Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.
Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States. It's 1 -866 -854 -6763. And now with today's topic, here is James White.
And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White and it has been another interesting week on the program. Here on the program, well I don't know, we haven't been on for a whole week.
But here at the ministry and we sort of are a current event driven program at times. And I think a lot of folks like that. You sort of get the idea of what's going on in the ministry and sort of get to be on the inside, shall we say, of some of the discussions that are going on.
And that's the case this week as well. As many of you know, I think I mentioned last week that I was writing an open letter to Dave Hunt in response to his book. That was posted late Sunday evening. And the response has been absolutely amazing.
I mean the next morning I discovered that the DiscerningReader .com had pulled the article, formatted it as an e-mail, and it's not small. I mean the e-mail that they sent out to everyone on their mailing list was 144K, which while not a monster is not a short e-mail either.
And that particular e-mail got a whole lot of attention obviously. It started going everywhere. And very quickly I received a phone call, I believe on Tuesday morning, from the president of Loyal Publishing, which is the publishing firm that published Dave Hunt's book.
And those of you who have already logged on to our website probably are aware of this. You have seen the notification that we put on the open letter at the bottom, and we put a link at the very beginning as well so people wouldn't miss it, indicating that an agreement has been reached.
It's not perfectly finalized yet, but right now the plan is that Mr. Hunt and I are going to co-author a book, a debate book in which we each present seven topics. And the other person responds, and there is give and take.
There is interaction. There needs to be interaction. And that this book is to be written in a fairly short period of time as well, which wouldn't be difficult to do. I mean writing on seven topics only 3 ,000 words, presentations only 21 ,000 words.
And as some people are very fond of reminding me, I'm very verbose, and therefore that's pretty easy for me to do. But anyways, as it may, in the course of that I ended up speaking with Mr. Hunt for about half an hour about the book issue, not about theological issues or anything like that.
And then a couple days later I was informed that Mr. Hunt had written a response to my open letter. And I obtained that late in the week. And I will confess to there have been a number of things that I have encountered this week that have quite simply left me breathless.
I mean I very rarely am left without words to say. Those who know me know that's the case. I've been left simply breathless by some of the things that I have encountered in this past week. Not just about this subject, but about others.
And I'm going to be sharing one of those with you today. And before I respond to what Mr. Hunt said, I'm actually much more troubled. Really I've become accustomed to the fact that Mr. Hunt will not accept correction.
We've talked about this. Tom Del Nose has mentioned. In fact we'll be posting on, oh in fact people should know this. The Discerning Reader .com has obtained the URL of whatloveisthis .com. And I had nothing to do with that.
I just chuckled when they informed me. Look we have whatloveisthis .com. Would you like to post the responses that you are generating from the folks in your chat room and from other people at that site?
And I said sure. They have their own servers and therefore fine and dandy. That would be great. We're pretty well close to the max on our website already. So that would be fine. And so that's what's going on.
And we will be putting more responses. We have one up there right now that I confess I forgot to tell them who authored it. It is Colin Smith, the unique British fellow who doesn't really speak very British anymore.
But he's unique, very, very unique. We need to emphasize the uniqueness of Colin Smith. He's Silly Brit 1. Silly Brit 2 is in the other room. And anyways, he is the anonymous author. And he was feeling badly about that today.
And I felt bad that he was feeling badly. So we all need to recognize that the second article is currently on the website. If any of you are already jumping over to whatloveisthis .com who are listening live, that second article is by Colin Smith.
That will be fixed by Monday. So everyone else who is listening to this by archive is going, what are you talking about? The one by Colin Smith is the one we are talking about. But anyways, what was I saying?
Oh, yeah. Those articles are going to be posted on whatloveisthis .com. And I totally lost the connection of what I was saying before. But anyways, I started looking at Mr. Hunt's response. And we agreed on the phone that we would link to his response and he would link to my open letter.
So if you go over to thebreincall .org and look at his response, down at the bottom there will be a link to my open letter. And this is what's absolutely amazing to me because the response, at one point, let me see if I can find.
I didn't mark here. Listen to this. This is on, well, it's page three of six the way mine printed out. It doesn't mean it's going to print out the same way for you. James, do you consider it fair to engage in such a torrent of libelous accusations, notice that term, which are damaging to my character, reputation as a writer and Christian, and to do so without providing even one example?
It's like 90 of my entire letter disappeared. There must be a problem with Dave Hunt's computer because I provided all sorts of examples and every single thing he quotes about libelous accusations was smack dab in the middle of providing a documented rebuttal of a false statement by Dave Hunt.
For example, this response never mentions Acts 1348. He says I do not give a single example of his exegetical errors, doesn't mention Acts 1348, where in point of fact he ends up supporting the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now the fact that Mr. Hunt chose to ignore the entirety of my response in that way is not my problem. Anyone who reads the two is going to be able to sit back and go, how could Mr. Hunt say this? I mean, this has gotten to the point of not being just simply blinded by tradition.
This is dishonest. But it gets worse, and here's where I want to actually transition into something. On page 3 of my printout, let me just read you what Mr. Hunt says. Your most devastating charge, and I'm sure the one that has impressed the readers of your open letter the most, is my alleged grossly errant assertion concerning Spurgeon, an error which you say is the norm of my work.
Here is my statement to which you refer with such outrage. Spurgeon himself rejected limited atonement in unequivocal language. I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus.
If my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds, bound and measure our terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. Clearly, the some to whom Spurgeon refers are some Calvinists.
That's not the case, but anyways. The doctrine of limited atonement does indeed set bound and measure, which Spurgeon declared as inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. You then quote Spurgeon, where he teaches that this boundless atonement has been limited by God's choice, and accused me of being dishonest in stating that he rejected limited atonement.
In fact, the error is not mine, but something which is endemic to Calvinism, contradictory statements. In the quote I give, Spurgeon clearly rejects the thought of any limit to the merit of the blood of Jesus, but in the same breath, he also just as clearly denies the unlimited merit of Christ's blood is available to all mankind.
I am as much justified in quoting him on the one side as you are on the other, though you will deny any contradiction while I insist upon it by the very nature of Christ's sacrifice. Now folks, what do you say to something like that?
Let's reason this out. In the sections that Mr. Hunt removed from Spurgeon's quote, he specifically made corrections to Mr. Hunt's misapprehensions. For example, Mr. Hunt utilized ellipses to cut out this sentence.
Now why would someone delete that sentence? Just for space purposes? No, there's another reason. There is that phrase, if God had so willed it. Because you see, the sentence right after Mr. Hunt's stop quoting says,.
So what is Mr. Spurgeon arguing against? He's arguing against those who would say that limited atonement turns Christ's work into a finite work, and his death into something that has finite merit. That's what Spurgeon's arguing against anyways.
That is continued in what comes after this, if the quotation would have been continued. And as I read last week, he goes on to extol the virtue of the death of Christ to attack those who believe in what Mr. Hunt believes in, that is, universal atonement, and to conclude with the statement,.
So Mr. Spurgeon says that he believes in the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. Mr. Hunt says that in unequivocal language, Mr. Spurgeon denied the very doctrine that Mr. Spurgeon says he confesses.
