Debates Past, Debates Present, Debates Future

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. It's 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.

Program Setup and Upcoming Debate Schedule

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line here sort of flying by the seat of our pants brand new soundboard problems with the headsets. I'm still a little hot and We'll see what happens. We don't know if everything's gonna work, but you remember the last dividing line we had that static.

Well, it turned out to be the soundboard was finally giving its notification of retirement and that's how it did it. And so we have a new soundboard in but when I was a new soundboard in and now the now the headset stuff is not Happy with us at all.

And so my prediction is halfway through the program I will no longer be able to hear anything at all. That's just my prediction, but we're here for the program today, even though I have a debate coming up in only Approximately five hours from now.

We will begin taping the at the Jewish voice broadcast studios in Phoenix. No, it is not open to the public. I'm sorry, but there is limited seating and those seats were taken quite some time ago and So that will be recorded between 6 and 9 30.

That's three and a half hours I Would assume they're gonna try to get Three hour long programs into that period would be my would be my guess I don't know we will we will find out but with four people speaking even at three and a half hours that's going to be a little bit shorter than what I am accustomed to anyways and It's going to be very very very challenging because when you're on television Everything has to be very very fast.

You have to speak quickly. You have to be very very clear. You don't have time to lay a foundation. You have to sort of build your foundation into what you're saying it is it is going to be very very challenging, but I've certainly been listening to Anthony buzzard.

For a long time now some of you listened to the exchange we had on the unbelievable radio program in London back in February. After I give you a little report on the debates this past weekend, we're going to be listening to some more With with Anthony buzzard because it'd be sort of silly for me to attempt to go to a different topic when My mind is wrapped around what I'm gonna be doing in just a couple of hours.

So But I do want to fill you in on.

Report on the Santa Fe Debates and Roman Catholic Controversies

What's.

What happened this past weekend? We are four sixths of the way and as of this evening five sixths of the way through crunch time. It's my own fault that I did this but six debates in four weeks. We had the debates a couple weeks ago with Christopher Ferrara and with David Silverman on Long Island I believe.

Did you say the Silverman debate is up in the MP? Okay, the debate with the vice president of the American Atheist is the New Testament evil is in the mp3 Area if you want to listen, I'm sorry. All the CDs.

Well, okay. Yeah. Well, alright, so the audio is available. You know for those of you who still use CDs You're probably on dial-up, too.

But.

But anyway We will have the videos of those available eventually as well, but so we had those debates a few weeks ago and you've even Amazingly enough you've been able to listen to discussions of the debates on iron sharpens iron Turrets and fan was on to discuss the Christopher our debate and Unbeknownst to me this past Friday.

I believe it was or was it Saturday. I think it was Saturday Jamin, Huebner was on iron sharpens iron to talk about the debate with David Silverman so I found that very interesting and. So this past weekend, of course, we had two Roman Catholic debates.

Well, we had one Roman Catholic debate and then a debate with a Roman Catholic on monergism versus synergism. Both were with Robertson Janice and They both went very very well Doctors and Janice was was very nice.

There was no. It wasn't I was concerned. I'll be perfectly honest with you. I was concerned. It was could be like 19. Was it 95? I believe it was and we had the Boston College debate and in 1999 we had the mass debate but it wasn't it was much more like.

Later in 99 or 2000 was 2000 we had the papal infallibility debate. That was the self-moderated debate.

I.

Listened. I listened to that. While writing last week, I I think it's first time I've listened to all this and Janice debates again. I did not listen to the first mass debate. I listened to the one we did in Salt Lake City.

But I normally don't go back and listen to debates, but I did this time just simply, you know to refresh the memory remember things, you know how doctors and Janice argues etc, etc, and.

I.

I could not help but chuckling at the recollection recollection of the of the papal infallibility debate in Clearwater because we're at this very large Baptist Church and the pastor the church is gonna be Moderating and he assured us all hey, I've moderated debates before I know exactly what to do and Yeah, we start the debate and he gets up and says here's what we're gonna be doing, you know We're gonna have a debate tonight.

Everybody's be nice. Okay, gentlemen, you go to it. He goes and sits down. No introduction of us. This is no timekeeping. No, nothing. Just just introduction and then sat down and so I had to very quickly Take over and We did self introductions and I had to keep in, you know, say okay now next we're gonna be doing this and it was a fairly Complicated debate format too because we did it like in three sections and there was lots of you know So I was operating a little bit of a handicap there because not only did I have to keep the time for myself But I had to announce the time and all the rest of stuff.

