Hadith Qudsi and Peter Lumpkins

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

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

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

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

James White. And welcome to The Dividing Line on a special Friday edition of the program.

I just sort of moved everything over because red eyes are no fun. And there wasn't a reason for me to do it on Tuesday, so we just shifted everything over one day.

And so here we are on Friday. Maybe you can take a break from sitting there staring at Fox News and watching video of cops standing around everywhere in Boston today as they're looking for the second bomber.

And I'm sure it'll be very interesting. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know. I've just gotten old enough now.

And by the way, I need to bring up my video feed here. I didn't have that up. I've got to bring that up.

Since 24 minutes after the last Dividing Line, I watched as someone broke into my car in the parking lot.

Unfortunately, the feed was too small and I didn't realize what they were doing until it was too late to stop them.

If I just had that other feed, I could have stopped them. But now we're watching very, very carefully and because we stopped them before, we can jump on a thing and yell really loud at people outside, which has sort of been fun.

Real big, big, what do you call those things? Loudspeakers.

It's a very loud loudspeaker. But it was too late and they had already smashed the back window and don't know what in the world they're looking for.

I guess they liked my towels. I don't know. There just wasn't anything else in there. I just can't figure that one out.

So I'm firing up my video feeds even as we speak so that I can, because I can see some of them from here, but they're a good distance away and I really couldn't tell what's going on there from there.

Anyway, what in the world was I saying? I needed to take a break from all that and listen to the

Dividing Line and think about other things. Hopefully, things that have at least somewhat more importance.

Looks like I will be getting a chance. I'm still working on some stuff for the fall and looks like I'm going to be heading down to Votie Balcombe's place to do a conference down there.

Just got a confirmation on that. And the very next week, I think I'm in Canada and I am going to do everything in my power to get down to, let me blow this one up.

This is probably the best feed to see. Oh, that's nice and clear. That's pretty. If I had been parked there,

I think I would have seen them, but it's a nice pretty window there. It's already got fixed yesterday and I don't know how insurance companies stay in business to be perfectly honest with you.

I guess if I realized how much money I spend to them every month, I would realize that wasn't even a month's worth actually, so I guess that's how it works.

But anyways, I'm going to try to get to a little town called

Pryor, Oklahoma. Ran into a brother on Twitter and for some reason he's shocked, absolutely benumbed that I would be willing to come to his church in Pryor, Oklahoma, not seemingly realizing that that's what a lot of churches

I go to are not the biggest churches because I say politically incorrect things and engage in politically incorrect activities.

Evidently, he does politically incorrect things too. So he's already talking about going out and shooting stuff. So it's this sort of, every time

I go down south, Georgia, Oklahoma, let's go shoot something while we're here. And my friends from New Zealand, I just don't understand you people, you're weird.

And well, that's just a cultural thing. But anyways, we're going to try to find someplace in there before the end of the year to fit that in there.

And hey, it would help me get to that magical platinum frequent flyer thing if they even still have that.

U .S. Airways is merging with American, who knows what's going to happen? I mean, I'm sitting here thinking, honestly,

I don't even know how to get to South Africa, which airline to take right now, because I don't think anybody there knows which airlines other than U .S.

Airways we're going to be able to fly, where I'll be able to get miles for it. It's going to be one of those interesting things. I see you now have the same interesting headsets that I have.

I bought those, the little, yes, with the Bluetooth stuff in them. I bought those a couple of months, well,

I bought those back in December when summer was expecting, so I could go for rides and listen to stuff, but also get interrupted if the phone call came and I could turn around and head home.

So that's why I bought them. They're sort of cool, but I can't put the noise canceling part in. So it's a little bit tough to listen to.

Well, I have noise canceling earbuds. That's the only way, if you're riding, you've got 15 to 25 mile an hour wind in your ears.

Those really, you have to crank it so loud, it's really hard. So I've got these real, you know, the seat in real tight and sort of seal the seal, the sound out.

It helps. No, it's not. It's not that bad. But anyways, that's that's how

I do that. So I didn't realize I'm just sort of wandering around here. You start the program today with a little, do a little education here.

I mentioned on the last program that I think one of the criticisms of the new book is going to be it's too academic.

Now, if it was actually academic, it would be filled. With Arabic. Now, it does have

Arabic terms, but it has an Arabic glossary in the back, too, to help you understand what those are. You cannot discuss the

Quran and you cannot discuss Islamic theology without using without using

Arabic. It's just it's not possible. Nobody can do it. And so, yeah, that's that's there.

And yeah, I deal with transmission issues, but look, there is nothing. This book is no is not nearly as, quote unquote, academic as the

King James only controversy is. I just think there's going to be a lot of people who.

Because of I've just I've just sensed. Especially in women,

I'll just OK, get myself in lots of trouble here. Yeah, here we go again, you know, but especially in women and unwillingness.

