Cross Examination from the Codrington Debate/Phone Calls

Greetings welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon We're gonna open up the phone lines at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number if you'd like to call into the program today and while the legions of people are

Calling in on whatever Topics they have in mind that are apologetically relevant.

Anyways, we Last evening got notification of the provision of the

Recordings of the debate with Graham Codrington in Johannesburg, South Africa from two weeks ago tomorrow

Yeah, sort of like that maybe actually a little Less than that because it's nine hours, but you know two weeks ago from tomorrow morning at 10 a .m.

Something like that. Anyway Looks like they're pretty good quality like I said, it was a good venue the the church was when we first walked in I was a little worried because they're having a having a heatwave and Most places just do not have what they call air con

Most places abbreviate things shorter than we do in the United States. I'm just a weird weird thing, you know to rent to let

Elevator lift Air conditioning air con anyway But we walked in and I heard somebody says turn on the air conditioning like So it ended up being a comfortable

Context for the debate and so what I'm gonna do while Rich struggles to keep up with all the phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

He looks like he's losing it in there. Just trying to keep everybody, you know, you might try saying it slower One please

Fall You mean like that eight seven seven

Seven five three three three four one. There's there's three threes in there anyway

While we line folks up or IQ up John Denver music

I thought I would play a portion of the debate

This was the portion where I got to ask questions of dr.

Codrington This wasn't the audience questions, but this was the

Actual where two of us get to go back and forth. And so here is

Not quite two weeks ago Johannesburg South Africa myself and Graham Codrington Zero, okay

Dr. White's your turn Dr. Codrington in Ezekiel 1650 the singular to a

VA is used Why do you not view that as having to do with?

Homosexuality, especially in light of the use of to a VA in the Levitical law To advise

I understand it and I know you're a better Hebrew scholar than I am. But I advise

I understand it is Simply something that is Defiling is an abomination.

This is something that is Aberrant to God and when we look at a Ezekiel and if you have your

Bibles Why don't you go there and have a look at Ezekiel? 1649 and 50 it lists a number of sins and then the phrase

I'm using the New Living Translation as I read here. It talks about the loathsome things

That I believe that's what we're talking about day. Yeah, but it's not a good translation

It's translating to plural. It's the singular. It's the to a VA What is the to a VA in light of if we interpret

Ezekiel? Yeah as having knowledge of the Mosaic Code What is the to a VA which which of the sexual sins is just described as to a

VA? I think a lot of them are described at it and a little things in the Holiness Code and a lot of other things are

Described as to a VA as well. So you don't know what the toy is. Okay, you don't know what the toy was I just needed to know if you if you knew what it was

You said you believe that Moses Would have interpreted

His words the way you do. So so you believe that Israelites that two male

Israelites could have gone to Macon Moses and say we want to live together as married people

Faithfully and Moses would have said hot dog. Let's do it That's an

Americanism, I'm sorry, that's fine. I fully understand that fully understand that I'm not sure Moses would have said precisely that no,

I get what you Hebrew version of Been a beef hot dog.

Yes something like that. No, I get that That's a great question and it's an important question because I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have and I think that's what

Romans 1 is about Because the Jewish culture had a very particular and we might even today use the word prudish view of sexuality

Even prudish view of their bodies, which they still do today I live in a very

Orthodox Jewish community and we still see the full covering for both men and women and so or Slightly tongue -in -cheek put my hand up to your question earlier, but it's a fair question in response to that I think that Moses may have had

The response that Paul had in Romans 1 to say these things are shameful that these things are things which are culturally unacceptable and I think that he probably would have had the same response that Paul the rabbi would have had which is to say don't do things

That are going to be a stumbling block to other people. Don't put stumbling blocks in the place of other people

So to pause your question slightly, I think Theologically, he may have said

I think this is fine Well, I mean he was speaking scripture is being God's word So he would have said this is fine, and I think he probably would have said to the people don't do it

I'm not trying to avoid your question anything from Moses to substantiate that other than your feelings

No I'm giving you what I think Paul has helped us in the rebellion tradition to understand about the difference between something that is evil and Something that is shameful and I think that's an important distinction.

What is a degrading passion? in What context Romans chapter 1 he describes it's the introduction to the discussion of homosexuality.

It's a degrading passion Well, it's the introduction to the whole passage actually Not just to the passage.

