May 8, 2008

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon starting off the program today with an email that we received and our writer asks the question you and other

Calvinists with a capital C At least it was spelled correctly.

Unlike many people a channel who spell it C a L V a n You and other Calvinists often say that non

Calvinists n Dash C, which might indicate this is either a mathematician or an engineer one of the two

Like myself, so we have a non Calvinist engineer Say that Jesus only made it possible for men to be saved

You often speak of Jesus not actually saving anyone on our view However, I'd like to briefly contend with this issue as I believe it is a straw man argument

And of course, he's right to a point that is we often say that if you basically say that Jesus tries to save everyone equally and That it is up to the man's cooperation as to whether he succeeds or not if it is intention

To save everyone he tries to save everyone and the reason one is saved another is not all has to do with whether or not you cooperate synergism and so That would mean that Jesus doesn't save anyone completely in of himself

He tries to save everybody but there has to be a synergistic cooperation for any one person to be saved

The email goes on before God created anything. That is did he know already?

I'm sorry Did he know okay knows repeated twice? So I did read it correctly Did he know already know all things that would happen?

Of course, we both agree here well, I stop and say well when you say of course, you just eliminated a number of people today who are

Self, I think very self -consistent Armenians That is their open theists and they denied that God does know the future.

But the real question is How does God know the future? Did God simply create sort of throw the cosmic dice and it turned out a certain way and God goes

Oh, that's how it's going to be. Okay, if If that's how it is, if God God does not have a decree that determines what takes place in time

Then how does God know what is going to take place in the future? either he has to be taking in passive knowledge of future events and Therefore the result you we can't glorify him for it because he didn't have anything to do with it.

He just created that's how it turned out and Voila, or are you gonna say that maybe he created it didn't have the way he wanted it

So he tweaked a few things to where it came out the way he wanted to or something along those lines I mean, I really don't know the the writer doesn't indicate exactly how he grounds

God's knowledge of future events, but anyways, he agrees that God does know future events

Well at this point I've sort of got him because if you believe that God does know future events

You're gonna have a hard time getting out of the rest of it Anyways, so if he knew all things that would happen and he knew who would accept the offer of the gospel in my view

Of course, how is it only possible that those would be saved? Well again if God knows with absolute certainty who is going to accept the gospel at the time that he creates

Then the number of those who are going to be saved is Known to God from eternity past and those are the elect now the problem of course is does he know that passively?

To where it is man that determines this number or does he know actively because it's the result of his own sovereign decree that's where the argument is and I don't think that our our

Questioner really recognizes that that's where the argument is The argument is not whether God knows who's gonna be saved

The argument is upon what basis does he know who's gonna be saved? Is it merely a passive taking in of knowledge that opens up all sorts of vistas of possibility that you know maybe

God has created all sorts of universes and in those other universes he lost or Nobody took him up on his offer or evil was victorious or whatever.

Those are some of the issues that we have to consider But he goes on If God started time and space knowing who would receive the gospel then it is not merely a possibility that these would be saved

From this perspective. I don't understand how one could have could continue to assert that we

Non -calvinists believe that Jesus only made salvation possible well The actual objection main is still maintained because in your system

Even in your system God is stuck in an endless loop of futility Because even though he knows that only a certain number are going to accept the gospel yet he still intends to try to save all and So what you do is you have

God creating a situation where he is making himself purposefully unhappy He's created.

He's to be the eternal frustrated God He's created the universe and he's gonna try to save all these people even though he knows from the start that he's going to fail

So is he really trying if he knows he's gonna fail anyways, and why? And what's the purpose of this and give me chapter and verse

I good luck finding chapter and verse on where God details his eternal frustration but anyway

He secured it for those he foreknew at the moment of the Holy Spirit's drawing not randomly or at their own will

Would repent and believe in response to preaching the gospel and that at that point if you're if you're really saying that the

Holy Spirit Actually does accomplish salvation And that it's not at their

Own will That causes some major problems. Are you certain you want to say that?

I Don't think that that your system really has a grounding for allowing for that. But anyways

And since again, you started time and space knowing who these would be then it cannot be only a possibility that those would be saved

Well, that's true If you want to say, you know, you're not getting argument from a Calvinist in Saying that it is impossible for God's elect not to be saved.

The issue is Who is the elect is the elect determined by man or by God and Most importantly is

God equally attempting to save those that he knows he's not going to Actually end up being able to save because infallible foreknowledge

It last paragraph says so one might notice this point how similar our view actually is the

Calvin Calvinist and I would agree I Have to wonder what all the fighting is about and why Calvinist and non -Calvinist who both believe in all the soul is

Trinity, etc Spend so much time mocking and deriding each other Especially mocking a discussion is one thing that I've rarely heard a discussion between two groups that didn't degrade in some way shape or form

I am NOT saying we should be hold hands and forget our differences What I'm saying is that most discussions are not productive or humble and could be well

I'm certain that there are all sorts of discussions that degrade very quickly and Once you start going into ad hominem everything else happens on both sides of the fence at that point.