And I think it's cultural and due to I've seen those men on TV with the

AK -47s, and that's what all Muslims are like. And therefore, maybe that's part of it.

I don't know. But there's just this unwillingness to do the extra work that's necessary.

To get over the big cultural hump that's in the way, and it's a big one, not only terminologically, but it's just so strange.

It's so different than what I'm used to. But you know what? It's really the women that we really it's everybody.

But I especially want to see Christian women embrace this because it's

Christian women who will reach. Female Muslims, women, women who are

Muslims, it's not me, I'm not going to have the opportunity to do that. I mean, a really believing Muslim woman's be very uncomfortable talking to me.

I think there's a double edged sword here, though. I really wonder what kind of reception you would be getting if you were to really be first releasing the

King James only controversy here in 2013, 20 years later. I think there are a lot of Christians out there who need to recognize that in order to share their faith, they're going to have to do more than to go to church on Sunday morning, listen to the cool music and wave their hands around.

It just seems to me that in the last 20, 25 years, we have seen this huge drift within Christianity at large, away from knowing the scriptures.

Well, you know, yeah, certainly that that which is most popular. There's there's always been that element of anti scholasticism, anti academia in certain strains of of Protestantism.

I mean, you look at Dave Hunt and the Brethren movement and stuff like that. There's that's been there. But the popular, you know, the megachurches.

Oh, yeah. I mean, you should just be able to, you know, do your spiritual thing and God will zap you and the idea of studying and stuff like that.

And it's put us way behind the eight ball because with the Internet and it's and the willingness of people to throw out arguments against the

Christian faith, it's it's all around. The very first time I heard you teach on anything, which would have been around 1987, what

I found in 1987, utterly unique and different about your approach was that you were emphasizing how much as Christians we need to know what we believe and why we believe that we believe it and then turn to the group or person that we're trying to witness to.

And know what they believe and why they believe it. And at that point in time, there was a number of people in our circle at the time that were attracted to that.

And it just seems like and I don't think it's just because we're reformed. I think it's a very big picture here of.

That's just what I have to do, what? Why would I want to do that?

I just want to go to church on Sunday morning and and be done with it. Well, something something tells me that the situation we're going to be facing with our culture will will disabuse us of that particular concept or push us off into liberalism.

One one of the two. But anyway, what I want to do to start off the program today and a little bit later in the program,

I am going to be responding to the first attempt on the part of Peter Lemkins to respond to my criticism of his book.

It's somewhat interesting. It actually allows to get into the Bible, which is nice. But I want to introduce you to some phrases and help you to understand some things

I've explained many times. In fact, it's interesting in regards to the Lincoln situation. One of the criticisms that remains absolutely valid and will never, ever, ever, ever be responded to by any of his defenders because they can't do it, which is why they just try to avoid it, is the abuse of the

Hadith literature in the published writings of Ergin and Ymir Kanner. I'd be very interested.

I have a feeling that in the future. The publishers and I forget who.

Kregel, Kregel, I think, is the publisher on the like they're unveiling Islam book or something like that. I have a feeling this will be fixed in the future, but it'll be done very quietly.

I'm sure the publishers have actually asked them. Could you could you actually put the right references in here?

Because it's really obvious that, you know, you can't answer the question of Hadith 24, 25.

No one can. And so I have a feeling that's gonna be fixed a little bit down the road and just be done really quietly, unfortunately.

But in light of that, I have mentioned many, many times that there are a number of Hadith collections that are considered authoritative by Sunni Muslims.

Very different set of Hadith for the Shia. And in fact,

I started listening to the Shiite Hadith while back and wow, just completely different mindset.

And it's very, very, very, very different. But anyway, the two most widely accepted

Hadith collections are called Sahih al -Bukhari and then the collection of Sahih Muslim.

And Bukhari is the largest Muslims fairly close in length. And there's a really interesting set of books that looks at what the common

Hadith between those two collections are, because they would have a special authority. I've read

Sahih al -Bukhari. I am within a matter of hours of completing

Sahih Muslim. I had read the theological portions of Sahih Muslim back in 2011.

I've been catching up with the Fiqh portion, which is much more of the less exciting stuff.

I will re -listen to the theological portions again, just to refresh my memory. And when I'm done with that, my plan is

I've discovered a website that has Sunan Abu Dawud, the next collection, in electronic form, almost complete.

There's just a few sections missing. And I think once I've done that, I've done Malik's Muwatta, that'll be enough as far as Hadith goes.

That means I will have heard most of the theologically significant

Hadith narrated, sometimes 30, 40, 50 times. Same story, over and over again.

In fact, when I go up to Canada in October, one of my presentations at the Sola Scriptura conference in,

I think it's Vancouver, will be, I will narrate the whole hour or so.

Will be nothing but the Hadith that Christians need to hear.

