Defining Mary

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 six. Oh two 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 at the halfway point of February 2008 and as I sat down I said to Richard said

I haven't a clue we're gonna do today because Starting yesterday morning my my new tablet

PC arrived and it is Vista now up until this point in time.

I had adamantly asserted that I would not be dragged kicking and screaming into the realm of Vista until service pack 2 and I'm hearing service pack 1 will be out

In March And But the unit that I want to get

Right size right equipment right stuff for debates. So you'll be seeing it in the debates starting in March it's tablet and Unlike the tablet

I had before it's also a laptop So the the screen swivels and then folds back to become the tablet

But then you can swivel back around use it as regular laptop, etc, etc Has all the bells and whistles on that I need when traveling and stuff like that But anyway, the only only operating system they would offer it with was was

Vista So I'm sitting here going. Well, I could talk about the trials and tribulations

Moving all your stuff over to this day. I suppose I still haven't gotten it to work and find the rest of the network yet Got the internet but can't find the rest of the network yet at all

It is Vista the evidence that we finally have needed to realize that we are truly in the end time

That's an eschatological question and I will direct all computer eschatological questions to Shamgar So You know,

I I haven't it's a nice. It's really nice looking. There's no toys about it This is very pretty if you if pretty is good, then this is very very pretty

But Other than that that doesn't really make for exciting webcasting just sit here and go well, okay so, you know,

I gotta get the VPN stuff set up and you know, this is how you do this is that you know and Stumbling around through stuff.

I found this that I was looking for 15 minutes earlier and you know But that doesn't really make for exciting stuff.

So aside from the fact we already have one phone caller We can go to that one a moment Yes. Oh Okay, I did just happen to fire up my

RSS reader just a few moments prior to the program starting and found a fascinating article and it's fascinating because Ten years ago now.

I wrote an entire book on this subject and of course it is from The fire -breathing

Catholic apologist of all fire -breathing Catholic apologists art Sippo and Yes, the same art

Sippo who for years had after the What I call the the ambush in Toledo the ridiculous encounter we had in 1991 as I recall was the it was the date had said where you need to debate justification again, blah blah blah and Finally I think it was in it was right after the

Rutland debate. I finally said, okay. Tell you what You live in the st. Louis area.

I have a church in the st Louis area that has me out every December. I will come out and we will debate and we'll even debate your subject and Art Sippo ran for the hills as fast as he possibly could

Yeah, that same art Sippo who loves to identify everybody else's Nazis and everything else and who

I just discovered a couple weeks ago Is really into this it's I guess it's not a cartoon. It's some fiction thing.

I don't know what it is, but Found an entire website of his stuff really odd -looking stuff very creepy, but anyway he put up a article yesterday and In essence it the title is honoring our mother the

Blessed Virgin Mary and he's taking umbrage or expressing disagreement nicely with Patrick Madrid and And evidently and I evidently have been too busy with Vista and Arabic and Things related there to to keep up with this but this is this is what

RSS readers are for man. They are very very helpful We read the following over in his apologetics board

Patrick Madrid has made the following comment concerning the recent move by several cardinals To request that the spiritual motherhood of the

Blessed Virgin be declared a dogma of the church the spiritual motherhood

Actually, this is the same thing that I wrote a book about in 1998 Called is

I was gonna say is Mary my mother. I said I didn't write that book Mary another

Redeemer there you go And of course at the time the speculation was very strong that John Paul the second might declare the dogma in for the the year 2000 and John Paul was very strongly of course a

Marian Pope and So there was a lot of speculation that he would identify and and make as a dogma the teaching of the church

It's already a teaching of the church and I'm referring to the concept of Mary as co -redemptrix co -mediatrix an advocate for the people of God Popes have been teaching this since the 1930s at least and It the terminology itself is used in Vatican to but it is a doctrine not a dogma.

It's not definitional of the Roman Catholic faith it is a doctrine there is a difference between the two and so He quotes

Patrick Madrid saying Personally, I hope the Pope does not act on this petition I see it as theologically problematic due to the high likelihood of it being misunderstood and Misconstrued by Catholics and non -catholics alike.

