June 24, 2003

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 -3702 or call 1 -877 -7341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. To the dividing line, yes we are live today.

We haven't been live for quite some time now. We weren't around last week.

Tuesday morning we were teaching at the beautiful campus of the

Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley. I found it ironic that the

Southern Baptist Convention came to Phoenix and during the very days when the

Southern Baptist Convention came to Phoenix the Southern Baptist sent me to Golden Gate. I was in beautiful Mill Valley, California.

In fact, oh look at that, my WebShot desktop just put the

Golden Gate Bridge up on the screen here and I drove across that twice, remembered this time anyway, to bring my money to pay the toll.

The first year I went up there as I was leaving and I was getting ready to,

I had taught for two weeks, they do things much shorter now, it's just two days instead of two weeks, but as I was leaving

I hit the McDonald's down there at the 101 Seminary Drive, used up the last of my money, head across the bridge and go, oops, forgot a little something there.

Oh, was that, oh, a little pause there, let's see, sound off, there we go.

Someone, Micah just messed me up yet again. That boy,

I tell you, we're going to have to do something about him. Give him his own special room where he can play all of his sounds. Anyway, we had a good time up there while the

Southern Baptist Convention was here in Phoenix and then we went to Houston on Thursday and had some interesting experiences coming back, but that's not why you tune in to listen to The Dividing Line, to hear about my interesting experiences.

Well, I suppose the debate and things like that, but I wasn't debating, I was just driving a vehicle back from Houston and did get to visit wonderful Ozona, Texas.

Yes, Ozona, Texas does exist. It's about 60 miles from anything else.

I tell you, that is a big state. It is, it's very big.

It's wide and there's not a lot out there. When that back tire exploded,

I was awful glad that it did so where it did because it would have been a long drive anyplace else.

Anyway, it was quite the adventure, but the Lord got us through it, we got back and we are here and taking your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341.

And I've invited a particular individual to call in today just to give you a little background here.

Last evening, I was working on an article for publication and watching the chat room and every once in a while participating and a person came in, actually it was a couple, but using one nick came in the channel and started asking questions about the

King James Only issue and that's not unusual at all in light of the publication of the

King James Only controversy and the fact that that book continues to be used as a textbook in many colleges and seminaries across the land.

And when you do searches on various topics related to King James Onlyism, our website will come up and so it remains an issue that of course we deal with.

We do so primarily out of consistency, I think. I do believe that King James Only argumentation, aside from simply being based upon circular argumentation and false premises, also is extremely damaging to meaningful apologetic defense of the inspiration, preservation, and accuracy of the

Bible. And so I think that in dealing with individuals who have questions about those things,

King James Onlyism is a detriment and if we're going to be consistent, then we should speak out against it as well as anything else that is false, we need to be consistent, we need to be accurate.

And so I saw the questions are being asked and eventually who

I was came out. I mean, I don't just immediately go, Hi, I'm James White, can I answer your question?

Because people do come in and they will, in essence, monopolize my time.

And we have folks who come in and once they find out who I am, it's just like, Oh, goodness. Well, let me ask you this.

And could you write a book for me and channel on this? And it just sometimes is, well,

I'll be very honest, and these folks were not, I'm not talking about them, but sometimes some folks can be extremely annoying, especially when

I try to point out, you know, I'm actually working on something now. And they get really upset that I won't just stop everything

I'm doing and just sit here and, you know, talk to them about whatever question they've ever, ever, ever, ever wanted to ask.

And it doesn't happen all the time, but the folks in the channel know it does happen more often than it doesn't. So the question was asked, so I started answering the questions, and a certain person was brought up.

And do you remember this name? And I'm like, No, because you got to realize when you send an email through the website to our ministry, there's about a 95 % to 98 % chance that I will not see it, because it is sent to volunteers, and unless there's some compelling reason why it would have to come to me,

I'm just not going to see it. There's no way I could ever respond to all of them, even if I did. I would never write another book.

I'd never do another broadcast, never do another debate, if all I did was sat there and responded to emails.

And so this name was brought up because the couple that was asking the question said,

Well, look, there's this individual, and he's really pressing us on this issue of King James -only -ism, and he says that you're a liar, and your book is filled with lies, and that he has written to you.

Okay, well, what's this person's name? So I'm given the name, and I keep pretty complete archives as best as I can.