And I'm looking forward to that, because I'll just give the reference, but I'm not going to be reading it. I'm just gonna be narrating it, because all of these will be the ones that I've heard over and over and over again, over literally thousands of miles of bicycle riding over the past couple of years.

Now, I've also read Anand Nawawi's 40

Hadith. And then you've got something called Hadith Qudsi. Hadith Qudsi.

Now, the plural of Hadith is Ahadith, but Hadith Qudsi have a special authority.

They're really second only to the Quran in authority, because in Hadith Qudsi, I'm sorry,

I didn't even define it. Hadith, in essence, are the actions, words, primarily of Muhammad, but also of his companions.

And they become the very source out of which the Sunnah, the life of Muhammad is understood.

They become the foundation of Sharia. They are really the sources out of which, along with the early

Tafsir literature, you have the formation of the early Islamic schools of thought.

Jurisprudence, et cetera, et cetera. This is the material that I've said many times is what

Muslims draw from in the creation of their theology, their understanding of the world, their understanding of law.

And it's inconsistent material. I find it contradicting itself regularly.

And that's the problem, because it becomes the source from which the radicals argue with the not so radicals.

And I just don't think the sources they're drawing from can actually answer the question. And I sort of wonder if maybe that's what is behind Yasir Qadhi's desire or choice to not be identified as a

Salafi. Because the Salafi, Wahhabi movements, the Hadith are unquestionable in their authority.

Just unquestionable. And so anyway, Hadith Qudsi, then, are

Hadith where Allah is quoted as speaking. So you have the words of Allah.

And since they come from the Prophet, then they can't really be questioned. So they are words of Allah, but they're outside the

Quran. So since they're not in the Quran, they don't have the authority of the Quran. But they're about as close as you can get.

And you could read through the Hadith Qudsi in a very short period of time. So I want to give you some examples of that, because, well, nobody else will.

Well, I'll take that back. There are a few who will, but not many. And just to give you an...

And what I find is some of these... Well, listen to this and ask yourself the question.

This is collected over 700 years after the resurrection of Christ.

Okay, over 700 years later. You think maybe, possibly, what

I'm about to read, you might have had some influence upon it from other sources. Here's Hadith Qudsi.

This is from the Guided Ways website. This is the 40

Hadith Qudsi. There's also 110 Hadith Qudsi collection out there, which is a different one. This is number 18 in the 40

Hadith Qudsi list. On the authority of Abu Hurairah, may

Allah be pleased with him who said the message of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, Allah, mighty and sublime, be he will say on the day of resurrection,

O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited me not. He will say,

O Lord, and how should I visit you when you are the Lord of the worlds? He will say, did you not know that my servant so -and -so had fallen ill and you visited him not?

Did you not know that you had visited him... That had you visited him, sorry, you would have found me with him?

O son of Adam, I asked you for food and you fed me not. He will say, O Lord, and how should

I feed you when you are the Lord of the worlds? He will say, did you not know that my servant so -and -so asked you for food and you fed him not?

Did you not know that had you fed him, you would surely have found that the reward for doing so with me?

O son of Adam, I asked you to give me to drink and you gave me not to drink. He will say, O Lord, how should

I give you drink to drink when you are the Lord of the worlds? He will say, my servant so -and -so asked you to give him to drink and you gave him not to drink.

Had you given him to drink, you would have surely found that with me.

Now, I don't know about you, but when you encounter something like this, that is written 700 years after Matthew chapter 25, after the

Sermon on the Mount, after these types of materials that are widely and well -known, it would seem that most critical scholars, and certainly the critical scholars that Islamic apologists depend upon would point to this.

That sounds like that's coming from a Christian source, don't you think? That's Jesus' teaching about the judgment and the sheep and the goats and stuff like that, right?

But if this is a Hadith Qudsi and this is Muhammad narrating the very words of Allah, then it can't be that.

There can't be that kind of influence. Now, the more liberal a Muslim is, the more willing they're going to be going to go, yeah, yeah, that's been influence.

But you wonder, what kind of influence? What's the process?

We don't know. There is so much work that needs to be done. I mean, there's so much work just looking at the transmission of the text of the early church fathers that hasn't been done yet, let alone even the

New Testament, that to look at the formation, transmission of the text of the

Hadith, well, there's still a lot of work to be done there. But I find it very, very interesting.

Here's the next Hadith Qudsi, Hadith Qudsi 19, again from Abu Huraira, who, again, is directly narrating from the messenger of Allah, Muhammad.

That's found in Abu Dawud, also by Ibn Majah and Ahmad with sound chains of authority.

This Hadith also appears in Muslim in another version. So, in other words, what that's saying is that this is found in numerous collections, not found in Sahih al -Bukhari, but it is found in Sunan Abu Dawud, in the

Sunan of Ibn Majah and Ahmad, and also in another version in Muslim.