So so here's how I see Romans 1 playing out very simply that there are people here who are

Against God who are opposed to God and what happens in the in the way in which that opposition to God Demonstrates itself is they first of all start to worship other gods

They start to put things in front of God then they begin to descend into culturally unacceptable practices and they move from those into things that are demonstrably evil and murderous and all of those things and they

Eventually descend down to having no mercy. No empathy. No love no humanity about them at all and I think there's a clear progression as you read through Romans 1 of how that happens if Degrading passions is is therefore part of the heading of that That's how the degrading of the passions happens from turning away from God to doing things that are shameful

To doing things that are evil to having your entire humanity stripped away from you I think that's a good description of what a degrading passion is and yet the reason

I asked specifically Is that this is the therefore of verse 24, so it's it's smack dab in the middle

It's not a header and it says therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity so that their bias be dishonored among them and Then you have the exchanging of truth for a lie and then finally you get a 26 for this reason

God gave them over to degrading Passions so you don't see anything here about these are the made in the image of God But these are passions that degrade the image of God you just see this as you've worked

Where's the term cultural appear here? That's the shameful. So the things that are shameful

The what term is that? I'm in my time Well, I mean my sorry in the

Greek The things that are shameful in what that in in what they were doing. I think

Paul is showing a progression in Romans 1 a progression that that leads them into things that are first of all shameful and Then things that are evil and and the way we understand this is when we turn to chapter 2

Paul's going to then say to the Jews look I've painted this picture I've painted a picture of the evil nasty

Gentiles, but be careful of how you judge Please go and read the first few verses of chapter 2 be careful

Jews how you judge these people Be careful that you are not judged in the same way that you have judged them and then he's going to go on to talk about circumcision which is their shameful act as far as the

Gentiles were concerned and he's then eventually going to in chapter 3 get to the point of saying

We're all in this position. We're all in a position where we are capable of very quickly

Moving away from God and all of us are in need of God So the phrase path a

Atami us Degrading passions you say that's simply something that's shameful culturally that it's not reflective of a exchange of the truth of God for a lie

If they doing it in a cultic context if they're doing it in the where's where's the cultic context here in in Romans 1?

You pretty much pick it up from 18 to 24 just as you've read it where they're making little

I I went through 18 Which one I went through 18 and following in my time and I never had to use the term cultic once Could you show me where it's found in the text itself?

Yeah, verse 23 good enough instead of worshiping the glorious ever -living God They worshipped idols made to look like mere people or birds or animals or snakes

Okay, so God let them go ahead with their degrading passions and so the exactly the context right so the the the the futility of the minds and the darkening the understanding

This is only within cultic worship No, there's a progression that's going that's the same sentence

The progression is that they move away from God God gives them over This is actually the the punishment that comes from God is that God?

Allows people to do the things that they want to do It's a very scary passage here of Scripture that God Allows you to do the things that you want to do and those shameful things

Become evil things become things that completely eat you out from the inside.

So when does the cultic context end? I Think it's all the way through so but different commentators would argue that in different ways

So so all the sins Mentioned so if if you're greedy in the temple, that's bad, but if you're greedy outside the temple, that's okay

No, because there's a change in in word here. He goes from calling things shameful

To calling things evil and you can see that in verse 28 So when they refused to acknowledge

God he abandoned them to their evil minds He now uses the word evil instead of degrading or shameful and it then repeats and it let them do the things

They shouldn't have done Can you let me demonstrate what you're saying that that that those terms are not at all semantically related to one of them?

Yes, I can and I don't have that in my in my head, unfortunately Not being a

Greek scholar as you okay. All right, you can certainly write them on my website then let's do it this way Do you see in verse 28 it says

God para did to me All right, okay the the the the heiress form, right?

Yeah, God gave them over didn't that appear earlier in the same? Well, how about verse 26 for this reason

God did what? Paretic and give them over but that's precisely the point I'm making Paul is showing this progression each time

God gives them over to the next layer of progression towards complete and utter

Annihilation of their humanity so that we get to the to the end of this here They refuse to understand break their promises heartless.

They are fully aware of this death penalty They go right ahead and do it anyway So and that's what he's moving towards and then in the next verse in Romans chapter 2 in verse 1

He's going to turn around and hit his readers and say but you do the same things

Even though you possess the Word of God, that's true. But so what you're saying is Disobedient to parents in verse 30 is farther down the progression than the the

Degrading passions a few verses earlier. That's the only way we can it is I would agree with that Okay, which is why

I don't believe that homosexuality is as much of a problem as you do. Okay, fantastic again that's that's

I Thought I had popped those back up. That's a Rudolph's favorite term fantastic or 100 % 100 % that's a hundred percent, uh

Like I was laughing at that during it is like why why is that fantastic? Yeah, it's just a transitionary statement

So So there you have it. I was only 10 minutes. He'd had 10 minutes.