I mean, everybody knows that sometimes you have hard drive crashes, and you lose particular archive files, and so it's not 1 ,000 % complete, but I try to do a pretty good job in keeping rather complete archives of what does come into my email accounts, other than the tons and tons of spam, which

I am just getting absolutely sick about, and would love to see some legislation that would put these people behind bars.

But anyways, I think anyone in my position, you know exactly what

I mean at that point, isn't it? Aren't you tired of spending the first thing in your morning every day, deleting all that garbage?

You know, it's just... but anyhow, deep breath. We continue on.

And so I did a search in my archives, and lo and behold, I turned up, as I recall, three messages.

And the first message was on the King James only stuff.

And the second message was on Calvinism. And the second message was sort of funny, because it basically was,

I wrote to you about the King James thing, but now, after listening to what you said about Dave Hunt, the first thing is about Tom Holland, the second thing is about Dave Hunt.

So I guess he was listening to archived copies of The Dividing Line or something. I'm not sure what he was listening to.

And you need to do a debate with, and you need to have a fair moderator, which of course

I'd already done a debate in, where was that? Indianapolis with Tom Holland, and had a moderator and stuff like that.

But, and I guess I must have responded to him. I could not find anything in my outgoing files.

So maybe it was done through AOL or something. I don't even recall where it was initially sent to. This was an AOL address.

And then I had one response, which I could tell I would not have responded to, given the level of belligerence in the email.

But evidently, either myself or someone had mentioned, well, we do have certain guidelines as to who we will debate, and it really doesn't look like you would have the background to do that in a formal debate, and things like that.

So that was all we saw. Well, turns out this is the individual. And so I sent an email to the individual and said, hey, if you're out there telling folks that I'm a liar, that my book is filled with lies, and that in fact in one of the emails

I would refute your Calvinism, but it's too simplistic to do so, too childish, as I recall was the term, to even waste time doing so, call in.

I mean, this is the dividing line. This is people who support this ministry, and are interested in what we're doing, and find what we're doing to be a relevant thing, listen to this program, and this would be the time to do so.

So I've given the number, sent the number, even an AOL instant message last night, again, extended the invitation to this particular person from back,

I think it's in North Carolina, to call, and to explain why a person who is a

Christian would be going around telling other Christians that I am a liar. Here is an opportunity not only to tell two people, but to tell the whole audience why this assertion we made.

So I don't see anything on the phone system that would indicate that that invitation has been accepted.

When it was offered by the individuals themselves to the person, they declined at that point, but I spoke with them afterwards, by AOL instant messenger, and said, hey, here's your opportunity, if you say

I'm a liar, prove it, call him. And of course what it does is, it does illustrate an element of King James only -ism, and the mindset of King James only individuals.

I disagree very strongly with all sorts of folks, but there's a difference between saying someone is wrong about what they believe, and calling them a liar.

One is a pejorative emotion -creating term, and everyone knows that.

I mean, when you say someone is a liar, what you're saying is, you know that you're wrong, and you are intentionally distorting the truth.

I think that's true about some individuals, but even then,

I think it should be something that is reserved for at least a situation where you can document what you're saying, and demonstrate beyond all question, that the individual about whom you're speaking, knows that what they're saying is a lie, and is doing so for a particular purpose.

Otherwise, you just simply say this person is in error, and leave it to intelligent individuals to discover for themselves whether the person is honest or dishonest, whether they're just simply ignorant, whether they are dedicated to a level of tradition, or whether they're actually a liar.

Leave it to that. Just running around calling people liars, when you don't even know them, and will not substantiate what you're saying, just is unfortunately very common on the part of King James Only advocates, but again, it should be something that I don't think any of us would wish to engage in, or model, or follow that kind of a method of behavior.

So, we will make room. If in the midst of other calls, if you have other issues you'd like to bring up, maybe you've...

Oh, by the way, by the way, by the way, a couple of things. From what

I was told, and let me make sure this is the case, are the MP3s of the

PACWA debate, yes, okay, they were uploaded last night, and so if you look at the main page, and why is the ad column wider than it used to be?

Do you notice that? It doesn't quite fit in there. I just brought it up for the first time.

It's... Oops. It's real pretty.

It's just wider than the header now is all. That will be fixed in time.

But if you look at the main page, and just ignore the lack of symmetry for the moment, you will see the great debate 2003 at the top.

Is the Roman Catholic priesthood biblical and ancient? Dr. James White versus Father Mitchell PACWA, now available on audio, video, and MP3.