That is the issue. The whole reason I raise this is because Mr. Hunt can look at any source, and he's proving this now in looking at my open letter, he can look at any source, ignore anything, anything that is opposed to his thesis, and turn around and accuse you of libeling him, if you point out his error.
This is the kind of utter and horrific use of sources that marks the entirety of this book that has recently been published. Now, to respond by saying, well, Spurgeon contradicted himself is simply absurd.
Why? Well, it's because Mr. Hunt does not have the right to redefine the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption. That seems to be the modus operandi that Dr. Geisser attempted to utilize when he, for example, asserted that he believes in unconditional election.
It's unconditional on God's part, it's conditional on man's part. That's not unconditional election. That's not how the term has been used for decades and centuries. And so you can't just simply decide to redefine it.
Calvinists have always affirmed the unlimited merit of the death of Christ. You will not find in my works any statement where I say, now, the resultant merit from the death of Christ is a finite value.
God could not, if he had wanted to, actually redeem the entire world because there's only so much merit in the death of Christ. Can you find that in Spurgeon or in Sproul or in Calvin or in Warfield or in Hodge or in any of the Westminster divines?
Can you find the statement that the death of Christ had only a limited amount of merit that necessitated a limited application because there just wasn't enough to go around? Of course not. So, quoting Spurgeon, where he affirms what all Calvinists believe on that, is not quoting Spurgeon denying limited atonement.
You see, Mr. Hunt is redefining limited atonement. Well, he's contradicting himself because he says it's infinite in merit but limited in intention and application. Mr. Hunt, that's the doctrine of particular redemption.
That's the doctrine. So, you cannot say Spurgeon denied it when that's the doctrine itself. Now, if you actually think that you can in some way, shape, or form, redefine the doctrine and then accuse us all of inconsistency, well, okay, fine.
But that is irrational, of course. And that doesn't carry any weight. So, let's listen to... let's think with Mr. Hunt for just a moment. I, like Spurgeon, say that the merit of Christ is unlimited. And I'd say Hodge and Warfield and Sproul and Piper, they'd all say the same thing.
Therefore, if to say that the merit of Christ is unlimited is to unequivocally deny limited atonement, if we use Mr. Hunt's thinking, that means all Calvinists deny limited atonement. No one actually believes in limited atonement.
Obviously, that's not the case. What we have here is a clear instance where Spurgeon said X and Dave Hunt says non-X. Mr. Hunt is wrong, but he will not admit an error at any point. At any point whatsoever.
And I would invite anyone to read the open letter. Read about Acts 13 .48. Read the section on John 6. Read the section where I deal with Greek grammar and things like that. See if Mr. Hunt made a mistake.
And see how he responds. He responds by attacking me. By engaging in ad hominem. That seems to be the primary means of responding to an exegetical demonstration of an error. It's just to attack the person instead of the issue.
It's truly amazing. But this is not as amazing as an email I got today. And to be honest with you, this bothers me a whole lot more. A whole lot more than what Mr. Hunt has done in his response. And I'm going to get to the rest of his response.
But this bothers me much more. I'm really wondering if I've lost it. Maybe I am just completely out of the loop. But I received an email today. And I'm not going to mention the person's name. I get the feeling.
In fact, when I first got it. What I did is I wrote back and I said, Do you mean this? Are you pulling my leg? I honestly had to make an inquiry. Because I could not believe that someone would write this to me.
This is from a person who starts off by saying that he's on one of the same lists that I'm on. And says, I believe in limited atonement. And therefore, he writes the following. If you will permit it, I would like to offer a critique on your understanding of Dave Hunt on limited atonement.
If I'm right in the way I'm reading the exchange, you will benefit from what I have to say. I also want to offer a critique in the way you are arguing. I send this letter as one who is on the same side as you.
I'm with you. Please take this as constructive criticism. I could critique Dave Hunt all day long. But for you, I see only a few areas to improve. First, I am sorry to say that Dave's open letter is more convincing than yours.
That is, he writes more convincingly and then in parentheses devilishly? I fear that an average Christian would pick Hunt's position over yours. When you do co-write a book with him, I hope you will adopt some more populist methods of arguing.
Dave does it this way. He picks a point and hammers it home over and over. As is the case with elitism. To remedy this one point, I would never mention Greek or Hebrew or seminary again. Education is beside the main point of the debate and all the Calvary Chapel people, quote, we can learn on our own, end quote, people, would dismiss you out of hand for that reason alone.
In fact, if you can muster the strength, I would retract your view of Greek and Hebrew and seminary, at least in some limited fashion. If you can write something to actually agree with Hunt on this point, you will win huge points.
First, you will take away his most powerful hammer. He hit you with it at least three times. And second, you will endear yourself to the Calvary Chapel folks. I would suggest that in the upcoming book, that every time he tries to smash you with the elitist argument, you should just agree with him, qualifying with the phrase, in the main, that is, Dave, I agree in the main.
Again, you can do this because the argument, the gospel, lies elsewhere. Perhaps in a different book, you can discuss academia and ministers. Personally, I think that pastors and elders should be the primary source of information for the average Christian, and not personal Bible study, a completely modern idea.
That is what Dave says leads to Roman Catholicism. I would say, yes, it does. But maybe, just maybe, the Roman Catholics were right about something, despite the fact that they abused it. Then he goes on to present an argument about Spurgeon, and in essence says that Hunt is right, which I won't go into right now because that's not the issue that really, really, really bothers me.
This email arrived this morning, and as I said, I responded to it, and I said, are you pulling my leg? And in response, he said, yes, I am serious. I am guessing by your initial response, you find it inconceivable.
I really do believe in limited atonement, and I also side with you. To which I said, yes, I find it inconceivable, utterly. I'm glad you side with me as far as the conclusion goes, but as to how you got there, evidently we took very different paths.
Then I began to respond to his email. I guess I should just tell you what I said, because what I'd like to ask you all to comment about is, have I missed something? I've gotten some nasty emails this week.
A guy named Mike Thayer, I don't know who he is, but a guy named Michael Thayer has just been dumping stuff on top of me. Of course, it's nothing but ad hominem. He hasn't dealt with a single issue that I've raised to him.
He even called me and I tried to talk to him. I ended up hanging up on him, but that kind of stuff I'm used to. You get that from Catholics, and you get that from a bunch of folks. There's just people that you just can't reason with.
They don't even attempt to make a logical or rational case. But here's somebody who says, hey, I'm on your side, but this is how you should argue. I'm really wondering, am I missing something? Am I out in the ozone someplace?
As I respond to this, tell me if I have totally missed the boat. We have a new phone number, remember? 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341. You can tell that we are a poor ministry because we have to use phone services that can't keep their phone numbers the same.
877 -753 -3341. Here's what I wrote. Here's the quote and then my response. He said, I am sorry to say that Dave's open letter is more convincing than yours. That is, he writes more convincingly, I fear that an average Christian would pick Hunt's position over yours.
To which I responded, a fascinating statement. I guess there is some level of truth to it. Illogical arguments based upon flawed reasoning peppered with ad hominems, but based firmly in soundbite phraseology, soaked in emotionalism seem to be the best way to convince all Americans of anything.