The petition is pastorally unnecessary and hugely inopportune now

There are a lot of people who would agree with Patrick Madrid at that point. I mean The whole situation right now with Rome talking to the

Eastern Orthodox folks and Trying to heal that schism I cannot imagine that those talks would even continue

If Rome were to do something like define this Marian dogma Because the

Eastern Orthodox just would find that to be the greatest example of hubris possible There the whole idea of of Rome defining dogmas just as Rome is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the the coalescence of East and West anyway because the

Eastern Orthodox don't believe that any one bishop can possibly represent the entire church and So it's it's arrogance from their perspective

The doctor the definition of the doctrine of papal infallibility The definition of the bodily assumption all these things that Rome has done on her own our major roadblocks

To the East and West getting together. And so at this point to do this would be pretty amazingly

Stupid from a ecumenical perspective, but of course our Sippo is about the least ecumenical person on the planet so so It's hardly surprising that his responses

I don't agree every Mariology textbook in the last 100 years 100 years has included the rationale for seeing the

BVM blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemtrix and Mediatrix of all graces the patristic evidence now

This one is this is where it gets really funny the patristic Evidence for the spiritual motherhood of Mary dates back to the mid 2nd century and includes statements by st

Justin Martyr and st. Irenaeus the idea that they ever dreamt of the expansive modern

Roman Catholic dogmas of Mary is So absurd that it's hard to even keep from laughing at that kind of thing

But that's the wonder of Rome is once you invest her with infallibility and her dogmas then become the very lens through which you look back at church history then all of church history becomes

Plato in your hand and you can read your modern wishes and desires back into anything you want to find so anyway the

Popes in the last hundred sixty years up up to and including Pope John Paul II have been strong supporters the spiritual motherhood of the

BVM and taught such in their encyclicals eighth chapter of lumen gentium specifically gave the BVM the titles advocate auxiliatrix adjutrix and mediatrix

Which they did this statement by a general counsel means that the spiritual motherhood of the BVM is already official

Catholic teaching I would imagine a lot of folks would go About Vatican to but anyways raising such a teaching to a dogma therefore adds nothing to the

Catholic faith It has not already been proclaimed by the Magisterium But it does make it clear the BVM has a role to play in salvation and this is a central ten of the

Holy Catholic faith That is not negotiable Which would of course would mean that Sippo would likely like likewise obviously say

That such things as the Immaculate Conception the bodily assumption of Mary are likewise just as non -negotiable

As anything else and that takes us right back to some of those you know that one clip.

I have have a hundred and Seventeen videos on YouTube now You look surprised by that one of the earlier ones is caught it has the title

Immaculate Conception in it And it is the the section from the first debate on Long Island with Jerry Matitix where he parallels our knowledge of Is here the

Immaculate Conception of bodily assumption? I'm trying to remember which one it was But anyway it parallels our knowledge of one of these

Marian dogmas with that of the Trinity It's of the resurrection itself that we have just the same basis for believing the resurrections we have for believing in these fanciful

Gnostic ideas that came along hundreds of years later, but That's that's what Rome is stuck with because Rome is stuck with her own teaching

Then I I just love Sippo goes on from there, and he says The opinions and sensibilities of Protestants and other non -catholics about Catholic teaching should be of no concern to the

Catholic Church These outsiders are a mishmash of unbelievers heretics apostates and schismatics albeit most of them are only materially

So are we not to proclaim the divinity of Christ because Jehovah's Witnesses might take offense Are we going to suppress calling

Jesus the Son of God because it makes the Muslims unhappy? Do we avoid calling Jesus a messiah because the

Jews will balk? What are the things we supposed to suppress to assuage the Protestants this substantial presence of Christ in the

Eucharist apostolic succession? the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage the anathemas of Trent If we

Catholics are people of faith who must profess a robust faith not one that bends the objections of infidels It's easy for me to say these with As I've been on the receiving end of Sippo's flamethrower for a long long time

So it's I can even see the man saying it You know I can just I can I can feel the spray coming across the stage at me

My experience with anti -catholic bigots is that they have no scruples about dissing us no matter what concessions we make

So we should make no concessions none of them have any scruples about mocking Catholics our church and our beliefs

I am unaware of any Protestant denomination has refrained from taking a doctoral position because it might offend Catholics Think of it women priests women bishops lesbian bishops abortion contraception divorce through marriage homosexuality

Defective forms of baptism. What is IVF? I have no idea if they do not oh, okay in vitro fertilization

If they I guess he just didn't want to type the whole thing out I was thinking about intervarsity press when how'd they get in there?

IVP If they do not restrict their doctrine to assuage us. Why are we doing so to assuage them?

I don't honestly I don't think Rome I Don't think Ratzinger is overly concerned about Protestants Ratzinger's concerned

I I can't prove this and I don't read enough of his stuff to really have a strong basis for this

But it's just a feeling is It if he you know, I guess people who take leadership positions and stuff like that they want to Have a legacy and if I were to take a wild guess at Rat what

Ratzinger wants as his legacy. I Would have a feeling it would not be the definition of a

Marian dogma. I Have a feeling it would be the healing of the schism of the

East and West. I mean talk about a means to keep your name

Absolutely central and see he's under a little pressure in that ways because you know John Paul II had reigned the longest of anybody in the in the 20th century and and so You know if he can

You know, he's he's Sort of the guy that like when like when the pastor of a really big church resigns, you know