You got carried away with duct tape. You're watching the Red Green Show, huh? Yes, our website comes up, and it comes complete with duct tape.

Available in all three formats, audio, video, and MP3, so you will be able to obtain that now, and if you have done that, you may have some comments, now that you've had a chance to listen to it, other than just hearing my responding to it, so don't forget that.

And then... Oh, no, I... Okay. I didn't... How's this going to work?

Because you didn't mention it in the advertisement here. You'll notice a long lost book is listed on the ad column of the website, and it is called

The Sovereign Grace of God, but those of you who have known me for many, many, many, many, many, many, many years should know that this is, and in fact we need to make note of this, this is the reprint of God's Sovereign Grace.

Now, like I mentioned a few weeks ago, I don't know why the title changed, but here's the idea.

The Sovereign Grace of God is the 1990 book that I wrote. It's my friendly introduction to the doctrines of grace.

It hasn't been edited. It hasn't been changed. It's the same text as what

I wrote in 1990. It was a small blue book. In fact, let me reach up here.

It was 159 pages long, and so it's not a real, it's not a long scholarly tome.

It's not like the Potter's Freedom in the sense that it has, you know, has to deal with Greek phrases and things like that.

So, if you're looking for a book to introduce someone to the doctrines of grace, this is a good book.

This is my attempt to do so in a friendly fashion. It's been reprinted very nicely, and here's the promotion, and anyone who orders it today, you will get this anyways.

If you buy the new edition, a copy of the new edition of The Sovereign Grace of God, then you will get one copy of the original 1990 edition for free along with it.

Now, we have limited supply. What happened was, at the very same time that the new printing came out, someone gave us a box, which is about 50, maybe, 50, 60 copies at the most of the original, and I just didn't feel that we could sell the originals, which are 12, 13 years old now, as a new book.

They're still in good shape, but I just didn't think we could do that, and besides that, with the new one out, the timing just wasn't good.

So, the promotional offer is, especially since, in my experience, my friends anyways, have used this book, and they keep giving it away, and they have to get more of them because they give them away.

Well, this way, you can get two of them for one, the price of one.

So, as long as the supplies last, two for one offer, you get one of the new ones and one of the original blue edition of The Sovereign Grace of God, and if you scroll up just a little bit from that, you will see

Drawn by the Father is also in print for $5 .50, and that's my study of John 6, 35 -45.

That's even shorter. In fact, do I have it? I don't see it in my little author thingy -mabobby there.

I'll have to grab one of those. The original version of it was only,

I don't know, 60 -65 pages long or something like that. It's more of a booklet, but it's a study of John 6, and that is just such a powerful passage that it can be an even friendlier introduction to the doctrines of grace.

So, there you go. Both those books, which have been favorites of a lot of folks, are now back in print, available from us, and so lots of people have been asking about it, and so they are there.

So I wanted to let everybody know about that, know of the availability of those books, and so if you order them, you will get them.

You will get the, we don't have second, we don't have originals of Drawn by the

Father. You order one Drawn by the Father, you get one Drawn by the Father. But as far as God's sovereign grace, which is now the sovereign grace of God, then you not,

I don't know what not means, but that's okay. It's left out of context. You have Drawn by the

Father as well? We have a box of the originals of those? How many? Lots of them.

Oh, so we're going to use the same thing there? We're going to do the same thing there? We have 80? 80 of the originals.

Wow. Okay, so same promo there? Yes. Okay.

All right. I'll take it back. We will put on the website, the promotion is the same for the one.

If you buy God's sovereign grace, you get one of the originals. If you buy Drawn by the

Father, you also get one of the originals. They're great giveaway books. They're the type of books you want to put three or four of them in your car, and you can give them out like a tract.

So anyway, we do have a call. So let's go ahead and go to our first caller.

This is Paul in Springfield, Missouri. Hi, Paul. Hi. How are you doing? Pretty good.

Actually just rushing to type my order in for the books. While they still exist, right? Exactly.

While they still last. What a deal. Yeah, I didn't know we had Drawn by the Father. That's cool.

Well, anyway, that's one of my favorite little books. I've known so many folks that have been challenged on the doctrines of grace by that.

So that's cool. What can we do for you, Paul? Well, just to let you know, I really love your ministry and appreciate the work that you guys do.

I was wondering, though, if anybody around Alpha Omega had heard yesterday's edition of The Bible Answer Man.