It's really irrelevant that we are talking about a religious subject here, a matter of divine and unchanging truth. It's just the way things are in Western culture today. So I confess that element of truth, holding to divine standards, being self-consciously consistent and honest, refusing sensationalism and emotionalism, all so as to honor God's truth is definitely not the most popular way of handling things today and will generally keep you in the minority.
That was my response. Am I wrong? My correspondent said, when you do co-write a book with him, I hope you will adopt some more populist methods of arguing. To which I responded, yes, well, that's the rub, isn't it?
See, I'm a Christian. I am commanded to follow a godly example. In fact, Paul said to imitate him. Pragmatism did not seem to be his means of argumentation, otherwise he never would have even written Galatians, let alone use the language he did.
So while populist methods of arguing may get me more surface-level kudos from surface-level thinkers, they will not honor God, nor result in the edification of the saints. Hence, I will have to kindly decline your suggestion.
Back to my correspondent. Dave does it this way. He picks a point and hammers it home over and over, as is the case with elitism. To which I responded, yes, however this seems quite parallel to the situation in our nation today.
Liberals pick a point and hammer it home too, and they are successful at it. Problem is, their issue is normally a matter of untruth. Christians are not allowed to hammer home untruths, even if they think they can do so to further the cause of, quote, truth, end quote.
Back to my correspondent. To remedy this one point, I would never mention Greek or Hebrew or seminary again. Education is beside the main point of debate, and all the Calvary Chapel people, quote, we can learn on our own, end quote, people, would dismiss you out of hand for that reason alone.
To which I responded, I see. A fascinating suggestion. We help the Calvary Chapel folks out of their ignorance by promoting ignorance. Also, your email highlights something very important. I write and minister for God's elect, 2 Timothy 2 .10.
I seek to edify the saints. Hence, I can trust God's spirit to guide his people. As a result, I do not have to worry about using pragmatic worldly forms of argumentation so as to, in essence, fool people into believing the truth.
I can argue and teach like the apostles did, which is a wonderful thing. So, you seem to think that I am trying to win an entire group of folks that I am not even considering as part of my audience. I cannot help the person who is unwilling to hear the word of God and allow it to speak.
Mr. Hunt has given out utter falsehoods regarding the original tongues. Any servant of God is bound by conscience and duty to refute those cavils. If he wins by so doing, so be it. I do not serve men but God.
I go back to my correspondent. And then we'll have to take a break. If you have some thoughts, I really want to know. Have I lost it? Is this guy making sense? Is this representative of what's out there?
877 -753 -3341. I'd really like to find out. If you really think I've lost it, that I'm on another planet, you just, and there's a lot of folks who like to confess that, you just give us a ring. Back to my correspondent.
In fact, if you can muster the strength, I would retract your view of Greek and Hebrew in seminary, at least in some limited fashion. If you can write something to actually agree with Hunt on this point, you will win huge points.
To which I responded, with whom, sir? Why would you assume I am concerned about people who show no fidelity to God's word over my concern for pleasing God and accurately handling the word of truth? This is why I wrote to you and asked if you were pulling my leg.
The worldview behind these suggestions is utterly and completely foreign to me outside of the fact that it is the very mindset of the world. But you claim to be a Christian. That is why I could not believe these thoughts came from one who claims to follow Christ, let alone one who likewise claims to be Reformed.
He said, First, you will take away his most powerful hammer. He hit you with it at least three times. And second, you will endear yourself to the Calvary Chapel folks. And I had a very short response to that.
Choices, choices. Endear myself to CC folks or honor my God. And I sort of left it at that. He said, I would suggest in the upcoming book that every time he tries to smash you with the elitist argument, you should just agree with him, qualifying the phrase with the phrase in the main.
That is, Dave, I agree in the main. To which I responded, and the fact that I do not agree, find his statement to be utterly absurd and fallacious and dishonoring to any form of logical thinking should be suppressed so as to win the favor of a group of people.
He said again, you can do this because the argument, the gospel lies elsewhere. To which I responded, so we adorn the gospel by ignoring the truth and using false forms of argumentation. In fact, we can lie as long as we get the gospel right eventually.
A fascinating proposal. He said perhaps in a different book you can discuss academia and ministers. To which I responded, I haven't discussed academia and ministers. I have discussed Mr. Hunt's false assertions concerning the original languages of the Bible.
Any logically thinking person can see that and I cannot help the person who cannot see it, nor am I concerned to do so. Well, it's time to take a break. I'm almost done with this section of the letter.
What do you think? Have I missed it? 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back.
The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the Church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.
Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute, James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.
Dr. J. Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading.
There is solid meat throughout, an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words. The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at AOMN .org.
More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.
And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.
Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture. The papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.
James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at AOMN .org.
This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.
The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.
Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE.
If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.
Okay, I think I understand what's going on now. I don't see any blinking lights over there. And maybe that's because the topic line in the channel says, JRW reviews DH's reply in other email and he ain't happy.
And so since I'm not happy, no one wants to call in. I can understand why someone who agrees with my correspondent might well not want to call in and say, you know what, I think he's right. I think you should engage in this kind of argumentation.
You know, win the day. Because you can probably tell how I'm going to respond to that. But I'm serious when I say there's another issue that's come up recently that I've been shocked at how many people actually either took the view or were sympathetic to it.
And so I'm starting to wonder, man, am I on another planet? Am I just completely out of touch living in this little office and writing books and doing the stuff that I do? Have I missed an entire revolution in thought?
I just do not, do not know. Well, anyways, that was the email. And it truly causes me to, I obviously didn't agree with my correspondent. In fact, the concluding paragraph that I wrote to the email said, I have thought often this morning that your email placed in words the same kind of temptation to me that Peter's words to the Lord in Matthew 16 represented.
When the Lord informed the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to die and rise again, Peter took him aside and rebuked him. Jesus' reply was, get behind me, Satan. You are not minding the things of God, but of man.
Your pragmatic suggestions partake of the same nature. To heed them would be to deny the faith itself. I pray that God will give me the strength and fortitude to resist the temptation you have suggested for the entirety of my life.
I pray you too will abandon such attitudes and recognize that you must seek to honor God first and foremost, not man. This whole issue strikes at some fundamental decisions that I have made in the course of my ministry.
And I think they are reflected in the perspective that is taken by the elders of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church as well. In the years that I've been at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, there have been many times when we have been faced with issues that took us back to the very basics of what we believe about the purpose of the church and the purpose of Christian ministry.
We know how we could fill the pews of PRBC. We're a small church. People are often shocked. We have, I believe, currently 41 members. Now, there's going to be more people than that there, but 41 official members on the roll.
We're not like most Baptist churches where you have to die three times and provide proof of death to get off the membership rolls. And we know how we could fill those pews. We know what adjustments we could make to worship.
We know what adjustments we could make to the kind of preaching, the length of preaching, the focus of preaching. We know what we could do. But we refuse to do it because there is a fundamental commitment to the nature of the gospel and the purpose of the church.