So, that's numerous collections. Not really sure what it means, however, I'll be perfectly honest with you.

This is interesting, Hadith Qudsi 20, the gates of paradise. This is, again, same narrator.

The gates of paradise will be opened on Mondays and on Thursdays.

And every servant of Allah who associates nothing with Allah, and you all know what association is, right? What is association in Arabic?

I would say to you that if you're a regular listener of this program, I would expect you, honestly, to know this.

If you've read my book, you know this. If you've listened to my presentations, you know this, because I present this in almost every single presentation

I do. I would assume that the two...

Kay Dude and Channel just got it. That the two Arabic words, probably, if I were to put them in positions one and two, that you need to know.

Yes, you as a Christian. Yes, you as a mother raising your children.

You, Sunday school teacher. You, deacon. Not just the pastors.

And by the way, may I mention Camden Boosie has mentioned on Twitter.

And I need to get up on the blog. I retweeted his... Well, actually,

I thought I had, but I'm going to do it right now. They're retweeting from both of my main accounts.

Just retweeted the link to the Reform Forum podcast. Had a great time with these guys, a bunch of OPC pastors.

And I told them, I said, you guys need to know this stuff. I challenged them to lead their people in understanding of this, to be out front, because we have the message that the

Muslims need to hear, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But I say it's all Christians. I say it's all

Christians. The two terms at the top of my list, positively, number one, you need to know what

Tawhid is. You need to know what Tawhid is. That's the book that I'm just now starting to work on.

I hope, Lord willing, this afternoon to write the first words, my first words. Because as I've told you, this is going to be an exciting book.

It's going to be a very, very unusual book, because it will be co -authored between myself and Dr.

Shabir Ali. And it's on Trinity and Tawhid. Almost no books like it.

I would ask for all of you who understand why this is so important to pray for this process, pray for both

Shabir and myself, as we dialogue on the central aspects of our faith.

Tawhid, from Wahad to make one, you've heard the term Echad, Echad from the

Shema in Hebrew, in the Hebrew language, Deuteronomy 6. So Tawhid is the oneness of Allah.

And that is oneness both in being, hence, absolute, strict, unquestionable monotheism.

But it also is absolute, strict, unquestionable

Unitarianism. And that, of course, is where we differ, because I will affirm very, very clearly, and we'll probably need to write this section over the next couple of weeks, despite the traveling and everything else.

So your prayers, again, appreciated for clarity of thought and focus. I have so many things going on.

It's very difficult to focus on one thing. That is, I will confess, a difficulty. But I will confess and defend absolute ontological monotheism.

But I am not a Unitarian by any stretch of the imagination.

And that's going to be the issue. That's what we got to focus on. We're focusing upon what really separates us.

What's the central issue? And so the main word, the positive affirmation of what gives

Islamic theology its strength, there is something absolutely true and important and vital in confessing what is taught over and over again in the

Old Testament. Before me, there was no God formed, and there shall be none after me.

Is there any other God besides me? Yea, I know not any. That's what's said in the

Bible. And those are truths

I have defended over and over and over and over again, standing outside of Mormon temples and things like that, because they're denied by the

Mormons, which is why Mormonism is not Christianity and will never be Christianity and cannot be

Christianity by simple definition. Tawhid, one

God, monotheism, the violation, denial of Tawhid then becomes the second most important term, because it is the sin which if you die upon Tawhid, which means in the state of, as you if you die and you understand in Arabic, you generally, as in most of the

Semitic languages, form the participial form, which can become a substantive through the use of a prefixed mem, the

M letter in our language. So, a person who engages in Jihad is at Mujahid.

You hear the M sound at the beginning and then the J -H -D root,

Mujahid. A person who commits the sin of shirk, which is the second term, shirk, the violation of Tawhid, is a mushrik, plural, mushrikeem.

And most Muslims believe that Christians who worship Jesus are mushrikeem because they are associating a creature with Allah.

Obviously, we reject that because we do not believe that we are associating a creature with Allah in any way, shape or form.

But shirk is the second term you need to understand.

And in this Hadith Qudsi, when it says, the gates of paradise will be opened on Mondays and on Thursdays and every servant of Allah who associates nothing with Allah will be forgiven.

Because shirk is an unforgivable sin. If you die as a mushrik, remember,

I've told the story a number of times. Muhammad goes to his uncle, Abu Talib.

And Abu Talib is on his deathbed. And Muhammad's doing everything he can to get him to say la ilaha illallah, to say the shahada, the confession of faith.

There is no God worthy of worship but Allah. But he refuses to do so. He dies as a mushrik.

He dies as a polytheist. And even though Muhammad was denied permission to pray for his parents who died as mushrikim, he was given permission.

This was the one exception. He was given permission to pray for Abu Talib because Abu Talib protected him for many, many years when he was a minority prophet there in Mecca.