I happened to hear it last night, and Hank Hanegraaff was speaking to a caller. The young man called in with a specific question about the doctrine of limited atonement.

He asked Hank what he thought about it, whether it was something that is orthodox or unorthodox.

It was quite interesting to hear the way Mr. Hanegraaff responded to him. Rather than dealing with the immediate issue of the question of the atonement, he ran straight to Romans 9 and was basically dealing with the election and skipping the issue of the atonement and what it accomplishes for us and things of that nature.

He went ahead with his strong assertions of libertarian freedom, using his argument that Romans 9 is quoting the

Old Testament and that God is really not capricious in his election. Now I understand that Hank has obviously embraced an

Arminian view of election, but it was kind of disheartening to hear that. Well, we've gotten a number of calls.

Obviously I did not listen yesterday. I'm trying to remember exactly what I was doing, but for some reason between 4 and 5 here in Phoenix yesterday

I was doing something else. I tried to, in fact I was scanning radio stations while I was driving back from Houston last week trying to find something so I could listen in.

I have not had any conversations with Hank on this subject. I'll just go ahead and tell folks they've been working on trying to get a program put together on this subject with me as the

Reformed representative since April of the year 2002. And we simply can't get an

Arminian to go on with me. We've been trying to get George Bryson.

He's taken his little booklet and expanded it out to a book titled, The Dark Side of Calvinism, if you can believe that.

And I personally would rather not do it with George because if anyone has listened to the debate that we did,

I don't believe that he did very well. I don't believe he can handle the exegesis. All he does is say, well if it's true then it means this.

And of course my perspective is, well you start off with the word of God and then you deal with the ramifications later on.

And I don't believe that George is really in a position to be able to do meaningful exegesis.

He thinks that it's an argument against Calvinism to simply quote Calvin and expect everybody to be shocked.

I heard that debate and the same impression is when you got him in a cross -examination dealing with John VI.

It was just obvious that he was naming the text on its head to come up with anything. In fact, he didn't put forth a thesis on it whatsoever.

And my impression of him was that, well son, if you're going to come to a gunfight, don't bring a stick.

Well, I can pretty much guarantee you that there are many people who, because of their tradition, believe that he did just wonderfully in that debate.

And I know I sit around and just shake my head and go, but he didn't answer any of these questions, but I've talked to people who thought that he did.

And so I would rather not do it with, you know, obviously I have expressed many times I would be very, very happy to go on the

Bible Answer Man with Norman Geisler and to address the issues of our books. But he isn't interested in doing that.

And there are other people who have been invited and so far nothing's happened. And so I have been wide open.

In fact, the folks at CRI will tell you that I have, as recently as last year, within the past six months, well, actually it will be nine months now, because this issue came up and because many illustrations that I use in presenting the

Doctrines of Grace have been specifically addressed on the program, I've offered to travel to California to sit down and talk with Hank about these issues.

But it hasn't happened. And so I'm wide open to it. I did talk with Hank in 1997 about these issues, but 1997 is a long time ago now.

And I was very open in saying this is why I'm a Reformed apologist. This is why

I think it's important. This is how I see it relating to the issue of apologetics. But it's very clear that after his book

Resurrection, where Hank went to print holding a libertarian perspective, that he has hardened in that position.

And I would like to be able to, you know, when I hear Hank saying, no Calvinist has ever answered this for me,

I want to put my hand up and say, Hank, that's not the case. I've talked to you about these things.

I'd be more than happy to respond to your charge of fatalism and more than happy to talk about responsibility and issues like that.

But it just hasn't happened. And I remain open to it.

But at the same time, when these assertions are being made within the apologetic realm, everybody knows where I stand, and so we get calls and people.

I even took the time, what was it, about two months ago, that he had a man on, I forget who it was now.

Actually, I had not heard of him before. And I played some of the comments that he made that were very

Arminian. And I responded to them. But I hope that I do so in such a way as to do so within an intercollegiate format.

I'm not trying to put anybody down. I'm just simply reiterating the fact that the fact of the matter is, the objections that I hear being made have been answered over and over and over again.

And I don't hear exegetical responses being offered to the key passages.

And until that starts happening, the discussion is not being moved forward, as far as I am concerned.

I would agree. Just what I heard last night, for example, and there's been other excerpts that I've heard as well, is just this basic gut -level, emotional kind of response, rather than really digging into the text of Scripture to see what it says.