That would be true However, I don't think that the position that this gentleman has arrived at is a consistent one

And it doesn't really answer the primary questions in regards to who the elect are why they are the elect and the issues of monergism and synergism as well when

I read that I got the impression that he was Not necessarily grasping the difference between the passive and active

It doesn't even mention it but I kind of got that flavor from him that It's right there where he sees the difference, but he minimizes it

He doesn't see that difference as any kind of a big deal and he's kind of just kind of saying, you know Why are we making such a big deal between those two points when ultimately we all came come to the same conclusion?

Evidently, no, I didn't see any evidence of that at all So I I don't know what the gentleman has or has not listened to what he's read

I have not read but it's a good question thought I would address it and looks like the first a call We have is a good one as well.

Let's talk to Dale in Indiana. Hi Dale Doing good Hey Interesting thing happened this week.

I had I had a relative with me in the car driving and I've he's a well he wouldn't claim being

Armenian, but he's certainly not a Calvinist and so anyway, we listened to your

Your mp3 file on Romans 9. Yes What you carry this around your car something was it a

Calvinist trap or something? I'm not gonna slow down till you finish reading listening to all of this Play I was driving he turned it on Yeah, but you stayed at 65 miles an hour too so that's

No, anyway, it's interesting because he listened to that well, maybe he's actually with me to learn something who knows yeah, and Got done and He said he had a disagree and his first his first problem

Was that you had no foundation because you were using the New King James, which I don't think is it I don't think you actually were using

No, it's probably using. Well, I'm looking at the Greeks. So it was by a mixture You mentioned the

New King James in it. I think that's what he picked up on. Oh But here's my question

Wait, what would you do in that situation as far as would you could because I can I mean

I'll take James and show Where he's wrong Mm -hmm You show the error of his

James only is and more do you show him the error of the fact that Synergism is wrong.

No matter what Yeah, it's hard to say in fact, I'm gonna be playing a video which of course for you all want to be an audio

But I'll be playing it here in a moment of a modalist King James only guy and that's one of the issues

He's challenged me to debate and one of the issues that I have to immediately raises Well, what's going to be the foundation of authority if you're

King James only, you know There's a fundamental issue of authority right there. And so can you really get into a discussion of these other things?

but the fact is you could use the King James just as readily as any other translation in Romans 9 and Come the same issue and in fact the vast majority the

King James translators were themselves reformed in their soteriology That's how I learned it,

I mean I read it that's how I learned Calvinism from the King James I mean, it's not like you have to go to the NIV to learn it

No, exactly. Yeah, but see I told I told him that you were a Greek scholar and you'd you know He'd studied

Greek and all that. He said that he said he didn't believe that we needed the Greek He said it was okay

He said it wasn't wrong read a Greek but we didn't need it because God promised that his word would be simple and preserved and it's reserved in the

English language and You know, I'm sure you've heard all that before I've I've heard it all and I fully understand its attraction

It's the same arguments that were used for the Latin Vulgate. It's the same argument that can be used for all sorts of really bad perversions of God's truth, too, so I Understand the argument.

It's not a good argument, but I understand it one last question boy. Yeah I was reading your book on the

King James only controversy, which I'm about doing the second edition of Should I finish it or oh, yeah, wait till that next one comes out.

Well, uh I've never anybody asked you that question

Morgan's I've never done a second edition before but I begged Bethany house And they've given me 32 more pages

So what I will be doing with that There will be some places That that I'll be making slight adjustments in the material

It's already there, but the primary thing I need to do is to to add a whole chapter textual criticism has undergone a fundamental ground swell a shift the change in perspective

Since the 1980s and of course that book was written in 94 But you know, you're always gonna reflect what your upbringing was and there's been a lot of changes from 94 until 2008 not so much

With the text the text really hasn't changed much But the people who are addressing it people like Bart Ehrman and misquoting

Jesus like that So I am going to respond to those issues You know, that's that's a lot to cram into 32 pages, but I'm gonna do my best to do it

Know what you need to do is you need to finish reading the one you have now wait for the new one buy it and then read

Not that I'm aware of no You got to be pretty big to get those things and what

I mean is distribution so yeah, no I don't have any an audio format. All right.

It's getting more accessible. But anyway, all right Thanks, Dale. God bless. All right, that way you could put the whole book in the car and then drive across the country

Without ever stopping because he's in some sort of a hybrid or something and that way you just make people listen to the whole thing

That'd be sort of interesting anyhow, I Rich got a phone call.