I had 10 minutes. I Remember how long the audience questions were Some of them were pretty interesting because Rudolph put it they put his phone number up on the up on the screen and so you texted questions to his phone and Some of them just were not suitable for a public

Airing shall we say it was it was it was interesting But anyway, we have the videos downloaded and so I imagine it's just a matter of Well, fortunately because this is all essentially functioning as a single camera shoot

For us because they've already done the camera Work between the different cameras and shifted them live

I don't really have to do a whole lot of editing and drop some titles in and it should render

Hopefully I have it ready by the middle of next week middle of next week, yeah, I Don't know it seemed to seem to go faster just a few months ago.

Oh, you're funny guy Well, you know, we'll see if it's if it comes before that that's great. So it's just just trying to remember how this works, right?

Yes, I'm trying. Well, there is that trying to remember how this works. Yes a new a new task on my plate all over again

Uh -huh. Yes. Okay. All right All right. Good Didn't take me as long to prepare for the debate is anyway

Actually right along those lines before we go to the billions of phone calls that we have waiting online at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

This morning, well, when was it? Monday or Tuesday Janet Mefford Posted a review of The new

Alan Chambers book now if you don't know who Alan Chambers is Alan Chambers was the last president of Exodus International and He's the one that closed it down and Apologized to all the homosexuals that they had hurt and Has now put this book out and I'll be perfect honest with you.

I Went when it ended I was like that that's it.

I it's done Because I was listening to it this morning

I went on a little long ride and I know it wasn't all that long a book about 200 pages I think it said in Kindle and I still had a distance to go when it

It finished and I'm I was hearing some some some ways of contacting

Alan Chambers Facebook and stuff like that And I was wondering what what I don't get what this has to do with where we are in the book and then it moved on that was it was done and What was not anywhere in the book was any

Absolutely any Interaction with the biblical text at all nothing. It was nothing but His life story up to this point

Getting married and But but even then

It just seemed Horribly incomplete and Just just I don't even know how to respond to it

Yeah, I know I wouldn't even know how to read how to review it To be honest with you because it just There's wasn't anything there

There's so many questions that most of us would have that just weren't asked or answered in in the book it was

I don't recall it being very expensive, but I don't really think

I got my money's worth out of it. That's for sure. So I Expected, you know at least another round of revisionist argumentation and you know,

I I discovered that my understanding of these texts and biblical

Sexuality had been wrong and at one there On there so hard to hard to even even know what to say about other than wow, that was fluffy

It just wasn't wasn't much there to to respond to now Obviously Alan Chambers is you know, the favorite of the quote -unquote gay

Christian movement because well, here's here's proof you you can't cease being gay It's just it's just the way you are.

It's the way you're born That's it, that's it and I've not heard him speak on the subject.

Maybe he's better in that forum than the written forum but I was not was not impressed at all with the with the the book itself there just Really wasn't anything there really wasn't anything there.

So little disappointing along those lines But I'm sure we'll get lots of press anyways, so bunch of you decided to Jump online.

We actually are filled up now. That's uh, that's impressive haven't had that happen in a while So, let's get started and let's talk to Craig in New York, hi

Craig Hey, dr. Wade, I'm really appreciative to Be on the line with you.

I really enjoy your debates and you hear lots of callers If you also feel like that, but I really do mean it.

Okay, and My question to get to the point is I'm a reformed

Baptist But I really like to read church history and I have a lot of questions about the the priesthood in its nascent form

Okay, and Particularly it appears that Ambrose and Chrysostom in the fourth century make references to the priesthood being a function of forgiving sins now like Do you have any comments on just how that developed doctrinally in the early church?

Well, have you seen my debate with Mitch Pacwa on the subject? Yes, I did. And quite frankly,

I think mr Pacwa had so little information and really didn't even substantiate anything about history

I did like that. I did like the comment. I did like the comment about mrs. Pacwa though Yeah, that's true.

But he did he did make the assertion and and it's it's it's primarily the assertion that is made that What you have happening in an evolutionary sense is

The Transformation of the term Presbyteros Into a meaning that it it could never have in any meaningful

New Testament study but over time it becomes the foundation for the distinction between Episcopal Bishop or pastor and certainly what you have as The church enters into a period of time where Tradition is going to become more and more important and the distinction between The church and the synagogue in the sense of forgetting

Old Testament backgrounds allegorical interpretation the impact of origin

You start seeing this in the 4th century writers into the 5th century writers and As a result you start getting these unbiblical concepts that are just flowing from the fact that as the church becomes

Normative and no longer persecuted or even and it started before that as as the

Like with Siprin, yeah, well, yeah and even even during periods before that There is going to be a pressure upon the church to abandon biblical norms

For what would be considered? Proper religious perspectives, which would include a

Complicated church hierarchy Priesthoods, that's what people are expecting religions to have certainly, that's exactly what happened and you know, we were warned about it in the in the

Old Testament and You start seeing the same thing happening as far as the development of the anchorite movement the desert fathers in Egypt The rise of monasticism and hence the the creation of a priesthood and You also

I'm sorry. I think it also comes with the fact that the the book that would be the most

Counteractive to this movement would be Hebrews and there just seems to be because of its deep connection to the

Old Testament scriptures and the Rise of allegorical interpretation.