But anyways, it was one of those Memorable instances in in the history of debating. But anyway So this weekend we did two debates. We had one debate that Judging by the responses the few responses I've seen the Catholic answers web forums This is an area that Roman Catholics in general do not know almost anything about.

And I know that Robertson Genis did a master's degree at Westminster Seminary, but by his own testimony he did not agree with what he was being taught even then in the Reformed perspective and From my conclusion with all due respect to Robertson Genis.

He does not Understand what we believe his objections are to a straw man. He does not understand Reformed theology. I'm sorry that I honestly believe if you will listen carefully To the terminology that he used and the arguments he presented and they're just he just does not understand the issue and So that that made it a little bit more challenging because you'd it's it's always best to debate with someone who's going to be using their terminology consistently because they understand the position that they are denying and listening to the Responses from certain Catholics or you can't tell you in fact, I hate everyone should give me big kudos.

I have been informed that there is one guy on the Catholic answers forums that has accused me of making up The terms monergism and synergism. That's that's pretty cool. I'm When I can start making up terminology, it was in use hundreds of years for I was born I'm I'm really getting up to the the.

So anyway, so the first debate was on monergism versus synergism and and The one thing I would have changed about the debate is is I would have asked the question That I asked in my closing now that the mp3s These are already on the Calvary Santa Fe website and I've linked to them on the blog.

And so I would invite you to listen and if you do listen, I should have queued this up. I apologize I should download it and queue this up right at the end of my Basically final opportunity to speak because I went first in that I Asked a question right at the end and the question was very straightforward and it would have clarified things if I had asked it during cross-examination I should have and That was I asked dr. Sanders.

Do you believe? That God is attempting to save Every single human being equally. Do you believe this prevenient grace is extended to every single human being in the exact same way? Because that would get to the whole issue of whether there is an elect with it but what's the nature of of this prevenient grace that he talks about etc, etc, and So I I Asked that question and Dr. Suggest got and said well, I'll answer that question.

I even said thank you. You can hear me Probably in the background saying thank you because you know, this would be very helpful. But then the answer he gave demonstrated that he had not heard the question.

I don't mean just didn't hear it. You know audit in an auditory fashion. He heard it, but he did not understand it. And it was you know, everyone I think like me was sort of excited yes, I will answer that question good.

We're finally get it after all this time. We're finally good and he didn't answer the question. Because I just don't think he understands what the issues are. I'm sorry. I just don't there are people.

There are there are there are Protestants.

Who.

Basically made their mind up about quote-unquote Calvinism a long time ago and you You can stand on your head. You can turn blue. You can do everything in the world. They're not going to hear what you're saying.

They've already established the categories of thought on this this subject in their mind and you're you might as well talk to the wall as Get through there. And I think that's the situation here and I can think of many Protestants in the exact same boat.

So that was a very very interesting. Then we had a break and I just saw someone Quoting a good old turrets and fan here in channel. It was was quoting somebody was it was that turrets and it was quoting here.

I'm not sure It was I'm not sure who that was but maybe it was it was turrets and Fana or turrets in himself I'm not sure but it was a quotation using modernism and synergism. That was obviously long before me and So that was probably no not turrets.

Okay. I'm not sure who it is. Anyway the we had a break between about an hour and a half break between the two debates and I we went back Behind in this room in the back and we all had dinner together including Bob's and Jenna's and we had some interesting conversation back there we really did and It went fine and.

I.

Think at first there was a little bit of tension, but but I think that was dispelled fairly fairly quickly and So then we started at Was it six o 'clock or seven seven o 'clock with the debate on the bodily assumption of Mary.

Now let's give kudos to Bob's and Jenna's I Can't think of anybody else who has any publications or any. You know any credentials in the debating field That would debate this subject. You could never get Carl Keating to defend the bodily assumption of Mary in a debate.

You could never get Jimmy Akin Tim Staples Scott Hahn Patrick Madrid. These people would not Ever do this because they all recognize that fundamentally what you have to establish is The authority of the church first because there simply isn't any biblical or historical foundation for the bodily assumption of Mary.

The bodily assumption of Mary demonstrates beyond all logical contradiction. The fact that Rome has long ago freed herself from the constraints of scripture and tradition and invested in herself Basically the same level of revelational authority that Joseph Smith claimed for himself.