And so he was allowed to pray for him. And as a result, Abu Talib has the best place in hell.

And the best place in hell is to stand in fire that is so shallow that it only reaches up to your ankles, but it's so hot that your brains boil.

That's where Abu Talib is. Now, in some of the versions of that hadith, he's actually wearing sandals that are so hot that his brains boil.

But that's the garden spot of the fire. And so just keep that in mind.

So for some reason, Mondays and Thursdays, every servant of Allah who associates nothing with Allah, to be a servant of Allah, you have to have said the shahada.

Will be forgiven except for the man who has a grudge against his brother. About them, it will be said, delay these two until they are reconciled.

Delay these two until they are reconciled. Now, all that first part was just to give you the background, remind you,

I know most of you already know this, but it's important stuff. And I want to repeat it.

And we get new listeners. And so I apologize for having to repeat things if you already know it. But be it as it may, it's the second part that I wanted to read you because does that sound familiar?

Yeah, it does. About them, it will be said, delay these two until they are reconciled. Delay these two until they are reconciled.

In other words, though they're going to be forgiven, reconciliation between them has to take place within the ummah before the judgment.

Sounds like somebody was reading a lot of Matthew. You know, don't go and offer your offering.

If you have odd against your brother, go take care of that first and offer your offering. Wow, it's just so, seems so clear to me that there has been this kind of influence.

But what that, the question it raises is, as I read the Quran, as I read the understanding of the author of the

Quran, he doesn't know the New Testament this way. So why is there a difference between the

Hadith and the Quran at this point? Raises all sorts of very, very interesting questions.

Questions. Well, halfway through the program, and I want to have time to, first of all,

I need to define a term for us. Shifting gears here. Shifting gears.

Put the clutch way in here. There is a, just a wonderful intransitive verb called

Koruscate. Koruscate. And it means to give off or reflect light in bright beams or flashes, to sparkle.

Definition number two, to be brilliant or showy in technique or style. Koruscate.

No, it is not the word of the day. Some of you are going to check your RSVs right now and go, I wasn't the word of the day.

No, it's not, it's not the word of the day. But it is the word of the day on Peter Lumpkin's blog.

Yes, for April 18th, yesterday. Nice big picture of me.

He likes to put my face all over everything. At least he doesn't do what Dave Armstrong does. He hasn't put any horns or, you know, knives going through my head or anything like that.

I guess it's a step up, I suppose. I'm wondering if TurretinFan and Mutato in channel have ever used

Koruscate in, in their birdwatching competitions in channel.

I wonder if they've ever, wonder how much that would be worth, which is actually they play

Lexulis in channel on Facebook all the time, but I complained about it and said

I could ban anybody who talks about it. So they've come up with other ways of describing the fact that they're playing Lexulis in channel.

And normally it's birdwatching. Sometimes it's reading patristics. Sometimes it's cooking, baking cookies, how many cookies they made, what kind of cookies.

These would be Koruscated. This would be something like, I saw,

Mutato would say to TurretinFan, I just saw 47

Koruscated swallows, is how he would announce. He just got 47 points for using the term

Koruscate. That's how it would work. Now they think that they've gotten, they've been getting away with this all this time, that I'm just not smart enough to figure it out.

But actually I did. And so now they all know that I'm smart enough to figure this out, which will probably end up as a further blog post article about how arrogant

I am to say that I was smart enough to figure out what they were doing in the channel. Anyway, in the second paragraph of Mr.

Lumpkin's response, he says, so with that in mind, I want to deal with some of the Koruscating criticisms

White makes of my booklet. So I guess that means flashy or sparkling.

Yes, he did call it a booklet. Well, that's a good thing because it is a booklet. Anyways, and so, you know, he complains that, oh, he says,

I don't really want to understand. Well, you know, after all these years and after all the documentation we've provided of Peter Lumpkin's, you know, playing my comments about the love of God, saying exactly what

D .A. Carson said about the love of God. And then putting on the screen something other than what I said.

You know, you just can only do that so many times before someone finally comes to the conclusion that, you know what?

You don't want to understand. This is one of your traditions. And you are not engaging in a meaningful, in -depth, unbiased criticism of your opponents.

You're not. That's just, that's all there is to it. He says, what serious scholar personally impugns the author of the work he's criticizing?

If we're talking about a book called Everything You Need to Know About Calvinism, it's 34 pages of text written by someone who's proven himself to being capable of standing up and doing the right thing about Ergon Cantor, for example.

I do. You know, I mean, it's a given. It's there. And of course, then I backed it up.

Anyway, he didn't like the fact that there's obviously a massive amount of hubris in the title.

Well, again, I do not believe that Mr. Lumpkins has done the work that is necessary to even write a summary statement such as Everything You Need to Know About Calvinism and then some, especially when the then some is a horrific little article that is just laughably bad, written by somebody else.