They're just Hebrews just did not seem to function for many people as What you'd call first -level scripture

Because if you don't understand the backgrounds, then you're really not going to Find the argumentation of Hebrews to be compelling and I've I've lamented that Many many times and I think this is an area that Just as in the degradation of the view of atonement

Likewise the concept of priesthood very clearly addressed in Hebrews. There's only one high priest

He holds his priesthood opera baton without succession The idea of a of another priesthood the necessity of another priesthood very thoroughly refuted by what you have in the book of Hebrews, so Yeah, it's it's a period of time where you have a lot of transitions taking place and if you if you do not have a view of sola scriptura

Then you're going to be really confused as to what you're supposed to end up doing because those who would say well

See you need to have the tradition of the church Now they're stuck with Francis and who knows where that's gonna go but I Mean that that could have been another subject today because of what's going on.

I've got a bunch of articles I just haven't gotten to it yet but the stuff with Francis and this this synod in Rome and the issues of sexuality and marriage why it's fascinating stuff, but anyways

You know as I said in the debate with Pacwa this is this is a clear issue where once again if that which is the

Anustos is Normative then you simply cannot have the priesthood concept because it's not there

Paul gives us clear Ecclesiology in regards to two offices and the one that becomes

Central in Roman Catholicism. He never says a word about so it's one of those many places where you have to deny

Sola scriptura To be able to hold to the Roman Catholic perspective on these things because it's it's a thoroughly unbiblical office now pertaining to The office being that there were people that were saved third fourth fifth centuries when the when it really started evolving

That's that's the part that sort of That sort of bothers me thinking about how clearly it's so unbiblical that a priest has the ability to forgive in the routine sin and yet that was

Mainstream doctrine during that time. I mean, what if a Protestant denomination taught that today?

Well, I mean could people be saved believing that Well people can be saved believing a lot of things

I'm not sure why anybody thinks perfection of theology is a standard of salvation. The gospel is fairly straightforward it

I'm not sure what you what you mean by that. I mean, I know Anglicans that refer to their ministers as as priests

I certainly would never do that. I think it's dangerous. I think it can lead to all sorts of issues

Just look at Anglicanism today. That should give you enough warning as far as the mainstream view not the conservative guys down,

Sydney but um, but That's not a part of the gospel So, I mean it's not it's not defined somewhere is

You know, we have certain things that we are told if you had a false gospel Anathema, I've got the wrong

Jesus. No salvation. Okay central things, you know deny the resurrection incarnation and out

But it does seem we live in a day where where people think that yeah so if there's any difference that could possibly maybe lead down the road to a

Major -major thing then you're you're out of the kingdom and I I've never quite understood exactly how that how that works

Was there a great rise in nominalism? Was there a tremendous number of people who would be?

Identified as Christians outwardly who weren't sure Does that mean that every person who ever believed somebody was a priest is is automatically lost.

No I mean I would suppose the issue more so is in Galatians that Even believe in that, you know to add circumcision atop the gospel and does the gospel and anathema

So to add that in order to have your sins forgiven it must be mediated between a man

Seems personally close to to adding something to the gospel, which makes it a non gospel well, if you're talking about a someone actually stating that the only way of salvation is

For forgiveness through a particular form of the priesthood, but I doubt you're gonna find any of them saying that They're gonna see it as a means

God uses but they're gonna make a very clear distinction between Saying this is a part of the gospel and necessary and the only way that we're in which

God forgives and and Anything else so I I Mean sure.

Yeah, if someone wants to say that the only way of salvation is through this priesthood Then yeah, that would definitely

Take you to that that that perspective and that's what Rome certainly has done today but that's something that took a lot of development a lot of a lot of a lot of time for that to to come together you find you find inconsistencies in all of these people and Not God, I'm sorry

They're not they're not God so well, but the point is as as unbiblical traditions develop

You know, you know people that's why I don't a lot of these books that you'll buy Let's say well this unbiblical doctrine developed at this time and then this one at this time and and a lot of the books on Roman Catholicism were filled with stuff like that.