I don't know a month or so ago. Maybe more. I don't remember what it is I I don't I really don't keep track of these types of things, but I'll go does but I I don't

From a fellow who I guess was trying to make sure that I knew that he was putting YouTube videos up about about me in response to me or something and What was it

King James King James man or King James version man or something along those lines Is his nick on YouTube as King James in at some place and but the odd twist is that he is an

Antitrinitarian King James only person that's actually not unusual most the cults use the King James that is not an argument against the

King James but it is an accurate observation of Many of these cults using the

King James and maybe possibly that's because some of the archaic language can be used to Substantiate various points that are not necessarily as easy to substantiate in modern translations do not have the archaic language anyway

I Tracked down a couple of his videos looked around and wanted to respond To some of the things that he said, but I loved how how the first one starts off And that is this this video

Exposes James White and I was wondering you know I maybe I should start.

You know this video Exposes Islam don't don't don't you know something like that.

I've never quite figured that part out. Maybe I'm just missing all the really fun You know who things you're supposed to do to make things your videos exciting as I don't know but So I'm going to play

Me being exposed, you know it's sort of like I don't know if you saw this this morning, but I'll go was looking around for that art

Sippo quote Remember the art Sippo quote from I think it was May of May 27th 2005

I think Where art Sippo was talking about how what an idiot? I am and that I was raised by bigots

And I'm a bigot and and if there is money that I'd be burning crosses on people's lawns and wonderful just just kind Wonderful stuff like this and it made me think of Ben Douglas Who has been lecturing me on how

I need to be much more charitable And so when I finally point out the stuff that Steve Ray has done

And I say have you ever read the Catholic answers web boards and see how much garbage there is how many just just gross

Adhominem lies there are about me on that Envoy Jimmy Akins comm boxes.

I mean this is This is Roman Catholicism, and he wrote back to me.

It says no, I don't go to any of those places. Well. That's nice Then what are you doing lecturing me if you don't even know what's going on in your own backyard friend.

You know Well, I'm perfectly nice, so you should be just as nice as I am well

I don't know I Forgot to ask Ben when he started working with Bob's and Janice Because if he was working with Bob's and Janice when

Bob's Janice, and I had the mass debate That That was a long time before that was what 99 it was 1999 so I doubt that he was he doesn't look like he's

Really all that old so he might have been about 12 at that point or something. I don't know but anyway So What the world that I have doing oh, yeah,

I'll go yes there you go so anyways Here is here's the exposing

Now from a King James only and by the way I do remind me to play the end of this because at the end of this he talks about how all this has been revealed to him and You know once you once you're up against someone who claims well

Fundamentally God just revealed this to me That's a that's you know sort of like debating

Joseph Smith. You know it's just sort of That's the trump card. You know and why do you say that mr..

Smith? Well because God told me so that's why I was like well sort of hard to examine it, but anyways here we go

Welcome in everyone today's video is called one who and not three who's and this is a video exposing dr.

James white the famous author of God and Trinity in the King James only debate

I am going to give a few scriptures here Refuting this

Belief by James white that I I did not actually origin Originate the belief just want to make sure everybody knows that I am getting older, but I'm not quite that old

I've just sort of came on the scene after this lots of people before me who believe the same exactly the same things

I did God is three who's and I'll give you his quote in just a minute Thank you, but let's start off with Colossians chapter 2 verses 9 and 10

Colossians 2 9 everybody turn there This is one of the favorite texts of King James not

King James Okay of King James only modalists there we go we rescued ourselves, and I would

And I believe that Robert Sabin used this and I think almost everybody does

It is a text I've used many times in fact I've told many people if you want to memorize at least one verse to have ready to go when the

Jehovah's Witnesses come to the door Memorize Colossians 2 9 but memorize it for what it's actually saying not how we are about to see it abused and note the

Utilization, and I'm sorry for a certain person in channel that I know likes the King James but one of the reasons the

King James is easier for cultists to use is because of an inconsistency in the translation of The family of nouns that are either

Thaya or Thaya in their in their roots That is they are they toss and Thyatis are translated by the same word in the

King James, and that's wrong they're translated the term Godhead whatever on earth that means and Because it's archaic and because it's not easily defined and because it isn't translated consistently in the

King James version between Romans 1 and Colossians 2 9 you're gonna see how it all comes together to allow this fellow to Have their own conclusions

Colossians 2 verses 9 and 10 and that will give us a good scripture to work from here

All right Colossians 2 9 says speaking of Jesus Christ For in him for in him

Jesus for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the

Godhead bodily and Ye are complete in him

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily and ye are complete in him

