May 20, 2003

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. And good morning to you. My name is James White.

This is the Dividing Line. If you're listening live or by archive, whatever it might be, we welcome you to the program today.

You know, we've got a debate coming up a week from this Thursday in Long Island, and I've only addressed briefly a few times some of the thinking that goes into these debates.

I am well aware of the fact that I am in the minority to not only engage in these debates.

This will be, I think, number 47, and that's obviously a lot of them.

I obviously believe that there is a need to do these things, but I think that it's quite proper to recognize that there are many people who have a problem with the idea of apologetic debate and engaging these topics in this way.

There are people who have a problem just with the entire idea of engaging in this type of dialogue and debate.

There are other people who have a problem not so much with doing it, but where you do it, with whom you would engage in these types of encounters, so on and so forth.

And I think there's some validity to at least being ready to give a defense as to why you do this, because I recognize that there are certain concerns.

There are certain concerns, for example, in even interacting directly with individuals who are apostates, individuals who once confessed the faith and now deny the faith.

The Bible addresses those individuals, and I think there's certain parameters, at least in my life anyways, certain parameters that exist as to exactly what

I am comfortable doing and not doing with such an individual who once confessed the faith.

That is a special class of people. The Bible is very concerned, the apostles are very concerned about those who would name the name of Christ and yet engage in certain kinds of teachings and behaviors.

There's no question about that. But some of the people you debate are not apostates. They're not people who once made a profession of faith.

They have been lifelong deceived, and there might be a different way in which you would interact with that kind of an individual than you would with someone who once sat in your own fellowship and now professes a false gospel.

Obviously, I think that kind of an issue comes up as well. And so I want to talk about that a little bit today and give you some of my thinking and reasoning on it.

One of the things I want to share, and we'll go for at least 20 minutes or so before we open lines, but if you have some thoughts, maybe you have some objections to what we do and why we do it.

877 -753 -3341, but I don't think I'll be taking any calls until about 20 minutes after or so.

One thing that most definitely I want to address is

I really believe that there is a need for passion in regards to truth, especially amongst those of us who call ourselves

Reformed. Now, I know there are a number of you who listen to this program who do not believe that I am even Reformed.

Okay, translate that into whatever else you'd like to translate it into. Hopefully what I'll say will have some meaning for you anyways.

But going past those of you who have a problem along those lines, those of us who emphasize the sovereignty of God, those of us who would speak to people concerning the life -changing, heart -changing, soul -changing experience that Job had when he had his interview with God, that Isaiah had in Isaiah 6 when he saw

God upon his throne, I think that any person has when they come to understand the truth contained in such passages as Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 and John 6 where the very veil of eternity is for a moment parted and we are able to see

God in his true nature, in his eternal nature and how we are mere creatures. We are the clay in the potter's hand.

You cannot help but be changed by that. And I think it results in a necessary passion for God's truth.

Now, sometimes, frequently because of our own sin, because of our own selfishness, because of our own shortcomings, we translate that passion into an unnecessarily gruff and sometimes arrogant attitude.

There's no question about that. But I don't think there's any room whatsoever for the idea of the chosen frozen, the idea that we could hold to the beliefs of the doctrines of grace, that we could actually believe that we have received

God's not only unmerited favor but demerited favor and that this love was set upon us before the very foundations of the earth itself and not because of anything within us but solely because of the will of God, that we could believe that and be impassionate about it simply makes no sense.

It is a walking contradiction to be reformed and not passionate about God's truth.

And I mean all of God's truth. And that would help explain why many of us seem so strange and so out of place in the overall scheme of things.

Because we are very countercultural in the sense that we believe that truth,

I was getting ready to kick somebody there, that's why I slowed down for a second. We believe that truth is not merely some external thing that you either believe in or don't.

There is a passion for God's truth because that truth has impacted me.

It has changed me. And if it were not for that truth, I would not be changed. I would still be walking in the darkness of my mind, the darkness of men's traditions.

And so we become passionate for all elements of truth. And I'll admit, we reformed folks need to practice and to be very concerned about making sure that the truths that we're passionate about are the definitional truths and not necessarily the secondary truths.

And what I mean by that is we need to, with our passion for truth, have maturity, zeal and maturity, wisdom and love for the truth.

These all need to go together. We see what happens when you're on the extreme of one side or the other.

We see people who are tremendously zealous and passionate but don't have any knowledge and hence are easily derailed, easily dragged off into false teachings and things like that.