It didn't work that way It's not how history works and it's not like everybody woke up one morning and oh

We have a new doctrine now and so everybody who believes it is now lost No, you had you had inconsistencies as these unbiblical traditions became more and more popular over time eventually necessitating the

Reformation itself, but the Reformers recognized that the The idea that well nobody before us was ever saved

Was not a was not a tenable or or biblical position It just seems to me that like when

Ambrose is writing against the Donatist He one of the things he takes issue with is that the

Donatist reject the idea that sins are forgiven through the Catholic Church and he actually speaks specifically about that in the 33rd paragraph chapter 7 on on the priesthood and then and so I don't get to detail because you don't know what questions those

Callers are coming up with you can't have all well. No, no again no, this is just something

I've talked about many times before of as BB Warfield said The Reformation inwardly considers nothing more than the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church and when

Augustine argued against the Donatists What he argued there was very much

Formational for later Roman Catholic teachings same thing with Ambrose when arguing against the

Donatists on ecclesiastical issues You're gonna have that kind of stuff. You're also gonna find places where Ambrose is going to give a very clear grace presentation

So what I'm saying is they're inconsistent I don't mean I think a lot of it arise out of the fact that The church became a state religion in the

Roman Empire Well, yeah, and now they all these nominal believers coming in so they needed visible forms of penance visible forms of Confession and things that affect even know who really was a

Christian anymore Yeah, and that's discussed pretty well in the book reformers and their stepchildren that especially goes through the development of the

Donatist controversy and Sacralism and and all the things that came with that It'd be a good good book to look at Craig.

Thank you very much for your phone call today alrighty, we're gonna move on here and Talk with Jeff in Philadelphia.

Hi Jeff. How are you doing? Dr. White? I your your phone Screener guy told me not to give a big report, but I just wanted to say thank you for all your help our outreach during the world meeting of families and the

Pope's visit went very well and a lot of your influence was there and So I wanted to thank you and thank you for getting me in touch with Chris Arnzen, that was very helpful to Well, someone actually thanked me for getting getting getting in so many types of Chris Arnzen.

That's normally normally I'm getting blamed for that Anyway, I Actually was got to go to Carlisle, Pennsylvania So in the well, there you go.

There's he's not just a mess He is no, no the man the myth the legend the Chris Arnzen.

Yes Yeah Yeah, oh now someone's calling in. Oh Good.

It's actually a different Chris. All right Okay, good so I wanted to Besides thank you for all that.

I Had a couple I guess through a lot of interactions online and in person with Catholics.

I had a few things What one of the things that I popped up repeatedly?

Was pretty much every even religious Catholic The vast majority don't think there's a difference between us about justification and it takes a very long time to convince them

Yeah, I was talking to a priest for like 10 minutes before he's like, oh and then he gave me the

Anticipated objection of Romans 6 1 and I was like this should not take this long with someone who went to seminary.

But the other thing I wanted to kind of I Saw something you posted maybe a few days ago at right after the debate and I encountered this online with A religious

Catholic Where it seemed like they had a pretty low view Compared to us of Scripture like, you know, they believe basically archaeology didn't really support much that the

Bible was filled with contradictions, but they were like a devout Catholic and I Kind of some of that within your debate one of your debates on the

Apocrypha When you were bringing up that there was historical errors in the Apocrypha And I was like there there seemed to be a link between that and you know,

Jesus explicitly has a very high view of Scripture in the gospel and and like There's a tie -in with what

I guess I didn't know if you when I met the first few minutes of your of the dividing line today, but Where I Get your debate opponent tried to say that Jesus just was limited by his humanity and didn't understand

I'm not you must be talking about the Gagnon -Kirk debate. I'm not sure what you're referring to Oh, maybe that was the

Gagnon -Kirk debate. Okay, maybe that was the Gagnon -Kirk debate Yes, I saw you posted something about it on on social media

Where that Jesus is limited by his humanity So he wasn't aware that he was wrong about homosexuality or something like that, right?

and kind of I I would assume the Catholics have to take a similar position on Jesus's view of Scripture and Jesus had a very high view of Scripture in Scripture in the gospel.

Well, I did. Yeah Like how do you tackle someone who's saying no

Jesus's is that limited by his humanity not that he just doesn't know the day or the hour of the second coming he he's completely off base about Like whether Jonah actually happened or or you know,

Genesis 1 and 2, etc well there there certainly isn't any official

Roman Catholic doctrine that would Give any basis for what

Daniel Kirk said but obviously There's just as wide a variety of Viewpoints amongst

Roman Catholics as there is amongst anyone else Which is what makes right the argument that Patrick Madrid makes about solo script he spoke solo scriptura being the blueprint for anarchy such a such a laugh is that Rome has just as wide a variety of perspectives and I would not be surprised at all if the current

Pope Would not be friendly toward expressions of Limited knowledge on the part of Christ in regards to Him being just an idealized man.