The next guy in you know is just a caretaker He's he's just there for a while and he's gonna get bounced out and a lot of people are sort of looking at Ratzinger that Way, you know, well, okay, this guy's could get in he's gonna be in there for a while and then you know, whatever

And I think the only way that that he sees that he could possibly avoid just becoming a footnote in history

And when you've already chosen a name where you're number 16 in the list anyways, that sort of doesn't help you stay off the footnote list, but It would be to bring about that healing and I can guarantee you that would never happen

That east -west split will stay there if in fact something happens to where this dogma is defined so I Don't I don't see that I don't see that happening, but it is interesting that it's back in the area of discussion

And that Cardinals are involved. That's nothing new. I mean millions of petitions Millions of signatures on petitions,

I guess I should say have been turned into Rome to define this since well for a long time now and so Nothing new there, but it is fascinating that that this is back in in the in the discussions

Just a couple other things before we go to the phone. Of course, we heard that today that dr Moeller is going in for surgery.

And of course, we pray that that goes. Well, I guess that means he's not going to Allow his name to be put in for consideration for Southern Baptist president president

Southern Baptist I saw in one of the articles that he said That there was a can a fine conservative man who was going to be nominated anyways, but didn't say it was so I was wondering

Who that was haven't found out yet but I certainly want to to pray for him as well and Just in passing.

I just happen to note that I continue to see bubbling Up to the surface sometimes bubbling far enough to get into the news again since the

Princeton Get together on the Talpiot tomb theory. It's still bubbling away and I Still don't see the vast majority of people dealing with the key massive black hole of the entire theory and that is their their their use of of 4th century texts that have nothing to do with the history of Jerusalem in the first century as the the glue that holds it all together, but It's still going on and it's out there.

So anyway, it's quite interesting eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Let's get to some of our phone calls here and talk with Mike over in California.

Hi Mike. Yeah, dr White I must say it's a honor to talk to you. Yes, sir

I've come to reform theology within the last year or two and I'm still struggling with a few items of it

Mm -hmm and one in particular and I have this written out here. So let me read it Do all verses that talk about simple belief in Christ had the same prerequisite as spelled out in Acts 13 48?

the prerequisite of being appointed to eternal life Would you say that was true?

Well, I'm really not sure exactly what you're asking. I mean If you're asking does every text have the same

Commentary added to it. No, no, it certainly doesn't Duh, if you're asking is is all

Given what the Bible teaches about man's slavery to sin is every

Place where we see true saving faith, would we be? Right to say that that requires the sovereign grace of God for it to exist

Yeah, I mean that was what was so offensive about Jesus preaching in John 6 was the fact that people kept

You know he kept repeating the fact that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the

Father and and and the people were highly offended at that kind of assertion so Is that what you're asking?

I I guess now I've been through your Potter's freedom or most of it and it just seems

Again, this is the themes seems to me that a lot of the verses talk about, you know Believe on the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. It seems like it just putting forth belief but if we're to believe

In irresistible grace and and the other Principles of Reformed Theology God is hard hard at work behind the scenes

Bringing us to belief. Yeah, but of course as I point out there

God ordains both the ends as well as the means oh, yeah, I realize the means is through the proclamation the authoritative proclamation of the gospel and when the

Command is given to believe There's going to be one of two reactions. Either there is going to be a hardening of the person because Even though the the testimony of God exists within Themselves are made in the image of God.

They're actively involved in suppressing that knowledge They love their sin and because they love their sin.

They have no desire to do what is right before God Well, but but a

Christian shouldn't Christian a Christian should not love their sin there should be a

Growing hatred of sin as we grow in our love for Christ, but So you'll either have the the rejection of that authoritative command to repent and believe

Or that is the means that is used the external call Combined the work the

Holy Spirit is the means by which God uses to bring his people into himself. So The the bare fact that there is a command

To repent and believe many people take that as just Prima facie evidence that well, everybody has the ability to believe savingly they ignore the reality of the fact that The Bible teaches very plainly our own slavery to sin the

Bible teaches very plainly the clarity of God's revelation the creation around us and within ourselves the existence of the of the conscience within man, etc, etc, and so They they they really leap of far too far too far in their thinking

And ignore the role that the proclamation of the call to repentance and faith plays when

God chooses both to draw his people unto himself in in mercy and grace as well as when

God chooses to use that as a means of Further demonstrating that mankind left unto himself is is going to reject

God's truth One of my first exposures to reformed theology

Thology was a recording by J. R. Shelton. I don't think he's alive anymore

I don't know if you if you read any of his stuff. No, I can't say I have but he's out of New Orleans But what he said,

I mean he went through the principles of of Calvin Calvinism or reform theology

And then he went over to the verses on belief and he says now I believe both both sides of it, but I can't reconcile

Simple belief with God's preordation and that's how he got around it

Well, I don't see any reason to to adopt that. I know many people have

I know that one of the first Presentations that was that was given to me Is of a gateway