Now if this scripture is Looked at carefully you will notice that That all the fullness of God whoever

God is whatever God is however many persons He is according to Trinitarians All that fullness dwells in the body of Jesus Christ now did you catch that Whatever God is whoever

God is however many persons God is dwells bodily in Jesus Christ and so the idea is that Godhead Means everything that is

God every aspect of God I would I guess person Attributes everything now are we given any substantiation that no we are not

What does the Greek term Theotokos mean well immediately as soon as you ask that question you leave the

King James only advocate behind? Because he can't that's that can't really be over relevant to him

Because it's Godhead, and that's our final and final authority. It's just Godhead well Then how do we know what

Godhead means can we ask what Godhead meant to Paul? No because he never used the term the English language did not exist when

Paul wrote to the book of Colossians, and so we do have to look at the original language and They are they toss

Means that which makes God God the the term most translations uses deity

You cannot expand that out to mean well however many persons there are anything like that What it's saying is the fullness the divine being dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form now the reason for the phrase?

Bodily form is because of the context of Colossians. What is Paul responding to he's responding to the proto

Gnostics the early encounters with Gnosticism and Gnosticism is a docetic system a well.

I take that well it results in Gnosticism Gnosticism is a Dualistic system that results in a docetic conclusion arising eventually but since it's dualistic it believes that that which is physical is evil and that which is spiritual is good and So to say that the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus in somaticos bodily form is to slap the

Gnostics across the face because the fullness of Deity and remember play Roma was also another word they would use the fullness of deity cannot have anything to do with that which is somaticos because that which is somaticos is evil and So Paul is repudiating the dualism of the

Gnostics by asserting the continued deity of Christ as the resurrected man as the

God man, and so that's his point to try to Insert that into some other discussion

Especially when the Apostle Paul has already clearly distinguished Between the son and the father in Colossians chapter 1

If you if you just look back at Colossians chapter 1 I'll look at just some of the texts that they clearly distinguish between the father and son verse 3

We give thanks to God the father of our Lord Jesus Christ praying always for you

Now again, if this is modalism we give thanks to God the father of himself

Or we give thanks to God The God of our God or however you want to put it

The the modalism turns the New Testament in a mishmash because it turns

God and Jesus into one person and and you just can't make heads or tails out of anything and what is more when you get down to the discussion in verses 13 phone look at verse 12 giving thanks to the father

Who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the Saints in light for he that is the father?

Rescued us in the domain of darkness and transferred us the kingdom of his the father's beloved son

In whom we have redemption the forgiveness of sins So you have another clear distinction between the father and the son the

New Testament is always Clear on this subject there. You really really really really have to throw out all standard forms of Interpretation that just allow the language to speak for itself to come up with this kind of conclusion

And so though Paul has clearly differentiated between the father and the son You didn't start in Colossians 1 you jump into Colossians 2 ignore that And then say for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form use the

King James for Godhead And then in him you have a made complete and he is head overall rule authority now notice what the application is going to be in regards this being made complete

He is the fullness of the Godhead bodily so if the Godhead is the father

He is the fullness of the father in every respect all right now

Where do we get that the Godhead is the father where we aren't told it's just thrown out there And I imagine if we pushed hard enough

Well God told him that revelation. You know that's always the way around it. You can't you know when you have to depend upon this you know

Flesh and blood did not reveal these things to me Rather than you know going to the scriptures

That's the sure sign of the beginning of a new cult is basically how that works That's how Joseph Smith did it and everybody else does and especially in bodily form all right?

And it says ye are complete in him well Trinitarians would have us believe that we're not complete in Jesus Christ that we need two other persons or we have rejected

God because we rejected a three -person three and sometimes three -bodied

Trinity by now note note the complete shift of subject here in Him that is in Jesus Christ you have been made complete

Now how on earth does that have anything to do with the application was just made we're not told again It's just thrown out to us

When when the scriptures are talking about are being made complete in him that has one application and it in no way shape or form says and What that means is you don't need the father or what that means is you don't need the

Holy Spirit Because the being complete in him has nothing to do with any of that.

That's a complete shift of subject here No, Trinitarian has said no outside of Jesus Christ.

You're not complete. What we're saying is the Bible's revelation of God's existence is Set tells us that the son is not the only member of the

Trinity And that the son is not the father by the way for those of you Been looking at the blog remember the the

Muslim who falsely accused me of patra passionism This guy is a patra passionist.

There's a whole series of videos on his website on this YouTube account

Titled Jesus is the father or the father is Jesus one with him. And so here's a patra passionist here's the guy that the

Muslim falsely accuses me actually of being and Notice we are refuting him because well the

Muslim was confused as well And so anyway some Trinitarians, but they will have us believe that by rejecting the

Trinity We are rejecting Jesus Christ and nothing could be further from the truth The scripture says that we are complete in him complete in Jesus Christ.

