then you're being extremely hypocritical to even be here and especially to get under this teaching and and work for Work for a certain theology professor and so forth and and so They were trying to say well, hey rich, by the way is our voice is our voice

Modification and hiding thing working on are they actually hearing this guy's voice? You know how you have the and then the witness tradition it sounded real strange thing

You know, they have a mask voice. We should be using that for you actually right now. Just just Before we post this one.

We'll have to alter the alter the voice. Ah, there you go. It sounds really bad now There you go.

Okay. Sorry. Yes We're actually trying to hide your voice So that your livelihood will not be cut off Well, obviously

Liberty University doesn't just have theological students in it for crying out loud There's all sorts of programs of study there.

So I'm not sure where this charge of of hypocrisy would be coming from I mean the only way you could be a hypocrite is if you'd kept your mouth shut and Didn't say anything and weren't willing to take a take a stand and take some of the heat that comes with it

You're not sitting there in one context and saying oh, yeah, I believe all this stuff and then another context going

I actually don't believe any of that at all. That's that's where the hypocrisy would come in right, but uh

Anyways, wait, but it did bring up an interesting discussion on you know, what is?

alright What can we? Say, you know, these are the must -haves that if we're going to have any sort of Unity any sort of fellowship in the

Within the gospel, right? Oh what? What are the what are the that you've got to have and then what are the things that maybe

Maybe like dispensationalism or whatever. What what are the things that are that are negotiable that we can have fellowship people?

Well, you know what? I think about the gospel and I think about to the the must -haves you you you look at what the

New Testament Where the New Testament draws the line as to who is for example a term that I've referred to a number of times because I Think it's extremely important is the fact that the

Apostle Paul refers to false Brethren now if he can talk about false brethren

Then he's clearly talking about individuals who are within the church that he identifies as not being true

Christians What were they teaching? That'll help us to understand where the where the lines are because he's obviously drawn that line we want to know what that line is and Obviously that doesn't have anything to with dispensationalism because dispensationalism doesn't you know, you don't have that historically in the form that well

Who knows what form it's in today? I mean there's been so much change over the past 50 years who could identify it but but Dispensationalism to come around to the 1800s in the form.

It's in today. That's obviously not something we're gonna be looking at that context instead What you look at is you see the fact that the the fact is one true

God the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob That's always a dividing line from Genesis to Revelation you and it's any form of polytheism is out the door immediately

Can't even be considered Secondly, you have the person of Jesus Christ you have who he is you have his his physical incarnation

Who is the liar, but the one who denies Jesus to come to flesh that he is the Antichrist, etc, etc You have his death upon the cross

You have first Corinthians 15 the outline of the gospel there Die for our sins according scriptures buried rose again the third day according scriptures ascension into heaven

And you have his deity. I mean clearly What's the dividing line between Jesus and the Jews John chapter 8

John chapter 10? It always comes down to they'd be willing to accept him as a prophet But they will not accept him as he claims to be the

Son of God The very eternal one so you have those aspects of theology proper in nature of God who is

Jesus Christ The coming of the Spirit you can't Obviously, you can't have the fellowship the love of God and the grace of God and love the

Lord Jesus Christ fellowship The Holy Spirit these things if you don't have you know, the Doctrine of the Trinity when we get to the gospel this is where there had been a great deal of unanimity of opinion, but it has

Collapsed in what would be called external Protestantism today. I don't think it's collapsed for any particular reason outside of just general apostasy in the

West, but certainly the less Confidence you have in the inspiration of Scripture the less confidence you have in the coherence and Consistency and harmony of the scriptures and the ability to know what they mean and why they why they mean it

I mean, I I made reference to a man. We've talked about in the program before who just who can't say the term exegesis without spitting because he's just has such a

Irrational hatred of the idea that you can actually Allow God to speak with clarity in his word that he is he had he didn't mumble.

He didn't mumble and stumble He actually gave us his word and he he gave us the ability to understand his word

If you don't have those high views of Scripture, then you're not gonna have high views the nature of God you're not gonna have high views of the gospel anything else and Up until recent times the the centrality the atonement of Christ sola gratia grace alone faith alone for Protestants Has been the touchstones that you won't find that in very many people today.