Uh, this is not everything you need to know about Calvinism. It is not accurate in its understanding, and we documented that.

But that's the thing we need to get to. White criticizes my statement that fallen human beings possess no capability whatsoever of hearing

God. Now, remember, those of you who listened as I went through this, I not only read his attempted description of what the

Reformed position is, but I also noted what he then said later on in his book, where he tries to give sort of a, what he would consider to be biblical understanding.

So not only did I criticize the statement on page nine, uh, actually, uh, is that, you know, actually,

I looked specifically at page, pages nine and 10. But anyways, I also looked at his argument, which is one of the longest portions of the short text that comes later, specifically beginning on page 18.

And I pointed out terms, phrases such as, for them, death means death, a virtual non -existence.

Um, then page 21,

Calvinists apparently forget that after Adam spiritually died, when he disobeyed

God's command, he nonetheless heard the voice of God speaking to him. Now, let me just stop right there.

Now, I had read that, and it is logical, rational, and necessary when evaluating a booklets presentation to put together everything that it says.

And so I understand what Peter Lumpkins is saying, because I actually read the whole thing.

And let me, let me read that again. Calvinists apparently forget. Now, when you say, when you're not a

Calvinist and you say that Calvinists are forgetting something, then you're saying they have no room for this. They do not, they do not acknowledge this.

They do not properly engage with the following statement, and that is that after Adam spiritually died when he disobeyed

God's command, he nonetheless heard the voice of God speaking to him. So evidently, in Peter Lumpkins' understanding, and unless Peter's going to say, well, that was just over there on that page, you can't say that about this over here.

I'm actually assuming that there is a consistency in Peter Lumpkins' rejection of Calvinism.

Now, if I'm wrong about that, then if he wants to say, well, in that part of the book, yeah, but this other part of the book, no, it doesn't make a lick of sense, but that's the only way around this.

My criticism was that he's misrepresenting what we say. We don't forget that Adam could hear

God speaking. That's a canard. It's a straw man. It has nothing to do with what we actually believe.

Just because Adam had died spiritually doesn't mean he cannot hear the voice of God walking in the garden.

That is a bogus argument. It does not make any sense. It is irrelevant. And so Mr.

Lumpkins has provided an irrelevant, bogus argument saying that we forget this.

We do not forget it. And yet many people,

I can't tell you how many people I have heard use that kind of argument. It's not that Mr.

Lumpkins is alone here. And someone on Twitter just said, ah, don't waste your time on this guy.

Here's the problem. Mr. Lumpkins, very confused, traditionally driven, derived from other people type of argumentation is the very kind of argumentation every single pastor who is attempting to lead his congregation to a deeper understanding of soteriology by looking at everything the scriptures have to say.

That's the kind of stuff they are going to have to be dealing with. I've had a bunch of people saying, oh,

I just think you should do a Radio Free Geneva on Jerry Wahl's video. And I'm going to try to get around to it when

I get a chance to. It's sort of difficult to do when you're writing books on other subjects. There's a lot of things I'd like to do.

But one of the reasons I haven't is because that's the objection that liberals have.

And that's the objection that people in other dominations have. But that's not the kind of objection that the pastor who's struggling to hold his church together and lead them in reformation and lead them to understand what the gospel really is.

Those aren't the arguments that they're actually having to deal with because they're mainly philosophical and that's not what's going to be coming from the pew.

What's going to be coming from the pew is, well, this is how we've always understood it. Or I heard this guy say this over here.

And so you actually want to try to invest your time in stuff that's actually useful to the pastor in the pew, the pastor in the pulpit,

I'm sorry, talking to the person in the pew. And unfortunately, Mr. Lumpkin's misunderstandings, because I've seen this argument.

See, those Calvinists are wrong because Adam could hear God talking. And that means we can hear

God talking. Shows a fundamental either unwillingness, and I think that's part on Mr.

Lumpkin's part because he's heard answers to this over and over before, either an unwillingness or an ignorance on the part of a lot of folks about what we're actually saying.

And so we have to be ready to explain these things to someone who really thinks this is a valid objection.

And that allows us to actually get into the scriptures, to actually deal with the scriptures, and this is where we need to be doing this in a positive way.

Remember, I've said over and over again, if you can get one of these folks to open up the scriptures, you'll find out very quickly who has a really spirit -born belief in the scriptures that they are unwilling to just dismiss something.

They will, I'm sorry, I can't see that. Oh, the

John 316 conference just came. Well, we'll get to it eventually. Just being told that the

John 316 conference CDs just arrived. Well, that's good. The front covers are very, very, very dark, and there's very, very, very light in there, and that's why

I could not see them. Anyway, you will find out fairly quickly if you're talking with someone who is afraid of what the

Bible says or wants to believe all of what the Bible says. And so what it allows you to do is go into the scriptures.