It's basically the same thing that you had with Mr. Bryson. It's, well, if this is true, then if election is true, love can't be genuine.

You know, ad hominem stuff. Yeah, yeah. And it is disappointing to me because, as I said, it doesn't move the discussion forward into modeling for that huge audience the necessity of engaging in meaningful exegetical study of the text of Scripture and being consistent.

Because I did get to catch, I think, one program last week, and Hank was talking about God's purposes in the universe and all these things.

And I couldn't help, but I think it was, yeah, it was a morning. They do the half -hour morning thing where they take selected calls and sort of put them together.

And I was working out. It was the one workout I got last week between trips. And I was listening to Hank addressing this one lady, and he still addresses that issue the way he used to.

And I just out loud, because I was alone. Well, the dog was with me, and she's used to my talking to myself anyways.

Out loud I said, but Hank, you can't consistently say that anymore in light of your position on libertarian free will.

And so, yeah, I do that. And I think any reformed person who listens to the program, you know, you still enjoy a lot of what you hear, but there are those calls that come in.

And you just want to go, now, come on. Let's have a discussion of the biblical basis of these issues on the air.

Let's get the best person in there, and let's do some exegesis. Let's do this.

But so far it hasn't happened, and we hope that it someday will. I do, too. And the thing is, and I'll be real brief here, but I've listened to Hank for several years.

I've enjoyed the program. Of course, I don't agree with everything he has to say by any means. But it seems that in the last, oh, say, year and a half, maybe two years, you mentioned that he is hardened in his position on libertarian freedom.

And it seems to me that any time that a question comes up about the sovereignty of God, when anyone really tries to pin him down on something,

I just sense this sound in his voice, this tone that is just like he almost hates it at this point.

Well, actually, it's not his favorite subject to address. He's been,

I think, pretty clear about that. He has adopted that position, and so he's going to get challenged on it more often.

But he used to, when he would address the issue and he would do so, and he'd sort of say, well, certain people say this, certain people say that.

Here's the books that present both sides and move on. And even then, you could tell in his voice that that's just not his favorite subject to address.

But now that he's taken a position, you can't help but then have to really respond to what is said and the means by which you have defined your position.

There's just no way around it. Anyways, well, thank you for calling in today, Paul. I appreciate it. Oh, thank you.

I hope you enjoy those books. I will. All right. God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

I hope you will join the program right after this break. The godly man is such a rarity today.

So many stars, strong and true, quickly fall away.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God. James White, in his book,

The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt

Scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author

James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

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

.org. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios?

No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Pottish Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Pottish Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very

Gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the Gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Pottish Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomen .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the

Gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many

Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomen .org.

How the Pilgrim's Progress is not an easy way. It's a journey to the sun.

Pilgrim's Progress. Thank you Brother Steve Camp, whose sonorous voice

I heard on my cell phone while sitting. I shouldn't mention this because it sounds like it's all

I ever do. But when you're driving 750 miles in one day, there's a limited cuisine available to you.

And so I was in the drive -thru line at McDonald's in Tucson just off of I -10.

What is that? Calabra Road? Whatever it is up there. And my cell phone went off and there was

Steve. So we were chatting before I put in that order.

Anyway, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

If you would like to participate today, we still have plenty of lines open for that one special person.

And you know who you are. Feel free to call in. Like I said, let's put it this way.

If I told someone, if I was going over to someone's house and I was saying, such and such a person is a liar.

And you shouldn't read their books because they're full of lies. And then I found out that they found out about it.

And that they invited me to come on their radio program to explain it. I can guarantee you,

I would be there. I think it's just a matter of doing what's right.

So the lines are open. It's 877 -753 -3341 for anyone who would like to do so.

So those of you in the chat channel, someone asked a question. And I would like to address it.

The question was asked and it is a common question actually.

Well, it's a common issue that I wanted to address. The person that asked said, what is the functional difference between knowledge and wisdom in James 1 .5?

And the reason this comes up, any of you who have spoken with LDS individuals, especially with the missionaries, when talking about the issue of the

LDS testimony, individuals will say, well,

I asked God in accordance with James 1 .5. In fact, allegedly

Joseph Smith Jr. went out into the woods in 1820, in the spring of 1820, to ask of God what church would be true in light of the promise of James 1 .5,

which in the King James Version says, if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.

The English Standard Version says, if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.