Believe it because we say it believe it because of our own authority. It is the demonstration of sola ecclesia, it's the most recently dogmatically defined dogma, but all three of The the dogmas that have been defined in the modern era that is the immaculate conception 1854 1870 for papal infallibility and then 1950 November of 1950 for the bodily assumption of Mary.

All three of these illustrate the fact that what scripture says and what church history says is irrelevant to Rome. Rome gets to just make it up as she goes along and When there's things that are contradictory to her definitions.

Well, those just weren't really tradition and then anything that she finds that uses similar terminology and how else she can invest with the magic charism of apostolic tradition and all as well and So we've got to give Roberts and Janice some credit for being actually willing to defend the belief.

But we also have to recognize that the only way to do it is to make the the bland and bald assertion. That well Rome is the final authority now. Roberts Approach on this is quite interesting and I knew that he was going to go here he did this with Matt slick and I had been the day.

I flew over to New Mexico Thursday I had done a 68 mile ride and had listened to the Boston College papacy debates and that was a long Debate was a four and a half at least four and a half hours. I think it's huge for a man debate and Very challenging no two ways about it but I listened to that debate and and Ironically one of the primary areas of discussion between myself and Roberts and Janice at that time had been acts chapter 15 so as I as I recall I was coming down Cave Creek Road at a fairly decent rate of speed because it's downhill and That's when we were discussing.

What was Peter's role? What was Paul's role? What is sagat. Oh mean here who makes the the decision for the council? What is eggo crino mean when James says therefore I judge and and all this stuff, so I just been listening to this and If you watch the video from the little flip video my my one surviving flip video camera.

The other one haven't been stolen out of my bags at JFK if you watched the video of the cross-examination, you know that during the entirety of.

The.

Cross-examination period when doctors and Janice had the opportunity of asking questions. It was all on x15. It wasn't about the bodily assumption Mary because you might as well not argue about the bodily assumption of Mary.

You're not gonna get anywhere scripturally or historically on the matter. Even though there there was at one point where or doctors just said well. All we need is to have people talking about it. If we can demonstrate that somebody in the ancient church was talking about that's all we need.

And I I just really hope people think about that for just a little. All we need is that somebody talked about it.

Well folks.

You can find in the writings of People in the early church because remember the first people talking about this. We're not actually Orthodox believers. You can find in the trans in us Beatty Maria and stuff like that.

You can find people talking about anything. You you could read those texts in such a way as to as to be grounds for anything at all and So In light of that. I just found it Amazing, but there's no reason to even go there.

He had to make his argument based upon his assertion that Peter as Pope Dogmatically defined a belief without reference to scripture or tradition in Acts chapter 15. Now Peter argues In regards to the nature of the faith from the Old Testament in his epistles Paul argues for the specific specifically for the concept of The inclusion of the Gentiles and the the the whole issue of justification by faith over and over again from the Old Testament scriptures that's what Romans is all about.

Romans 4 and all the citations from Genesis 15 and all the rest of stuff, but his whole argument was Peter as Pope stands up in Acts 15 and without scripture and without tradition even though this is in scripture.

So it really doesn't fit but without scripture without tradition defines a dogma in the recension of.

Circumcision and.

So it was just a matter of having to go through the text and demonstrate. Well Peter does stand up and and Peter does say that which is commensurate with the vision God had given to him about not calling the Gentiles unclean and all the rest that stuff and.

Yet.

Paul and Barnabas then speak and there's more discussion and and then James gets up and clearly James is in charge of the council. Peter isn't in charge of the council and the council is not called a papal council.

They have come to the Apostles and the brother and the elders and It is James that gives a decision and he has to try to separate what James does what James just talking about something else and Peter's already given the decision.

It's it's just impossible to hold the text together. We ended up talking about James's citation of the Old Testament and where does that say anything about about circumcision? I really think that anybody who just listens carefully to that cross-examination will see that Acts 15 provides no foundation for the argument that was made and that was all he had because I was able to demonstrate very clearly That the position he was taking was directly contradictory.

Not only to the biblical mandate That we are to believe only that which is which is revealed by God as binding upon us and that which is they are new stars. But in this case the Roman Catholics are are left in a difficult spot because I was able to utilize numerous Patristic citations that I had in my opening statement that I repeated in my closing statement where early church writers You we had Gregory Nazianzus.

We had Athanasius. We had Augustine. We had Cyril Jerusalem speaking directly against the kind of ecclesiastical Absolutism that Rome has now adopted long long ago. So the same people who say 2 ,000 year old church have to go.

Just don't worry about those guys at the beginning, okay? And this is not listen to them, you know, and so I I honestly don't know How it could have been any clearer than it was. I Mean I'm I think we need to put together finally the the Roman Catholic Series, you know because I mean, I think we're up around 40 debates.

Some we don't make available because we've repeated the topics later. We have better recordings, whatever. But we could probably put together an easy 24 debates. You know the five with Pacwa.

A.

Couple with Matitix, the St. Genes ones, Madrid. You know ten in the great debate series alone. Now the Immaculate Conception. Bodily assumption. We could definitely do the Marian dogmas. Now that would be fun.

We'd do the Marian dogmas. That would be cool.

We definitely want to include the one with Vinnie Lewis.

No, no, I did not say the Looney Tunes version. I said. In fact, you know what? I don't even list that in my debates.

Really? I don't think I list that in my debates. It's in the shopping cart.

I don't think it's on my on my thing. Was that an actual debate with with equal times?

Yes, it was it was over the phone, but it was you actually had a moderator and everything. He had a stopwatch and somebody's got it.

I'm gonna I'm gonna go over to my thing here and and you go over the website here and See if I have that listed because that's in the web. That's in the that's in the shopping cart really you bet.

Really this is entitled the apologetics of Vinnie Lewis really. And actually with with the doctors and Genesis opening remarks in that debate I was wondering if he wasn't gonna go sort of a Vinnie Lewis kind of direction there, you know.

What do you mean Fatima proves everything? Oh, well, that was interesting, wasn't it? Yeah, I do not have that listed. I wonder if we have a date on it. I'm really not sure that I want to List we're over a hundred now.

Anyways, what does it really matter? We've asked algo to put together a because I'm looking at the list here and it ends in November of last year we're over a hundred now and we've asked algo to put together a list and Of what we've done since November of 2009 so we can get that up to date.

But we have passed the century mark in the number of formal debates. Now I would like to point out also that utilizing the Ergen-Kanner method of debate enumeration I have done nine hundred eighty seven thousand four hundred and sixty two debates using the Ergen-Kanner method of Debate because that's not only every conversation I've ever had with anyone including a taxi driver on the way the airport.

But I am now including my own self arguments When I'm debating myself, so I'm at nine hundred and eighty seven thousand debates. You want to say something?

You realize that you endured three hours and four minutes with Vinny Lewis. Is that?

That's probably when I started losing my hair. That's.

Started at the beginning of that conversation and by the time it was over. It was all gone. Oh, man, you know. We have that in mp3 we have it in mp3 and on CD, how about that? No, I'm gonna have to put.

66 and I'm gonna have to Pull that down listen to it. It's not like you'd be overly relevant. But I do need to pull it down listen to it just if I if I just for the fun of it. Just just for the fun of it.

That's funny. Anyhow, so it was uh, I do want to thank the folks at Calvary Santa Fe a Paul's Casa Fava The pastor there and and all the guys Ryan who helped take care of me I I not sure if I told you but for the first time in all of my travels I Went to New Mexico without my toiletry bag.

No razors. No toothbrushes. No deodorant. No nothing. And I've always laughed when I go to a hotel. It says did you forget some of ha ha ha and there I stand ha ha so I had to call Ryan and say hello and Ryan was very kind and and did a target run for me and I've just been doing too much traveling.

That's all there is to it and That that happened, but they did a great job. Then I spoke the next day. All this is already up online they did a good really great job putting stuff up and I spoke on the new perspective on Paul and then Sunday morning I preached on the security the believer and I would like to grab that and make it available on our website.

I really would I in talking with Paul He made a comment to me on Saturday that changed the direction I was going to go in the sermon and instead of going to John 6 first, I Went to Titus chapter 2 first and everybody really seemed to appreciate that.

So if you've got issues and understanding the concept of Why it is that believers have security in Christ and how that's consistent with a consistent Exhortation to godliness and why I would say that the people who teach that you can be say without repentance are utter heretics and preaching of false gospel.

Where's the balance and all that? I thought the the thing on Sunday morning was really helpful along those lines. So There's a report on the past weekend as I said in now and about Four and a half hours.

I will be teaming up with dr. Michael Brown the very same Michael Brown That we debated here on the program on the doctrines of grace. He and I will be on one side Debating sir, Anthony buzzard and dr. Joe good who are Unitarians who deny the deity of Christ?

I cannot tell you what dr. Good believes. We've tried to find out we'll find out in four and a half hours I would imagine but sir, Anthony buzzard a well-known Unitarian and Engaged him before not only in the program as far as Reviewing comments and he made it some of you may recall the first time you may have heard of Anthony sir, Anthony buzzard was when I played portions of his debate with Shabbir Ali and which wasn't much of a debate because both deny the deity of Christ, but he also denies the Pre-existence of Christ and that really is the fatal flaw of his perspective.

I think that's his greatest weakness and we will be addressing that in just a few hours and Then a week from Friday on ABN. ABN sat .com the Aramaic broadcasting network. We will be doing a live Skype debate.

Both these two debates. It's unusual. I'm not gonna have to travel anywhere. The Jewish voice broadcast studios are about two and a half miles from my home and Skype is I'm gonna be sitting right at the same spot if you're used to seeing my YouTube videos where I'm sitting there in my office and that is my office.

That's not a studio or a set or something. That's I'm just sitting there writing for my computer and I sort of turn a little bit to the right and voila. That's where I will be for the Skype debate with Abdullah Kanda.

I'm not a hundred percent certain what it's on. I think it has to do with the contrast comparison the Bible in the Quran, but Abdullah Kanda is the same gentleman Muslim gentleman. I debated the University of Sydney last August down under and Looking forward to hopefully an opportunity next year to go back down there.

I would like to do some more Debates with Abdullah Kanda. He's quite a quite a challenging young man so then after that I've got a few weeks. Until the debate with Robert St. Genes on purgatory in Oregon and Bob has actually written to me yesterday with another Possible topic for a debate now, of course, you have to have somebody to sponsor debates and things like that.

But it was a very good topic again one that none of his compatriots would ever dare to defend. But in regards to the truth claims the Roman Catholic Church in light of its use of bogus documents down through history including the donation of Constantine and the pseudo is a Dorian decretals which I think would be absolutely fascinating so.

Anyway, things continue on I'm gonna be in Minneapolis Then in Oregon and two weeks later in Lima Peru With heart cry ministries and then I'm gonna be in st Louis first weekend in December as I have been for 11 years in a row now, that's a new record.

But then I'm going from st. Louis to Detroit before coming back for a Jesus or Muhammad marathon in on a BN with Sam schmoon and David Wood and Tony Costa and and all of us are gonna gonna be there doing our thing there at the beginning of December and Then the polemics class there in January and then I gotta start talking with folks about we got a we really got to get focused.

It's difficult to do it really got to get focused on Getting to the United Kingdom and we're gonna need need your help to get to London in in February and it just goes on and on we stay very very active while the Lord gives us life and breath and the The ability to do so so obviously it's impossible for me.

There's there's only so many things I can do. It is impossible for me to change my My mind Set right before a debate. So I'm thinking about Anthony buzzard right now, and I'm thinking about his his positions so I have queued up the end of a debate that Anthony buzzard did with Fred Sanders of Biola and I was listening to this while riding this morning and Came back and even typed out some quotations from it Through some other stuff on the iPad for the for the debate this afternoon.

And so I want to play some of his statements so you have an idea we're not gonna be a live stream because obviously it is a video recorded program and Hence it is going to air at some point on the Jewish voice broadcast my hope is.

And my understanding is we will be able to purchase these Ourselves and make them available through the ministry sometime in the future and I imagine it'll be extremely high quality stuff I mean because these guys have got really nice studios and this this should look really really good so we will have that available as well and So let's listen to some of the comments that Dr. Buzzard made this is at the end of the debate.

So You're getting into sort of more the meat of the matter really I think The quality of the sound isn't all that good because it was recorded outside. Some of you may recall that I I asked sir Anthony about this debate when we were on the on the unbelievable radio program in London and and I said in fact It was rather odd.

I kept hearing crickets. Was it outside and he says yes, it was actually a very odd location it was outside and so I had thought maybe it was just a bad recording or a fan or Maybe somebody used one of those programs where you don't register it.

It puts some silly sound and you know, you know, you know.

I'm talking about.

Actually, it was a cricket. It's just a plain old regular American Southern, California cricket. So you might you might catch a cricket and everyone's while a plane flies over. Sort of cool too, but let's listen to sir Anthony buzzard and I will be breaking in and commenting as we go along.

Buzzard on the Father as Creator and the Meaning of “God”

I heard that Jesus was the creator of heaven and earth. I think if you take a Bible and look and see what is said about who created the heavens and the earth, I think you'll find it was God. And the word God in scripture in the New Testament 1320 times refers to the Father.

Now immediately, yeah, you can hear the cricket, can't you? It was right near the the mp3 recorder. You can just tell All through this debate We will hear our Unitarian friends. Assuming Unitarianism not proving Unitarianism 1300 times they ask refers to the father.

Well, how many times is Koryos appear and that refer to the father? He likes to say well, there's a couple times where Jesus is called the OS, but it's 1300 to 2. Well, it's actually more than 2 but let's say it was 1300 to 8.

So still the numbers just overwhelming. This is remarkable fact. He'll say Well, it's remarkable only because it doesn't prove anything. The normal term that is used for the father in the New Testament is the OS but the normal term that is used for the Son is Koryos now Koryos is a more exalted term than the OS is in the Old Testament Greek septuagint.

The OS is used of the pagan gods. The OS is the translation of Elohim and Elohim is significantly less Personal and direct than Yahweh is but Koryos the translation of Yahweh. So, is that really a meaningful argument?

No, it's not and Clearly we're going to be going after this assertion on Sir Anthony's part. That Jesus is not the creator. He goes to Hebrews and says well God rested and since God is the father then Jesus didn't rest.

Therefore he's not the creator. But the point is you have direct repetitive statements. Hebrews chapter 1 says Colossians chapter 1 says that Jesus Christ is personally involved in the creation. I think he actually goes to Colossians 1 here in a second.

So I'll let you hear how he explains it.

They say that it means invariably the father. There are two occasions only for sure in which the word God is applied to Jesus in some sense.

I'm trying to remember off top my head which ones that he will accept where the OS is used to Jesus. But there's many more than that. Obviously, he does dismiss the Granville Sharp constructions at tithes 213 2nd Peter 1 1 we'll go into those and demonstrate the consistent translation of those.

I put a note. This is what's really cool. I mentioned this on the blog yesterday, but I've Found a way. Well, it's not found a way. It's just learned how to Insert notes into the olive tree software and on I on iPad including original language in Unicode and hyperlinks to other texts and.

So I put my discussion of Romans 9 5 into the realm of 9 5 section. I put the textual critical information on the reading of the OS at John 1 18 into John 1 18 and so on so forth. And so that particular app is becoming a sort of an apologetics study Bible type thing.

That is that is pretty cool. Maybe someday.

I.

Guess some some people now in channel are commenting on What I said about the fact that Yahweh is always represented by by Kurios in in the Greek Septuagint. I'm not sure what the issue is. Translation of Yahweh.

No, of course, I don't translate it. But they rendered Yahweh that the Tetragrammaton as Kurios as they did at an eye. Which is at an eye at a knee, which is why? You have the the problem in the English Bible of distinguishing between the two which is why they use LORD in all caps for the translation of Yahweh and in small letters for the translation of Adonai.

But the reality is that the Tetragrammaton is still rendered by Kurios in the Greek Septuagint, so that's fairly straightforward. Let's continue on with what's standard buzzer heads say.

I've already mentioned to you that the word garden if you count up the Hebrew word Elohim.

I.

This is something I'm going to catch him on. He very strongly emphasizes as a Unitarian if God speaks Using singular pronouns then that must mean he's only one person so you can't have You know Yahweh who's walking with Abraham raining fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah from Yahweh in heaven.

Or they would have to use plural pronouns and say we are going to he he just will not allow For biblical monotheism and yet biblical Trinitarianism, and this is it's not really a very strong argument.

But if people haven't thought through these things I can see why they they struggle just a little bit. Just a little bit with it, but the problem is Jesus Uses personal pronouns of himself pre-existently in John 17 5 and Anthony buzzard does not allow for a personal pre-existence of Jesus as Jesus.

Jesus only exists as a plan the word is impersonal. It's a plan in John 1 1 and so you have the same kind of argumentation that modalists use in Trying to reduce those texts both in Philippians. He quotes Luther and Philippians 2.