May 9, 2013

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Well according to my new Hootsuite installation here,

Kung Fu Guitar is listening to the DL for the first time today.

Welcome Kung Fu Guitar. I don't know, I just looked over there. And since TweetDeck is committing

Harry Carey, I went to Hootsuite today and I just got set up and Kung Fu Guitar says, going to listen to the

DL for the first time. So welcome to a first time listener. I've been sitting behind this microphone all stinking day so far, it's ridiculous.

And I want to start a campaign to abolish daylight savings time.

There is no reason for playing with clocks. And once again,

I had in my calendar that I was going to be doing the dividing line, starting now, going to 5 o 'clock and then going straight into an interview on a station in Minneapolis.

And lo and behold, I'm sitting there doing something, I don't know what I was doing, Rich comes running in, you've got an interview in one minute.

And it was at 3 .15 not 5 .15 or whenever it was supposed to be. So just got done doing that and had a grand total of two and a half minutes before starting this.

So here we are. And I've already done Line of Fire with Michael Brown today.

And right before that, I mean, back to back, we did the Pilgrim Radio Network. So it has been a long day of talking.

So we will definitely open the phone lines at 877 -753 -3341.

One, I'm sure that there will be many people, including

Ergon and Ymir Kanter and people like that. They're going to be calling in today too, because they just didn't have a chance to their busy cell phone, batteries were dead, whatever, on Tuesday with the answers for all of that stuff.

But then again, maybe you've heard some of the interviews today and you would like to ask some questions or dialogue on that.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

As soon as I walked through the door this morning, I was asked about something that I've only heard a little bit about.

And so other folks in channel were kind enough to bring up some some

URLs. Basically, I was being asked the question concerning the issue of Wycliffe Bible translators and the subject of rendering words like father and son in translations that will be used in Islamic context.

Now, I had heard, obviously, when this whole thing started, I had heard that Wycliffe was trying to find ways around using these terms because of offense of Muslims.

And there was a rather strong response to that from many people, including

Christians living in Muslim lands, recognizing that this is just a massive act of compromise and that the problem is not with what the

Bible teaches on these things. The problem is with the Quran. The problem is with the false understanding of the author of the

Quran of what father and son means in the New Testament. So you have one person, 600 years later, ignorant of the biblical meaning and context and teaching, especially of the

New Testament. And that then becomes predominant. And now we're supposed to change the proper translation of the

Bible because of that misunderstanding? No. You explain it. You explain it better than Ergin Kanner did, that one oneness guy that we listened to.

Boy, that was a face plant moment. But you explain it. You go, no. You don't seem to understand what we're talking about here.

And I would think most Muslims would be shocked if we were willing to change the translation of the

Bible because there are things in the Quran that they have to explain. They have to explain what it means to strike at necks, and they have to explain what it means for people to pay the jizya and feel themselves humiliated and all the rest of these things.

But they would never dream that they should change the translation. You just explain what it's supposed to be saying.

And so I had heard all the brouhaha when it first happened. And then

I thought, and this is one of the problems in our RSS blog,

Facebook, Twitter versus society, you just get hit with so much stuff.

And I just don't know that God designed us to have access to this much information.

I really don't. I mean, you just get hit with so much stuff that I cannot possibly keep track of everything that's going on these days.

But, yet as it may, I thought I saw an article at some point that said something along the lines of, well, it was a denial on the part of Wycliffe, I thought, that this is in fact what they were doing, we're not doing this, we seek accuracy in translation, etc.,

etc., etc. I don't know. Well, yesterday on 5 a .m.

Central Time, is that Central Daylight Time or not? We don't know. But yesterday,

Michael Clark posted an article on the Gospel Coalition blog, Panel Seeks to Resolve Son -of -God

Translation Controversy. Late last month, the World Evangelical Alliance Global Review Panel presented a 33 -page report with 10 recommendations for Wycliffe Global Alliance and SIL International concerning their process of translating divine familial terms like father and son in Muslim context.

Responding to several Bible translation controversies, Wycliffe and SIL requested last spring that the

WEA review their process of translating divine familial terms. These controversies stem from the fact that Muslims often misunderstand the divine familial language found in the

New Testament, believing that it implies that God had sexual relations in order to beget Jesus. Well, that's because that's what the

Koran indicates. That's the problem. This misunderstanding is found in the Koran, Surah 5, verse 116, verses 17 to 111, verses 19 to 92, and leads

Muslims to abhor the idea that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, in an attempt to avoid miscommunication, some translations have avoided using the divine familial terms of father and son.

The WEA began forming an independent review panel last summer under the leadership of – it goes on there.

The panel's report provides a needed corrective of Wycliffe SIL's process of translating divine familial terms.

However, some might contend that the correction did not go far enough. In Recommendation 1, the panel argues that when the words father and son are used to refer to God the

Father and the Son of God, these should, quote, always be translated with the most direct equivalent familial words within the given linguistic and cultural context of the recipients, end quote.