And I hope and pray that in this ministry, I hope and pray that in the work of Alpha Omega Ministries and as I write books and as I do debates and as we do this webcast, that I remain consistent in that issue as well.
And that is, I do not understand how any person, and those of you who know me know that I have often expressed amazement at this when dealing with Catholic apologists or Mormon apologists or people in various venues.
I cannot understand the mindset of a person who will utilize argumentation that is inherently self-contradictory, illogical, irrational, will utilize sources in a way that's unfair. I have this strange idea that if you're going to speak the truth, then you need to be consistent in the argumentation that you're using.
That when you point your finger at somebody else and say, you're not being consistent, you need to look down and recognize there's three fingers pointing back at you. And that you cannot honor God and honor his truth by utilizing sensationalism and emotionalism, no matter how many quote-unquote converts it gets you.
And I'd like to add to that, that I don't think it gets you real converts. If you argue somebody into your position using emotionalism, then somebody else can come along and argue them out of that position using the same emotionalism.
Is that how little we trust the Holy Spirit of God to work in his own people? Does the Holy Spirit of God, does he bring the truth alive in the hearts of his people, yes or no? If it's yes, why should I agree with anything that my correspondent suggested?
I don't understand that mindset. I cannot conceive of that. God's truth is not honored by that kind of activity. We have to hold ourselves to the highest standard. That's why I have alienated lots of folks who would have otherwise probably promoted me and had me speak in their big churches and things like that, because I publicly criticized the Godmakers books, which Dave Hunt was involved with, because they engaged in unfair argumentation against the Mormons.
Now there's many people who say, well, who cares? As long as it results in people coming out of Mormonism. Well, if you leave a religious group for all the wrong reasons, do you really know the truth?
And aren't those the very people who end up getting sucked back into those religious groups because they left for the wrong reasons in the first place? When did Christians get the right to adopt the if it works, use it methodology?
There's lots of things that quote unquote work. Well, anyways, that's a 12 minute sermon. Look at that. Didn't even realize that. I just I don't understand it. Maybe I'm a dinosaur. Maybe I am a throwback to a time that is long past.
Or maybe just possibly what we're dealing with here is the need to be faithful to God's truth, even in the context of a church that has lost its direction in Western society. And I refer only to the external church at this point, to evangelicalism as a whole, that is taking on the very mindset of the world around it, a world that is under the very punishment of God, the very judgment of God.
And as we live in a more and more post-Christian society, we will be more and more faced with one decision. Do we remain faithful to the truths of the gospel or do we allow those truths to be compromised for the sake of quote unquote success?
What is success anyways? Who measures it? I would like to believe that the only true measure of success, when you're lying upon your deathbed and looking back over your life, was your fidelity to God's truth, which demonstrates how much you truly loved it and him.
That's not the world standard. But we are not to fear the face of men. We are to fear the God who has entrusted his gospel into our hands. And so that's why I responded so strongly and that's why I said I pray that God will give me the strength to resist the temptation that is part and parcel of the suggestion that was sent to me in email today for the rest of my life.
Because the day that I give in to it is the day we need to shut down this ministry and say it was all for naught. Go do something worthwhile. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. We have a single blinking red light over there.
So let's go ahead and talk to Cedric over in Bellflower. Is that Bellflower? Bellflower, California. Whoever is typing over there has Bellflower. I hear you.
How are you doing today, brother? Doing just fine. Just wanted to say I have some Armenian friends, probably you do as well.
I'm getting rid of most of them these days, actually.
He tells me all the time I'm too serious about it. The reason you have one blinking light is the same reason my pastor out here on his radio show normally has one blinking light. Because the truth just offends, no matter how lovingly, no matter how much you care for the other person.
To explain to him the N .I .C .L .A .W. I was trying to give him your website and tell him to listen to it. It's called the Complete Biblical Library. It has every Greek word in the New Testament. I was showing him my books.
Look at this. If you see here, you can look at whether it's subjunctive or what preposition it is or what have you. He wouldn't even acknowledge that. He said the Greek does not help you understand it better.
My question to him was, then how do you close the gaps? Well, the Holy Spirit will give it to you. I said, but he's given it to us. It's right here in front of us. Use it.
Oh, we don't have to use that. That's just too much. Yeah, and you know, it's fascinating. In those very same churches, if you bring someone in to deal with cults and things like that, there's no problem when someone stands up there and says the Jehovah's Witnesses have mistranslated John 1 .1 or something like that.
But when it comes to an issue like this, where the information that we found in the biblical text is contradictory to the tradition that they hold to, then all of a sudden, well, you know, you're just bringing in too much extraneous stuff if you'll just let the Spirit guide and lead.
And that, of course, demonstrates, as we recognize, a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of what Scripture is in the first place. It is Theanoustos, and that noustos comes from pneuma. I mean, that is God breathed.
I mean, to try to set up an opposition between that, which is Theanoustos, and the pneuma, the pneuma hagion, the Holy Spirit, is, of course, to rip asunder something that cannot be separated. So it is really indicative of the challenge that we face today.
But again, Cedric, there's part of the, you know, you can tell I'm frustrated by this email that I got today, but there's part of what can help us to get over that frustration, and that is I don't have to change someone's heart and mind.
Yeah, absolutely. I can leave that to the Spirit of God to do, but I'm going to express to them, look, you are, in reality, undercutting the very foundations upon which, for example, the Protestant Reformation was based, and upon which all of our knowledge of systematic theology is based.
You're borrowing from what we have done, but you refuse to acknowledge that.
And it comes down in the fact that most people have no idea who Kittle is. They don't know who Colin Brown is. They have no idea of any of the great reference works to the Greek and even to the Hebrew, so we can't really do any good exegesis.
Everything is based on opinion, and everything is based on our modern-day culture. When you remove yourself from 2 ,000 years of history, you're going to always fall into some type of lapse or egotism, because you think, well, this is how I do it, so this is the way they must have done it.
Right, and the Roman Catholic, then, uses that as an example of why you shouldn't have the Sola Scriptura as if that somehow is Sola Scriptura. The person who says what you said, hey, I don't want to look at that.
That person is denying Sola Scriptura.
Absolutely, and without even knowing it. And then that person may not even know what Sola Scriptura is. That's the problem. They don't understand what only Scripture is. They don't even know that term exists.
Someone was telling me through information, and they said, well, when we had the conversation, you never mentioned TULIP. You never mentioned the Sola. I said, then, what were we talking about? Yeah, yeah.
Why would I mention the Prodigy Reformation without mentioning these things? It's like talking about Calvinism and never talking about TULIP. I mean, I use the specific words, but the idea is the same, and that's the problem as well.
Because in Hunt's letter and in his books, he's saying, well, those words aren't there. Those specific words aren't there. And because people don't understand that ideas carry weight. We're so ignorant, we don't have our, if that specific word is not there, our vocabulary doesn't let us use other words that are synonyms or that work just as well.
And so we're stuck in this bonded thinking we have to keep saving ourselves. And that's the problem with Arminianism, is that your whole doctrine of justification and redemption and reconciliation, it's all confused, and you don't understand what God did, how he completed it, and it's finished, and you can be completely satisfied in him.