Now, the issue that I raise with the LDS person, and I'm not sure if this is the context of the question that was asked in channel, but many

LDS people will say, see, here's where the Bible says that you should pray about whether something's right or wrong.

That is, that prayer should be a formative element of your epistemology in determining revelation.

And I very quickly point out to individuals, that's not what James 1 .5 is saying.

Wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing. Wisdom is the proper use of knowledge, as that comes up many times in, for example, the book of Proverbs, that speaks so much of having a godly wisdom.

James is not saying, if any of you lacks knowledge of whether there is one God or many gods, for example, ask

God, and he will give you some special revelation. Instead, when we want to know about God's truth, we go to God's word, and God's word is sufficient to give us that revelational truth.

Wisdom is the use of the knowledge, the revelation that God has given to us.

Wisdom is properly utilizing our minds and having an attitude that is not like the attitude that puffs up when we have knowledge, but instead is an attitude of maturity.

And so, James 1 .5 is talking about wisdom, not knowledge. And I hope that that is useful to the individual who asked the question on the issue of the subject of wisdom in James 1 .5.

And when you hear an LDS person raising that issue and quoting James 1 .5,

hopefully you'll be able to give an answer. I believe it's been so many years, I don't remember now, but I would assume that if you go to the

LDS section of our webpage, if you go to Apologetics and then Mormonism, you will see there the 100 verse memorization system, which was written on a boat anchor.

It was written on our first computer, that compact portable, which, every time

I think about it, you can always tell you're hanging out with a bunch of geeks when as soon as you say something like that, everybody starts going, yeah,

I remember my first computer, and it was a Tandy this, and it had a 300 baud modem, and it had 4 .77

megahertz of blazing speed, and everybody starts talking about all their old, old computers, and the

Atari comes up, and you just know you're hanging with geeks. When we all start going, oh, man, remember that first 20 megabyte hard drive?

Oh, it was huge, and all that stuff. That's when you hang around with way too many geeks. Well, this didn't even have a hard drive when we got it.

It had two, did it have 360K? Or did we replace those and put 360K?

It had two 360K floppy, five and a quarter inch floppies in it, and it had 256K of RAM initially.

I think it did. We went up to 512 or something. But anyway, little green screen, and I'll never forget,

I worked on a 100 -verse memorization system for so long, and I'd forget to stop looking at the screen.

And a whopping nine inch, that's probably not even nine inch viewable, is it?

It was just green, man, and I still think that's burned into my retina in some places, because I would sit there and look and look, and then

I'd finally look up, and man, that screen would just follow me around the room. And that's when I wrote the 100 -verse memorization system.

And I would imagine that somewhere along the lines, that thing probably weighed, what do you think that thing weighed?

25, 30 pounds? To call that portable is just almost laughable anymore.

But anyway, I'm sorry.

I've got people complaining now about how long

I've been talking about my old computer. Give me a break. Anyway, I remember writing, and I would assume

James 1 -5 is addressed in there, and so if you would like to look at that a little bit more, you can do so for the 100 -verse memorization system available on our website, along with many other things, including the

MP3s of the Mitchell -Packwood debate. And I would assume in the not -too -distant future, we will be having the other debates that took place within the past few months, the ones back in April, maybe, available on audio, video, and MP3, too.

Yes, yes. They will be made available someday. They will be there, maybe before the next

General Conference. They will appear on the website.

And I don't want to put undue pressure on anyone, but I'm sure there will be a few folks that might want to take a look at those and avail themselves of those particular things.

877 -753 -3341. That's what happens when you have a really good call right off the bat, is

I honestly think that good calls, callers who are eloquent and they're very good in expressing themselves and it's a good topic and things like that, that those folks sort of scare everybody else off.

So maybe that's why... Oh, we do now have a caller. Oh, good grief.

I have the foggiest idea. Good question.

I'm going to sit here and go, I have no idea, but hey, let's go ahead and go with it anyways. Let's talk with Jim in Nashville.

Hi, Jim. Hi, how are you? Doing pretty good. I'm hoping that what my professional call screener has given me as the question, that you'll be able to go beyond that because I looked at what

I was given and I'm like, what? Well, I made it easy on you.

Last time we talked about a month ago, we laughed about my mystery, and so I thought this time

I should bring something a little more theological to the table. Oh, okay. No, my question is first, if you can just give me a working definition of covenantalism.