And if we are come Saying that we are complete in Jesus Christ is not saying that Jesus Christ is the entirety of the

Godhead I mean that Connection is just non -existent. It's not there.

It hasn't been substantiated He's operating on it, but he hasn't told us why he would be operating on that We'll continue with a little bit more from this video

He goes to first John 3 16 a moment if you'd like to look that up and be ready for that and we'll also be looking at a text in Hebrews 9 and Taking your phone calls eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

We'll be right back Pilgrims progress it's not an easy way.

It's a journey 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.

They cannot be ignored Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us

James White's book the Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters

It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike highly recommended

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality

Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in Their book the same -sex controversy

James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject

Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including

Genesis Leviticus and Romans Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner

They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people the same -sex controversy defending and clarifying the

Bible's message about Homosexuality get your copy in the bookstore at a omen or I Can't hear you.

You can't hear me. Not really Thursday's are way cool. Why is it only on Thursday? Because that's the lineup.

Oh, that's where it is. Is that why it said five minutes at one minute? I Hit the wrong button

Welcome back to the dividing line. Hopefully didn't hear you that no It's such a professional program, you know, that's why

I have just you know a couple of people actually have talked to us about you know, Like going on a network or something like that and I would mean we'd actually have to start on time

We wouldn't be able to do this stuff Why do I do that? I don't get it, you know, and then then you know, anyway, nobody listens to me on the radio anyhow

So it's seven seven seven five three three three four one is phone number. Let's go back to our King James only

Modalist what's wrong? What? Oh He's at work, oh, okay.

Let's not go back to our King James only modalist. Let's Let's take our phone call and talk to Jason in Phoenix.

Hi Jason. Hey, how's it going? Dr. White? It's going pretty good. I'll try to answer as quick as him quick question I was just wondering in John 12 where Jesus says when

I am lifted up from earth will draw all people to myself Is is that the same idea that that he uses in John 6?

Actually, no, in fact, I if you have the Forgotten Trinity, I'm sorry the potter's freedom

I addressed that fairly in depth because that is the common place that people go to when you present to them

John 6 they go to John 12, but the context are completely different in John chapter 6 Jesus specifically says that he draws

That the father draws people to the Son and he raises up all those who are drawn in John chapter 12

You have the end of Jesus public ministry and you have Greeks coming and they're seeking Jesus Philip comes to Jesus they've come to him probably because they recognized his

Greek name and they come to him and When now Jesus is about Jesus as far as we know does not meet with them

He hides himself from these individuals. That's what it says in John chapter 12. And so the context is of Gentiles coming to Jesus and When Jesus says if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto myself

The question is in the context of Jews and Gentiles and the assertion is he's going to draw

Jews and Gentiles unto himself now the lifting up has to be the crucifixion.

It's not the ascension or something It is is the crucifixion itself and we know that the crucifixion is not naturally attractive

For the natural man, in fact, what does the Bible say the cross is it's repulsive It's the it pushes away

Jews and Greeks But it says I will draw so this is the of course the work of the

Father the Son the Spirit And so the assertion that Jesus is making is that he if he is lifted up he is going to draw

Jews and Gentiles bond and free male and female as Revelation 5 says men from every tribe tongue people in nation

We made a kingdom of priests by the by the work that he has accomplished So the context needs to be kept in mind and that is of the

Gentiles coming to seek Jesus That's often ignored and in fact Sadly, I would probably say it the majority of those who have ever raised the text to me as an objection if I were to have

Embarrassed them by asking what the context of John 12 was they would not have known sure. Well, great. Thank you so much

Okay, and you get back to work now. Okay See we are we are a friendly a friendly webcast because if you're at work

We won't call your boss and telling you I Wonder if he has one of those boss screens, you know, you know, you hit a particular key and it looks like you're back at work

There's probably a few people in channel right now. I could use a boss key, too Okay, now we go back to our

King James only Modalist Who is exposing me on the basis of a

Colossians chapter 2 and then we're gonna go to first John chapter 3 Then we have no need for two other persons

We have all we need in Jesus Christ. He is The fullness of God the fullness of the

Godhead. All right now notice again. We still don't have anything here

To explain to us. Why are you interpreting Godhead in this fashion? Why do you understand it in this way?

Can you tell us what there is in the text that would indicate this we aren't told any of that It's just thrown in there and that's just the way that it's the way that it's supposed to be

I actually have here a different my notes say it's a different one.

Let's get let's try this here and This is his video called.