In other words, the terms father and son should be retained in the translation. The panel includes compelling biblical support for retaining the divine familial terms.

First, they include an exhaustive list of biblical examples that demonstrate that the words father and son are, quote, among the most common ways the

New Testament describes God and Jesus, end quote. Second, they argue that the words father and son are among the most important ways the

New Testament expresses Jesus' divinity in relationship with God, and – it goes on to there – and then mention some potential concerns.

The panel states that the Father might be rendered as Heavenly Father, God who is Father, or God who is the

True Father. The words son might be rendered as Divine Son, Eternal Son, or Heavenly Son. The panel also notes the phrase

Son of God has varied nuances and therefore, depending on the context, could be rendered as the Son belonging to God, the

Son who comes from God, the Son who derives from God, Anointed Son of God, Royal Son of God, Divine Royal Son of God, or even

Royal Son who derives from God. This is going to become a very, very big book if you go there.

Look, the fact of the matter is, Muslims have been given a false understanding of what

Son of God means, and we have to explain it. God never intended the

Bible to just sit out there. He wants us to preach it to people. That's the way the Gospel is preached, you know?

That's how we're supposed to do it. Preaching is not just staying there reading the Bible. There needs to be application.

There needs to be interpretation. And when you have a societal misinterpretation, well, then you explain it.

That'd be like coming up with a special Utah version of the Bible. Can you imagine that?

Coming up with a special Utah version of the Bible that expands on all the monotheistic texts to make sure that Mormons get the idea that there's only one true and eternal

God who did not once live on a planet. So can you imagine rendering every word God in that way?

One true eternal God who never lived on a planet. And you're just going to do a Bible translation that way? No. No. You don't.

Don't even go there. And so I was hit with this as soon as I walked in. I guess there was a pastor who had called in and wanted to know about us.

And the World Evangelical Alliance report is linked from the

Gospel Coalition blog and you can read it yourself and it's interesting and all that stuff.

But it is a fascinating thing that that is one of the things that we're discussing today.

877 -753 -3341. I was just on a station in Minneapolis, as I mentioned right before this, and as soon as we started it was mentioned that the

House in Minnesota had just passed the profaning of marriage, that the

Senate was going to do so, and that it was going to be signed next week and so Minnesota will become the 12th state to profane marriage, to spit in God's face, to say, we will not have you as king over us.

And I am just reminded of the phrase, God is not mocked and God sits in the heavens and laughs.

It is self -destructive. It is part and parcel of the culture of death and I am not uttering hate speech.

But you know, parallel just struck me. I was about to say, I am not uttering hate speech to tell my native state,

I was born in Minneapolis, my native state, that you are inviting the wrath of God upon your nation, your territories, by profaning an institution that He, it is the first institution that He established amongst mankind.

And all of a sudden, a parallel struck my mind, because I was thinking about the mindset of people who are using these quote -unquote hate speech laws to silence any opposition to their leftist, progressive, secular humanist, anti -Christian diatribes, which are never hateful.

You can't be hateful from that perspective. But, and I just started thinking about how

Jeremiah was treated. Jeremiah was accused, in essence, of treason and hate speech by proclaiming that God's judgment was going to come upon the nation for their sins.

And even got himself chucked in a slimy pit for having done so.

Rich knows all about the slimy pit, because Rich did an in -depth study of the slimy pit.

Oh, I don't know, that was a long time ago. That was even, that was what, 19, when was that? 1980 -ish, 87, 88, somewhere around there, when

Rich first started volunteering with the ministry, before he had any official positions. He had to do all the grunt stuff, which he still does, but now he's the president.

And so, I forget what it was, we called him Slime once, and I even had a name badge made for him.

Do you still have that name badge? Hey Rich, do you still have your name badge? No, you don't have the name badge?

You got rid of it? Oh man, I paid good money for that. But I even had a name badge made for him that said,

Rich Pierce, Slime, in green. I've been on the air way too much today,

I shouldn't be talking about things like this. But anyhow, what's that?

We have three callers? So I should be talking about something other than slime? People love when we tell these inside stories about our, this is our 30th, hey, did we never, did we ever get that thing up?

Did we ever get the address up? Testimonies, is it up, but we're not ready to run with it yet?

Oh, but we haven't blogged it or anything? Oh, well we need to do that, because we want people to be able to write in and talk to us about our 30th anniversary, because it's, well it's now, basically.

And we need to do that. But anyhow, there's a little historical lesson, I have no earthly idea what

I was talking about before that, but we have three phone calls, and I guess

I'm supposed to get to them. I'm not sure if I forgot something, but anyhow, let's go with them in the, looks like the order they came in here, and let's talk to Landon.

Hi Landon. Hi Dr. White, thanks for taking my call, bud. You're most welcome, bud.