And the reason I'm asking is that I have been reading, there is a debate going on among New Covenant theologians.

I don't know, is it okay to name names? Oh, sure, go ahead. I don't know if you're familiar with like John Riesinger, Salva Grace.

Uh -huh. Okay, and then he and the folks at Table Talk are kind of going around and around.

There was a Table Talk article that called John Riesinger, Fred Zaspel, some of those fellows who define themselves as New Covenant theologians, said that they were antinomian and didn't properly adhere to the third use of the law.

And now there's a series, or was, some articles from John and his Sound of Grace on his website in answer to the folks at Table Talk, R .C.

Sproul, Jr., those folks. And so I've been reading this debate and it's always intriguing and a little bit discouraging.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to talk over you. No, not at all. Let me ask you a question. Sure. Obviously, I'm well aware of the debate, but to be honest with you, try to avoid it as much as possible simply because,

I don't know, it tends to be rather divisive.

Precisely. And I do know a lot of the people that are involved with it, and I just, there's only so many battles that any one person can meaningfully be involved in without becoming rather shallow.

But what was John Riesinger's response to the issue of the third use of the law?

Because, and this is the reason I ask, I have been in conferences where John has spoken, where he very, very strongly asserted that the only function of the law is to kill.

The only function of the Old Testament law is to kill. Period. End of discussion. I mean, it was just very, very, very clear cut.

Now, I don't know if that's his position now or not, but from your reading, is that still the perspective?

I would say in keeping with his overarching theology, that's still his point of view. Okay. Yeah. I think that's a fair assessment, and I have heard him say the same thing.

Well, my understanding that the primary concern, at least for certain individuals who are

New Covenant theologians, especially who were once Covenant theologians, is for many of them, they believe that if you accept the concept of a covenant of grace that transcends the categories of Old Covenant, New Covenant, that in some way, the

Old Covenant and the New Covenant both are expressions of an overarching covenant of grace.

That there is a graciousness in the Old Covenant, that there is a graciousness in the

New Covenant. If you accept anything like that at all, that as a result, you are stuck being a paedo -baptist in essence.

And I don't believe that. I believe that you can, as the

London Confession of 1689 does, recognize the existence of a covenant of grace.

That you can recognize the overarching purposes of God in His grace, without believing that the

New Covenant has to have within it certain definitional things that have actually never been definitional.

The covenant of grace itself. For example, the covenant of grace is something that existed before the

Mosaic Covenant. And even before the time of Abraham. Then I would point out that the giving of covenant signs to children was not a part of that covenant prior to Abraham.

It doesn't go back to Adam, for example. And if you were to argue that direction, you'd also have to say that, well, what about the giving of the covenant sign to women?

To female children? And there's a number of issues that come up that of course have been discussed many, many, many times between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians and things like that.

But the problem I've had, and this may be very, very simplistic, but it's helped a few folks.

As I have listened to the New Covenant theologians presenting their case and making their arguments, one of the issues that has come up is exactly what you're asking about.

And that is the third use of the law, which generally, and again, since I haven't read these articles, you tell me if they're using different terminology.

But generally, as I have seen the phrase third use of the law, they're talking about it in the sense of how does

God's moral law interact with the believer as a believer?

Does the law function in a believer's life in such a way as to be a guide as to how you are to live your life to glorify

God? Is that basically how it's being defined in the current argument? I think for the most part, yes.

The only place where I would, the only addendum I would put to that is for folk who don't say that it, like John, who would say, well, it doesn't continue to have that function because if the

Old Covenant is done away with, it's done away with completely in that divisions like moral or ceremonial are arbitrary, not arbitrary, are artificial divisions that you can't really, if you were to look at the law, that it's an all -inclusive thing and that it either, and it stands and falls as a complete unit.

Right. You know what I mean? Yes, I understand his argument and that's where I have to disagree because here's, again, this is somewhat simplistic, but that's just sort of how

I function. I'm not the brightest guy on the planet. I have a hard time believing that David could, as a regenerate man, rejoice in the law of God and that I, as a regenerate man, cannot rejoice in what he rejoiced in.

Now, I don't think it was the element of the law about not trimming the beard that rejoiced the heart of David.