On the other side, you have those who have all the knowledge but no passion. And that's, as I said, a contradiction in terms.

It simply should not exist. We need to be in the middle. We need to have some maturity.

And so we need to recognize what's truly foundational and then what is an area where men of goodwill and men of submission to the authority of the scriptures and the word of God have differed with one another.

I would think, for example, very clearly of eschatology as an example. There are people who get really, really, really, really, really, really excited about that particular subject and a particular viewpoint of it to the point of excluding everybody else from the kingdom of God if you're not right down the line on their particular eschatological perspective.

And I don't think that necessarily really accomplishes a whole lot and really gets us anywhere.

So we need to be careful. We need to, of course, temper, especially in talking with other people, our natural tendency to become overly exuberant.

But, you know, I was sharing this with a Bible study class just recently. There are two kinds of power and zeal.

There's the kind that you have when gunpowder explodes.

When that explodes, there is an instant expansion of gases and there's all this power and it's focused and there's this explosion and it accomplishes a lot, normally destructively, but it accomplishes a lot.

And then you have that kind of long -term zeal. And, you know, our society and many people in the church seem to think that the first kind is what you need to be looking for.

But one thing is certain, Jesus' parable, the soils, demonstrates that there's always going to be that kind of zeal.

There are going to be people who just get all excited and they're all just really pumped up and wow, this is great, that's awesome and everything else.

But they don't last long. They don't have a long -term commitment and eventually they're gone.

It is that long -term zeal, that passion that is a burning passion, but it is a passion marked by wisdom and direction and maturity.

That's the kind of passion that we need to have for God's truth. And it has to be marked by a recognition of what's central.

That's why I'm passionate, for example, about justification. You're not going to find a whole lot of folks who are really passionate about that subject, but it's central, it's definitional to the faith itself.

And that's why I'll be really honest with you. One of the things that amazes me is when

I encounter and talk with individuals who once fellowshiped within solid churches, who were maybe raised within the context of hearing the truths of God's Word proclaimed, the truth of man's deadness and sin, the truth of God's sovereignty, the perfection of the work of Christ on Calvary, the truth of what it means to have nothing to bring in your hand, the empty hand of faith and the reality that I think any regenerate person has, who has been crushed by the recognition of the heinousness of one's own sin in the sight of a holy

God and the need for a perfect Savior, that divine transaction of 2

Corinthians chapter 5, where my sins are imputed to Christ, His righteousness is imputed to me.

I don't understand how a person could claim to have once truly believed that in a passionate way, in a way where they would have said my entire eternal destiny is wrapped up in this reality, in this truth, that Christ and Christ alone is my righteousness.

I seek nothing outside of Him. I don't understand how a person could have truly once said that and lived in light of that and confessed that and then go off into these systems of works righteousness, whether it be systems that are way out there as being polytheistic and all the rest of that stuff, or whether it be

Roman Catholicism and purgatory and indulgences and merits and masses and prayers for the dead and all these other things.

I don't understand how a person could once say Christ and Christ alone is enough and then say, well, there's all this other, there's all these other things.

I've never understood that. It just absolutely leaves me without a way of understanding that because that would be like taking from me my greatest possession.

People ask me questions. They say, they say, well, you know, aren't you attracted by the liturgy?

Isn't it beautiful? And I understand people who are attracted by liturgy.

I fully understand that. But you see, I go beyond that and I look at what it means.

And when I see that person going forward, thinking that they are again approaching for the 10th time or the 20th time or the 50th time, the very cross of Christ.

And yet when they walk out, they are not perfected. And I go, see,

I see what it means. I go beyond the symbol to the meaning. And if I believe that I have been united with Christ, if I can say with Paul, I have been crucified with Christ.

There's no longer I who live. It is Christ who lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh. I live by faith in the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

Then how could I ever give that away? How could I ever take that and say, well,

I'm going to, I'm going to grab hold of something else. I don't understand that.

It absolutely leaves me breathless. And it basically says to me,

I don't think such a person ever had that passionate love for the truth.

Which brings me to a warning. You see, I've said briefly on this program before,

I fully recognize the fact that engaging in debates will result in people believing what my opponent has to say.

I fully recognize that. And in fact, I think if you'll reason with me for just a moment, that you'll see exactly what

I mean. Let's give a consideration for a moment to a little biblical anthropology.

And what I mean by that, what does the Bible teach about the nature of man? When we recognize that there are going to be those who are a part of what we would identify as solid, biblically based fellowships who are there for the wrong reasons.

They've been raised in it. They have never actually received the grace of God in the sense of being born again, regenerated.

They have a surface level religiosity, but they do not have a love for the truth.

They may know how to behave. They may know how to walk the walk the walk and talk the talk.

And they know how to put on their Sunday morning face and their Sunday evening face, and maybe even their Wednesday evening face.

They know how to use the language. And maybe because just the way they were raised, you know, it's just natural not to engage in certain worldly activities.

And they would say they're Christians. They would say they're believers. But they don't have a passion for the truth.

I fully recognize that engaging in theological debate and giving a platform to false teachers to present their views may well result in those people embracing those falsehoods.

How could it be any otherwise? The unregenerate heart, the unregenerate mind that remains in rebellion against God is going to find such things attractive.

Let's face it. The religions of men are attractive to the unregenerate.

A person who is even in a sound church who is not born again, who does not have a passion for the truth will find falsehood attractive.

These religions that say, do, do, do, and you may make it, fulfill these certain obligations, and then you may eventually gain a status with God.

They will find that to be attractive. That is a very effective way of suppressing the conviction of the

Holy Spirit. And so I am aware of the fact that there could be those who come to debate who end up joining the other group that were once a part of my side.

At least they were externally. I recognize that. And there is not anything

I could do about it. In fact, I shouldn't seek to do anything about it. Remember the description in 2

Thessalonians chapter 2? Just picking it up in verse 10. It's midstream. And with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, there is this description in Paul's theology.

Those who are perishing and those who are being saved. Those who are perishing are described as because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

They didn't love the truth. They did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Those who are saved, then, is it not a proper understanding of the passage?

To understand it to mean, therefore, that those who are saved have received the love of the truth?

We are truth lovers if we are being saved. We are truth lovers.

We love the truth. We have a passion for the truth. But those who are exposed to it but do not have that love for that, and I would argue love for the truth, is part and parcel of the work of the

Holy Spirit of God in our lives. Because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Look at verse 11. For this reason, 2 Thessalonians 2, 11. For this reason, God will send upon them a deluding influence so that what?

They will believe what is false. In order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness.

Wow. There's a warning. Do not take for granted the preaching of the truth.

I think of those who sit, and I obviously I can only speak personally of my own fellowship, but I think of those who sit under the consistent ministration of the word of God week in and week out.

What a tremendous privilege and yet also a tremendous responsibility.

There is the danger of apathy. Of becoming so accustomed to hearing the truth that we're not passionate about it any longer.

If we were ever passionate about it at all, and there's a warning here.

For this reason, God will send upon them a deluding influence. God can do that. There's a lot of people in evangelicalism who don't think

God would ever do that. God will chase every person to their grave, weeping and trying to save them.

That's evangelicalism's tradition. But the scriptures speak of a sovereign judge and a judge who brings judgment in this life.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven present tense, and there may well come a time and we don't know when it is.

This isn't for us to judge. But there may well come a time when a person has heard so much truth with such clarity and yet has reveled in their wickedness, has reveled in their sin, reveled in their rebellion.

And that doesn't have to be the kind of gross open immorality that we would associate necessarily with the pimps and the drug pushers and the murderers.

Idolatry is a serious and gross sin in God's sight.

And you can be as moral in the world sense, you can be a straight arrow and yet be an idolater.

And God brings judgment. God brings judgment.

Hi Josh, how you doing? Right in the middle of the sermon. There you go. Serious stuff.

And I think about this and I think about the desire that we have as elders to bring the truth of God to the people of God.

And yet there is always that flip side. We're out in Mesa. We're out passing out tracks. We're in Salt Lake City.

We're in New York or whatever else it might be. And so, sharing the truth of God with people,

I always recall, I always remember that when you pass out that tract, when you give that testimony,

God is glorified when his truth is proclaimed. And sometimes he glorifies himself through the judgment that is brought against those who harden their hearts and love their sin.

So I recognize. I recognize that when

God's truth is proclaimed in a debate situation, that unless that truth is joined with the work of the

Spirit of God in the heart, God may well use that proclamation to bring judgment upon those who refuse to receive the love of the truth.

And as a result, there may be those who embrace, well, you name it, what have

I debated? Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism, Islam, liberalism, whatever, whatever.

I recognize that. But you see, I have said for a long, long time that I don't debate as if I somehow have the ability to direct the

Holy Spirit of God as to what he's going to do with his truth. I don't debate for those who've already come with their minds made up.