Which results in two very common problems in Evangelicalism, which has often been described as 3 ,000 miles wide and half an inch thick. And that is Evangelicalism as a whole breeds individuals who are susceptible to cultic persuasion, and the cults take advantage of that.
And furthermore, there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with the worship found in Evangelicalism, because it's so shallow. Well, there's a reason for that. Christ said that the Father seeks those to worship him.
How? In spirit and in truth. We have no idea what truth is. And when the truth isn't there, this quote-unquote spirit ends up being replaced by emotions, and you may get all jazzed Sunday morning, but it doesn't impact how you treat your wife on Tuesday night.
Absolutely. And that's what it boils down to. I'm taking a class now, a hermeneutics class, and people ask me all the time, why are you taking that class? And they're Christians. And I'm going, well, because I want to know what God has said, and that's the issue.
Do you want to know? Have you heard from God? If he saved your soul, if you're truly saved, then all you want to know is what thus says the Lord. That's right. Because anything else is irrelevant. Because anything else is irrelevant.
But because we don't have any understanding, really, of what salvation is, we don't know what God has said.
Well, and we can hardly give him proper thanks when we do not show enough respect for the gospel. Paul said to Timothy to rightly handle the word of truth. I mean, we say, oh, well, that's something for pastors to do.
No, I think that's something for everybody to do. Certainly the pastors can be held, the elders can be held to a higher standard, but the idea that, well, we should just sit around and whatever somebody else tells us to do, that's a great way of becoming a Mormon.
Because in the end, when my pastor or when you stand up on Sunday morning or whatever Bible study, the issue is, did he properly exegete the text? If he did, then God was speaking. God was speaking. If he did not, then he lied on God.
That's right.
See, that's where the power and authority of preaching has been lost. And that's one of the reasons, you know, and again, old-fashioned throwback here, and I've mentioned this in the program before, but the first time I preached at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, I was really, I could tell, one of the first things that attracted me to that fellowship when I first visited in 1989 was the seriousness with which the people took the proclamation of the word, the respect that was shown to the proclamation of the word.
And so when I first preached, I was quite nervous. And as we walked, it's a very small building, but as we were walking into where the elders come in, Pastor Don Fry said to me, right as we're about to open the door and walk in, he says, Play the man, Mr. White.
And of course, I'm not sure how many people recognize what that's from, but that's what Ridley said to Latimer, or was it Latimer to Ridley? That's what one of the two martyrs said to the other martyr right before they were burned at the stake in London, which I wasn't exactly sure exactly what he meant there, but I interpret it to mean, you know, do your best, put forth your best effort, because when you do so, when you actually represent God's word, then God is speaking to his people in that context.
And the diminishment of respect for the preaching of the word, which is seen in so many seeker-sensitive churches where the preaching of the word has become a sermonette delivered by a person wearing a golf shirt who just wants to be down amongst the people so that there is no authoritative proclamation.
I'm just like anybody else. It's no wonder, then, that we don't see the grandeur of the fact that God does meet with us, but he's not meeting with us in the sense of we get all riled up by our quote-unquote worship.
The worship is hearing God's word. But of course, you and I are preaching to the choir at this particular point, I do believe.
You know, I wanted to just commend you for doing what you're doing, because even with the Bryson thing, people were telling me, they're going to be debating, they're going to be debating. I said, I really don't want to go.
I mean, I know the information. I have like two or three books. I said, but, you know, my man friend, but if you want to go, we can go together. And what he said to me, he went. It ended up being my son's birthday, so I didn't go.
But he went, and what he said to me was this, and I found it very amazing. He said, well, Bryson had better points, but James was the better speaker. And I said, well, what do you mean by that? And he said, well, he just didn't do what he should have done.
I said, well, what happened? Well, he did say a lot of things that I really couldn't answer. And I said, what are you holding to? If you couldn't answer the questions and you haven't done the work yourself, and that's what bothers me the most.
You know, I'm a firm believer in church and organized church, going to church, listening to the Bible study, doing it. I'm a firm believer in those things, reading. But if you don't do the work, if it doesn't translate to you going home and doing it yourself, it means nothing.
And I said, you know, I got the information here. You can come to my house. We can look at it together. Oh, no, I already know what it means. But you've never done the work. And I think that's what bothers me.
Because you could hear, you know, like I was talking to Luke once. I said, look what Luke is saying here. He's saying he's giving you the information so you will know. The only way for you to know is because you've studied this and you've done the work.
Outside of that, it's all blind, man. But it fits because he has this philosophy where he thinks that man must be free.
I could start a whole discussion on the need for those people who utilize philosophical distinctions to determine their exegesis of Scripture, too, because that's a whole conversation I've been having this week with somebody else.
But I don't know if that's going to happen. Cedric, thank you very much for your call today. I appreciate the insights. And so what you're saying is I haven't lost it. I'm okay? Oh, no, you've got it, please.
Great is your reward.
Just when they take us to the stake. So you're going with me? I'm going. I told my wife, I said, the proudest day of my life will be if I can see my boys go first and them say, Repent, because the kingdom of God is at hand.
All right, Cedric. Thanks for calling today, man.
God bless. Bye-bye. 877 -753 -3341. Let's go to Eddie from the Swamp. Eddie from the Swamp, are you there? Yes, I am. How are you doing, bro? Hey, I'm doing fine. Have I lost it? In what context? Well, in any context.
Well, you know, we all know that you did a long time ago. So from your perspective, have I joined you on the other side? I'm still looking.
No, actually, you know, this whole topic has got me. Yes. So I know what it's like to be on the other side of the fence. And you know how it happened. It didn't happen from a book or the word.
It didn't happen from what suit color the guy was wearing or all the flashy stuff and all the rest of that stuff. In fact, whoever it was didn't mind actually stepping on your theological toes, did he?
No, not at all. And in fact, I whittled down to ten because of it. They all took off. And my view is the same thing. Our church is about somewhere in a newsletter, someone said that when you preach. And boy, that stuck in my head, because, you know, sometimes I preach.
You're from the channel. No. Well, yeah. But the thing is, is that, you know, that's fine and God can use that. But I've got to watch out that I don't make me the center of attention. Oh, I know, I know, I know.
And it's difficult when you're good at speaking and you know you can do it. And I told my pastor, I said, man, just what you just said a minute ago, I told him, I said, we could pack this place out. If we just compromise a little bit, we'd pack this place.
We'd have people hanging on the ceiling. But let me tell you, it's three basic things. This is something I thought about the other day, reading your open letter. It's ignorance, tradition, and laziness.
Those are the three things in my mind. Ignorance of church history, ignorance of the scripture in its full context. Brother, you know, many people have never read full epistles from point A to point Z.
They've never been Christians 20 years. They've never read Ephesians all the way through. Sitting down to read it all the way through, just to read it. I know, because I ask people periodically, just around, and you know, they don't.
People don't do it. So much topical preaching, and you wrap that up in this bombardment of post-modernism in our society, and then you lay that down on a bed of prominent Arminianism. And no wonder these things are offensive to people, because they've really never heard the truth.