I had a quick question, I'm going to be attending the Apologetics Academy in France this summer with John Ward Montgomery, and I think

Greg Kokel's going to be one of the speakers there this year, and part of my reading that they're having me do was the

Habermas -Lycona book on the resurrection, and they have this minimal facts approach that they take to this thing, and I also watched at least part of the

William and Craig Shabir -Ali debate, and one thing that stuck out in both of these was their almost adamant insistence on not accepting the

Bible as inerrant or authoritative. Well not starting with the assertion that it's inerrant or authoritative, yeah.

Yeah, and well I guess, am I being overly critical in thinking that is somewhat dishonest in that if we're not going to try to defend this even on the front end, and yet after conversion expect them to believe it or trust in it on the back end.

Is there some dishonesty there? My criticism, Landon, all along of the entire evidentialist approach that is exemplified by that entire school, which

I have criticized many, many, many times, is not that their facts aren't good.

I mean, I think there's probably a tremendous amount of good stuff, encouraging stuff, important stuff in Mike Lycona's book on the subject of the resurrection, and I think it's great that you're reading it.

I have it in my library as well. I would have no problem making reference to it in those contexts, but it is a fundamental approach issue, and that is,

I don't find that approach to be apostolic. I do not find the apostles operating on that level of approach.

I do not believe there's such a thing as morally neutral ground that I can step down on with the unbeliever and say, okay,

I'm not going to assume that God has spoken, and you can't assume that he hasn't.

We're just going to reason with one another here from this neutral ground, and then I'm going to slowly get this person incrementally to accept the idea that the preponderance of the evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of a

God, and then I'm going to move them from a God to sort of a Unitarian God, and from a

Unitarian God to a Trinitarian God, and I can introduce Jesus, and eventually once I've got Jesus, then I can go through the back door and get the authority of the

Bible, and eventually I have an Orthodox Christian somewhere down the line. As you have recognized,

Landon, that's going to mean, if you're to work that way, at some point in time down that road, you're going to have to stop, and you're going to have to look at that person and go, you know, remember back when we started this, and I said that we didn't, you know,

I wasn't going to assume anything, and we were standing on neutral ground? I was lying to you, because actually, what

I believe is that God created everything, and he defines everything, and therefore there's no such thing as any neutral ground, because any fact that is a fact,

God made it the fact, in fact, Jesus made it that, and if the Bible really is the

Word of God as we've defined it to be, then it's not dependent upon my arguments to prove that, it's actually theanustos, and it has its own authority inherent in it because of its nature, and, you know,

I'm sorry I didn't tell you all that, but I didn't think I'd get you to believe it back then anyways, and so now you like me, and we're buds, and so maybe you'll accept it.

And I just don't see the Apostles ever doing that. I just, that's why I can't go there, and can't join the party, because I don't...

Well, and, yeah, and I'm sorry to cut that, but that, and see, the only difference is that they start with the

Resurrection, at least in this particular book, and, you know, they would say, let's keep everything at the

Resurrection and then work from there, but essentially, you know, you've mapped it out exactly correct. I would encourage, and this is as much for your listeners as anything,

I don't mean to promote another ministry on your thing here, but if they would go to that Apologetics 315

B. Brian Auden interview, I know one thing that I noticed, Dr. White, is that when he interviewed, like, you, and John Frame, and Scott Oliphant, and, you know, the presuppositional guys, and then would interview, you know,

William Lane Craig, and, you know, Montgomery, and Habermas, and these fellows, there's a distinct difference that comes out when he asks the question, what advice would you have?

And I would encourage your listeners to take this upon themselves, is every single one of you guys said, know your

Bible. First thing out of your mouth, emphatically, know your Bible, and the other fellows was all learn philosophy.

And that is a stark contrast that just jumps out, and that's what has helped persuade me to be more, you know, learning in the presuppositional method, and it's convincing me, and now

I'm walking into the lion's den this summer of, you know, trying to defend this, and, you know,

I'm going to have to be nice and pass the exams, but, man, I'm not buying this stuff that much. I just don't,

I really don't. I think exactly as you pointed out, and one of the best things I've ever come across was

Dr. Bonson's view of the myth of neutrality, it does not exist, man, and it's in the Bible, it does not exist.

Right. I agree a thousand percent. If you have his book, Always Ready, I think that is the book that I use as a text when

I teach apologetics, and I would highly recommend it to folks, and I, you know, unless you're planning on doing a lot of challenging, don't look at it so much as the lion's den, as, you know,

I mean, I went to Fuller Seminary, okay, I had to filter a lot of stuff, but I still got a lot out of it, and so you can still get a lot out of it, even when you have a fundamental disagreement, but hopefully they'll be open to some type of dialogue, you know, over dinner, as to why is it the

Apostles didn't really do it this way, and maybe go from there, but I hope that you benefit from your time there.