People come to debates, and I recognize there's people on my side, their minds are already made up, they're just there to applaud me, you know, a little golf clap, and they're not listening to a word that the other guy is saying.

I know that. And there are people on the other side in the exact same position, and they're not even hearing me.

I mean, I'll never forget the convert to Catholicism who was at the

Tim Staples debate in 2000, and I had known him when he was not a

Catholic, and of course, he didn't talk to me when he converted, they never do, but I knew that that person was there, and I learned later from other people who knew him, he'd come into the room when

Staples was speaking, and as soon as I would get up to speak, he would leave, he would not listen to what

I was saying. But then at the end of the debate, had the gall to say, wow, man, that was, that was incredible,

Tim just wiped him out. And I just, you listen, you hear that, and you just go, wow, diluting influence so that they will believe what is false, they will believe the lie.

I mean, the even semi -unbiased person looks at that and goes, whoa, that's pretty weird, isn't it?

Yeah. But oh, they are, oh, he just won, I just wiped you out, just wiped you out.

And you're just like, okay, wow, diluting influence. Heard the truth, knew the truth, didn't love the truth.

And so I know that kind of thing can happen. I'm not there for those folks. I'm, I'm not debating for those folks.

God may use what I, what I present in such a way as to bring judgment upon them.

And if God uses it to eventually be one of those seeds that saves somebody over there, fine, great, wonderful.

I am there first and foremost in honor of my

God and his truth. If that's one place where we're very different than, than many, because there are many in, in evangelicalism, they say, my first goal should be the person that I'm debating.

It's not, not for me. My first desire is that my

God will be honored and glorified in the presentation of his truth. Secondly, that his people, his people will be encouraged, edified, and built up in the faith through the presentation of that truth.

And then thirdly, that there are those who are there who desire to hear the truth.

If God is working in their lives, he's working through circumstances in their lives,

I want them to hear the truth with clarity and with that type of clarity that only a debate can give in regards to certain false teachings.

Those are the individuals that I want to reach. And those are my reasons for engaging in the debate.

And if I present the material in such a way as to meet those criteria and bless those people, bless my

God in defense of his truth, my fellow believers in the edification, their faith in the truth, and then minister to those who need to hear the truth,

I've accomplished my goal. I've accomplished my desire. 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Maybe you have some thoughts. I'd invite you to participate in the program today. We'll be right back. Answering those who claim that only the

King James Version is the word of God. James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

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

.org. Is the Mormon my brother? Bethany House Publishers presents

James White's book, Is the Mormon my brother? In television campaigns, parachurch events, and clergy fellowships all across the

United States, Mormons are presenting themselves as mainstream Christians. Is it unloving or backward to say they aren't real

Christians? In contrast to Christian monotheism, the belief in one God, Mormonism teaches that God was once a man who lived on another planet and was exalted to the status of God, and that Mormon men can also become gods upon death and resurrection.

In his book, Is the Mormon my brother? James White demonstrates how this fact alone means Mormons and Christians are irreconcilably at odds at faith's most basic level.

Is the Mormon my brother? is now available from Alpha and Omega Ministries Book Ministry. You can order Is the

Mormon my brother? from our website at www .aomin .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 laypeople 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 in scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory and 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 www .aomin .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.

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

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you are 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.

On the main page of CAI Catholic Apologetics International, for those of you who have been in a lead mine of late or on a very long extended cruise or something,

I don't know, you've been out of town, you may recall the past two, about two weeks ago, we addressed the situation where CAI was making accusations concerning the

Holy Scripture series by David King and Bill Webster. We had both David King and Bill Webster on the program.

We addressed those issues. Mr. St. Genes issued an apology of sorts.

In essence, he basically said

Mr. X had deceived him, which isn't anything overly surprising. If he had checked his sources, he would have heard from us that Mr.

X was not who he claimed to be, but be that as it may, it was around the same period of time.

We had had a debate in Salt Lake City right before all this exploded. And we had to address the issue of the mass up there.

And shortly thereafter, I got an email, and this was actually after the whole thing had developed in regards to Mr.

X, about doing a debate with Mr. St. Genes and Mr. Hunt. Now, Mr. Hunt wasn't involved in any of this, and though I could see how it would be useful to have a debate where Dave Hunt and Robert St.

Genes are saying the exact same thing, so it'd be a two against one debate, because on the issues of predestination election, they would be.

And I think that would be useful, especially to Mr. Hunt's followers, to discover that they are on the same page.

I don't think they'd like that. I did not respond to it because I knew what was developing in regards to the

Mr. X situation. And I made the statement, I think two weeks ago.

Was it two weeks ago today, or was it three weeks ago we did that? I don't recall. Been a little bit busy, so I don't remember the exact date.

Maybe it's three weeks ago today. We did that program on a Tuesday morning. I said in my comments,

I will have nothing to do with Robert St. Genes as far as debates are concerned in the future. And I'm assuming that since he has now posted something on his main page, three weeks ago, yeah, that he believes that his apology is sufficient to make up for the attacks upon well,

Rich Pierce and Colin Smith and David King and William Webster. And of course, I only showed up in the apology by non -name, so on and so forth.

The problem is this. Well, here's what's now. Sam sent me, it's on the main page.

Challenged James White to debate. Recently, CAI challenged James White to a debate on the topic of predestination. Unfortunately, Dr.

White has not responded to our invitation. Thus, we make this public notice. For those in contact with Dr. White and who would like to see such a debate take place, please contact us at, and then you give the

AOL address for contacting folks at CAI. I've mentioned in the past,

I've always assumed such a debate would take place. The reason I didn't even bother to respond to it was because this was in the middle of the

Mr. X thing, you know, as someone channel has now said, what, is Mr. X challenging in a debate now, too, which does sort of bring up the issue of simple credibility.

And I think Mr. St. Genes needs to recognize that his credibility rating at the moment is exceptionally low.

Um, I am receiving, uh, even before the Mr. X thing took place,

I would receive comments from Roman Catholics saying, why are you debating folks who have knowingly put themselves out of the mainstream?

Um, specifically, Jerry Matitix and Robert St. Genes. And by the way, the reason that there is supposed to be a debate in October between myself and Mr.

Matitix, uh, is not because I go seeking these things. And I did challenge Matitix to debate at the same

Baptist school where he got to speak without, uh, opposition or response.

Um, I did challenge him to do that because I, I, I felt that was just incredibly, um, out of line and incredibly deceptive.

Uh, but in reality, we're, we're not seeking after these individuals. In fact, we didn't seek after Mr.

St. Genes for almost anything that we've done. Uh, the first time the debate on justification on Long Island, uh, after, uh, what was it?

95, 96, maybe for the debate, uh, that we did, uh, at Boston college, that was arranged through someone else through, um, uh,

Scott Butler. But, um, uh, we had challenged, uh, Jimmy Akin to do that. And he had said yes.

And then when he decided not to, he, without even asking us, obtained

Robert St. Genes to take his place. Uh, so we hadn't even thought that one. We were looking at the one only the year afterwards as, as a possibility.

And that ends up how it worked out. But, um, actually the reason that Mr. St. Genes and Mr.

Matitix were the, are the opponents was the opponent in April will be the opponent in October, uh, is because it's a

Presbyterian church that is sponsoring it. And both, uh, our former Presbyterians and hence a desire existed to respond to those who had been

Presbyterian, uh, and to give a response to those particular individuals. But, uh, there is a serious problem here in that, uh,

Mr. St. Genes now represents not only a, a minority movement, and I'm not commenting on the validity of this minority movement.

I think there's a lot of historical, uh, basis that traditionalists have to point out that modern

Roman Catholicism, uh, is a, a variant of historical

Roman Catholicism. There's no question about that. Uh, but they don't represent in their emphases and frequently in their teachings, uh, the same thing you're going to hear from your local priest or from your local bishop or from the

Pope himself for that matter. Um, and so there have been people who said, Hey, you know, stick with the people who are, you know, at least, you know, mainstream, uh, though it's getting harder and harder to find such individuals who are mainstream.

Not only that, Mr. St. Genes has sort of, um, marked himself out in other ways, not only by his, his behavior in, in the past, which

I had seen a change for a while. In fact, we even wrote a joint statement on how you should do debates.

I have, by the way, removed that from our website because it's, I think it's utterly irrelevant now. Um, but, um, before that, uh, there is on our website documentation of, of his behavior with Art Sippo.

And now those two are going after each other, which, which, uh, again,

I've, I've mentioned before, and I just chuckle when I see this kind of thing. Um, but, uh, there are, uh, behavior issues in regards to the recent issues with Mr.

X and, uh, the private emails that were sent out and the nature of those emails and the comments that were made.

Um, I don't believe for a second, I still believe, uh, that Mr. St. Genes is working, uh, laboriously, uh, upon some huge major article that's going to appear on the

CI website or for sale or something, uh, in which he is going to be using, um, uh, going after, uh, the

Webster King stuff to try to basically, uh, cover, uh, for what took place there and say, see, we were right the whole time.

Uh, you know, uh, look at all this, this is horrible use of the early fathers and all the rest of this stuff. Uh, I think that's still coming.

Uh, but there are others, there are other things. I mean, if you look at the CI website, you know, one of the big things that Robertson Genes does now is, is promote geocentrism.

And let's face it, that's not exactly a mainstream Catholic belief. Uh, he's got some strange stuff about Judaism and Israel and Zionism and conspiracy things that just make most folks go, that's weird.

And, uh, so the question is asked, why would you invest your time?

And it is a lot of time, not only for me personally, but when we do debates, we videotape these things and, and, uh, eventually make those videotapes available.

Um, and, uh, uh, you know, there's a, there's a lot of effort that goes into these things. And, and so it's not just me, it's, it's others as well, uh, who have to put a lot of time into this.

So why with someone who's, who's basically, I mean, there are boycott

CAI websites out there. Uh, there, there are people who used to stand toe side by side with Robertson Genes, who are absolutely, um, livid over what he says and does these days.

You can go to his website and find articles against everybody, but Scott Hahn and Carl Keating and, and, uh, the whole group of normative

Roman Catholic apologists. And so, um, while I would like to see a debate on this subject, it doesn't seem that Robertson Genes is the individual that would now present, uh, a mainstream

Roman Catholic perspective on this subject. Uh, now those who could, uh, some of them don't want to debate at all.

Uh, but the fact of the matter is Robertson Genes has shot his credibility, uh, very, very badly, not only with the

Mr. X situation, but with the entire Catholic apologetics community as a whole.

And so to invest that kind of time, I mean, I mean, I certainly wouldn't have any problem whatsoever.

I've heard what Robertson Genes says on predestination election. And I don't, for a second, believe that I would have any difficulty whatsoever defeating the man in a debate on that subject.

It's, I honestly find his argumentation to be, um, very shallow and not showing a lot of understanding of the, of the real issues.

Uh, if anyone wants to see that go to the discussion on John six on our website, and you'll see it's a huge discussion, but it's not an over challenge, overly challenging discussion and, uh, so on and so forth.

So it's not an issue at all. And if any of you would like to, um, you know, uh, respond to, uh, this particular, uh, uh, email address, uh, feel free to do so.

Um, I would like to see a debate on predestination election. I just like it to be with someone, um, who hasn't marked themselves out as basically a pariah amongst, uh, the vast majority of Roman Catholics.

Uh, because if you do so, then people go, ah, well, you know, he's not representative of, of Rome.

Look at what he thinks about this, that, and the other thing, find someone who'd be really representative of Rome. Obviously the person that immediately comes to mind would be

Scott Hahn. I think that'd be very, very useful. Uh, but I also think that individuals who, who give the very standard

Roman Catholic responses, Jimmy Akin is a former Presbyterian. Uh, he's written on this subject.

I think that would be an excellent, uh, debate with him, uh, on this subject. And, uh, it would, uh, it would, it would really work, uh, work out well.

So I'll probably put a little something on our, on our website in response to this. Uh, maybe just give the, uh, reference to this response here on the dividing line.

People can listen to it for themselves. Uh, but, uh, we said a few weeks ago, three weeks ago, uh, look, um, this, this kind of behavior, this kind of activity.

And, you know, at that time, uh, and I, I have not seen any, uh, apologies from Mr.

Uh, Syngenis to, for example, Eric Svensson, or anyone else for the kind of, uh, uh, assertions that were made, uh, by Mr.

Syngenis in those, in those, uh, uh, contexts, especially talking about the, you know, the dishonesty of all of us, myself and Webster and King and Svensson, we're all a bunch of dishonest people.

I, I firmly believe that's still exactly what Mr. Syngenis believes. And, uh, you know, we're just simply done with, uh, helping

Mr. Syngenis to prop up his, uh, his, uh, ministry, uh, not going to do it anymore.

And there's just no reason to do so. We have debated him in numerous contexts. And, uh, that, that work,

I think, uh, uh, stands on its own merits and you can examine that for yourself. Now, someone in channel has asked a question, uh, does there come a point, uh, in, uh, apologetics where you stop debating?

Uh, doesn't there come a point where you shouldn't debate the same fellow after you've said your piece, wipe off the dust, et cetera?

Well, yeah. Uh, I mean, uh, if you're talking about personal apologetics, if you're talking about, uh, where you are dealing with a particular individual, yeah, there are particular individuals that I, I have said what

I, I need to say, and I have presented what I need to present to a particular individual.

And for me anyway, if you want to get rid of me, if you want to have me write you off, become blasphemous, use off color language, do something like that.

For me, that's it. Um, and I, I will leave you alone and, uh, and pretty much write you off and say, you know what?

I've, I've, my hands are clean. I've testified the truth to you. It's going to be somebody else who's going to end up talking to you.

Uh, I know it's funny. We see this in channel. Uh, there are certain Roman Catholics, especially, but they're also

Mormons and others who come into channel. And, uh, you know, we, we certain of us who are regulars in the channel, there are certain people that we seem to get along with a little bit better, but then there are others we can't stand.

I mean, I'm thinking about this one particular individual he's converted and one of the other ops and this particular op isn't known as, uh, uh, as being overly long suffering with people in channel.

Let's put it that way. Um, I won't mention more than that. For some reason, this fellow gets along.

This op gets along with this fellow. Fine. I can't stand them. And I'm normally knows the one who, you know, is not all that quick on the, the, the kick gun.

Um, and yet the same is true. Vice versa. There are some Roman Catholics that I talked to in channel, uh, that, that, that, uh, that the other op would just like to, you know, shoot on site.

So it's, it's, it all depends, you know, sometimes the Lord lays somebody on your heart and you, you, you want to speak to them and you're given patience and grace to do so.

Um, so when, you know, how do you make that decision? Well, for me, like I said, uh, a person who, um, who shows a, a blasphemous, uh, uh, you know, uh, rejection of, of the truth.

Generally, you know, I'm, I'm not going to be long for that conversation long for that discussion with that person.

Uh, and no, I'm not talking about anybody in channel at the moment, other than the op. Let me look here. Let me make sure. Uh, yeah, the op sort of there, but is busy shopping.

Uh, anyways. Uh, so I'm not talking about anybody else who's in channel. Uh, those, the, you know, as far as the

Roman Catholic, the Catholics go, and since we do have at least one Roman Catholic in channel, quit thinking everybody's talking about you.

Uh, but yeah, there's, there's a time when I, I pretty much, uh, you know, wipe the dust off my feet and, and go my direction.

There are certain people I, I just don't want to talk to. Uh, I know I'm not going to accomplish anything, just ruins my day.

And I, and I just have to trust that somebody else can do that. But I try, you know, I do try to be, I do try to err on the side of patients at that point.

I tried to err, err is a better word than error. I tried to err on the side of patients. I tried to, you know, recognize, man, uh, it's, it's, um, it's a weighty thing, uh, to come to the conclusion that this person is, is, and I'm not making a decision.

This person's a reprobate or something. Uh, I, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no,

God is not glorified in my continuing to attempt to speak to this person. Now there are, there's another aspect of this though.

For me, if a person were to call the radio program and others would be edified by my speaking to them, that, that's different.

That changes the whole, uh, you know, the whole realm of discussion at that point.

And now I'm doing it for somebody else. I'm not specifically doing it for them. I'm doing it for somebody else. And so, you know, that's, um, that's sort of where I would draw the line at that point.

Uh, as I said, most of the time, the individuals that I'm debating most, not always, it's certainly not true with the debate that's coming up.

Um, and if you've listened to my debates, I think you can probably tell if you know me and a lot of folks, you know, they'll come to the channel.

They think I'm something they all they've done is they've listened to the debates and they think that's what I am. And I know certain people who are disappointed when they get to know me, they find out

I'm just, I'm pretty much, well, I'm not a regular guy, but I'm, I'm, I'm not in debate mode all the time.

I have a life. I enjoy doing things. I lift weights. I, I have 40 pound weights that fall on my toes.

Happens Saturday, uh, and break them. And, um, I, I, I have hobbies and I enjoy doing things and I can joke.

Uh, I, I can even do accents, even though people say I don't do them well at all.

Um, you know, things like that. I, I, I enjoy life. Um, and, uh, they, they, they come in, they're, they're amazed, uh, that, that, that that's the case.

And, uh, that, that I actually have that kind of, uh, you know, uh, I enjoy my kids and my friends and my family and all sorts of stuff like that.

Um, and, uh, so anyways, I'm not sure exactly where I'm wandering about for all this stuff. Uh, but the fellow that I'm, uh, debating next week is not in the classification of most of the people that I debate.

Now, sometimes I debate folks and I know nothing about them. Uh, I was not debating with a guy in the row behind us while we watched

Gods and Generals. Mr. MDH from Texas. Uh, I was watching that film and weeping, uh, especially in the last, last half hour.

That's a, that's a, that's a bald, bald headed lie is what that was. Um, I do not include my, my, uh, debate partner for, uh, for next week in that realm of people that, uh, you know, when, when

I debate certain individuals, I've debated them many times before. I know that they are absolutely positively committed to their false teachings and I'm not debating for them.

I'm debating for other people. I'm debating for those who are going to listen. Uh, now Mitch Pacwa, I, I pray for, for Mitch Pacwa.

Um, there's, there's something different there. And, um, I, I have said many times that I have a lot of respect for him as an individual and I, and I pray that some, that in some way, shape or form, something

I would say, something I would do, uh, would be used by God in, in his life.

Um, so that's, that's a different situation. But like I said, a lot of times, if I've, a lot of times, in fact,

I'd say probably, well, well, not a majority, maybe about a third of the time, I'm just sort of estimating this.

No one sit down and count all my debates and then prove me wrong. But I'd say about a third of the time, the first time

I debate someone, I've never met them before. And I may have not even had an opportunity to read anything they've written because they didn't write anything on the subject of the debate that we were doing.

And so I, it's just that he, that's just a person who is presenting a perspective, a position.

And I'm going to be responding to the position as accurately and honestly and truthfully as I possibly can with an eye to the glorification of God and his truth.

And obviously during the course of the debate, you start getting some feel for whether this person is really passionate about heresy or whether they just sort of stumbled into this and, you know, they don't really have any particular passion for it.

Those are the debates that normally don't go well at all for the other side is when there's just no passion involved at all.

That really is very obvious to anyone who's listening carefully.

And I don't know why anyone, I don't know why anyone would engage in a debate if you're not passionate about it.

That, that just, you know, I've been very, very falsely accused of debating for the sake of debating.

That is not the case. If I was not passionate about the truth,

I would never debate. I don't like debating in that sense at all. The only reason

I engage in this is because it is a means of presenting God's truth, vindicating

God's truth against falsehood. And as such, that's why I'm passionate about it. But I, especially the older I get, the less

I like conflict at all. So those people, in fact, I just, I saw an email recently where, where David Bernard had said to someone else that I just live to debate.

Well, David Bernard doesn't know me and he doesn't know my life and he doesn't know my family, he doesn't know my friends, he doesn't know my ministry.

And he's wrong and as wrong as he could be. That is not the case and it's untrue. And I just haven't had a chance to write back to him and inform him of his error.

But maybe at some point in the future, I'll be able to have a chance to do that. But I, that's not why

I do it in any way, shape, yeah, mudslinging to boot. It is. That's quite true.

So next week, oh, by the way, schedule note, schedule note, ding, ding, ding, ding.

We'll be here, Lord willing, on Thursday evening. But starting next week, I'm traveling.

And especially I know Tuesday, Lord willing, I will at this time be somewhere about six, seven miles up on my way to Long Island.

And I honestly do not yet know my schedule when I'm on Long Island. Obviously, next

Thursday night is the debate. And so there obviously isn't going to be a Thursday night dividing line.

And I just don't know what my schedule is going to be like as far as Tuesdays, Thursdays while I'm on Long Island.

I'm only going to be there about two weeks, I think, somewhere around there. A little over, a little less than two weeks, a little over two weeks.

Whatever. And as such, you're just going to sort of have to maybe tune in and find out.

I want to try to do some dividing lines via the phone while we're away, let you know, maybe do a report on the debate on the following Tuesday morning, whatever it is.

But I can't tell you yet because I don't know yet what I'm doing. Hopefully we'll know tomorrow and maybe be able to give you some more information

Thursday evening on the dividing line. Well, thanks for listening today. It's been pretty much a monologue, but hopefully something that has been useful to you in the process, a passion for God's truth.

I hope you have it today. And I hope that God will be glorified in how you live your life today in light of it.

We'll see you Thursday night here on the dividing line. God bless. AOMIN .org

where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks. Join us again this