They have no foundation. They have no foundation. So all of a sudden, someone comes along and shows them passages that short-circuit their theology, they don't know what to do with it. So all they have left is cliches, like agree to disagree, don't judge me, can't we get along, aren't we supposed to be all one in the spirit, blah, blah, blah.
But they never bother to notice Dave's response. He didn't deal with any textual issues. Not a single one.
Not a single one. And beyond those responses you just gave, what I'm discovering is the more common one is, you are mean for raising these issues in my mind and for making me uncomfortable. Now, they don't say, for making me uncomfortable.
But they most definitely add that aspect into it. How dare you disturb the peace of Christ, for example, by raising these issues. And the fact that not once have I gotten someone who's come back and said, you know what, what you said about, for example, the periphrastic construction with Didymi at John 6 .65 is incorrect and here's why.
I don't hear that. Instead I get, you're a mean, terrible, horrible man and you're attacking men of God. I don't get any biblically, here's the response to what you're saying type stuff. And that's what is causing me to sit here and go, have I missed the boat?
What's going on?
Well, let me give you an argument here, brother, because when I was reading your response, and you mentioned it right in the beginning, you had a hard time because you had to rewrite it, right? Oh, yeah.
Take out a few of the attacks. I did, I did. And I believe, but let me tell you this. Every time I've seen you handle these issues, which you do because you just controversy, justification, you know, I mean, I know your wife was in the channel one night and we were joking like, well, who else have you left to correct, you know?
But you know, that's the gift God's given you. And that's what your service to the body is, is to help people focus on the truth. And you always do it from the text. I don't see James.
I see you bringing the text. You follow me? Well, that's, I've got to keep doing that. I just have to do that. And here's the thing.
Here's the thing. We are obligated. We as ministers, we as preachers, as teachers, as just Christians in the body of Christ, we're obligated to speak the truth in love and fear and trembling and bringing graciousness.
And brother, I'm going to tell you, I read through that and I said, man, he's being gracious to this man. Because to be honest with you, I said to myself, if Hunt wasn't as popular as he was, the type of arguments he uses, you would wonder why it was even published, to be honest.
No one else would even publish this because it wasn't him. That's how sad it was. And I didn't know Geisler before Geisler's book came out. It's a whole different story. But this is just, it's so adolescent would be a good word.
Well, I'm sure, actually. I think Dave would take that as a compliment given that he's almost 76 years old. Well, right.
But anyway, I'm going to hang up because otherwise I'm going to get fired up again. But let me tell you, I think you've accomplished. My encouragement to you is I think you've accomplished speaking the truth in love.
Well, thank you very much and thanks for taking time to call today. Okay. All right. God bless. Bye-bye. 877 -753 -3341. Hey, Rich, I just figured out why there are no connections left. And that's because, and I'm going to change the order here, that's because I just remembered something.
I've just been informed that Rob from the Discerning Reader is on the phone. And I think I saw something in one of Rob's e-mails that said that he was going to mention something about the webcast on either an e-mail or on the website or on their website.
And the result of that would explain why everybody in the chat channel is going, I can't get a connection. That's because they're all used up. And that's a good, good thing. And, Rob, are you there? I'm hearing somebody in the background who is listening to the webcast instead of listening to the phone.
So who's online? Is this, let me see. I've completely lost everybody who's here. Is that Matt? Matt or Rob? One of the two. It's Rob. Rob, there you are. Rob, can you hear me? I can hear you. There you are.
How are you doing, Rob? There's a delay here. Yes, unfortunately there is a delay between the webcast and everything else.
Hey, I just wanted to call and give you a word of encouragement. Well, I appreciate that. And just for your information, I graduated from a Reformed Baptist seminary context in 1990 and went to work for Chuck Smith in Calvary Chapel.
Okay. And I actually wound up for two years running one of their small ministry schools and taught, you know, the Book of Romans and apologetics. The inspiration that you have, personality, that goes on in those circles.
We people who are irritated that someone is attacking Dave Hunt, they're not concerned with the issues. They're not concerned with the substance of the arguments. You know, they're simply concerned about the fact that they admire our being criticized.
And they've never been able to get people. Chuck Smith had a big purging of Calvinists, as you probably know, in Calvary Chapel in the early 90s. I was one of them. And there was never, they actually, in my case, they hit me before I was a millennial.
And that was the thing that they used to get rid of me because nobody was trying to be scriptural. Kind of like Lloyd-Jones, just teach the Bible and not focus on the names that get...
You may have known one of the elders who is now at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Merrick, who also was involved in the Calvary Chapel movement, Rich Goswiller.
Oh, yeah. I met and talked with Rich right after he was, shall we say, dismissed. And, you know, we sympathized a lot. I do want to say one other thing. I know you've got other callers pushing this issue heavily.
Really? You know, we've been running our newsletters, the Christian Counterculture Newsletter and the Discerning Reader Newsletter for a couple of years, and we've never touched them. And we finally decided that we were going to focus on the doctrines of grace this month.
Part of it was because we knew Hunt's book was coming out. We have gotten more to be unsubscribed than any time in our history. At the same time that... So, you know, I hope that speaks to you. It really is a ground there.
It's unbelievable theology. That's what's selling. People are... I really think that they're going to gather around and support Hunt. They're not going to listen to the issues. I think you're going to find a lot of people that Hunt's book is going to backfire on.
Yeah. Because they're going to... maybe a small group, but a small and very dedicated group that just really want to seek the truth, whatever it's called.
Right. Well, I certainly do believe that. I've seen God do tremendous things, and I cannot believe that the publication of Chosen But Free led to all the things it's led to. Of course, The Potter's Freedom.
I've had so many people come up to me in various venues. And I don't do a lot of traveling. I'm not a big traveler, not a big networker. I'm not out there, quote-unquote, on the circuit a whole lot. But when I do get to travel, I've had many people comment on just how much that book meant to them, and the form that it took.
It's one thing to just write another book on Calvinism, quote-unquote. But the fact that we responded to someone of the stature of Norm Geisel. When I first saw Chosen But Free, like I said, in the open letter to Dave Hunt, I was concerned about the confusion that it would cause.
And that was, I think, a valid concern. But now, in hindsight, I can see there's a whole lot more to it than I could see at that time. And God's purpose and God's providence, he's going to accomplish what he chooses to accomplish.
So it is very encouraging to hear from you. I still am absolutely amazed at whatloveisthis .com. We haven't really finished it yet. Oh, believe me, I have. Well, first of all, right now, the anonymous author, he's in channel.
And that's why, at the beginning, I was talking about CDS Colin Smith. Because he's feeling, you know, he's British, see? And British people, you know, the stiff upper lip stuff is really just something they use to keep each other happy.
Because they're very easily offended, see? And so we need to help Colin out. If you'd like, you could just put Colin Smith, Prencies, a .k .a. Silly Brit. Prencies closed. And that will work just as well, because we're very used to calling him Silly Brit.
So actually, someday you'll have to meet him. He's a wonderful fellow. But actually, I think I can do the British accent a little bit. He can, actually. But anyways, I'm watching what's going on in the channel right here.
But we thank you for your help. And I guess I should earn some brownie points here by also pointing out, because I don't think you're in channel. I don't think you've ever visited our chat channel. But in channel right now is a fellow by the name of Skyman, who is also known as David King.
And he and Bill Webster have written a three-volume set that I don't know if you've seen yet, entitled Holy Scripture. It's 1 ,150-page defense of Sola Scriptura. Really good stuff. Wow. And I really think you folks would like to carry it.
Yeah.
That's another big issue, but that's for another day.
Well, believe me, I've offended those folks, too. Well, you know, what can you say? Thank you very much, Rob, for your partnering with us in ministry and for your call today. Well, we're standing with you.
All right. God bless. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. 877 -753 -3341. You may wonder what happened at the top of the hour break. We dumped it, because we have callers. And that's what we do when we get callers. And I very much appreciate Rob's call.
Is Matt still online? Matt, are you there? Hello, Matt. Hello. Hey, Matt, how are you doing? I'm doing well. How are you? Hold on just a second, Matt. That means we have lines open, as they say, at 877 -753 -3341.
Those of you who are in the chat channel and are laughing about all the other people who have called in, now is your chance to do so and see if you can do any better, actually. So, anyways, Matt, from the wild hills of North Carolina, where they have stills out in the hills and stuff like that.
How are you doing, sir? I don't know why I pick on you, but, you know, you never wore overalls and a straw hat when I saw you. No. But it's just something that I automatically see in my mind. I don't know why it is.
Well, I look somewhat sophisticated.
Do you look sophisticated now? Do I now? Actually, I just got done playing golf, so I look somewhat sophisticated still.
Oh, golf. You don't want to invite me to do that. Even though I'm a Baptist, I cannot play golf.
But listen. Listen to me about golf. Golf is a sport ordained by God. Why? Because it teaches one humility, because once you've hit a good shot, there are about ten bad shots you're going to hit.
Oh, I know. I played it once, and after, like, 14 holes, I was at about 140 shots, and I just gave up. Yep. Yep.
Anyways. Just wanted to call and say, keep it up. I've never told you this. When the silly Brit and I were going to church together back a few years ago, still go to church together now, but we're in a different type of denomination.
Right. We were in and of ourselves. This was my senior year in high school. It's been three years ago now. You're such a baby. I feel so old. Well, anyway, he got me into reading you, and I came to Reformation because of some of your books.
It wasn't what you did. It wasn't what you wrote. You could spend hours talking to me on the sovereignty of God and trying to explain the bondage of my will. If it was by grace that God revealed these things to me, I'd still be Armenian, and in that sense, I would still be that way.
Paul himself said that we are not to preach the gospel with wisdom of words, but we are to depend upon the Spirit of God and the demonstration of power. I don't think the demonstration of power is what a lot of people think of today as in miracles and stuff like that.
I think when the Spirit of God ministers to us and makes the Word of God come alive and convicts us that this helpless sinner is me, that ego that I have been holding to where I thought I was the one in control of God when, in point of fact, I was totally dependent upon Him, when that ego is destroyed, that's a powerful miracle of God.
I honestly think, and that's why I was so disturbed by this email that was sent to me, if we were to adopt that kind of perspective, if I was going to take this more popularist approach of argumentation, that is the very thing that gets in the way of the Spirit of God truly making these truths come alive in people's hearts.
Well, brother, I'm not well-versed on Reformation theology, but I do know that Martin Luther did not take the popular approach.
No, he about got himself killed, actually.
And you see where we are now. You're sitting in your chair that you're sitting in now, I presume, because providentially Martin Luther did what he did. And I have a wise father who has told me, because I have a lot of zeal for getting people to understand what it is to have a sovereign God, and a sovereign God to, as you've said plenty of times before, raise dead men to life.
You have said before, I've heard you say, I'm a dead man. What can I do? But I wish I could get people to realize that. And you are doing what you're called to do. Dave Hunt, hey, you know what? Keep on doing what you're doing with him.
It's not your problem that he is choosing to be ignorant. It's not your fault. I read your letter. I know I read Colin's letter. Good stuff. But if Dave Hunt never ever listens to you, you've not done anything.
When you wrote God's Sovereign Grace, what's it been, 15 to 20 years ago, you didn't know that 17 years later that I'd be reading it.
No, you never do know where those things are going to go. And you never know who's going to be blessed by it. I'm always amazed at where those books end up going and the people that end up being ministered to by them.
It's very true, and it's just been a very unusual experience to have people saying you need to adopt this kind of argumentation. And I don't think anybody needs to worry that I'm going to, but I did honestly start wondering how many people would hear what that correspondent was saying and would say, yeah, maybe there's a way to do that.
And I obviously can tell by the responses on the phones today that that's not how it's to be done. And I know that that's exactly what my fellow elders at the church would tell me and so on and so forth.
But I'll tell you, you get out there in this forum, and this is one of the reasons that everyone who is involved in apologetics I think absolutely positively must be involved in a solid church where people can gather around you and can keep you centered and can keep you focused on what's really important.
Because without that, I can understand why so many people who get involved in this field end up off in the kookiest positions and with all sorts of lack of balance in their presentation. I'm starting to understand more and more why that is.
But anyways, I really appreciate your testimony, Matt, and appreciate the fact that even though we sort of tweak you once in a while, you keep reminding me that I need Jesus. Well, we all. Don't we all.
But listen to me before I go. I've heard some discouragement in your voice. Don't be, because I'm bearing testimony to how God's used you in my life. I know Pelagians, brother, involved in Pelagian churches who are thinking now because of the potter's freedom.
Okay? So keep it up. It does not matter, brother. My call was not to harass you like it's been before or anything like that. It was to encourage you because the work that God's doing through you, rather, is amazing.
Well, thank you very much, Matt. And that means more to me than you can ever know. Thank you very much for calling in.
All right. God bless. And when you're back here, look forward to seeing you. Okay. All right. Take it easy. Thank you.
All righty. Well, that's very, very encouraging indeed. And, in fact, I should acknowledge the fact that I've even gotten some e-mails during the course of the program. Just got another one. Very encouraging.
Not in the chat channel, but someone listening. That's why all the connections are used this week. Some people may be wondering, well, you've mentioned twice now some people can't get on. We have a limited number of connections.
And the reason we have a limited number of connections is because we have limited funds with which to put this webcast out. And some folks in the channel were joking about putting their connection up on eBay so that other people could bid on their particular connections so they could listen in.
We have far more people who listen to the archives than can listen to the live program itself. And so, obviously, we would love to be able to have more connections available, but each step you go up is just very, very expensive.
And you folks who listen regularly know we don't talk about money. We talked about it a little bit a while back because we were getting desperately short and many people stepped up. We're a very small ministry.
There's only two of us. We sort of live on a shoestring. And if there are folks out there who have funding and you say, you know what, this should be available to anybody who wants to listen to it, well, give us a call and tell us that because we'd like to be able to make it available to more people.
We do process the program very, very quickly and get it up on the web so that more people can listen to it. I don't know. Do we have a limited number of? Well, it goes to straightgate .com, doesn't it?
So at that point, once we put the archive up at Straightgate and we thank Stephen Luker for his continued support in that way of making these programs available at straightgate .com, a tremendous website, then pretty much anybody can listen.