He's very very very friendly with very liberal forms of theology so but he hasn't said so you can't can't really go there, but the point is

You you there is no single our Roman Catholic view of Scripture When you try to define the dogmatic

Statements that's not in any way going to reflect Especially the people that you meet in the street because Rome It's it's just like walking into a

Christian bookstore You'll run into one guy who's reading Benny Hinn and one guy who reads reading Karl Barth and and never shall the twain meet as far as being able to figure out any consistency and Roman Catholicism just as wide a spectrum of things if not wider in some in some fashion actually because there's so much cultural

Catholicism But I understand that in terms of people you do run into with that kind of view either

Within the Roman Communion or about the homosexual issue. I like how would you just defend that that Jesus wasn't so limited by the incarnation that You know was basically making those sort of errors well,

I don't think dr. Kirk believes in an incarnation From what I've read it seems he believes

Jesus is an idealized man and that what we are getting in the Gospels is a Is a mythical Presentation that Jesus was just a guy.

He was just a great religious leader, but he was just a guy so historic concepts of incarnation

That kind of level of supernatural ism and things like that. I don't think would be would be relevant you know someone who has has gotten the point of Believing that Jesus is just a man is someone who doesn't even believe the

The historical testimony of the

Apostles themselves because it's painfully clear From Mark onward that you cannot squish

Jesus down to those parameters without ignoring What Mark says I mean?

Climax of Mark's gospel Jesus stands before the high priest and quotes from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 and says

I'm the son of man and who is given a kingdom and is Those and his people give him

Latrewell They give him the highest form of worship and the high priest airs his robe and says what more need do we have of testimony?

You've heard the blasphemy is worthy to die. So from the earliest strata of tradition that we have

All the way through all the Gospels you have the deity of Christ being presented. So once you once you abandon that there's really no reason to have a religious discussion any longer about homosexuality because They don't have a religious basis upon which to have it anymore.

They don't have a revelation it's now just going to be a matter of which scholars you choose and which social scientists you read and and You know, whatever the cultural flow is

There's really no No basis for having any further discussion at that point because you don't have any revelation upon which to stand

Okay, that makes good. Yeah, and that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I just Yeah, I mean at least the response

I had was kind of that You know I just pointed to Jesus in the scriptures and just at least with the

Roman Catholic and they're like well his view of scripture Was a lot higher than yours. Oh, yeah

Yeah, I mean yeah you have to you have to tell people it's strikingly strange

That you would call yourself a Christian while claiming to be wiser than the one you claim to follow

And they'll normally look at you and go but what do you mean well Jesus's view of scripture is significantly different than your own and yet Why would you why would you say that your eternal salvation is dependent upon him?

But you're smarter than him when it comes to Even understanding the origination of scripture itself.

What could you explain that and no one can Because it's it's incoherent

Idiocy, but that's that's what we are facing today In in dealing with folks.

So anyways, glad you guys were out there and I'm sure you had some some fascinating conversations would have been would have been interesting to be there, but Unfortunately, it was smack -dab between overseas trips just did not work out.

Well, yeah I'm not sure when the next time the Catholics are having a convention, but the Democrats are coming down next summer

That could be worse that that actually could be worse. Yeah Yeah, that's already sir that that could be downright violent.

So anyways, thanks We're planning to be out there for that too. So all righty. Thanks Jeff.

All right. Bye. Bye All right. Let's talk with Charlie hi

Charlie Hi, dr. White. I just want to really quick to say thank you

So much for your ministry. It's been an incredible blessing I want to think rich rich.

Thank you for keeping dr. White in line and busy Dragging him away from his bike in order to keep the

DL going. Oh Well, thankfully he's talking to the next caller. He can't hear what you're saying.

Anyways, so, okay good good So I might be digging up bones here. But um after your debate with professor flowers,

I kind of began listening to Soteriology 101 just to get a feel for his position. I mean,

I mean just your life is that Don't hang up on me

No, I can't hang up on you. I just might want to try to help you You know get a better focus on life or you know, find a find a girlfriend something.