You certainly find it here but you won't find that many other folks and Obviously I go to such texts as the text in Galatians to point out that what we have here is an assertion that the

Apostle Paul spoke about something called the truth of the gospel and he said that they would not put up with the

Pseudo -adultery the the false brethren for even a moment so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you

And we have a promise in in as I recall second John that that truth would abide with us

That is part of the work of the Holy Spirit So I believe that God has not failed and that the truth of the gospel will abide with his people

Even through long periods of time many centuries at times where there is great either confusion

Or in our day not so much confusion is just simply an unwillingness to believe there's anything called truth at all Which is what we experience in our society now and sadly in many churches reflecting the society and culture around them a skepticism about about truth as well and so When you when you come to the gospel, then what are the things that that Paul defines there?

Well, you look at Galatians and those people who add something to to faith Who who say well faith in Christ is necessary faith in Christ is good

But there are things beyond that They are placed under the anathema of God not the anathema of the church of the anathema of Apostles but the anathema of God himself and So that becomes the the dividing line in regards to the nature of the gospel and the clarity of the proclamation that that can be ours and so a

Person who would say oh, yes, I believe that faith in Christ is important, but then would add beyond that such things as circumcision or Other works of the flesh that will determine whether God's work is is successful or not.

I I'm not going to be able to have fellowship in the gospel with that person I'm not going to be able to stand with that person in defense of the gospel and answer the question, you know if we're out trying to witness together and Someone comes up to us and says what must

I do to be saved? We're gonna give different answers and if I'm gonna have to give a different answer Then there's really no fellowship in the gospel in that particular context and situation and that becomes for me where the real real dividing line is and and as that line delineates an ever smaller group within our culture not in other cultures, but within our culture because of degradation of the view of Scripture degradation of Confidence in in the clarity of Revelation so on so forth

Then my fellowship with those who stand with me becomes all the more sweet Because it isn't just well, that's what everybody believes

It becomes all the more precious to encounter those who likewise I think these days only by the convicting work of the

Holy Spirit can come to those conclusions. Okay? Is that is that of any assistance?

That helps a lot because what I was specifically defending was keeping Modalism on the outside of what could be called a true gospel.

Oh really modalism Are you I mean, they're they're actually people who are presenting that that the modals are

This is an acceptable view but presenting it as we can have fellowship with these people there there within the pale of orthodoxy

And we can Have fellowship with them in the gospel because they're kind of on the same page as we are really with the idea.

That's correct No, I would certainly hope not but that well let's for people who are not aware of what modalism is

Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of modalists in many post evangelical churches just simply due to the ignorance of The church in doing catechesis and teaching our own people what the doctrine the

Trinity is in fact, I have often said that if we were to give a quiz

To everybody walking out of what's called an evangelical church United States this coming Lord's Day.

I have a very very strong feeling That what would take place would be that's about Well, at least at least 70 % of those people would fail the quiz and would give modalistic answers to specific questions.

Ask the doctrine of Trinity I just I'm very very very convinced that that is the case But most that is not due to conviction that modalism is true.

It's due to pure ignorance And and the use of really really really really really bad analogies that people use to illustrate the doctrine the

Trinity just not careful water analogy water and ice and steam and the The leaves on the clover and blah blah blah blah.

Yeah, it's far better to to give biblical texts and the things like that and try to come up with natural analogies to a to something that by nature is unique and hence doesn't

Have a natural analogy to be applied to it. Anyways, but it does show for me a tremendous dearth of Theological discernment for someone to come to the conclusion that And I would imagine this is the case you're probably talking about individuals who would say

That they could not fellowship with a Mormon who believes that men can become gods Hence violating one of the three pillars polytheism and they would not fellowship with Jehovah's Witness who denies that Jesus is

God and deity It is Michael the Archangel Hence Jehovah's Witnesses in various forms of Aryans on the other hand

But the third pillar that is the distinction the Father Son Holy Spirit and the assertion of their eternal existence as divine persons

Since they don't really understand how that can work either then it's okay if someone believes something other than that Especially when they sing songs like Philips Craig and Dean or or preach fiery sermons in Armani suits like TD Jake's So that seems to be what's being said, yeah

And yeah, certainly we may even have professors in our theology department that are functionally modelist but but as far as But there are those that even know what it is and are defending it as them being brothers in Christ, so That was a turn of mine.

So All right. Well Lu bunker man, you just you keep filing your reports and to keep your head low

And does that does that rubber nose get get really warm after a while? It does after a while, you know

I'm applying for one with better ventilation Well, we'll keep sending the big checks to you because we're yeah

All right. Thanks for calling bro to me and the rest of the bass Calvinist conspiracy. They've met enough fun bootleg.