But anyways, that's the reason if you're wondering, well, why can't just everybody listen? Well, that's why. We have a limited number of connections. And we'd like to change that, but it's just simply a matter of having the funding to do it.
So that's the explanation of that. Well, I didn't even get a chance. I mean, I've still got a few minutes here. I suppose I should address a few things here in Dave Hunt's response. Hopefully you can tell that my main concern was not really Dave Hunt because I haven't attacked Dave Hunt.
And some people are going, oh, yeah, sure. I haven't. I have not used any ad hominem against Dave Hunt, refuting his arguments, demonstrating that his argumentation is false. It's historically inaccurate.
If I just said those things and then didn't document it, that would be ad hominem argumentation, and I would be wrong. I actually wouldn't necessarily if I just simply argued against Dave and that was all I gave.
And I said ad hominem really is, well, Dave's mean or Dave's tall or Dave has gray hair or something. As if that was an argument, that's literally what ad hominem is. But, anyways, I haven't done that.
Anyone who looks at my response to Norman Geisler and my response to Dave Hunt will realize that while I may be passionate, I have not forgotten that you sort of need to document what you're saying and provide a foundation for what you're saying or you will be engaging in ad hominem.
I'm very sensitive to that because people do it to me all the time, and I haven't done that. And so in looking at Dave Hunt's response, there's just a couple things here, and I'm really not going to be able to get into it.
I only have a few moments. I noted that he quoted Peter Ruckman, and we're going to post a response to this element from Tom Del Nose as soon as we can. I just need to send it over to the folks to have it posted there on the website.
But I mentioned that he quoted Peter Ruckman as saying that Augustine was the first Roman Catholic. And for some reason, Dave chooses to say, well, you didn't say, this is a gross misrepresentation. Your readers would think that I relied solely upon him.
No, I did not say that you solely relied upon Peter Ruckman. I simply pointed out that you used a source that I don't think anyone should ever quote Peter Ruckman. I don't think you should quote Peter Ruckman saying the sky is blue.
That was my whole point there. And again, I think anyone who reads that open letter can see that. They can see that's exactly what we're talking about there. And then he goes into, I cite the fact that Augustine is one of the doctors of the Roman Catholic Church with a feast day dedicated to him by the church on August 28th, the day of his death.
And he goes on to talk about how the Roman Catholic Church says so much about Augustine. Well, they do. But you know what? They have feast days for St. Peter too. That doesn't make him a Roman Catholic.
I mentioned long ago when I responded to Dave Hunt's sermons, Augustine was a self-contradictory individual. And in fact, I probably mentioned this back then. I just didn't follow up on it. But I did a lecture for a conference four, five, six years ago now.
Well, no, it would have been about 99. So it was about three years ago. And I lectured on the self-contradiction of Augustine. And I pointed out that Augustine is a tremendous example of how all of us are formed by the controversies in which we deal.
The controversies that we engage. And there were two major controversies in Augustine's life. There was the Donatist controversy and there was the Pelagian controversy. And to boil it all down, the reason that the Reformation, the Roman Catholics could quote Augustine and the Reformers could quote Augustine against each other is due to those two controversies.
What do I mean by that? Well, the Roman Catholics could quote Augustine on the nature of the church because of the Donatist controversy where Augustine fought against a schismatic group, the Donatists, and eventually gave into pressure for the development of a full-blooded sacralism, a state church, in fighting against the Donatists.
And so you can quote Augustine, and I would disagree with Augustine on these issues, in regards to the sacraments, ex opera operato sacramentalism, where Augustine self-consciously took a position against Cyprian and the previous North African view that existed there.
Again, I think we could get the tapes of this lecture and make it available. And that's why the Roman Catholics could quote from Augustine because on the nature of the church, he was in union with what would eventually develop as Roman Catholicism in that way.
But the problem is he also engaged in the Pelagian controversy. And in the Pelagian controversy, he developed a doctrine of grace that was contradictory to his doctrine of the church. And as B .B. Warfield very rightly put it, he, let's back up here, B .B. Warfield rightly put it, just delete that section, after a long program, that was a little bad sector on the hard drive there, we'll get it taken care of, Norton will clean it up a little later on.
Anyways, as B .B. Warfield rightly put it, the Reformation inwardly considered was just the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church. The Reformation inwardly considered was just the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church.
They were contradictory concepts and one of them won out over the other and that's what the Reformation was all about. The reason that a Calvin or a Luther could quote Augustine on their side is that they were dealing with the nature of grace and soteriology and then the quotes that the Catholics come up with was in the section concerning the Donatist controversy and there is a contradiction.
In fact, there's contradictions in Augustine between the earlier Augustine and later Augustine. The later Augustine far stronger on issues of predestination election, so on and so forth, things like that.
So is Augustine perfect now? But when we talk about Augustinianism, we're talking about that emphasis upon God's grace and that's what the Reformers were referring to. So it is, of course, an example of the genetic fallacy for Mr. Hunt to say, well, Augustine was wrong about this over here, therefore if you cite him, you're a Roman Catholic or something.
Well, actually, the real issue is on the matter of grace and the will of man and hence the very role of grace and the sovereignty of God, who is in agreement with Rome, me or Dave Hunt? Well, Dave Hunt's a synergist.
Rome is synergistic, its semi-Pelagianism is synergistic. I'm not, I'm a monergist. And so the arguments that I use against Roman Catholic soteriology, Mr. Hunt cannot engage in and you all may remember that the very first time I talked with Dave about this on the radio program on KPXQ, that's the question I started with.
And even though I started there, and even though I explained myself, here we are, almost two years later, and Dave still hasn't gotten it. He still has not accepted that that is an issue where he in essence is very much in harmony with Rome.
And so it's fascinating to see in this response, this discussion of Augustine and Roman Catholicism and all the rest of this stuff, just simply doesn't follow at all. There's much more, amazingly enough, Dave Hunt still will not admit a typographical error.
In his Berean Call, he miscited Matthew 23, 37. I point this out on the program. In his response, he still refuses to admit he misquoted the verse. It's just a typographical error. I mean, can't we admit typographical errors?
Folks, here we go. Here I will differentiate myself from Dave Hunt. I have made typographical errors. I make typographical errors all the time. I am imperfect. If you think that somehow invalidates everything I say as an apologist, you've missed the boat, and there's not much I can do for you.
But he still continues to refuse to admit that he made this type of error. I just don't understand it. I really, really do not. The charge of elitism comes back up. But even if I started reading this, I wouldn't have time to, because there's the music in the background.
Thank you to all of you who have sent emails, to all of you who have called, to all of you in the channel. Don't worry, I'm not discouraged. I do need the encouragement, because no one can engage this kind of activity without it.
But I'm not discouraged. And we're staying in the forefront of doing this stuff. But pray for us that we will resist that temptation. We'll continue to do so. Thank you all so much for listening today.
I hope this program has been an encouragement to you as well. And we'll be back again live, Lord willing, next week, here on The Dividing Line. See you then.
The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318 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. Join us again next Saturday afternoon at 2 p .m. for The Dividing Line.