I don't know So your wife allowed you to do this

I think we need to talk to her But I've only listened to a few and really

I mean you only need to listen to one because he has his few points which He beats on every episode. This is true

But I wanted to ask you about his his charge against compatibilism and God having contradictory will

According to him and I was wondering if you give your thoughts on maybe flipping the charge on him Because you know, he'll say

God has one will and that is the desire that all people, you know

Be saved and come to the knowledge of truth Even irregardless of 2nd Timothy 225 and who just keeps reading on but out of the other side of his mouth still

He'll say, you know enough down the conversation. He'll say He'll stress essentially God's priority in creation was essentially preserving man's freedom

Which allows men to choose outside of God's decree and against it. So So, I mean that just seems to me like he hasn't really assessed his own position enough if he has desire one of God You know

Absolutely, if he'd absolutely desires Equally every man head for head be saved desire to you know

God desires for creatures that could outwill his former desire and I'm not sure which professor flowers would put first If at all or if you'd say that they are compatible

But I was just wondering what your what your thoughts would be. Well, I I have not found

Leighton's Theology or philosophy to be particularly coherent it is very clear to me that Leighton flowers has a particular conclusion that he needs to get to and the

Theological philosophical and especially exegetical Path by which he will arrive at that conclusion

Can be incredibly circuitous Tortured and impossible to map out and hence almost impossible to critique

Because it's just there's no consistency to it other than I'm gonna get here

And I'm gonna get here anywhere any way that I that I can't right so In talking about election, he'll go one direction doing

Romans 9. It's another direction in John 6. It's another direction So it's all it's all over them over the map and that's why

I don't think he can point to anyone in church history That's actually held his views Consistently across the spectrum.

He might be a point Well, this guy agreed with me on this and that guy agrees me on that but as a system don't think so I don't think

I've encountered anyone. It's that's that's done that other than maybe some some people on a very surface level, but It's it's it's painfully obvious to me

That for for Leighton We're not talking about a system of theology that is derived from the exegesis of the text of Scripture we're talking about a system that has specific commitments to get to the end goal of affirming a

Freewill theism and Then you Blake you grab what you have to grab to make that sound

Possible to the particular audience that he's trying to communicate with which is Which at least for a long time has been primarily a

Southern Baptist audience maybe he's expanding beyond that or something along those lines, but Again, and I said it in the debate say again

The difference between us is very clearly the difference between a man centered theology and a

God centered theology I mean it is really a a focus upon God's purposes being wrapped up in man and a focus upon God's purposes being wrapped up in God Which right?

I don't know how you can read The Psalter or Isaiah or Jeremiah or pretty much anything else and Come the conclusion that God's first and foremost primary concern has to do with the creation rather than the creator himself and what his intentions are in Glorifying himself in the creation that there seemed to be some comments.

He made in our debate Where he really does bristle at the idea right that God's Self glorification is central and I just go there you go folks.

There's there's the difference between us is if if man's glorification and man's

Freewill and and so on if that's central. I know some other people believe that I recall a section out of the

Doctrine and Covenants That says God's purpose and glory is bringing about the immortality of man, but that was

Joseph Smith so we don't want to go there, but I think Joseph Smith got that from someplace and he got it from the

Armenians of his day Yeah, I'd be interested to hear like I mean professor flowers or whoever whoever else because I mean

I've heard you you know quite a few times you always say it's the issue between a man centered or a

God centered view, but I would be interested to hear like a conversation about like looking at the view of Who like who can biblically defend the position about Whose will will be accomplished like the scripture?

Affirm that that man is able to accomplish his desires over the creators or or do we have?

You know a plethora of verses speaking to you God Power and ability to bring about his own desire.

Yeah, I don't think there's a He might actually be willing to do something like that to be honest with you

But man, I'll tell you if if you're if you if you're wise You don't want to go there because there's so much about man's inability and so much about man's

God's ability that Wow, it would be hard to even even imagine how someone could

Engage that debate, but anyway, hey brother, we've got two more calls trying to get to before the end of the hour

I appreciate your phone call. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. All right, brother All right.

Let's get to Vincent's hi Vincent Hey, dr. White. I don't um

Look, you mentioned in one of you in one of your recent debates that the debater fell to the

New Covenant theology view Now can you explain what aspect of that that might lead to that kind of compromise on like homosexuality?

Yeah What I said was Graham Codrington expresses what

I call a hyper New Covenant Theology perspective where he

In essence says that there is nothing in The Mosaic Law nothing in the

Old Covenant That is binding upon us today period end of discussion if it is not repeated in a

New Covenant document It's irrelevant completely irrelevant. So All the quote -unquote cultic stuff of Leviticus because 1820 anything you derive from what happens in Sodom and Gomorrah Anything related to Mosaic Law, it's all

Irrelevant. It's it's it has nothing to do with New Covenant believers whatsoever. It has to be repeated in New Covenant texts and he says that very clearly.

I got all you gotta do is go to future church now Calm I think is his blog and read the sections on Leviticus and it's right there

And I call that a hyper New Covenant perspective because he just he really does basically say

It's it's a black and white issue. There's there can be no No discussion about this now.