That's right All right. Thanks for your call today. All right. All right. He gave us

There goes Lu bunker man hiding somewhere deep in the recesses underneath Ritchie University all righty, let's go to the other side of the of the nation and Let's talk with Johnny.

Hi Johnny. How you doing? Doing pretty good Actually was kind because I wanted to make a comment regarding the

Jimmy Lincoln discussion back in 95 I remember listening to the tapes and I actually actually did the timing myself and I had it at 66 44

But let me let me hold on you are you talking about that that would be for the entire entirety of the three hours

Yes. Yeah, cuz I only did that. I only did the the the middle hour and The last hour was phone calls.

So, you know who knows how that goes but 66 44 that's interesting That's the timing I had

I had a couple of watches and I was just kind of curious as to how when I also times Along with staples and you got a little more speaking time not more than staples

But it wasn't as as in balance with Aiken no, I didn't think that it was my right my recollection with staples

Well, of course, there were two staples programs. I'm not sure which one you're referring to the one in 96 and 2000 Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, I thought that the staples one was a little bit remember this comes later and I think anybody can hear when you listen, especially to Hank's comments.

And by the way for anybody listening today Sandra Tanner is going to be on the Bible answer man broadcast next week

Tuesday and Wednesday. You'll want to catch Sandra I mean talk about an encyclopedic knowledge of Mormonism.

There's nobody like Sandra Tanner So she's gonna be on Bible answer broadcast next week. So I hope everybody tune that in But anyway, you can tell that in 95 there is this massive attempt on Hank's part to really bend over backwards to keep this as peaceful and calm and And respectful as possible a part of that was due to the fact that there had been a cartoon published in this rock magazine that skewering

Hank and This came about sort of as as as a result of that and so Hank really

Emphasized the need to be you know Really allow for lots of freedom of time and so on so forth

And so Jimmy Aiken got a lot more time than I did Tim Staples just is a much more rapid -fire

Less controlled individual than Jimmy Aiken is and so by nature there's going to be much more of a rapid -fire

And I think more interesting exchange with him Because he's gonna make his point quickly and to be honest with you

His points don't have a whole lot of substance to him. And so he gets done with him pretty quick And so you

I'm right back at him as soon as you know as soon as he throws out this stuff where he clearly does Not understand the subjunctive in Greek for example.

Yeah, I'm gonna be right back on him You know like a duck on a June bug so yeah,

I would assume those would be more more even in their timing Yeah, absolutely, but but the reason why

I was calling is because I remember I was I was actually started learning I was like I've told you before I was a

Roman Catholic at one point Mm -hmm, and I converted when I was nine years old And I actually the first time

I ever heard a Roman Catholic defend this faith was right around the year 1995 when

I went to a Christian bookstore, and I saw a an audio tape debate kind of a radio debate between Greg Bonson and Jerry Mattis later on I heard of you and and others like William Webster and and Eric Spencer, but The interesting thing that I saw in the debate and that I heard in the in the discussion that you had on BAM with the

Jimmy Akin Was two things number one Jimmy Akin had a lot more speaking time, and it was very friendly in that regard

But and and but I still think that your points were much more convincing And they would probably say that well

I'm being biased at that point, but but the interesting thing is that I actually spoke with an acquaintance of mine

Who was actually a Protestant he's a Calvinist, and I spoke to him last year, and he felt that Jimmy Akin was stronger than you and the reason why

I I can see what he is saying is because of This one point that I noticed and I don't know that you really brought this out in your in your conversations about I mean your dialogue about this on the show and Namely that when

Jimmy Akin and other Roman Catholic apologists speak about their faith and defend it They simplify it in such a way that when the

Protestant has to respond He not only has to give a positive presentation of his own view on a defense

But he needs to bring out those things about their own Roman Catholic They are not spelling out which occupies a lot of the

Protestant time I don't know if Roman Catholics are doing this on purpose Maybe it's just their style, but I do think that is very difficult

You sit there and listen to your discussion you hear him talking about how salvation and formata caritatis, etc

Etc when he's finished making his point and you start responding you have to bring out Well, you know we need to make sure that we understand the concept of the

Treasury of Merit the infusion of righteousness Etc etc and once you get done finishing all this stuff

He didn't say then you've got to give the Protestant view right and I think that that is a very big obstacle You have to go through this in your debates

Mm -hmm. I think that that's something that needs to be that needs to be pointed out that they're not Giving you the full force of their point of view.