When I read the 119th Psalm, the direction for living and the function of God's law in giving direction and in protecting from missteps and from falling into impurity,

I think that same law, which, interestingly enough, is written upon the heart in the

New Covenant in Ezekiel and in Jeremiah, which then is cited without any blushing by the

New Testament writers and saying, this is the fulfillment of that. It is hard for me to believe that that law which expressed what was pleasing to God in the moral realm, in the realm of behavior and life, in the days of David, that God's standards have somehow changed and that's no longer what is pleasing to him.

Now, I know, I read Abraham's four seeds, but I say unto you, so I know what

John Riesinger's arguments are. He goes to Matthew and the Sermon on the Mountain says, see,

Jesus is going beyond this. I think you have to leave the

Old Testament, the minor prophets out to come up with that conclusion. The reason being, the minor prophets themselves made the very application of the law to behavior that Jesus makes in the sense of demonstrating that when the law says, do not do this, there is also a positive aspect.

If we are not to kill, then we are to positively have a concern about life and the saving of life.

I mean, that comes out in the justice passages of the minor prophets. So, it's not that this is just some completely new thing that's never been thought of before.

He's talking about the very purpose of the law from the beginning, which was the delight of the psalmist.

While I see very clearly that the New Covenant, because of the nature of the sacrifice of Christ and the nature of the

Church bringing the Jews and Gentiles together into that one new body, that there are places where that is far greater.

It's a greater and better covenant than the Old Covenant. I don't think that there is any basis in my interpretation of the

New Testament to say that what that means is that the moral aspect of the

Mosaic Law somehow has just been laid aside.

And that somehow it has to be repeated to be relevant in the New Covenant.

The result of that was in one conference I was in, I asked a New Covenant theologian, an advocate of New Covenant theology.

I said, am I to understand what you're saying is that at the time President Clinton was the

President of the United States, that when President Clinton stands before God, that he will be judged only as Bill Clinton individual, and that he will bear no accountability whatsoever for what he did as President of the

United States and the power that was given to him in that position. And the answer that was given was, no, he will bear no accountability for his being

President, only because, where would you get that out of the New Covenant? The only way you'd get that is out of the issues of the

Old Testament demonstrating that a king has responsibility before God to do what is right.

And so, at least the person was consistent and said, no, he will only be judged on the basis of his personal sins, not for what he did as the leader of a country because the

New Covenant does not address that kind of a concept. So, you know, I go, ah, sorry, I just,

I don't see it, and I don't believe that it's necessary as a means of avoiding the concept of paedo -baptism.

So, I don't know if that addressed any of that. I know what's going on out there,

I just, you know, I've just got so much else going on in other areas that I just,

I just can't really devote a whole lot of time to keeping up with who's doing what at the moment. On a very personal level,

I find it a little distressing that all these men who proclaim grace to a watching world so publicly snipe at each other.

Yeah. That I find disturbing, but as I was reading their terminology and stuff, I found that I didn't understand either side quite as clearly as you do, so that's what

I was looking for. Well, you know, I would, I hope, and I know,

I know what the battlefield, in essence, does as far as the terminology that we use, but I really try in my own ministry to sort of transcend those things.

I mean, I've preached in Orthodox Presbyterian churches and Reformed Baptist churches, and I've spoken in Reformed Baptist churches, and there are differences between Reformed Baptists, and I've been on both sides of that, and I've been in churches that are

New Covenant churches, and I try to demonstrate that there are some things that bind us together that transcend these issues, and while we should have healthy dialogue and even debate on the subject, that there, when it comes to apologetics and dealing with the claims of Rome or post -modernism or the things that really impact our young people as they go off to university and things like that, that that sort of transcends these things, and I try to model that in my own ministry.

I don't know if I do very well at anything. I'm certainly not much of a model of anything, but I hope that someone anyways is encouraged along those lines.

Well, I thank you very much for your time. You took a lot of time to answer that question. I really appreciate it. All right. Thanks a lot,

Jim. God bless. All right. Take care. All right. Thank you. Bye -bye. Well, I do appreciate, again, it's really an encouragement to me to hear from folks when we're doing the program.

I know this is during the work day for a lot of folks, Thursday night. Hopefully it isn't, but it's encouraging to know folks are out there listening.

We hear from you when you respond on the website, and hopefully our program is an encouragement to you as well.

Well, I hope the rest of the day you'll keep your eyes upon the Lord Jesus Christ. You'll live in such a way as to bring honor and glory to Him.

That's what we're going to try to do around here. Thanks a lot for listening. God bless. See you Thursday night here on The Dividing Line.

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.