We're on the one side of the gate it says whoever will may may enter in and then once you walk through you turn around and on the inside it says

You have not chosen me, but I've chosen you and you know All of these are trying to to take sort of a snapshot of particular angles of this

But I I don't think there's any reason to Contrast the work of God with the idea of quote -unquote simple belief

Once we we ask the question, what does the New Testament teach? concerning the very nature of Mankind the very nature of the the sin itself

We see the necessity of the work of the Spirit of God to free a person from the slavery to sin

So it's I don't it's it's it's a mixture of categories really to to even think that you need to somehow reconcile these two things because they're they're not

Contradictory to one another unless you insert into the idea that well simple belief can only exist on the part of an autonomous creature and That is that is

Where I go well, okay Once you start talking about autonomy now, you're you're getting down to basic things like it does

God have an autonomous will Does man have an autonomous will and the nature of the will and and that's where eventually without without fail

Mankind begins to try to limit God and to limit and you end up with you know

Starting down the path toward open theism and and all the rest of the mess that comes with it Well, that helps greatly.

I appreciate that. Okay. Well, I appreciate that Mike. Okay. Thank you. All right. God bless

Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. Let's talk with Adam.

Hi Adam Yes, sir, yes, sir Hello, dr.

White. I wanted to first of all apologize for the end of the program last week

Trying to get cognitive language septic and translations Hebrew text out in five minutes is a little too much

I want to apologize for that and I wanted to ask a more general question today, though.

I had a discussion in class today about Genesis 219 and its relationship to the order of creation in Genesis 1 and the debate there about whether you should take it as a poo perfect or a regular presence and it got into an interesting discussion about you know

The nature of God and things like that because my professor argued for the the regular past and so basically we said

I will make and then the verb says Well, then the Lord formed out of the dust to the ground these things and I pointed out that although the

Lord said he'll make a helper the next the beast to the field that he forms don't end up being a helper and It was really interesting where the discussion went at that point because he tried to argue

Well, there are many other texts in the Bible where it presents God is failing at what he does and then getting it right the second time and I thought he was just talking about the

Anthropomorphic language and so I said what that point that answers the question because the whole text is the anthropomorphic and he said no

I'm not saying that anything I'm saying I believe the text is teaching here that God failed in his attempt to make

Adam a helper. Oh and I Stopped for a second. I said, okay, and I and then

I reversed it and I said and I said so Are you so in other words the Bible can't use this type of analogous language and he says well if you're going to take analogous language that way then that means nothing can be completely literal and So I got from this two questions because he really emphasized the necessity of taking

He said quote -unquote taking these texts seriously and not quote -unquote Ripping them out of the canon and I was wondering how critical to exegesis is a philosophy of language

Such as the reformed, you know version of analogous language and also the text about God repenting came up and things like that How important is philosophy of language to exegesis and also how important is it to take an entire biblical theology?

Into consideration when you're exegeting a particular text because that was something you strongly objected as well

So we just execute the text and leave it as it is if there are no questions There are still questions there that we can't answer just leave the text the way it is and So those are my two questions.

How important is philosophy of language to doing exegesis? But how important is it to take into consideration the entirety of biblical theology?

Wow Goodness well, first of all, yeah, don't look at that time's up.

Um, no Well, first of all, unfortunately what you're experiencing there is is really the

The standard default position pretty much all across evangelical seminaries today the idea

That there's such a rank skepticism that exists amongst the act the

Academy that we actually have a revelation from God that is Meant to function in a particular fashion for the church that it's meant to Equip the man of God to be able to teach and reprove and rebuke and exhort and that that kind of stuff

So many people atomized the text so much that they would be willing to say yeah, well

Paul may have believed that but you know, Paul wasn't right about everything and and So as a result the idea that well,

I can come to these conclusions I can look at this one narrow text and I can come to conclusion

X that yeah clearly runs afoul of of other statements of scripture, but look this whole idea of a systematic theology is

It's a dinosaur of the past. We we don't in in the majority of seminaries today

We simply do not Have systematic theology in the theology department anymore.

It's in the history department It's that can you believe people used to believe this kind of stuff? They actually believed that the by that the

Bible was clear enough To to present this kind of teaching and and so that unfortunately

Then they seek to take sort of the the high ground and say well

No, I I don't think that you should ever allow any type of biblical theology any type of systematic theology to come into the exegesis you look at Genesis 2 and You you have the statement that it's not good for the man to be alone

I'll make a helper suitable for him And so out of the ground Lord God formed every beast of field and I'm just simply going to say see

This was God trying to fulfill the helper For man and because he brings all the beasts of field and so on and so forth and And he brings them to to man to man to name them

But for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him and God went ah shucks.