Jesus is the father part 7 and This is where he talks about first John 316 and I'm gonna have to fast forward to a certain point here to get it exactly where we want to be

But here about there is where we want Now turn to John chapter 5 verse 26, and I'll show you that the father himself has a life that must be laid down 526 says

I guess it was the other one Let's let's try the same time coming everyone and see if it works.

That's what you get for doing these live 243 About right there.

Let's see if we're right you see when you asked a trinitarian. Do they believe Jesus is God? They'll say yes, we believe he's

God But what they mean by that is that he is not all of who God is

He is just all of what God is when they say he that Jesus is God what they?

Technically are saying is that they believe he is all the essence of God and they start using these words that are unscriptural

Essence and and and all these other words that have nothing to do with who Jesus is by the way

I guess it is in this one, and we'll get to it eventually I don't know where I got my all my times wrong there, but Use all these unscriptural words well to to answer certain questions you have to use words that can be distinguished from other words and to just simply throw claims out without Qualifying them as he has already done

And to not be specific to your terminology allows you to turn the scripture into mishmash I mean talk about unscriptural things when the scriptures so clearly distinguish between the father and son

Have the father and son speaking to one another have the father and son have the son praying to the father etc etc and yet to Say it there one person

Again is is about as unbiblical as you can get talking to you about what he is he is

God's substance according to them he is God's essence and This is not

What this is not what people are asking when they ask who Jesus is they're not asking what he is they're asking who he is

And just like people did in the script. I'm not sure there's a difference between the two I mean if I'm asking who somebody is of course in a human context that sort of assumed

He's a human, but we're talking about Jesus Christ the question was deity is clearly right there front and center sure

When they came up to Christ they weren't asking him well What is your essence and what is your substance and all this other?

philosophical Christian seminarian nonsense Jesus Christ is the fullness of the

Godhead bodily and If they want they want to play this who and what game with you and and get this straight

The Trinitarians are not teaching you that Jesus Christ is all of who God is They're saying he's all of what

God is and there's a big difference Yeah Let me just say this also that if Jesus Christ is not all of who

God is then he's not all of what God is Because what God is includes who he is now how many times have

I told you? When you listen to those who object to the doctrines of Trinity, I don't care if they're modalists

I don't care if they're Muslims, and I don't care if they're Jehovah's Witnesses What do they all assume

Unitarianism they all assume it they'll have to assume it at one point or another they're going to assume

Unitarianism and The statement that was just made by a person defending patra passion ism is the exact same statement that is made by Muslims and by Jehovah's Witnesses They're all and look at the vast the wide variety of conclusions they come to all

Assuming Unitarianism, that's where they go. You can't separate the two You can't put them in two different compartments and say well

We've got the who of God and the what of God we better be able to Because you're a human being but you ain't me so that means on level of person you are

Differentiated while on the level of being we have the same kind of being and you better be able to differentiate between Personhood and being because a rock has being just throw it at your head and find out really quickly it has being but it is

Not personal so you live in a world where you make that distinction all the time Don't deny that you then can use it to answer biblical questions not over here and Trinitarians like to play this game

Especially with people like myself who they think they're they're fooling or pulling something over on oh, yeah

We're but we're all just desperately dishonest all yeah Here's the point they don't believe that Jesus Christ is all of who

God is They actually teach that there are three who's and one what when it comes to God?

All right, and let me let me read a quote to you from James White in his book called the Forgotten Trinity James White's quote from the book the

Forgotten Trinity in page 27 says and James is speaking of a friend of his Well speaking of Hank Hanegraaff, I don't know if they're friends, and he uses

Hank Hanegraaff's quote as something that he admires all right and James White is saying

I Quote from his book Hank Hanegraaff president of the Christian Research Institute CRI has often expressed this point in a wonderfully simple and clear way when speaking of the

Trinity We need to realize We need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's

One what and three who's? Did you get that my listening audience?

Yes? We did. Thank you. Why it says God is one what and three who being in person?

Yeah, well I Don't recall Jesus ever saying that he was three who's I don't recall any of the

Apostles Jesus wouldn't have said that he was three who's of course he would have identified himself as the son praying to the father and Differentiating himself from the father and that's why for example in John chapter 17 you have an entire text

No modalist will ever make sense out of I would love to see this guy try to go through John 17 Father glorify me together the glory.

I had with you before the world was yeah, there is pure schizophrenia There was that the human nature praying to the divine nature well, but wait a minute the human nature wasn't created until Bethlehem, so How is he with the fire?