There are New Covenant guys that have gone there. Well before him I'm thinking of one New Covenant guy a few years ago that decided to say that It would be okay for brothers to marry sisters

Because there's nothing in the New Covenant scriptures to say otherwise And so it's sort of like well, okay, he's not the first one to have gone there and of course from my perspective it's just Sorry, but it's so obvious in 1st

Corinthians 5 and 6 That the Apostle Paul held the church in Corinth Accountable for understanding that incestuous relationships are wrong based upon Leviticus 18

They just didn't have to repeat it. He didn't have to sit there and say, okay, I'm gonna start repeating Everything for the moral law because You know, even though I say that Anyone who teaches anyone to break the least these

Commandments the least the King of God? Actually, I need to repeat everything if it's going to be binding

I I Really have a problem with that. It clearly does not work out that well in the

New Testament But there are those that have gone there So it was Graham Codrington the guy we just played the clip from at the beginning of the program

And if you look at his blog articles, that's what he was saying is basically until Matthew It's not relevant when it comes to the issue of homosexuality moral law or anything like that Of course,

I go you New Covenant. Hmm. What's the prophecy of the covenant? I'll write my law upon their hearts

What law would that be? Well be one they never heard of before. Okay. I have a problem with that, but that's who it was

All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks But it Oh, I'm sorry.

I I just dropped the Just dropped the last caller. Sorry about that call back in real quick.

I apologize I had one call at the top and one call at the bottom and The cursor moved and I messed up.

I apologize It was a call on Compatibilism and we got to get it on because you even took the time to spell

Compatibilism correctly, even though you'd originally spelled it wrong. You went back and spelled it correctly So that means we've got to get it on.

Is that is that the call there? And I don't even know who was it

Chris. Hi Chris. Hey, dr. White. How about that? Yes, sir, go ahead.

Yeah, I actually was gonna ask you a question on compatibilism based on 2nd Samuel 12 11

Where the Lord says that I will raise up evil against you out of your own house Do you think that would be a good text to take somebody to who doesn't quite understand this yet?

Well, you got to be careful Beating anybody over the head.

Yes What you have there is definitely a statement from Yahweh behold,

I'll raise up evil against you from your own household I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them your companion and he will lie if your wives and broad daylight indeed

You did it secretly but I will do this thing before all Israel and under the Sun and David said to Nathan I've sinned against the

Lord so Now obviously that's a judgment

Passage and so While that's relevant and it was fulfilled there are also

Judgment pronouncements that God chooses not to follow through on Okay in mercy, so I would say it would be better to Look at those texts where you have

God's Decree being fulfilled in such a way that he brings good out of what men

Choose for evil And so I don't think you can make heads or tails out of the Old Testament narrative if you don't understand

God's sovereignty and God's Decree, it's just it's all over the place but that's why I've primarily focused upon the

Joseph story in Genesis 50 or Isaiah 10 and the Assyrians or or the cross story in Acts 4 is because those seem to be the clearest compatibilistic texts because it's not just Blessings and cursings judgments gonna come if you do this, but God very often

Withheld that judgment. No in these instances These are things that God brought about that the people involved could not have known at the time that they were fulfilling

God's will at all In fact, they had all the wrong motivations and yet still God was doing something that very plainly is the fulfillment of his decree

And so that that that greatly increases the didactic value.

Shall we say of those texts? Okay, and then I also had a quick question about Universalism in the church fathers.

I kind of ran across a fellow classmate from my alum And he kind of seemed stuck on this that the church fathers were pretty unanimous on Unanimous universalism.

Yeah, unanimous is kind of a laughable thing but it is I didn't know if you would have a Place that you go to in terms of a resource an article or anything that kind of deals with that pretty well

Well, no, I'd not on universalism. I mean origins certainly seem to be there

But Well, he's going

Eastern Eastern Orthodoxy there, but even then You know another good reason to believe in solo scriptura because you can you can make early church fathers say almost anything you want them to say

I I Certainly have not done almost any reading whatsoever in Eastern Orthodox views that could lead to a an understanding of universalism, but Certainly there were numerous early church fathers that spoke very plainly of eternal punishment.

So the idea of universe a Unanimity on universalism is obviously false and Again it boils back down to what's your source of authority and The issue is is what the scriptures teach not not what somebody 700 years down the road

Came up with in a theological Formulation, so I I don't have anything on universalism and in Eastern Orthodoxy No, that's

I I try to stay out of Eastern Orthodoxy as much as possible. Yeah, he's DB Hart is his

Favorite theologian and he's actually leaning towards being a catechumen

I think with them So that was part of the reason for that. There you know, it's influencing them quite a bit

I believe well, there's probably more reasons for it than that. So yeah, anyway, yeah

Alright, thanks for the call. All right. God bless Thanks listen to the dividing line today.

Lots good calls got us through the hour pretty quickly and Lord willing We'll see you next Tuesday.