Well. Yeah, I think I did bring that out a little bit last week is that Even in the right at the point that we're at in playing this

I have to I was wanting to get to the next section of my presentation which which would have been and I will get to it eventually

Where I give a positive assertion positive assertions regarding the nature of justification the fact that it is a past tense reality the differentiation justification sanctification, but as I'm trying to make these points a can interrupts me and He like I said he ends up getting much more time in this in this time period and so yeah when people

Judge these things based on you know just their gut feeling of how they quote -unquote feel

Rather than looking at it as closely as as we're looking at it I you know I can certainly fully understand especially in light of the fact that this wasn't a debate we were talking

How many different subjects do we discuss in any one -hour periods of course as you know it's not one hour anyways, but Maybe it comes out to approximately you know 45 minutes in it in in an hour

But how many different subjects do we end up addressing which we would not be doing if we were doing a formal debate that had a

Certain thesis topic, and you're trying to remain focused on those things. That's why I find the the repetitious advertisement of this discussion as a debate to be highly misleading because it obviously was not but I think your insight is is exactly the the case and I think in many situations

The person who loves truth and is presenting the truth whether it's in regards to Roman Catholicism or Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses can be put through Various mechanisms, and I think it is purposeful to be perfectly honest with you

I think that the consistency that you see this from people like Jimmy Akin and Jerry Matitix and Patrick Madrid I think goes back to some of those meetings that took place back in the late 80s when

Catholic answers was Formulating its its strategy which they have followed pretty consistently in the years following that To where you make certain presentations you emphasize certain things and you de -emphasize other things the fact that for example

We can't get a Roman Catholic to positively defend the opposite of Sola Scriptura their own positive view of tradition

Demonstrates, I think exactly what we're talking about here, and that is that there is a Certain mechanism by which they present things and I I could do that if my highest highest concern was not the issue of truth what is truth and the benefit the edification of believers and Trying to present a clear enough message the

Holy Spirit of God can apply that in conviction the heart of the unregenerate person as well so we've yeah people who are who love truth will have a different standard and You can you can tell sadly in the law court how many times have we seen attorneys?

Twist the truth And do it to the destruction of justice But they're able to do it because when you don't have as your standard truth itself

Then you can do all sorts of things and unfortunately the law court and the debate are very very similar to one another so if my opponent is willing to use less than Appropriate mechanisms then

I'm at a disadvantage, and I've got to do the best. I can with the timeframes that I have available, but You know unless I'm willing to stoop to their level

I'll be at a disadvantage at that point I think that's just simply what you have to deal with if you're going to take the opportunities of speaking the truth in these contexts

Yeah, absolutely all right. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks. Go Johnny It is true

I mean there are all sorts of things that you could do that that are sort of precluded for me doing them and so I'm just reading stuff and channel, and I'm not really certain what some of it means but anyway

Let's go ahead and get at least a minute or two of this in me We only got a minute or two left in the program But I'm queued up to where we were in the 1995

Bible answer man program. It's not making a personal attack on me there I can see that we have less than three minutes left to the break and mr.

White introduced quite a number of concepts in his last speech and and I hope you're going to give us an hour to talk

You know Barring that I'll need some time after the break Regarding the concept of merit now, there's something that many

Protestants don't understand about okay now here comes this long Not overly exciting

Discussion of merit all I had done is I had quoted Ludwig Ott and I had addressed the issue in regards to justification and As a result you get the concept of merit the concept of merit as it's taught by the

Catholic Church does not mean earning Okay, there is a big difference between earning something and meriting it now in the context.

I had raised it is that relevant I? Had the only the only Context in which this would be relevant is if I was saying that Roman Catholics were

Pelagians pure Pelagians Where there is an absolute 100 % correlation between I do this and I'm earn this and that's not what

I was saying That's not even what what Ott was saying I was I was talking about the nature of justification and the idea that it cannot be certain in the

Roman Catholic perspective because a Person does not know what they have done everything they do to fulfill the conditions necessary for attaining justification and Contrasting that with the finished work of Christ and the fact that we can possess

This imputed righteousness of Christ by faith and that we have peace with God as a result, etc, etc

And obviously, I think Jimmy Akin knows that I mean given his background.

I would assume that he knows that but Why then you would spend this amount of time?

You know talking about merit which actually we're not gonna get to listen to the rest of it right now I'm really not 100 % certain but as it may we will continue with all of that Lord willing on the next dividing line

Tuesday morning Our time anyways, and I don't know when daylight savings time is but they've squished down the winter part.

So small now It's only a couple months. Anyways, so We'll be back at our regular time Tuesday morning.

See you then. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks