Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.
Here is James white.
And welcome to dividing line on a Tuesday morning. Thank you for joining us. I know that you know the best laid plans of mice and men. My plans for today were washed out by quite a weather event here in the Arizona area we are we have lots and lots of these big black fluffy things up in the sky pouring down water upon us along with actually, I got hit with hail yesterday, which was pretty unusual and so you change your plans to fit things as they go along so here we are.
I have Promised for quite some time and never gotten around to it To continue on in responding to some of the comments and the dialogue took place between Robertson Janice and Matt slick back in June or July on the radio program at six radio program.
We did not finish doing that so I'm going to continue on with some of that today and Then maybe in the last half hour if we have some relevant phone calls we can go there as well or even dividing dotline Via Skype, but let's say get back to what I wanted to get to is I want to skip past some of the the banter that was going on in regards to solo scriptura and the papacy and things like that remember we went over a lot of That and then on another dividing line We went over some of the comments that Robertson Janice made in regards to James 214.
We may have to cover a little bit again. We've indicated demonstrated that very clearly the Best translation of James 214. Can that kind of or can that faith? Save him is talking about a particular kind of faith.
And we went through the grammar and cited numerous scholars on that subject all to set up the discussion of James 2. I believe that sort of started at the end of the first conversation and continued later on in the second conversation.
I've tried to get to those particular points in those Sound files, so I'll be starting off here with the final section of The initial encounter between Matt slick and Robertson Janice, then we'll move on to the the second one.
So let's listen to the conversation.
Let's see. How about earning grace or how about heaven as a reward for your good works? Okay, that's a good one. I wrote a book on that 775 pages called not by faith alone. Okay to read it. No, okay. Well, you should because you are totally misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches really?
Yep. Never once in the history of our dogmatic tradition Have we ever taught that we earn our salvation that we earn grace that we earn anything that if our heaven our Salvation everything that we have is all by grace.
You don't merit grace at all. Don't merit grace. You don't merit grace. No moved by the Holy Spirit and charity. We can merit for ourselves and for others. The grace is needed for a second. So you're talking about condign merit.
It's not talking about strict merit. That's where you need to study the issue. Strict merit is when you earn something by your own.
Work and the the benefactor is not giving it to you out of a gift. Now here, of course is where we encounter the very very important Necessary element of apologetics Roman Catholics that is missing in much of Arminianism today, but is still very much a part of Reformed theology when we say Sola gratia, we say grace alone.
We actually mean that grace Fully accomplishes the intentions that God has in salvation of his like people once you buy into the Arminian kind of God is is is trying to do something, but he can't actually accomplish what he wants to try to do.
And so you've got this prevenient grace. You have grace that actually doesn't Save even though it's trying to save you have grace. It's trying to do something that it actually cannot accomplish. Then you open the door to all these types of distinctions and Often qualifications that really don't have anything to do with reality and you you have Roman Catholics who will tell you they believe the salvation is but it's totally by grace.
But again what they mean by that is grace is absolutely necessary that without grace None of these other things could happen, but the grace is insufficient in and of itself to accomplish What God is attending it to accomplish and without that distinction without that without having that very clearly in your mind you can end up in a forest of qualifications and You know Rome's had a long time to come up with all sorts of ways of confusing even even the gospel itself and That's what you get in that in that type of a context and that's what you're hearing here.
We're talking about merit there that the Council of Trent uses. It's talking about condign merit in which we do work. We don't deserve to be paid for it. But out of the benevolence of the giver he gives us a reward for our work.
But it's not earned so one kind of grace you do earn any other kind of grace you don't know. We don't earn any grace if you're using the word earn in the strict sense of earning it by your own work and not by the Beneficence beneficence of the giver.
Well, what does it mean when it says in the Catholic Catechism 2010? That you merit for ourselves and for others the greatest grace is needed for our same things. How are they meriting it? It's talking about the same merit.
I just told you about Condign merit, which is the merit that we get when we work. But what's not that's what is owed to us. God does not owe us anything for our work. He gives it to us out of his grace.
We sometimes call that merit in the sense that we are meriting God's grace.
Now understand what's being said here in essence is this concept that he has set up conditions? I mean just compare this with. Just go read a manual on indulgences how indulgences are gained go read Intel intelligent ERM doctrina the absolute Constitution revision of indulgences post Vatican to document.
You you have these conditions are laid out and the idea is well, well God didn't have to do this. So he's graciously done. So. But that doesn't change the reality that it is a system that is dependent upon the human accomplishment even if motivated by grace for its completion for its success and so it's.
Again, if you if you already agree with Rome on a synergistic system. Well, then fine you you don't really don't have much to say at this point. But if you're consistent and you're coming from a reform perspective, you have a lot to say so if it's owed to you.
And it's not owed to us. You said I said it is not owed to us. So there's no grace it so you can't merit it right. Be the catechism as you careful to use the word merit in the proper sense. Yeah, which sense the sense that I just described to you in the sense of merit Congress strict merit strict merit was Was dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent Canon one saying that we cannot work for our salvation.
We cannot work to do anything to get paid by God because he owes us nothing. Okay. That's strict merit, right strict merit. Yeah, but you wouldn't agree then that. An eternal reward is for good works accomplished with the grace of Christ that the heaven is a good work for that.
Wait a minute now. You lost me there say it in every Circumstance each one of us should hope with the grace of God to persevere to the end and to obtain the joy of heaven as God's eternal reward for the good works.
Accomplished with the grace of Christ. Yeah reward Matt is the key word there reward does not mean that God owes us anything for what? We do he gives it to us out of his grace. So it's a reward for the good works.
Yeah, I have no problem receiving a reward for good works because God doesn't owe me anything for my good works. So to me out of his grace, so let me get this straight. You're saying in that that that the eternal reward for good works is.
What's not earned? Right, so it's a returnal reward for good works, but the good works don't do anything. No, the good works, please God, that's what Scripture continually says. So it's God with your good works.
God in turn because he's just and honest will give you a reward for your work.
But it's not because he owes you anything the problem is when you make eternal life itself the the result of these good works. And remember. And and there's all sorts of different perspectives in Roman Catholicism.
And there are some who emphasize grace more than others and things like that. I fully understand that but We're talking about a system with indulgences. Penances, we're talking about a system that for hundreds of years attached amounts of time in Purgatory.
Oh, I know we don't do that now well but you did and you keep telling us that you're the same two thousand year old church and What you believe now is obviously the development of what you once believed.
You can't get away from these things it's it's there it's part and parcel of what we're talking about and You do have a situation here where you can't enter into the presence of God because you still have what?
Temporal punishments upon your soul. What are those? If they are not forensic or legal then Are you saying that it's just an inexperienced thing? What what you have to look at the whole system as a whole and when you try and I appreciate when Roman Catholics try to do this.
I really really do. But when you try to exalt grace within a man-centered system. It turns grace inside out. It turns it upside down. It makes it something other than what we have in Scripture you just can't get away with it.
So it's not because I'm simple man, I mean I got you all complicated here. It's very simple. No, we don't. Oh God does not owe us anything for our work. What he gives us is out of a reward because he's a giver.
He likes to give so he gives us things for our work. That's all there to do it. So it says that you obtain the joy of heaven as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplish the grace of Christ. Yeah, that's what it says.
Yeah, and I just explained to you what that means. So you can stop misrepresenting the Catholic Church now, I don't know if that's what I mean, I hear the same thing read the Canon Canon one of the Council of Trent.
And then you'll find out exactly what I just told. Okay, I'll do that. I'll do that. All right. All right. I haven't read all the traffic by the way, so six council one session six. Okay, I'll do that.
Appreciate that. Okay, that's fine. But when I read the Catechism, it says, you know, same thing the Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses say, you know, it red flag goes up. You know God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ.
That's what Mormons say the exact same thing now earlier in this conversation. There had been a section where it sort of degenerated about the Mormonism stuff and You know You have to be very very careful in drawing these parallels.
Sometimes it's worthwhile sometimes there is a direct parallel sometimes there is a reason to point out that. Another group is making the you know, the same type of statement. But a lot of other times there isn't any reason to do it.
It just simply raises emotional temperature without actually accomplishing anything and certainly the Mormon understanding of merit and grace and salvation is so utterly disconnected. It's not even a monotheistic system is so utterly disconnected from Rome's that you can certainly make the case that there is a Similarity based upon its anthropocentrism.
Based upon its focus upon man and human accomplishment and it's not theocentric both of them. Certainly, I mean that but that's be the case of all of man's religions. But but Rome has a significantly more complex Soteriological system.
Mormonism has never really developed a meaningfully consistent and in-depth soteriological system. I Mean, that's why at least a few years ago. I looked recently. But a few years ago, I could not find a single full commentary of any scholastic depth whatsoever in the book of Romans written from an LDS perspective now.
Maybe that's changed. I Don't know how it could change. I don't know how you can write a an exegetically meaningful Scholarly commentary on the book of Romans when you're a polytheist. I died it. I don't I don't see how that works.
Especially since you'd have to be bringing in the Joseph Smith translation and all this kind of silliness long along the way. So there's a vast difference Between the two and we I think need to be careful about Being very straightforward about that.
You just redefine the words.
That you know, I don't really care what the Mormons teach. Okay. I'm just telling you what scripture teaches what the church teaches. You take it or leave it. Okay. Here's another one representing what we what we taught.
Okay, we earned our salvation earned our return or life with God. I'm telling you. No, okay are misrepresenting us. Okay, then how about this one? Catechism of Catholic Church 2068. So that all men may attain salvation through faith baptism and the observance of the Commandments.
Yeah, so you attain salvation Through faith baptism and observing the Commandments should observe the Commandments. It means I really don't love God. It means I really don't you know care about him or anything.
I'm just you know sort of passing the time and I'm a nominal Christian. Okay, so I have no problem with obeying the Commandments. No, but God rewards me for obeying the Commandments. He's not paying me.
He doesn't owe me anything. He's just giving me a reward for obeying the Commandments. It doesn't say that said all men may attain it doesn't even get into the issue, but I'm telling you what it means.
Well, you're telling what you say it means. No, I'm a Catholic apologist. I know what it means because I know what Canon one of the Council of Trent teaches.
Now there is. I Could be wrong about this, but I am unaware of the official position of Catholic apologist I. I don't think that the Vatican and Rome has assigned that position to anyone and So, I'm not really certain that that was a purely an argument from authority from from doctors and Janice at that point.
However again What's happening here is is Bob's and Janice is interpreting as a private theologian the writings of the Roman Catholic Church now. Just on a basic level here folks just just think about this for a moment.
Roman Catholic apologists the folks over at called to communion and the folks at Catholic answers and envoy and and All all these Catholic apologists run about talking about how all this Confusion that exists amongst Protestants is because of sola scriptura.
If we just had the church there would be no confusion. We'd all be wonderfully unified as everyone is. Rome is unified. Well, of course the last part they don't they leave that one unspoken. Hoping that maybe you don't recognize just how?
Ununified Rome's Rome really is but anyway the it's All due to the fact that we make the Bible something was never intended to be we make it the sole infallible rule of faith for the church and You know, there are things in a Bible.
They love to quote that section from from Peter where he says there are there even in writings of Paul there are things that are difficult to understand and Untaught and unstable men distort them their own destruction and and they just want you just assume that must mean the Protestants, of course.
It couldn't be them but you know, it's just it's just the Protestants. Not seemingly recognizing that that would mean that taught and stable men could could actually handle those things appropriately.
But anyway. The problem is what has Rome done. I mean We saw in the debate just a few weeks ago with Roberts and Janice where this leads. You can take a doctrine Unknown to the Lord Jesus Christ unknown to the Apostles unknown the first generation after them second generation after them third generation after them fourth generation after.
Hundreds of years pass before it's finally mentioned by heretics and then slowly the Tradition starts infiltrating into the external church and hundreds of even thousands of years down the road. Eventually people start promoting stuff and now Rome has turned it into a dogma of the faith and how they defend that.
Well, you know Peter gets up at Acts chapter 15 and he doesn't need scripture or tradition. Neither one of those happens to be true, but he doesn't need scripture or tradition. The church can define anything.
Just just anything and you just have to believe it. Now that is as bald a claim of Absolute revelational authority as anything Joseph Smith ever said or or anybody else. Believe me because I tell you to believe that's that's all it is.
It's a claim from authority now. There are a number of Catholic apologists that are just Loathe to go that far. They they don't want to Say that they don't want to push it that hard. That is where I think there's a consistency there.
But they want to try to maintain some kind of pretense that the church is actually seriously concerned about scripture and tradition and so I just simply look at someone like that and I say, okay, so you're telling me the New Testament or Okay, the whole Bible.
There's just too much there to really grasp and and and people twist it and they misunderstand it and and so we need the church. So what does the church do? The church gives us a Ton of new stuff we have to interpret.
The vast majority of Roman Catholics have never even read everything that the Rome has to say that could be relevant. How many Roman Catholics do you know that have actually read all the Cairns decrees the Council of Trent?
Okay, keep that number in mind. How many of them have read all the Cairns decrees the Council of Florence? How many of them have read all the Cairns decrees of Vatican one? How many of them have read all the Cairns decrees of Vatican two?
How about the supporting documents for Vatican two. Is the number getting really small right now? Yeah, it is and Yet here you have Bobson Genes and he says well I'm a Catholic apologist and I tell you I know What one of those sections means but you can go to Boston College and find someone who's a priest.
Who has a much higher position in the Roman Catholic Church than Bob's of Genesis, but oh, but he's not. He's forgetting about this over here, or he's not thinking about this over there. Who might promote to you some type of universalism or inclusivism or anything else?
Now I'm not arguing that Bob's of Genesis is not at least more consistent than most liberals are. Bob's of Genesis is at least more Consistent with the the older Catholicism up through say the papal syllabus of errors.
But he's not consistent with the modern Roman Catholic papacy. There's no question about that and. So who do we believe? The Catholic apologist as James Swan has been doing on the blog hasn't done it for a little while but He does this this thing where he will compare and contrast Martin Yoni and Aiken and Sippo and Madrid and and some Janice and and all these people and Demonstrate how many times they disagree with one another.
When I debated Bob's and Janice on papal infallibility in Florida only a few months earlier. I had debated Tim Staples on papal infallibility and when it came to Honorius They used Completely different answers to excuse the issue of Honorius is clear heresy.
They contradicted each other. So, how are we supposed to know that Bob's of Genesis is interpreting that particular canon of the Council of Trent? Appropriately see by if you're gonna argue. Well, the the Bible is not clear enough.
Are you seriously arguing that the Bible plus? Every council and every dogmatic decree over the past 1 ,700 years since Nicaea is clearer. That there is more unanimity of opinion as to what all of that says.
All you've got to do is go read the the multitude of interpretations of Vatican 2 and You will see immediately that that that hasn't accomplished absolutely anything other than to create even more Confusion and so it is just such it's such an empty lie when Rome says to people, oh, are you tired of the confusion and How much of that confusion is actually due to sola scriptura.
Almost none almost none. The vast majority of is due to an abandonment of sola scriptura not the sola scriptura itself. But you know, they don't want to talk about that. If are you tired of all the confusion in the Protestant churches?
Don't you need that one voice will come home to Rome and That's the call. But if you dig past the surface level stuff and you ask the question, what are you gonna offer me? Well, we're gonna offer you 1 ,700 years worth of Dogmatic canons and decrees that that there is no possible way on earth that you'll either either read all of them or Understand all of them and could know enough about the context of all of them to make sense of all of them and there's actually self contradiction between them and certainly Popes have contradicted other Popes and Councils have contradicted other councils and you've got to pick and choose, you know, because a reminem Contradicted Nicaea and as Augustine said I can't quote Nicaea against you.
You can't quote a reminem against me. Let's go to the inspired words of Scripture and but you have to forget about what Augustine said about that and you just have to Believe what we tell you to believe.
That's what it is. It reminds me of of that. That Carfax commercial it's on right now, you know, I've seen the car show me a Carfax. Well, isn't this a nice rearview mirror? Show me the Carfax. Well, look at this horn.
It's wonderful. And that's exactly the Rome is a used car salesman it's a used theology and That's what they're trying to sell you and they don't want you to read the Carfax. I want you to read the church facts.
They they just want you to just believe whatever it is. They have to say It's and it's it's sad to observe I'm applying that to this.
2068 that you're reading in the Catechism. Yeah, that says that you attain salvation things out of out of out of the Catechism and make a conclusion out of the math. I'm just reading what it says. It says salvation.
Faith and observance of the commandments the whole theology behind it before you start criticizing. Why would you teach you have to observe the commandments in order to get salvation? Oh, well the same thing James says in James 2 24, come on that Abraham was justified by works not by faith alone.
What kind of faith your teacher you. A difference in ascension of fiducia, right? Yeah, I know the difference. That's what RC Sproul used but it's fallacious. I.
Seem to recall having played that one earlier. That I'm sorry RC just as I invented monergism and synergism RC Sproul Invented fiduciary and ascension and and the various aspects of saving faith. I can assure you that those those concepts did pre-exist both the venerable Dr. Sproul and myself.
Actually I Just had to chuckle at that. It's it's it's it's sort of funny, but I'm not sure that's how I would respond to someone who quotes James 2 24, however.
But that's what we're doing. It's not fallacious because in verse 14 of James 2 He talks about the dead kind of faith 24 says he was justified by works and not by faith alone. I like kind of failure can be it's clear in context and context.
So what's the context? Tell me the context. It's really simple. If you read he started verse 14. He talks about dead faith. What use is it my brother as he has faith can that faith save him? No, it doesn't say that that's how I've been reading.
The American Standard is what it says. No, the deal back standard is wrong. I'll go read the Greek translation of that passage now again.
We we did this a couple months ago in fact, I can I can prove that I did a few months ago because I I haven't returned one of the commentaries from my library. It's still sitting in here and in fact I'll just Open it up again.
This is Douglas Moo Certainly no slouch in the Greek department and significantly more Credentialed as a Greek scholar then dr. Genesis. He page 123 of his pillar commentary on James what the King James Version misses and what almost all modern English translations recognize is That the Greek article used with faith has an anaphoric significance.
That is it refers back to a previous use of the same word note that faith and NASB and RSV REB TV and JB. What James is contesting then is that the particular faith he has just mentioned can save this faith is what a man Who does not have works claims to have James's main point?
Is that this faith is in biblical terms? No faith at all just one of the many citations that could be provided to demonstrate That the anaphoric use of the article in James 214 is well established. I gave you quotations from Daniel Wallace's Syntax of the New Testament and and numerous other sources just a number of weeks ago.
I don't remember the date sorry, only I'll go remembers those things, but We did go over that and demonstrate that Dr. St. Genesis position is thoroughly refutable by someone with a knowledge of the Greek language.
What you know, you know America standards written by Protestants translated by Protestants and so the Roman Catholic does it? It's okay adjective out of that phrase in order to say that it's the faith that's being qualified.
That's not what the verse says. You can read all about it in my book not by faith alone. So the faith a lot you don't know. Look James tells us what kind of faith he's talking about because he says in verse 19.
You believe that God is one you do. Well the demons believe also in shudder. He is. Let me stop right there. It's interesting the the NRS V even Includes this the NRS V is about the most ecumenical translation around there.
So It's funny when Roman Catholics will criticize quote-unquote Protestant translations but at the same time the the translations that have been produced by Rome are Horrific and the majority of Catholic apologists will admit That the translations produced by Rome are horrific.
I mean if if this claim about about Rome having all authority and the final authority and as far as faith and morals and all this stuff why if it can Interpret and in fact some Genesis said that if the church wanted to they could they could answer every Text critical question out there.
They could they could do away with the need for a critical text the church could do that. Well, then why haven't they why don't we have the final perfect translation at all the absolute readings? I mean that would be the greatest service The church could ever do if that church had that capacity.
I obviously don't believe that the church does. We're gonna take our break come back with Meg up in Canada and Maybe continue on with your calls as well. 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back.
It's all works righteousness, you know. Can I man your bench of grace myself? Some religious place, but we've been hard on your face. You know, 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 potter's freedom James White replies to dr Geisler, but the potter's 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 potter's 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 a omen 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. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.
You can call for further information at 602 to 6 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PR BC org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.
Hello everyone. This is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program. The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater.
I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha-Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.
Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.
Thank you.
Tuesday morning, let's go to our phone calls and talk to Meg in Canada. Hi Meg. How are you.
Thank you. Wanted to call the show for a long time. I'm fairly new to to you having been sort of out of the Mainstream for a long time, but I came across your name because I worked on Dave Hunt's book What love is this?
Okay. I was one of those people who begged him not to publish it.
Well, you know that that didn't go over too. Well, no, no it didn't I.
Thought a measure of how little I knew really about the Passionate nature of Arminianism that I really thought it was just a small little book that would kind of disappear and Didn't understand why he took so many words to say rather silly things, but of course, I learned a lot since then and Matt who published it I worked for him as a book editor.
Oh, I see him not to. Yes, I said, you know, this goes against everything I believe and he said well, that's why I want you to To do it, but it was all to no avail. Anyway, he said damn and be published.
I've really enjoyed Listening to your comments and many others about it. Well, and then we had of course the debate book Where I I told That same publisher which is the where that book started then that was picked up by Multnomah.
Yeah. Yeah, I told him from the very first time I had a conversation with him. I said Dave Hunt has never finished a talk on the subject that he started on. So it is not going to be possible To do a book like this and have him stick to the subject parameters in any one chapter and the result.
It's gonna be very choppy. It's going to go from from topic to topic topic and it's gonna be very hard to follow. Oh, no. No, we'll make sure he does that. Well Anyway that that didn't quite quite happen either.
So anyway.
My only sort of claim is that it at least grammatically was Although Matt hired Blessing great brother in the Lord, but very misguided on this subject.
Well, and what's odd and I'm not sure if you have any insight in this but what was very odd is that once? Dave took the book over himself. He made some very interesting changes in it, which included inserting material.
That we discovered had come from a a Yahwist cult site. Saying that the the first 15 chapters the book of Acts had been written in Hebrew and stuff like this and Once we just discovered that and pointed it out.
We were told by the folks up at Dave's ministry that well That's just speculation and we're gonna take it out of future editions. And as far as I know, it's still in the edition that they are they are providing through the through the ministry so it's.
It's interesting, but that's not why you you were calling anyhow.
No, no, that was just sort of background that they're having the blend of your existence and you're Very wonderful ministry. I've been trying to catch up and listening to your debates and They One with them.
I suppose you've done more than one that was Bart Ehrman he banged on and on and on and on at you about They're not being any original writings at all. Why don't we have anything directly from the pen of Paul himself?
Why don't we have anything from Jesus himself if God really wanted to preserve his? Word, why didn't he do that? Why did he leave us floundering? To sum it up and While of course, I'm always just amazed.
There's somebody who doesn't speak very well myself You know in my little back room, I don't do well in public forum, but the way you responded to him, but I did sort of wonder my Foundational belief and I came I was saved You know in when I was 20, so I was raised a total pagan Anyone would define it.
He made a big deal about that. Didn't he in that debate? But no, that was Dan Barker. Yes much of a muchness my my strong belief and my early thoughts not having Much mentoring in my early days as a Christian was that it was obvious to me that God would not have preserved original writings in that sense because if he had we would worship them and That's what we do.
We worship everything. That's why there's so many pieces of the original cross People Hidden under their pillows. I I was listening with fascination to this Conversation previously with the Roman Catholic and thinking I still have a scar on my head from a woman who stomped on me with her high-heeled shoes in the Private audience I had with the Pope private but about a thousand people Right To get her rosary beads touched by him this is the same woman who a week before had stomped on my head to get on the stage with Kenny Rogers in a private Show that we had with him in Dallas so a passion sort of on the same level, but The worship of these easy to see China made Rosary beads that she bought in the square outside the Vatican just before our Quote unquote private audience and she is frantic to get them touched to touch his garment with them as he walked Out the hall, and I thought I've always thought that we have copies not copies of copies of copies.
Everyone would have it but it's because to have something all at risk where we had to struggle to preserve his word We have to struggle as you've often said in every age to argue for the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
Yeah, well, let me just.
Interject just a couple things here I think I think Bart Ehrman's Argument wouldn't be so much that we need to have the originals because he recognizes that we don't have the originals of anything from from antiquity.
His argument is primarily that we have Variation in the earliest manuscripts and therefore since we don't have Manuscripts to go back to within from his perspective a generation of the originals then if God were to inspire something then he would Extend a tremendous amount of effort to make sure that there was no variation and what was passed down.
I wanted that to be the subject of the debate. He Refused to allow that to happen. In fact what had happened was he had agreed to the subject of the debate. Does the presence of textual variation preclude the possibility of inspiration and Then only a matter of weeks prior to the debate objected to that and insisted that we switch the title to the title of his book misquoting Jesus and I remember very well the phone conversation that Those of us involved in putting the debate on had on that it was it was quite interesting Where dr. Ehrman laughed at me for thinking that the scriptures were inspired and things like that.
So His argument in essence is if it's inspired there's going to be no variation and yet their variation the earliest manuscripts. Therefore it can't be inspired. Well, I wanted to really develop that because it's a theological argument.
He doesn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole. He wants it to be taken as a given and that I think the audience would have been much better served Had he allowed for that kind of discussion, but unfortunately He he did not so I think you're you're right that the tendency of mankind is to worship Things like that.
But personally, I believe that historically anyways, the the reason that we don't have Originals is because of the attitude of the early Christians and the attitude the early Christians was. This is a message that needs to be gotten out to the whole world therefore they were more than happy to allow for not only the repetitive reading of the Let's say the original manuscript that was sent to The Church of Philippi was used as an example.
There was an original of that letter and it was delivered to the Church of Philippi and it was read repeatedly and they they didn't Stick it inside of a stone box and put it, you know light candles in front of or anything else.
It was delivered as a letter from the Apostle. It was read over and over again. It was shared with others when people would come in to visit they'd be allowed to make copies of it and it's simply wore out I mean is made of papyri and papyri can only be handled so many times before Papyri starts to break a breakdown already many copies of it had been made and so no one gave a second thought In that pure apostolic period anyways To the ideas of relics and any kind of a special grace that would be attached to it or anything like that.
The reality is they wanted these materials to get out now. There's another aspect too and that is the persecution and what you can't see. I'm not I'm not sure how you heard the ermine debate whether you listen to that mp3 or you watched it On mp4 or DVD or something like that but even if you did you didn't necessarily catch what was reported to me by many people in the audience and that was that every time I raised the issue and I think it's a very important historical issue of the persecution of the early church and the fact that we have evidence for example of The Romans destroying Hundreds of manuscripts just in in one period of time in Egypt Toward the end of that period of persecution you multiply that out over the the 200 years plus of persecution and That's thousands of manuscripts that were destroyed.
Which would probably have included the originals as well. They could have some of the originals could have simply been destroyed Under the persecution that the church began to experience by the middle of the of the first century so you combine it all together and There there isn't any conspiracy there isn't anything.
Oh, wow, isn't this weird that we don't have the originals ermine knows that we don't have the originals of anything from antiquity and Therefore to to you know to say anything Otherwise would would put him in a difficult position.
Most people don't realize and and this didn't come out so much in the debate but but it has in the programs that I've done about him since then and Lord willing if I get a chance to write in regards to him This will come out as well.
But I did ask him a question a lot of people wonder why I asked him the the cross-examination questions that I did. One of the questions you may recall I asked him was is it not true, sir? That if you were to edit your own edition of the Greek New Testament That it would differ less from the current Nestiallon 27th edition of the Greek New Testament than the textus receptus differs from The the Nestiallon in other words there be less difference and he didn't he struggled to understand what even what I was asking which is.
Which is interesting to me. There are a number of times. I was really taken aback by how I had to explain things but Because he's so used to just dealing in one particular area that even it's clear some of the ramifications of his own position he doesn't seem to understand and see how how relevant they are, but The point was that his New Testament Would be closer to the standard New Testament's used today than the King James is to the New American Standard and I was told I would like to track this down.
Someone was listening to an interview that he had done. I've listened to a lot of his interviews, but I can't keep up with all of them where a real radical skeptic was was trying to get him to to Basically say that you know, he had heard his standard presentation about the changes in the New Testament blah blah.
So what do you think the New Testament originally said and Erman's like, well, what do you mean? Well, if there's been all these changes then what do you think it was originally talking about and Bart goes?
Well, it's said pretty much what we have today and and you and you're like and and you can tell the guy was really really disappointed because. And Bart's primarily responsible for this. He's the one that so Emphasizes the variations.
That He he doesn't emphasize the fact that well, okay. Yeah, there's some there's some variations here. But in reality, we we know what the New Testament was about. I mean He's he's he's actually said all we're doing is tinkering as far as the original text of the New Testament is concerned.
And so, you know, he's explaining this guy. Well now that the New Testament manuscripts, you know pretty much tell us exactly what the New Testament was about. We know what Paul believed and so on and so forth and you can just tell the guy was utterly disappointed.
He was saying this but that's why I asked the question is is I wanted this stuff on record because you know I don't know that I'll ever have the opportunity. I would love to debate him on a lot of the claims he makes and Jesus interrupted and stuff like that, but The fact the matter is he and people like him are incredibly expensive to get involved in debates I mean they they walk out of that room with a very large check in their pocket and.
So it's it's it's pretty difficult to arrange things like that with any type of regularity. So But you know, that's that's that's situation with that that particular encounter that we had and I thought it was quite useful.
Yeah, well, I mean he showed the paucity really of his ability to defend his position when you asked him about.
Textual amendations and he could only come up with example and not only that it was an example that where there's there's no textual variation. All the felt of manuscripts say the same thing but you know it's a Metzger agreed with me that this is probably and you're like man if if what you have been Selling to people if what is behind all the sales of your New York Times bestsellers is actually true Don't you think you could fill up the rest of our time this evening with?
Example after example after example of this but no and and unfortunately even Christians who've watched that debate have have missed a lot of What I was really doing there and why I was doing it, but you know, I there's not much I can do about that.
So.
Issue and his comments on the fresh air program and yes. Just just very edifying patience. And I Love the the comment you made when somebody asked you how you could be so patient and polite with these people and you said it's Because of the reason you do the debate.
I was particularly thinking of that in that recent sort of discussion with that Mr. Guillaume or somebody At the Shambhala.
That was that let's let's not even mention that one shall we just need it. Hey Meg. I've got I've got a call from Sweden coming in. I want to try a sneak in here toward the end. It should be quite interesting, but thank you very very much for your phone call.
It's been enjoyable. Thank you. Thank you. I got this. Bye. Bye. All right, let's let's head over to Sweden and talk to Magnus. Hello Magnus. Hello Magnus. Can you hear me? We don't have Magnus. We should have Magnus, but we don't have Magnus.
Rich has that. Everything's where it's supposed to be look on his face the sort of frozen deer in the in the headlights look except he's staring at at Big computer screens and Not giving me any information whatsoever.
Magnus I Don't hear anything at all. Everything the pots up channels up. Everything's on Hello. Hello Magnus. Okay. Well, we'll let you keep working on Magnus there. And Can you can you pull him up on your on your laptop?
See if he's still hiding somewhere there because I saw you playing with a plug earlier. So I Nothing at all. Okay. Well if we get indication that Magnus is back or connected or available Then we'll we'll go to Magnus because we I like these European phone calls.
I cannot say a word is Swedish. But I can to do that. Which is probably as bad as doing something in my Scottish accent, but Hopefully we'll we'll get Magnus back here in a while. Till then, let's just go ahead and go back to where we were before we talked with Meg about Bart Ehrman and let's continue listening to Bob St. Janice and Matt slick and.
Hopefully that will work. He was talking about a dead kind of faith. That's what he is talking about.
You don't add works to faith because no you don't have to add works to faith. James is probably Of course is that a faith that truly exists will demonstrate its existence By the changed life, but you see the idea of adding that that's that's a that's a major major Problem there is asserting that you are adding Good works to faith and that that makes faith complete.
The reality is that what you actually have going on is that faith is Considered to be dead unusual on Inappropriate just like just as the the well out of which freshwater comes should not also give bitter water In the same way and that's in James as well.
We use the tongue that Blesses God should not the same time curse those made in the image of God in the same way He who says he has faith. There should be evidence of that that's beyond the mere flapping of the jaws the mere movement of the lips and That is why Bob St. Janice will never understand James chapter 2 Until he allows for the proper interpretation of verse 14 because that does become the foundation upon which You interpret the rest of the passage which makes sense.
Obviously I mean, it's just like trying to interpret the Gospel of John without beginning with the prologue of John and Just jumping in someplace and ignoring the fact that when you write a book you expect people to start at the beginning and go to the end if you if you Lay out your purpose is the beginning and someone jumps in later and they misunderstand you that's not your fault.
You you you communicated clearly. It's not your fault if they if they do not follow Your own presentations Paul teaches us we're not justified. Look, you've been to look.
Would you go to heaven? I mean, we're only got a few minutes left to show here. Would you dare go to heaven and actually say before God he says, you know, hypothetically to let. Why she lets you win. Are you gonna say because your faith in your works?
Yeah, because that's what scripture says. That's what tradition says and that's what the church taught me Matthew 7 22 and 25 to catch that that was important. That was that was a very good.
Very good question and and a very very important response on Bob's and Genesis part are you gonna say your faith and your works and St. Genesis respond was yes because that's what the church taught me and That gives you I think one of the clearest contrasts between The gospel which is focused upon the accomplishment of Christ and Roman Catholicism, which is focused upon you.
I Don't think I have it in Here right now. I need to have a second copy of that just laying around the office here in the studio here, but I Have a citation as I recall. I think I did include it in the Roman Catholic controversy from Carl Keating and I I mentioned this within the context of the Luther's dunghill example.
Roman Catholics love to pick on Luther's dunghill because they say see it it makes justification a fiction. It's not real etc etc, that's taking taking his illustration too far, but as Keating said in his book the reality is that infused grace makes us pleasing to God.
The reason you go to heaven is because you are pleasing to God because your soul has been changed to something that is pleasing in God's sight and Here's the problem obviously and No one who is ever going to appear before God Based upon is ever going to enter into his presence.
Rome does not have a holy enough God and before God clothed in a garment made up of the righteousness the merit of Christ Mary the Saints and your own cobbled together merit which you get based on grace if that kind of garment is Sufficient then you don't have a holy enough God and I truly believe that one of the messages that I think one of the reasons that So much of the preaching of churches today does not impact Roman Catholics the way that once did it's because we don't preach The holiness of God.
The way that we once did It is when a soul is in is by the Spirit made aware of the true holiness of God. They see their own sin and that's when they see that the sacramental system of Rome is in Sufficient to bring them peace with God.
But when you have a fluffy surface-level gospel and You don't have both the sovereignty of God and the holiness of God and you have this this man centeredness. That is so much a part of modern evangelicalism today I can see why that kind of proclamation will not make inroads amongst Roman Catholics.
But when you proclaim the truth of who God is That's the most important thing. Well, we're out of time for the dividing line today So we will be back with you Lord willing on Thursday afternoon on the dividing line and Continuing with your phone calls and we will try to finish up this discussion with With Matt slick and Bob's and Janice.
There's the music. I knew it was in there someplace. My clock said it was anyways. So we'll continue this on the next edition of the dividing line. Thanks for listening. We'll see on Thursday. 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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 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.
Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.