If you go into John 6, and you just walk someone through what Jesus teaches, or how many people have we met who have come to understand the doctrines of grace because of that?

Because they hear Jesus teaching. And I'm not saying you just have to use the red letters. I want to avoid inculcating hyper -red letterism in anybody.

But you'll find out pretty quickly if they shy away from an open Bible, you're probably not going to get anywhere.

And you might just wonder what's going on there. So, for example, we know that unregenerate men can be said to hear things in Scripture.

They hear the voice of God walking. There were men traveling with Paul who heard the voice.

Jesus actually said to the Sadducees, have you not read what God spoke to you?

But at the same time, Jesus also said things such as John 8, 43. Why do you not understand or know?

Genosketa is the term. Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because, you are not able to hear my word.

You are not able to hear my word. Now, he's talking to people. He's not sign languaging this, okay? You know,

I really couldn't even do that here on the program because that really doesn't make any sense, does it?

But you couldn't see me doing it. But he's not doing sign language. He didn't slow down and, why can you not hear me?

He didn't have to raise his voice. These men were listening to God incarnate speaking and yet they're rejecting him.

Remember, these are the same ones who, when they first heard him speaking, I sort of like that. Yeah, I think

I'm going to believe in this guy. But it was only an heiress type of faith. Point action. It wasn't continued.

And when Jesus said, if you continue my word, then you'll know the truth. The truth shall set you free. And as soon as he said the very thing that seems to offend our minions the most, that we have to be set free.

That we don't have autonomous freedom. Their response is, we've never been enslaved to anybody.

And it's to them, Jesus saying, why can't you hear my words? It's not like they're all standing around, speak up, we can't hear you.

There's obviously another kind of hearing, isn't there? Why don't you understand?

It's because you cannot hear my word. Now the ESV says it is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

But there isn't a word bear. That's an interesting translation of dunamai. It's literally because you cannot hear my word.

Then in verse 47, he says, the one who is from God, the one who belongs to God, is hearing, same word, my words.

It's actually hearing the words of God. I'm sorry, not my words. The reason you do not hear them, diatuta, this is why you are not hearing, because you are not from God.

So obviously there is a salvific hearing. There is a hearing with understanding and the pre -determining indicator of whether you will or will not is not your free will choice.

It is whether you belong to God. Now, there are some people, honestly, and it frightens me when I hear it, who say, well, what that means is, you see, those are the more spiritually sensitive.

Those are those who have proven themselves to love God. They've done the good. And the only way to understand that is really a works righteousness concept that, well, because they've made themselves righteous enough to hear.

The one who belongs to God here is hearing the words of God.

For this reason, you are not hearing, because you are not diatuta.

You are not from God. So that's the hearing.

That's what we're talking about here. And so when you tell your audience,

Calvinists apparently forget that after Adam spiritually died, when he disobeyed God's command, he nonetheless heard the voice of God speaking to him.

You do not understand Calvinism, period. End of discussion. And all the obfuscation, and Mr.

Lumpkins is the king of obfuscation, will not change the fact that you have included an argument in your book that demonstrates that you either dishonestly are misrepresenting or you don't get it.

One of the two. It's one of the two. Page 22.

For Calvinism, the dead cannot hear God speak, cannot believe on Christ, therefore cannot obey

Christ's command. The dead must first be resurrected before they can hear. Yeah. Hear in what way? In the way that I just explained from John chapter 8.

So he goes on and he quotes, interestingly enough, once again, it seems like White desperately attempts to make an objection where no objection really exists.

He's really wanting to say, we have no reason for objection here. No reason at all. Even though I read that, dealt with that.

And of course, I didn't get to page 22 and page 19 while I was back in the first part.

But I had read it and I explained to folks, this is the perspective he's attempting to communicate.

So I actually am being faulted for actually trying to represent the full position that Mr.

Lumpkins presents. I guess that's, I guess that's just, well, anyways.

He quotes from my book with the dearly departed Dave Hunt. And in John 8, 43, we have, are not able to hear.

And those who cannot hear the words of Christ will not, of course, cling to him in faith. They cannot understand, let alone believe.

Can Hunt's tradition survive this biblical examination? To which he responds, question, why couldn't

White's criticism of my words above not apply to his own words to Dave Hunt? Answer, because I had already explained my position by explaining

John 8, 43, like I just did here. And therefore, understand and believe were put in their proper context.

Understand, as in understand and embrace, love, and believe, as in return, repent, and embrace the message of Christ.

I say the spiritually dead man cannot do that. Mr. Lumpkins wants to believe that the spiritually dead man can do those things and wants to use as one of his counter examples,

Adam. And as I've pointed out, has nothing to do with it, nothing to do with it at all.

White explicitly affirming unregenerate people cannot understand, let alone believe, but White wants to make my words about the incapability of understanding the unregenerate possess into some type of misunderstanding about Calvinism.

So there you go. There is obfuscation on its highest level, on its highest level.

And I think we all can see that. I further have this to say, page 9, what is

Calvinism? To the contrary, the person will have faith only because God chose him or her in eternity to have faith.

No one else can have faith, just the elect are capable of exercising saving faith. Now, notice,

I even took the time, because I remember this, because I have, and I can show this to anybody, of course, you can say, well, you changed it.

But this is toward the bottom of the page. And I have squared off faith and then underlined saving faith, because obviously there's a difference between the two, because I believe people don't have false faith.

Even though I clearly stated that I meant by faith, saving faith, nonetheless, White objects, of course, people have faith, they're just going to have saving faith.

I read the entire thing and pointed out that we fully affirm that there can be such a thing as temporary faith, faith that does not save, et cetera, et cetera.

And to this, he says, these are the types of toothless barbs White continues to pitch throughout his review.

If all I could do is make ridiculous criticisms like these, I have to be honest, I'd be embarrassed to make it public.

Now, who's blowing smoke here? Who's so far dodged the real issue? And that is the fact that he's misrepresenting the position that he is arguing against.

If he wants to admit the fact that he borrowed these arguments from somebody else and blame them for the bad arguments, well, okay, if you want to do that, you can do that.

Again, in the brief booklet on Calvinism I wrote, we have a quote from page 10, as we mentioned earlier, even if God were to grant the gift of faith to all people, faith would do the people no good since only the ones whom he spiritually resurrects are capable of using the gift.

My response, he has quoted it, is a misunderstanding, of course, the fact that saving faith is the function of the regenerated heart.

In other words, in his statement, he was separating the, if God were to grant the gift of faith to all people, well, from the reformed perspective, that would require the regeneration of all people, because saving faith is an act of regenerate heart.

It's part and parcel of giving the gift of repentance, making a new creature, etc.,

etc., etc. So, as I said, misunderstanding, of course, the fact that saving faith is the function of the regenerated heart.

So Peter doesn't understand the unity and consistency of the reformed understanding of the work that we are creating in his image, that we are a new man, and the new man naturally clings to Christ because his slavery to sin has been broken.

Excuse me, this is now Peter's response. Excuse me, but what is the difference in suggesting that saving faith is only operative in a spiritually resurrected person, on the one hand, and saving faith is functional only in a regenerated heart, on the other?

White, unfortunately, fails to inform us. No, Mr. Lumpkins has, once again, completely misunderstood the criticism, because he doesn't understand the system.

How many times have we seen this? Let's use somebody else's example. How many times have we seen this in George Bryson? George Bryson has made his reputation as a refuter of Calvinism, and so we hear him making the same refuted arguments over and over again, and he cannot correct himself, he cannot accept correction, because he's made the same bad arguments over and over again.

What I said was, and he's the one who said, even if God were to grant the gift of faith to all people, how do you grant the gift of faith to unregenerate people, to non -elect without changing them?

It doesn't make any sense. He says, faith would do the people no good. What is this faith?

The whole idea he's presenting makes no sense. And all I was doing was pointing out, hey, if you want to actually address us, you've got to speak our language.

He can't. Well, okay, he won't. White, unfortunately, fails to inform us.

Even so, he once again passes off as legitimate criticism, an almost identical assertion to one I made, which he presumably proposes to correct my misunderstanding, of course.

Anyway, White also corrects an inference I drew from a quote from Dr. Andrew Davis I offered pertaining to unconditional election.

Below is the appropriate portions of the paragraph from what is Calvinism. After reading

Davis's quote from Barrett and Nettles, White retorts, false, of course, complete misunderstanding of what Barrett and Nettles says. How could someone come up with such a horrific misunderstanding of what we're saying?

And I'm rushing because I'm probably not going to have time to get to this. But the objection, the comment was, apparently,

God damns people to hell not based upon their actual sinfulness, but solely upon his antecedent choice.

In other words, while Esau was still in the womb, he was as destined to go to hell as if he were already there.

And what I was objecting to, obviously, is that God's choices are separate from his decree, which determines the very fabric of time itself.

You see, Peter just doesn't go to that level. He doesn't understand it. And what

I'll do next time around is I will actually pick up with that very point and explain.

Try to explain. Not for Peter's benefit. He's not going to listen. But unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are influenced by the

Peter Lumpkins out there. They're influenced by the kind of preaching, and they are caused to not listen to what it is we're attempting to say.

So we'll go back to that. All right. Thanks for listening to The Valuing Line on a Friday.

As far as I know, unless I'm missing something, I can't think of anything next week that's going to throw me completely off.

It's Earth Day on Monday. And I'm on The Janet Mefford Show on Monday and another show on Tuesday.

But nothing's going to get in the way. So Lord willing, we should be here a regular time next week. We'll see 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 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org. That's a -o -m -i -n -dot -o -r -g, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.