Yeah, thank you very much, and that's what I'm hoping to get, because I'm with you as far as getting some of the facts and, you know, historicity and things like that, but yeah,

I just, you know, as I was reading through this material and watching some of these debates, it just appeared dishonest to me, and I didn't know if I was overstating it or, you know, going up, but that just doesn't seem right to try to downplay the authority of the

Bible to somebody, and then try to get them to buy into it later. And I would add to that,

Landon, that if you start with the Resurrection, I'm sorry, but the Bible never presents the

Resurrection as a context -less statement. There is a context that makes the

Resurrection meaningful that requires certain presuppositional truths right off the bat.

I mean, the point is that via the Resurrection, the Father has vindicated the claims of the

Son. There's just all sorts of other stuff that goes there, and to say, well, I'm just going to start here, and assume that in a naturalistic worldview, this amazing event can somehow be packed with all this meaning without my bringing in scriptural categories and inspiration and all the rest of that stuff,

I'm sorry, it doesn't work. You're again, you're sort of selling a used car in that way, and I just don't think that it works.

So, anyways. Now, what would be, I'm sorry, real quick, what would be a quick statement or a book you would recommend as far as refuting their concept, all knowledge is probability, therefore that's why this is the best approach?

Well, obviously on a less -than -overly -readable level, those are the very issues that Van Till went after in Defense of the

Faith, and that all others who have followed in his train have addressed in regards to the nature of knowledge, the nature of God as Creator, all of these types of things.

And so, on the written level, I'd go there.

I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but Turretinfan, who you may know from my blog, has recently blogged about Saiten Bruggenkait's new film,

How to Answer the Fool, on the subject of this matter, and you might want to check that out, and that's from Crown Rights, they just came out with a video on this, so it might be very useful along those lines.

But I know all offense stuff goes into the response in regards to the nature of knowledge and stuff like that, so that would be the direction

I'd have you go there. And by the way, I do appreciate

Apologetics315 and what he has, and the fact that he allows for balance and he interviews both sides and stuff like that, it is a great resource, so no problem promoting

Apologetics315. All right, thank you so much, Dr. Warren. Thank you, you have a good time.

Bye -bye. All right, we had another caller that had a good topic, and what was the...

Yeah, on the comma, and that's a bummer. So, if you were the one calling,

I forget who it was, and you had a question about the comma johannium, I'll be happy to take that call, give us a call back.

You never know if someone's on a cell phone or whatever else it might be. But who was the author that I just cited?

I cited a number of authors, Van Til and Oliphant and other people like that.

Yeah, there you go. So, phone lines are open. We're about to go to Peter, but now we have other phone lines open at 877 -753 -3341.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number for you to call, and hopefully some of you will do that so that when

I get done talking with Peter, we'll be able to talk with you as well. Let's talk with Peter.

Hi, Peter. Hey, Dr. White, it's great talking to you. Yes, sir. Hey, I called a few weeks back on a member about reconciling

James and Paul. You recommended they got it justified? Yes. Yeah, I picked up that book, and just so you know where I'm at, the

Roman Catholic way of reconciling it, I reject that. That creates contradiction.

It seems to me a lot of Roman Catholics try to—the impression I get is they try to differentiate works of the law as prohibitions and specific positive commands from good deeds.

But I think when Jesus says, you know, the sum of the law is to treat your neighbor as yourself, that implies good deeds as part of the works of the law.

Well, I don't know that there is a one single Roman Catholic—it's not like the

Magisterium has said, this is the meaning of works of law. You can find, unfortunately, different views of that, even amongst—I would say that, for example,

Trent's understanding of that is different than Vatican II's understanding of that. And you can certainly find cardinals and bishops and stuff today that would have differing views on that.

But yeah, okay, I would agree that they definitely are seeking to do something with James II that is not there.

But evidently you disagreed with what I had to say? Um, yeah, did that last thing

I said, would you agree with that, though, that um, what

Jesus said about treat your neighbor as yourself, that that would include good deeds? Well, treat your neighbor as yourself, you mean love your neighbor?

Love your neighbor, yeah. Okay, well, that's the second commandment.

So, I mean, obviously that would involve, you know, all sorts of behavior.

The prodigal son—I'm sorry, the Good Samaritan, for example, being an example of what that is.

So I'm not sure what you're asking. Um, I guess we could—we both agree that that specific way of reconciling it by certain

Roman Catholics is untenable. Okay, how do you reconcile it?

Um, well, I was looking at the God who justifies, and I see you start—you say, starting with the conviction that the same

Holy Spirit who spoke through Paul spoke through the words of James as well. Um, but I don't—so you have that presupposition.

I don't—but I don't see why I should accept James as scripture.

Whoa, okay. So you don't—what kind of a church are you associated with,

Peter? No, um, no, I—this isn't my, like, solid position.

I'm trying to figure it out. Um, but I, you know, I've read some stuff about Luther, um, what he said.

I looked at— Yeah, but Luther never—Luther never rejected the book of James, and he cited his scripture numerous times.

But the preface to the 1522 edition, he— Yeah, but he never rejected—Luther never believed he had the right to change canon, and he cited it as scripture a number of times.