I Did my best let's back up and try again now Okay That's real interesting, but if I had a student writing fiction for me and They submitted something like that I really wouldn't have an overly high view of the students capacity and are we really going to think that the writer of Genesis?

Was that shallow and simplistic? That's really hard for me to believe I mean it seems really painfully obvious to me that there's a reason why he asked the man to name these things and God doesn't name them himself and You know it's just like when

It's just like when God keeps putting Moses in the position of having to intercede for the people

God says I'm gonna wipe them all out. And what is what does Moses have to do over and over again?

He has to go. Um, um, no Remember your promises. Um, he has to intercede what's going on There is

God just the big meanie and Moses is the is the much more gracious person Oh, of course not God is doing something with Moses.

He is growing Moses He's putting Moses a position where Moses has to change where Moses has to identify with his people or where he's he's keeping

Moses his own Sinful attitudes in check by causing him to have to see his role as the leader of these people so on so forth and even then

He still loses his temper and smacks the rock and doesn't go in the promised land. So If if the if the writer can do that then why can't the writer record for us

God doing something with Adam as well and The Adam in that interpretation is completely left out

Adams of just a character in the story has no role in this whatsoever we're not supposed to wonder what

Adam was thinking as As all these animals are brought before him as he observes the beauty of the creation of God as he sees that they're coming to by to We're not supposed to see any of that I guess and And instead we're supposed to leap to the conclusion that well

God tried And and God was hoping that he'd like go. Hey horse.

I'll take that what I'm sorry. I I'm a little bit confused as to why

Someone would suggest that this is the best way to read it And not and not do what generations of interpreters done, and I just answered my own question.

It's because Generations of interpreters have done it that there is this is one of the major problems in my perspective in the

Academy today is That is that if it is the traditional understanding

That must mean that it is pre scientific it's uncritical and therefore it is less likely to be the truth and there is in the

Academy a tendency to want to reject that and to go somewhere else to to find some other way of looking at it and Obviously to me there is no reason to have to choose

And make a choice and well just let the text speak for itself and if it's contradictory other well You just let it stand there.

That's that that makes God big No, it just means God can't talk right?

That's that's what it ends up meaning But the the point is that I don't see any reason whatsoever to do that you read the text and you go

Hey, you know God could have just simply God said let there be Eve boom

But he chose to use a different methodology He chose to do something differently and we go well,

I just mean he failed the first time around. I don't understand that I'm sorry. I just it does not even begin to suggest itself to me as a meaningful reading of the text so, you know,

I I shrug at that point, but What you're up against is yeah We live in a day where there is this skeptical philosophy

That says you've got to learn all this stuff about about philosophy first before you can ever get to the text of Scripture And you know,

I think one of the you know, this this doesn't fly well in the Academy One of the the greatest refutations of that is if you would drag some of these

People out of the seminary and make them go teach in the you know, fourth and fifth grade class and I should let them see how the

Word of God can communicate to someone who can't spell philosophy let alone enunciate it and I Really think that's one where one of the major disconnects is at that point in time.

So I'm sure you've been reading some some of Antel probably Yeah, that's one of the things that I've been looking at is because as I said, my professor has a very narrow view of language and You know,

I've been reading I've been listening mostly to Bonson and his speaking about Wittgenstein and his language games and things like that and that was one of the things that I was

That I was that I was thinking about the whole time is you know, I don't think he's

I don't think my professor's gonna say Well, you know God coming out of clouds means cloud means that he's got a saddle on the cloud of the lasso and you know

He's coming down. You can see him sitting on top of the cloud No, that's that you know

Nice, that's not acceptable. But the question isn't how do you discuss the degree to which language is compatible with reality?

And to that I think you have to see how the scriptures use it. How do the scriptures? That's how a Christian philosopher would do it But the problem is you don't have a lot of Christian philosophers in the

Christian Academy you have Secular philosophers who are religious that's where the disconnect takes place and I'm sorry but the

Lordship of Christ and the Lordship of Athens are our contradictory to one another and one of them is going to have to take second place to the other and Sadly, it is frequently the

Lordship of Christ ends up taking the second place I thought yeah, it's very interesting because I think my professor has been exposed to a lot of that But he's also trying to still hold on to the inerrancy of scripture trying to still hold on to the omnipotence of God Here wait a second here.

I'm like you like your interpretation of scripture God repenting this text of Genesis completely contradicts that and Like, you know, it seems like what it seems like what he's saying is he said, oh,

I'm going to allow tension there. Ah, Tension tension. I always say take some

Advil for tension. That's That's what I said You know even the morphological forms between the two uses of yes are there are different well, you know

Hey, when I'm when I was at Fuller tension was the favorite word That is tension is the term you use to get around having to say error

So that you can continue to say you actually believe in inerrancy. That's Yeah, nothing nothing new there.

Unfortunately, that's that's very very common So hey keep keep pressing on with with Bonson Vantill And you know, don't let it you know,

I my seminary experience Was such that I I really had to learn a lot

From that Struggle and you know do the same thing. It'll it'll be good for you. Yeah.

Well, I think that that's that's one of the things I think that a lot of Hebrew Scholars especially liberals say

I'm just presenting the facts I'm just presenting the fact and I think what Bonson and Vantill do is they show that you can't just present the fact they've they

Come in and they come in a context. They certainly yeah, and and that's part of the problem that that's why

I think that if I Apply those standards to Hebrew studies. I think that we can at least

I can help and doing a lot of good to restoring some Conservative sanity to the field.

Well, you'll be you'll be one one voice out there

That's you're gonna have to stand strong because you're gonna you're gonna be somewhat on the alone side

But there are others there are others there and the Lord the Lord has his people so press on Adam All right.

All right. Thanks a lot. God bless eight seven seven seven five three three three four one before we

Jump to our next phone call. Just want to make sure that folks know that is a toll -free number and we've we've over the past couple weeks have posted some videos in response to a number of different people

People defend trying to defend Ahmed D dot people promoting King James only ism people

Who basically believe that there's only? One interpretation of your church fathers and it's whatever the

Church of Rome tells you it should be Etc. Etc. And just want to make sure you understand that eight seven seven number is toll -free

We pick up the dime for it. Yes indeed and that includes the famous guardian

Yes, indeed the man who likes to call me a Jimbo as I recall Who I think was

July of last year now He was talking about, you know, all of my my fumbles and errors and so on so forth and and So we invite him to call in and he said well give me 90 days and that was probably

At least a hundred and eighty or more days ago and and probably getting farther than that But we still haven't heard from from guardian

But just just reminded a guardian to that's a the eight seven seven number is toll -free

Eight seven seven seven five three and that's the phones ring. See how that works.

There you go Let's go ahead and talk with Mike hi Mike. How you doing?

How are you doing? Dr. White doing? All right By the way, was that last caller talking about open theism,

I don't believe so My understanding was he was talking about Discussion of the text and Genesis chapter 2

I don't didn't hearing about open theism. Okay, I came in late It's just it's something that I've been doing with lately and I thought

I heard something about it. So, sorry well, I I mentioned in passing that Sometimes that ends up becoming the end result of something else.

But anyway, go ahead. Yeah. Well, actually my question has to do with second

Peter 1 really verses 16 down to 21 and I Was actually wondering what the significance you think

I wanted you to give a little exegesis if you could if you got time of these verses and the significance of the use of the by Atter on in verse 19 when referring to One thing being better than the other it seems to me that he's comparing the scriptures as being better and more reliable more firm than Than a voice from heaven even and I wanted to get some comments from you on that.

Yeah, I I presented a discussion of Peter's words in scripture alone and a couple of other books where you have to deal with the issue of scriptural authority and he he is using the term there to Contrast his own personal experience on the

Mount of Transfiguration with that which is firm certain reliable for all people and and that would be the prophetic word

That revelation given in scripture, which he is going to assert Does not come about By One's own interpretation.

It is not something that is derived simply from people sitting around thinking about God It does not have its origin in the will of man

But instead it is divine in nature and yet Peter keeps the balance.

He he does not go to the Islamic Perspective where it becomes this text which is written down in heaven in Arabic or in this case

Greek shall we say and then it's just facts down where you turn your the people who write the scriptures into in essence a fax machine and you just They just do some automatic writing type thing instead when it says that some men spoke from God as They were carried along by the

Holy Spirit that to me is one of the most balanced statements you could possibly have

Because you'll notice it in the Greek. It's interesting The order of words in Greek is not indicative the same same way that is in English But it's it's literally but by the

Holy Spirit being carried along spoke from God men and by emphasizing by Constructing the the clause in that way.

There is an emphasis upon the the oversight shall we say the the milieu of revelation being the carrying along by the

Holy Spirit and that that term Pharaoh is is very I think rich in this particular context men are are carried along by the

Holy Spirit as As a parent would carry a child for example, but it is still

Specifically stated that and the very last word in the phrase is is is anthropoid men

But and they're speaking is from God, but it is still they speaking. It is not saying

God was Speaking and they're just mouthing it there is the element of Human language and and I think it's important for us to to recognize that that does not introduce any kind of inferiority unless you're going to assume that God cannot communicate in human language, of course, but It also avoids the automatic writing type idea it avoids the objections that Muslims for example have to the

New Testament when they say that Well, you know Paul says pray for me. God can never say that's not the

Word of God. That's the Word of Paul Look at the Psalter and all the places just last night. For example in in prayer meeting.

We were in Psalm 32 and It's the psalm of forgiveness the petition of forgiveness from David in regards to sin with Bathsheba The Muslims say

David could never have done that you can't discuss those types of things in the Word of God And that's one of the major differences I think between the scriptures and and the

Quran Is that you have this artificial? Standard being placed upon the the

Quran where in essence God cannot have men speak in any Meaningful fashion while being carried along by the

Holy Spirit, but at the same time You cannot avoid the reality of the fact that that Peter very clearly expresses this within the overarching sovereign work of God in in Carrying these men along as they speak from God, so yeah, there is clearly in the the emphasis of Peter here a contrast through that transitional statement for while Peter had certainly experienced something

Extraordinary on the Mount of Transfiguration it wasn't even God's purpose to have all the twelve there He didn't even have all the disciples see that there were only three that saw that and while that does become a part of scripture

That their experience does not become The mechanism by which we know all of truth for certainty or anything else

Instead you you don't have And this is another thing I'm learning to appreciate more and more because of my

Islamic studies You don't have just one person bringing forth this this revelation The scriptures you have a multitude of people you have numerous authors

And and it's interesting to me that the Muslims really really struggle with the fact that there are books. We don't know who wrote

They are anonymous. We don't know who the authors were and For them, that's just that's just not

Possibly cannot possibly be scripture but you see their identity is is not the determinative factor as to the reality of God's Revelation and Peter can can speak of these men as they were speaking as they're being carried along the

Holy Spirit, but he doesn't know who all of them were Their identity isn't the issue It is the fact that they are being carried along by the

Holy Spirit and they speak and they speak in in in Words that are divine in origin that is that is the issue that he is pointing to here and it's men not a man

But it is men who spoke and they spoke in different languages. They spoke at different times It spoke in different contexts. Some of them spoke as extremely intelligent scholarly individuals and some of them were much more comfortable behind a plow for crying out loud and I'm awful glad that that's the way

God did it and So it's a very very rich Text, but I think there's everything right if this is what your question is about in in in seeing that in verse 19 you do have a contrast

Because he says we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven we were with him on the holy mountain But we have something more sure we have something that is that is

The reason it's more sure is not that what Peter Experienced was was somehow only relevant to him because it is recorded for us in Scripture and certainly the early church knew about it

That's why he could make reference to it not have to describe everything because it was given they already knew about it's part of the gospel stories

But never do you have that one person's experience being made the foundation for The certainty that everybody else has in other words

You don't have Christians who have more certainty of the truthfulness of God than other Christians You may have

Christians who have more certainty of their own calling election those because they're growing in grace And they have for many years and you have a new believer who hasn't had all experience

But the idea there's some Christians who who have more truth quote -unquote Than others because their experience is no that's that that's not the case

God has given us his his word We all have access that word when you have access to the word you have access to what

God wants you to have I was actually I Looking at the application of how

Scripture is more firm and more solid let's say Sufficient in the sense that if someone were to come come along saying that they are speaking for God or speaking from God then we have the scriptures to Compare that to right well.

Yeah, there's there's always a well You know you know he doesn't make that specific application here in saying

This becomes a standard by which you test those who come to you though. That is a biblical statement I mean you have that in Acts 17 you have

Revelation 2 and things like that where the scriptures become the standard by which you test those who claim to be prophets, but That's certainly

It is interesting that in the book of Revelation The church was commended for testing those who claimed to be

I think it even actually is the term apostles and so Peter himself does not mind in making the application the statement that hey even though I Witnessed these things

There is this clear revelation that God has given. That's always the touchstone that so that one must have reference to okay

Yeah, well, okay. That was more than I expected more than I Hoped for all right.

Thanks Mike. Thanks for calling 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 let's head back

Chicago and Steve hi Steve. Oh Dr. James yes, sir You're like Well, I'm I'm actually just a middle -aged bald guy, but other than that What can know

I'm gonna do for you that well I've been I've been going back and forth with the Jehovah Witness, and he's trying to trying to understand what the historical point of view of Genesis 126 why

Why it was how was it explained that God that God said let us make man in our image, so basically the plural forms of being in Genesis 126 now is this let me just ask since you mentioned the context of this is discussion with a

Jehovah's Witness is this a Attempt that you're you're trying to make to illustrate the existence of the doctrines of Trinity in the

Old Testament Not exactly I was I was actually just trying to demonstrate what the original

Belief was of us and our because what he is Claiming and he's like we're actually emailing each other back and forth

It's kind of kind of neat that we're able to do this or that he's doing. This is uh, he says here It is clear that the

Jehovah the Almighty has a vast angelic Organization in heaven that was created by the time man was created.

They were all watching with interest So he's saying that us and our it means that they were

Right and the Mormon the Mormons do the same thing and he's saying that Genesis 127 shows that he was directing the creation of man and I'm saying even you know pointing out

Isaiah that God created man himself Yeah, Isaiah 44 24. Yeah.

No, there's It is very very popular, especially again in the Academy where you you don't believe that there is a single biblical revelation which by the way would not be the classical

Jehovah's Witness position to be and they will utilize that kind of scholarship when it is to their benefit to do so, but the idea is that the the earlier parts of the

Old Testament are polytheistic or at least he no theistic and there are in their backgrounds and origination and Therefore you see these elements of it frequently

Deuteronomy 32 is referred to and stuff like that So when you say how would have originally been understood?

I'm not sure what you mean by the original audience or I feel like now there's there's a lot of Reasons that I've asked a few

Jewish people and it seems like there's a few reasons and and that's and that's in order to refute turn

The Trinity the Trinity Doctrine the doctrine of the Trinity, but I'm just I'm just wondering if there was an actual historical apologetic

Answer a prior to Christianity. Why why the plural form? Well, I will

I will confess that I've never done a study of midrash ik or Intertestamental interpretations of Genesis 126, but I can

I can at least respond to what your Jehovah's Witness Acquaintance has been saying and that is

When it says in our image and in our likeness That is does not include the image and likeness of angels

The to assert that we are created in the image and likeness of angels is a pretty broad claim

That would have a bit of a problem here we have Plurals used of God in other places you have the same thing in Isaiah chapter 6 who will go for us and certainly those who

Want to try to avoid any kind of plurality in the divine nature

Even those, you know Muslims and others who would do that Will rely upon Jewish statements that either we are looking at an angelic audience here or we are just looking at a

Use that some have identified as the majestic plural where even Popes in the

Middle Ages would use the plural of majesty type of a situation and Obviously that the problem is that the the image in which man is created is is very

Special and very specific and the angels specifically do not possess it Peter makes

Very clear that angels desire to look into these things but they cannot they are precluded from doing so they are not a part of the the redemptive work of Christ in that fashion and So to extend the imago

Dei the image of God out to Angelic creatures and hence just basically to water it down to communicative beings or something like that I think is to go far beyond what the text is actually referring to the fact that the writer

And again modern liberal Interpretation will just simply say the difference between 126 and 127 is due to redaction.

It's due to bad editing It's due to people who didn't have copy and paste functions in essence

But if you don't just automatically convict the text of guilt like that before even getting to it

There would be a reason why a singular writer Would use a plural in 126 and then say

God created man in his own image in image God He created him male and female. He created them in verse 27 notice

It does not say of the angels is not say that we are created in the image of angels So if we just allow the text to speak for itself, it does force us to ask the question of the

Relationship that The plural bears to the nature of God, I am

NOT one who argues that you can create a self -sustaining argument solely from the

Old Testament text this point and I There's a reason for that. I think the primary

Biblical evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity is the incarnation ministry death baron resurrection of Jesus Christ That hadn't happened yet now the the

Old Testament is going to point forward to it it's going to contain Symbolically and in a in the sense of a shadow

The glory that is to come I think that comes to two very clear fruition in such text as Isaiah 9 where you have

The the coming one described as the Prince of Peace as the El Gabor the mighty God And then you have other

Indications of this that are not as bright But they are there and they are primarily seen in light of the fullness of the revelation of Scripture Not in and of itself in one particular text in the context in which it was originally written and so it really depends on who you're talking to as to how you're going to address these things a

Jehovah's Witness has no grounds whatsoever to be trying to utilize that kind of a hermeneutic because they don't do that their

Willy nilly eschatology and willingness to grab anything under the Sun to create the wild eschatology

They're now trying to escape in regards to 1914 everything else Has really left them with no grounds to consistently

Complain whatsoever when their their contradictions on those issues are pointed out. So I I Would say that in talking to a

Jehovah's Witness You're going to approach that differently than when talking to a Jewish person So just simply because of the the nature of the of the conversation and the fact that the

Jehovah's Witness already has a firm established foundation of Believing that there is a biblical theology

And that you have to allow all the scriptures to speak at that point and hence the New Testament Witness to these things becomes relevant as well

They may try to avoid that but that's just that's just the way it is Thank you, yeah,

I did go to 127 I said it immediately afterwards if you go to 127 and it's just God and he's not directing he is doing himself and and so then he he said well,

I went to Jewish experts online and I pressed him and I said Okay, what what were what were?

What were the sites and and he he directed me to a talk of vomit? Online study.

Oh, yeah. Well, you're there's no question if you're gonna if you're gonna make Those who have rejected Christ down through the ages the standard they're gonna find a way around anything

That doesn't not exactly make them unbiased. I think that's part of the problem that we have and looking at that Hey Steve, we are out of time.

Thank you very very much for your phone call today Thanks to all the phone callers that made the program Make the program what it always is.

Thank you very much for call. We'll see you Tuesday morning. Lord willing. 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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 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