Well? That was you see he was a plan He was an idea I'm sorry, but that's absurd

You want you sit there, and then say well. You never said he was three who's well of course We wouldn't say he was three who's no one has ever suggested

This is the terminology he would have been using and in fact he wouldn't have said I'm three who's anyways again

You just listen to this and you and you go when are we going to find someone who actually? Represents the position that they're denying accurately and then and then interacts with it

I've almost given up on ever finding cycles ever saying that God is three who's In fact when they asked

Jesus who he was he didn't say that he was one of three who's

He didn't say that he was the second person of the ever -blessed Trinity He didn't say that he was the eternally begotten

Son of God No, he didn't say that at all in Acts 9 Why don't you give us what

Jesus did say? He said he's the the Christ or Paul or Peter the

Christ the Son of the Living God We have the baptism where the Father speaks from heaven the

Son is baptized and the Spirit descends and formally Dove we have son of man son of God Jesus constantly says he is sent by someone who is an is a person and That he existed as a person in the presence of this other person

I mean all through the text. It's very very clear very very plain in fact

Let's see what an old test. I need to find this other one I don't know how I missed unless I just mistyped it because we're running out of time here

And I still want to get to this let's go to this one here And see if we can just allow that lead us Joseph like a flock

Called the shepherd of Israel for the sheep and of course Jesus is saying that he is

John 5 26 says for as the Israel and this shepherd that just 340 now

Turn to first John chapter 3 verse I made a scribal error See even with computers.

I typed 243 and it was 343 see even in the computer age we can have scribal errors even with LASIK Everything else all right now first John 316 let's let's take a look at it and The reason

I want you to take a look at it is is because it's interesting If you compare if you've got a

Bible program you compare a number of different versions That'll that'll be useful to you

Because you'll see that for example the New American Standard says We know love by this

That he laid down his life for us, and we have to lay down our lives to the brethren ESV by this We know love that he laid down his life for us, and we have to lay down our life for our our

Brothers I only have two English versions in this one, but the the New King James version.

I think we have Why isn't that working there and came? one 316

If Gutenberg gets it for me there It is by this we know love because he laid down his life for us

And we are also to lay down our lives for the brethren etc. Etc. So the only quote -unquote modern translations of the

King James and I actually asked in channel and turrets and fan And I did some digging around and he found a website with the

Clementine Vulgate in it It seems to have come into the King James from some

It's not in most critical editions of the Vulgate it's a minority reading in one branch of the

Vulgate and So it does not have Greek foundation the majority Greek text

Byzantine Greek text anything like that It appears the late reading in some form some manuscripts of the

Latin Vulgate by this We know the love of God, but that's what's in the King James even though the

King James does have it in italics At least in the ones that I looked at now listen to Once again, we saw how

Godhead allowed him to say things that actually Theodotus wouldn't substantiate now Let's see how again a an expansion that does not reflect

The best rendering of the Greek manuscripts or any rendering of the Greek manuscripts at all The King James version is used by this

King James only modalist to promote his point 16 in your King James Bible And by the way, one of the reasons why

I teach the King James is for verses like this This is the only verse of any version that I'm aware of that teaches that God Himself laid down his life.

There you go for you and me first John chapter 3 verse 16 says

Hereby perceive we the love of God because he laid down his life for us

Hereby perceive we the love of God Because he because he laid down his life for us now

We should be familiar with the fact that God the word God is Is equivalent to the word father in about 99 % of the verses that use the word

God In other words most every time you see the word God in Scripture It's referring to the father and this verse is no different.

This verse says that God laid down his life for us So see how this works

He knows only the King James has it has he found out why the King James has don't know

But this would be one of the biggest problems because at the end of the other video he challenges me to a debate Well, what are we debate on?

Because he's gonna go to first John 3 16. I'm gonna say that's not what John wrote. He's gonna go Well, yes, you did because it's in the

King James version of the Bible and I go. Well, you know, it wasn't in the Greek manuscripts and It's found only in a minority of later

Latin manuscripts and I looked up exactly which ones it was in in my critical attacks of the

Vulgate and that's that's not what John wrote if something can be only preserved as a

Minority reading in late Latin manuscripts, then we have no Idea at all what the

New Testament originally read none zero it has been completely corrupted it may have it may indeed as some people like to say have talked about space aliens and Predicted when the

Cardinals will win the Super Bowl because there's no way we could ever know again But that isn't the history of the

New Testament text. And so how could we even decide any of these things? I don't know But here you just heard an entire argument made out of an italicized phrase

That's not found in any of the Greek manuscripts and a minority of Latin minute later Latin manuscripts and that becomes the basis for saying the father oh and then you go and God is 99 % of time is the father.

Therefore. This must be the father see so You know once you've got that kind of argumentation again

It's it reminds me of asking another King James only advocate and exactly why did you call that the

NAS V? That's what God calls it No, I mean, there's there's all you know, when you're talking to someone who sees

Revelation, that's just sort of what ends up happening Okay. Um, oh

Turrets and fans looking at the comp competency and polyglot now Good luck reading that thing

Let me go to one of those real quick still have enough time here And that was Hebrews 9 16, this was an interesting one, let's hope

I did not Mess up the time frame on this one and we got it, right? Let's see.