I've read a master's thesis on the subject of James's use of Luther. You could go over and see James Swan's stuff, but, um,

I'm not a Lutheran, and so I'm not going to go there. Do you—do you think that God inspired scripture?

Yeah. Okay, if he inspired scripture, then do you think he's going to extend the same amount of effort to make sure that his church knows what it is?

And if so, then why would we need to go 1 ,500 years, having been misled, about James, and then now we need to somehow get rid of it?

And on what basis would we do that? Um, well,

I guess—so you're saying that James is—I haven't studied out the canon, you know, probably as much as would have been beneficial to me talking to you.

Well, I'd highly recommend a book called The Canon Reconsidered by Dr. Michael Kruger to you.

It's a new book, and I think you would find it to be exceptionally helpful. Exceptionally helpful.

Yeah, I think that's what I wanted to get with the recommendation. If I come to the table with the presupposition that James is canon, yeah,

I can reconcile it. I think I could come to peace about it. But I think that's where I need to go now.

Well, what else have you decided isn't scripture? No, no,

I'm not going crossing out books in my Bible. I'm just—James 224 really—you know,

I read what you wrote in The God That Justifies, and I just—I still haven't really come to peace about it.

Like, you say that this passage isn't soteriologically prescriptive, but, I mean, James says—I mean, it seems soteriologically—it seems prescriptive to me.

It seems like he's putting it in there, and he's talking about, you know, do you think this kind of faith can save you?

It can't save you. Exactly. This kind of faith. What is that kind of faith? That's why

I spent 24 pages on it, is what use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?

Can that faith save him? The point is, this is an empty faith. This is a faith that has no connection.

And the whole point is that when God saves a person, He actually saves a person.

This real, true, saving faith is the work of the Holy Spirit of God, and so it's going to have an impact upon our lives.

Now, we can differentiate between the faith and the result, as we must, but James's point is, if you're going to run around saying that you have this kind of saving faith, and yet you're living in such a way that all you have are your words, and your wife's never seen it, and your kids have never seen it, and your neighbors have never seen it, you're deceiving yourself.

How else, as a person involved in pastoral ministry, I don't know how else I would be able to approach the people that I've encountered who were deceiving themselves, that they actually were believers.

Now, I know that there's the other side of that. I know that there are people who are troubled because they're constantly examining themselves, and they're overly self -reflective, but that's a much, much smaller problem than the much larger problem in the

Church, and that is of people who are self -deceived. They have a said faith, but it's not a real faith.

And that's what James is addressing, and I think that there is a consistent line, beginning at verse 14, that follows that directly through, and all the way through to verse 24.

So I'm not sure how else he would have addressed it, but... I agree with everything you just said.

I guess right now where I'm hovering over is the idea that James... I mean, in that one preface that Luther said, he says that James didn't have the eloquence to state it, and I look at it, and to me, yeah, it just seems kind of, like, fuzzy and unclear.

It's just hard to understand. Well, in defense of James, Peter, we are reading a document that was written 2 ,000 years ago to an audience that very often we are unwilling to really do the work to enter into their shoes.

So if we, as modern Americans, basically say, well, this is fuzzy to me, well, let me tell you something.

Have you read much Jeremiah recently? It's really fuzzy, because it's hard for us to enter into that mindset and to do what we need to do with it.

So... I'm willing, I'm learning Greek, and I'm going to get that book you recommended. Let me just ask you one more specific question.

Sure. So in verse 24, it says, you see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only.

So the word justified is justified before men, right? And that, I guess, as a person, you apprehend that he's saved?

Is that what that verse is saying? That, you know, this guy's doing good works, okay, he's saved. Well, again, when you look at the examples, when you follow it through, and you look, especially,

I pointed out the the term in verse 18, is diksonmoi, show me, show me.

Right. Who's the me? That was good, yeah. Okay, so it's, the context hasn't changed.

The issue hasn't changed. Show me. Abraham showed his faith by his obedience to God's command, even so much so as to believe that God could raise the dead.

That's what Paul says in, well, that's what the writer of the Hebrews says in Hebrews chapter 11. That's a section

I'm going to be preaching on pretty soon. That was a demonstration of a faith that, according to the

Bible, he had had earlier, was justified on that basis. But because it was a true living faith, it was able to give evidence of its existence.

And that's the important point. So diksonmoi follows right through to verse 24.

And so, yes, that justification is a justification that is different from the justification that is before God.

And the examples that James uses illustrate that. That's why

I say James and Paul are on the same page. And it is only, no offense to you,

I'm not saying this to you because a lot of scholars have done this. It's only our laziness that allows us to put them at odds with one another.

As common as that might be, if we're willing to do the work, they won't be at odds with one another. They're saying the same things.

When you read Ephesians chapter 2, we are his workmanship, creating Christ Jesus unto good works, which

God before ordained that we should walk in them. But pick up that book by Kruger.

We have it in our store. You can get it on Amazon as well. But Canon Reconsidered, I think you'd find to be really helpful.

Yeah, I will. Yeah, I will. Thanks a lot. And the Hebrew series is great. I've been listening to that too.

All right. Thanks, Peter. Have a good one. Have a good one. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341.

Which one came first? Okay. All right. Let's talk to Wendy. Hi, Wendy. Hi, Mr.

White. I just wanted to say thank you, and God bless you so much for the many years of hard work you've been putting into studying different faiths, their books, so you can give an answer to the hope that lies within you.

I'm a 27 -year -old mom who listens to The Divided Mind, and I enjoy it. I have learned a lot so much from listening to you.

And actually, my husband deployed, and I started to listen to you in the second week of February this year.

And I can't get enough of Mr. James White, so thank you so much. And God bless you. I pray for your protection when you go to the debates, and you do an awesome, awesome job.

Well, Wendy, those are very, very encouraging words. And I love my mom audience.

I probably drive them insane a few times with some of my comments, because I'm just really not politically correct. But I will have young ladies come up to me, moms especially, when

I'm out speaking. And they'll tell me about how their kids have learned the opening song to They Know When the

Dividing Line's Starting, and stuff like that. So I think that's great. That's pretty awesome.

And maybe Steve Camp will be happy about that, too, because that's his music. But anyway.

Thank you so much. Well, thank you, Wendy. And you said your husband's deployed.

So well, God bless you. Thanks for taking care of the home front. And we'll pray for his safety as well.

Thank you so much. God bless you, Mr. White. Thank you, Wendy. Bye -bye. That's sweet. We've got to find out how many people download this program.

There's got to be a way to know. I can guarantee you Google knows. And Apple knows.

But we need to know. I think we would be absolutely shocked. I really do. I think we would be blown away.

Let's talk to... Yes, I saw the microphone. Well, maybe God needs to keep that a secret from us so our heads don't get too big.

No, it just makes us all the more nervous. It's time for The Dividing Line. There's all these people listening.

Let's 877 -753 -3241. I still want the Kama Yohaniam caller back. Let's get that in there if we can before the end of the program.

Let's talk to Hayden up in Canadia. Canadian, eh? Hey, Hayden. Hey, Dr.

White. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that. But I'm heading your guys' direction in October. I just hope I can get back out again.

Whereabouts are you heading? We're a bit... We're a bit in the good. Actually, you sound fine.

But I'm going to Vancouver. Vancouver? Oh, that's actually really close to where I live.

Yeah, the Sola Scriptura conference. I'll be speaking on Islam. One of the two forbidden subjects.

At least they're not having me speak on homosexuality. Then I'd never get back to Canada again because they'd stop me at the border and kick me out.

I don't know. Indeed. Yes, sir? I have a question about Roman Catholicism.

Yes, sir. I've been talking to some of my friends, and they were asking, like, can Roman Catholics be saved, or is it a denomination?

And I've just been saying, no, it's not, and pointing them towards Galatians, and just how they added something onto the

Gospel. And then I said, like, Mass, and how they receive

Mass, and how it's important to, you know, if you're not a devout Roman Catholic, will go to Mass, you know, every week, and that they actually receive grace through communion there.

And I was talking to some Roman Catholics, and they were kind of denying this. So, yeah. Do you have any sort of clarification on that?

Sure. Because I'm not sure if they're just misrepresenting themselves, or they don't know what's going on. Well, you got to realize there are a lot of—you're going to find a lot of nominal

Catholics, just like you find nominal Protestants and stuff like that, and I really don't believe that a well -read

Roman Catholic who knows the Catholic Catechism, or anything like that, would for a second deny that in the

Eucharistic sacrifice there is grace, or that it's a perpetuatory sacrifice.

They just haven't read either the Universal Catholic Catechism, or Vatican II, or Trent, or anything else.

I mean, there really isn't any question about this. Almost any source you'd want to look at is going to confirm all of that.

But there are many, especially young Catholics, who will be involved in parishes where they have liberal priests, and those liberal priests just don't teach them what

Rome actually teaches. The funny thing is here, what I'm telling you is almost exactly what you'd get if you called

Catholic Answers and asked the same question. That's the amazing thing. I don't have any problem affirming what historic

Roman Catholic Orthodox teaching is. I just say that it's blasphemy.

It's a false gospel. If you have a perpetuatory sacrifice that does not perfect you, that is not the one sacrifice of the cross.

But the Roman Catholic teaching has been, and has not been changed since Vatican II or anything else, that in the sacraments of the

Mass, you have a perpetuatory sacrifice. That's what transubstantiation is all about. The priest has the sacramental authority to render

Christ present upon the altar, body, soul, blood, and divinity, and that it has perpetuatory effect, and that this is the central act of Christian worship, and as a sacrament, is a tremendous means of grace.

All of that, I mean, I suppose I could... I'm looking for the...

Yeah, here's the Catholic Catechism. Whoa. You know, I just dropped something on the ground just to find this for you.

The celebration of the Christian mystery begins at section... Wow, this is huge.

Wow. We're talking pages here. It starts on... Part two, the celebration of the

Christian mystery starts with section 1066, and my goodness, goes all the way...

Wow, that is huge. Over 700 sections.

Well, no. The last section is 1690.

So you're talking over 500 sections just simply on the

Mass and the sacrament and all the things that go with that.

So a huge amount of information just in the Catholic Catechism, and if the Catholic Catechism does not represent

Rome's current position, I don't know what does. Yeah. Just one more thing.

They said that one of the things that they brought up was that instead of, like,

Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, they have the same Jesus, but I said back to them that a

Jesus who does not atone for all of your sins on the cross is not the same Jesus. Do you think that's an appropriate response?

I would personally make a differentiation. I think a differentiation needs to be made between the

Christological errors of a group such as Mormonism, which is a polytheistic group, Jehovah's Witnesses who are

Aryans, and Roman Catholicism, because Roman Catholicism maintains an orthodox affirmation of the deity of Christ, the eternality of Christ, his relationship to the

Father, et cetera, et cetera. So I would want to make a differentiation between the ontological errors of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and the soteriological and Christological errors in regards to function and role as high priest and accomplishment of intercession and all the other things that Rome has in her doctrine in regards to Christ.

So I think we just need to differentiate them. It doesn't make it any less serious, because if anything, the biblical teaching is, you know, add a single thing to the gospel of Christ, and Christ will be of no benefit to you.

And in some ways, that's even more dangerous, because it's so much closer to the marrow, to the bone of the very accomplishment of Christ in his work.

But we do need to differentiate it so that we can say, yes, on those issues,

Rome has maintained an orthodox view of Christ. But in spite of that, they then have these errors, and it's just a matter of being very careful in our statements.

Thank you very much, Dr. White. All right. Thank you, Hayden. God bless. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341,

I hope that, you know, we get good calls, and they are great subjects.

I should have mentioned to Hayden, obviously, I have numerous citations in the Roman Catholic Controversy from appropriate dogmatic sources from the

Roman Catholic Church in regards to the nature of the Mass, its status as a sacrament, as a means of grace, etc.,

etc., etc. And the Roman Catholic Controversy remains in print.

I appreciate Bethany House, which keeps its titles in print, allows them to have a good life in—well, obviously,

I write a lot of my books. I want them to be able to be used as resources, as textbooks and classes and things like that.

And that's what I want to do. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number if you would like to get involved with the program today.

And I don't know what—I may just—do you remember what the issue of the Commo Johannium was?

Just simply a question about the Commo Johannium. Interesting. I may just address that just for the fun of it, and maybe the caller will be able to catch that.

I'll watch to see if a call comes in here and just mention one other thing I did have in the DL folder really quickly.

Just a matter for prayer. I happened to notice a few weeks ago an article on the fact that there's a tremendous amount of persecution of believers being pointed out once again in Vietnam.

There had been improvement in Vietnam, but it seems over the past five or six years there has been a return to the old ways.

And as our POWs proved, for some reason people in Vietnam are really good at being really nasty when it comes to torture and things like that.

For example, on March 17th, Vam—I cannot even begin to pretend to pronounce

Vietnamese name—Ngaj Vaj, a Hmong elder and leader of a

Protestant church in Khu Jut district, Dak Nong province—I think this is where they got

Klingon, personally, as they just grabbed a few phrases—was savagely tortured and then beaten to death by police officials.

This is not an isolated incident, but commonplace Vaj's battered body showed extensive marks from electric shocks with cattle prods, which are often used to torture prisoners.

His torture and murder is an example of how police officials intimidate and terrorize Christian ethnic minorities in the central and northern highlands of Vietnam.

So we tend to think about South Korea, for example, but here you have a situation in Vietnam.

So we have many brothers and sisters. We will not know their names, but in many ways, my friends, they will be considerably closer to the throne than we are.

And certainly those of us who have an opportunity to have our names known, these folks, if anything, if the book of Revelation tells us anything, the martyrs are very precious in God's sight.

And so we need to pray for our brothers and sisters who are experiencing that kind of thing.

It's terrible, but Jesus told us it would happen, and there's unfortunately nothing new about it at all.

We have gotten some phone calls, and so let's talk to Madison.

Hi, Madison. Hey, how are you doing, Dr. White? Doing good. So I've been dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses a lot lately, and I was wondering what your take on their use of John 17, 26 is.

Specifically the, and I have made your name known to them, part of that passage.

You know, obviously they use that to say, well, we make the name of God known, and you don't, even though we have a

Germanized version of Yahweh and et cetera. Yeah, no kidding. Well, interestingly enough, when you look at the term ta 'anamah, the name, what is the name that is above all names?

What is the name in which Christians suffered? If the name was the

Tetragrammaton, first of all, these, his disciples were Jews. They already knew the name.

There would have been no need for the making known using

Noridzo there. Obviously there is something about what

Jesus has done that he has revealed the Father to the disciples in a way that they did not know before.

Since they already knew the Tetragrammaton, then it can't be the Tetragrammaton. There has to be something much more deep here.

And given that this text in John 17 begins with Jesus's statement that he was in the presence of the

Father, that he was glorious in the presence of the Father before the world was, that to know eternal life is to know the

Father and the Son, all of these things, it is that revelation that is hinted at first in John 118 that no one has seen

God at any time. The monogamist theos, the unique God, he has made him known, he has exegeted him. This is the name that has been revealed.

It's not the Tetragrammaton. It is the character that is revealed by the name. And that name then becomes the one that they suffer in in the

Book of Acts, is again not the Tetragrammaton. Now the reason Jehovah's Witnesses can think it is, is because the fact that they're reading a translation that has inappropriately inserted the

Tetragrammaton into the translation 237 times, but even then has not done so honestly, because they cite the

J documents in the insertion of the divine name into the New World Translation, but the J documents actually contain references to where that name

Jehovah is applied to Jesus, and they hide those references. So it's the people who have done these things back at the

Brooklyn headquarters will have a tremendous burden to bear someday before God when they are judged for what they have done and things like that.

But that's how I respond to John 17 26. And do you think it's fruitful when witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses to point out that they actually insert words into verses that change the meaning of the verse when it is not necessary to insert those words?

Yes, most definitely. If you can back it up, if you can demonstrate it and demonstrate a translation -wide bias, which can be done, but just be prepared to do it in more than one place.

I would point to Colossians 1 16, Titus 2 13, 2

Peter 1 1, obviously John 1 1, and they have their little spiel that they like to do with John 1 1.

So I try to avoid John 1 1. That's very wise. John 12, actually, which you brought up with the debate you did with Dr.

Brown and Anthony Buzzer and Joseph Good, I think his name is, that to me has been the most fruitful place to actually bring

Jehovah's Witnesses, because they have no answer for it, and they cannot answer for it. Yeah, that and I think, honestly, it's even easier to present the

Psalm 102, 25 -27, Hebrews 1 10 -12 parallel, to be perfectly honest with you. I mean,

Buzzer tries to get around both of them, but yeah, those two are the key texts that I've used for a long, long time with them, and I think you're exactly on the right track, and I have about four minutes to get to the last caller.

Thank you for your call, Madison. Thank you. Most welcome, and let's talk with Bigelow in Belfast.

Hello, Bigelow. Hello. Hello. You have a big voice all the way from Ireland.

Yes, I was going to ask you a question that's to do with a video

I've seen on homosexuality. One of the main figures here in Belfast has been tweeting it and saying that heterosexual people will find it very difficult to answer this question.

So basically what they do is they ask heterosexual people, if gay people choose to be gay, then they get the answer, yes, it's a choice.

So then they turn it around on the heterosexual person and say, when did you choose to be straight?

So what's the best way to approach that from a biblical point of view? Well, they're obviously not asking it from a biblical point of view, and if someone were to ask me that,

I would say, well, actually, there are those who choose in open rebellion to act upon desires that they have.

And then there are others, there's people who experience same -sex attraction, and then there are people who simply are confused about all sorts of different kinds of attractions and choose to act upon those attractions.

If someone were to ask me, when did I choose to become a heterosexual, I would say that the default, obviously, is given the very essence of nature itself.

The only way that my generation arrived is that the vast majority of the previous generation was heterosexual, okay?

So this is absolutely natural. So it's not a matter of choice.

But see, the problem with the underlying assumption of the question is it's assuming a naturalistic viewpoint of man to where we are simply mechanically driven and we are just the result of how we're wired.

And I would immediately challenge that and say, no, even if I were to have, and I do not, but even if I were to have same -sex desires, then it's still up to me to whether I'm going to act upon those desires or not act upon those desires.

In the same way, if I have a desire due to lust for a woman,

I made the choice to wait until marriage to act upon my sexual desires.

So clearly, there were all sorts of years before I was married that I had sexual desires.

I didn't choose to act upon them, because as a human being, that's what I can do. That's the important thing.

Okay, thank you very much. All right, thank you, Big Lo. Great to hear from you up there in Ireland. Hope to get back there again sometime in the not too distant future.

Thanks for all the phone calls today, given the fact that I have been talking all day long.

And so it's wonderful that you were able to help out. Good phone calls, good topics. I'll never remember all of them to put them on the blog, but I'll just say we had lots of good calls and that you can go from there.

All right, all right. Thanks for listening to the program today. Lord willing, be back on Tuesday, but definitely not

Thursday, because that's when we've got the debate up in Montana. We'll tell you more about that on Tuesday. See you later.

God bless. Thank you for joining us on this episode of The Dividing Line, brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602, or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A -O -M -I -N -dot -O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.