Have your scriptures open up to Hebrews 9 16 Hebrews 9 16 and it also talks about a life that has to be laid down and It says in Hebrews 9 16 there must also of necessity be the death of The testator there must also of necessity be the death of the testator

Well, the testator is the one that testated the scriptures the one that wrote the scriptures I am this this verse is quite telling because we know even

Trinitarians will admit that the father himself wrote the scriptures

Inspired the scriptures the father himself Testated the Old Testament to the prophets and so since the father is himself the testator and he

Testated or he inspired and had a hand in writing the scriptures through men Then the

Hebrews chapter 9 says that this testator must lay down his life

Again, it says there must also of necessity. It is necessary There must also of necessity be the death of the testator so That's interesting.

But that's not all the verse says it says for where a covenant is what covenant is being spoken of?

Well, there's this thing called context again. And so we go back in the context and the context starts verse 13

Actually, but let's go back a little before that Verse 11 when Christ appeared as a high priest the good thing is to come he entered through the greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands as to say now this creation and not through the blood of goats and cows

But through his own blood he entered the holy place once for all having obtained eternal redemption for the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer

Sprinkling those have been defiled sanctified for the cleansing the flesh. How much more will the blood of Christ?

Who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God? Cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve living

God You'd notice a little trinitarian passage there the Father the Son the Spirit all one verse For this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant who is in view here

That is Jesus Christ So that since a death has taken place the redemption the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant

Those who've been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance for a covenant is there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it

For a covenant is valid only when men are dead for it is never enforced while the one who made it lives therefore even the first covenant was not an arguer of that blood and it talks about the the

Offering of the sacrifices, but this one of course is inaugurated through the blood of Jesus Christ And notice what it says for Christ's I'd enter a holy place

I'm at the hands of mere copy of the true one verse 24 But into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us

Which in the modalistic perspective means now to appear in his own presence for us Again turning the text on its head by ignoring context of failing to follow the flow

And just taking obviously an external concept and forcing it into the text that simply will not allow for it.

So It's interesting to look at this kind of stuff But one of the reasons

I and I had seen one of the videos in fact to download it. I Since Vista doesn't want to talk to my network and I have to move stuff around using jump drives all the time but anyways,

I Thought about doing something in response to him and I still may do that this afternoon as far as the

YouTube video is concerned But one of the reasons that really motivated me to do that today

Was the Islamic? attack upon me accusing me of patra passionism and I Really think that one of the reasons that we can be so consistent in responding to Islamic apologists.

In fact, I was looking at The Abdullah's over in London his videos and His position is so right for reputation from me

And the specific reason is he loves to use Roman Catholic arguments and he loves to say well the Roman Catholics say this

And I can look him right in the eye and say I've been refuting that forever I've taken on the best their side has to offer on this very subject.

And here's the examples. Here's the examples here Here's where you're wrong. So now now what do you do for an argument? You know, they're they're attacking the canon of Scripture by going to some

Roman Catholic And the Roman Catholics sitting there going. Hey, well we have We have this particular

These books because the church was guided by the spirit to choose these things blah blah blah blah blah blah and so we can respond to these things very very very very

Consistently and Because well, we've heard all this stuff before I can imagine

Hey, you got to give him credit using Roman Catholic arguments against Protestants can be rather effective, especially when you're a

Muslim But it's not going to work for us because we've been consistent on this all along by the way turd and fam tells me

That the competition has it. I would assume the word day Karatatum day

On both the Greek and Latin sides. Now that is interesting to me because I have not seen any citation in Tregellas in Von Soden UBS na 27 anywhere that indicates any

Greek manuscript support for The appearance the word God at that point point in time.

So where did they get it? Is it a Translational expansion or was there

Latin influence on this not yet? Sure, but it certainly is not the original reading no matter what at first John 3 16

So anyway, but see we actually check these things out instead of just throwing it out there for the fun of it

That's the difference and hopefully it's difference you can appreciate so we will not as far as I know right now

I'm just gonna say we're not gonna be here for the dividing line next week, but it's possible

I mean if we can really You know, it might be worthwhile because I don't think I'm speaking during this time frame at least

I know I'm not I think on Tuesday so if I've got a good internet connection, we can work out a little

Skype action. Maybe we can make it work It'd be worth well, maybe taking a shot at it. We'll see how

I'm feeling and how everything works out But if we're not here next week, we'll be here the next week after that Lord will talk to you then

God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

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

O box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks