Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 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 welcome to the dividing line on a Monday afternoon move things up a little bit. I'm gonna be doing a little traveling tomorrow briefly just for the day. And So here we are. We're gonna do a jumbo edition.
Which means those of you who listen to the dividing line while working out you get an extra half hour of workout in today Without having to switch over to listen to wretched radio. I Was Just a little snark for for dr. Snark over there at wretched radio and I listened to him Did not all the time but I do I do catch a lot of wretched radio and so we thought we would do a little hat tip there and Save you from having to listen To a few more snarks from the snarky one.
Anyway, right before we got started someone in channel. It's always a It's always a dangerous thing when people drop URLs into channel the chat channel right as the program's starting. Because I clicked on this thing and There's a couple things Ed Young blasts news station for false reports on animal sermon series and there's a picture and There's this lion in a cage in the background of the of the on the stage.
I wouldn't call this a I mean, it's a stage. It's a place of performance. That's what it is. And then you got Ed Young looking very much like a young Pat Boone. With his white pants and brown loafers and pink jacket and no tie.
It looks really bad. The jacket looks like it's about four inches short. But anyway, and he's holding a little lamb. Which I'm sure I'm sure the lion is noticing. Going Oh little snack and there are people who were complaining about this and look hey if your church is big enough to Afford a petting zoo to teach the kids, you know when I was a kid we had to use those flannel board things.
Teach us about lions and lambs and stuff like that. But hey, if your church is big enough to have the real thing, hey more power to you I guess I'm not sure what that's doing in the middle of a alleged worship service.
But hey, this is This is fellowship Church. What do you want? What did he say down here there was there was some statement down here that was really weird. Yeah, I cannot tell you how many emails and letters and responses that we've received of life change.
I'm under one of what life changes. I wonder if that's repentance and faith. But anyway fellowship is one of the most well attended churches in America, and that is a total and complete God thing said young.
Okay, all right well I'm not really sure what kind of talk that is. But anyway, but what struck me especially was here you've got this picture of Ed Young holding the lamb with the lion. It looks like he wants to get out of the cage and eat them both and Then right below it under church and ministries is A picture of John Piper has John Piper ever taken a picture Where he didn't look like his blood pressure was extremely elevated and he was about to say something extremely profound.
That is there ever a picture of John Piper where he's about to say something like those were good french fries I mean seriously does he always looks like You know he's about to say Something that's just you know Earth-shattering, you know I I just it's it's it's just that's just John but he's got this real intense look at his leaning forward you know and and and The caption is John Piper, I'm amazed I'm still a Christian.
So right underneath right underneath pastor Ed Young holding his little lamb is John Piper and It was it was an intense thing. I'm amazed. I'm still a Christian. Yeah, which probably I don't even have to guess I I didn't hear this this was back.
This was from the t4g stuff, but you know it was probably a statement that wow what an amazing thing is the preserving Grace of God, and yeah, you know all that kind of stuff. It's just such a such a massive contrast between the two pictures of Ed Young and then John Piper it was I don't know it just happened to be someone dropped that URL Into into channel and right at the same time I That the program started so I I thought I would mention that but we will Move on from there and today we have a as I said a 90-minute version and So Ralph has a has an aversion to props while preaching.
You know I I do too for in general I think preaching should be preaching but I'll have to admit I'll have to admit and there are some people that don't like this, but and and Some people are good question my Reformed Baptist bona fides here.
But I think there's a place for visual assistance not Distracting, but I mean a lot of churches now. You can just open up your your phone and the text will be there with the sermon notes. Automatically, they'll just yeah, they've got just just beamed right out to you.
They're type of thing Logos has a program that does that and some other some other thing that that's becoming real common and I know there are certain sermons that it would be in Hebrews. It would have been easier for me to have had a projection system for some of the points had to make that really did.
There there are certain points where I think it can be helpful, and then there are other points I think it can be just a distraction, so I think you have to I don't know. Figure it out for yourself in essence.
Yes. The day pastor fry allows a projection screen to be put up in that church the day pigs fly. Yeah, well, you know hey, you know someday he might have a cell phone who knows but You know he lets me use it in the Sunday school room.
It's just when it comes to the service that I realized that we actually could do it though. We've got those two whites white walls. We've got nothing else on them. I can guarantee you that. And you know if we put it up there in the ceiling we could we could we could have two of them up there.
And they wouldn't be very big but given the size of our place doesn't need to be very big. So yeah, that would be that'd be a way to do it. Yeah a keynote. Yes, you know the Reformed Baptist Church. It's it's coming.
It's coming in in time anyway. I'm not really sure how I got onto that, but hey Doug in London, and I'm sorry Milwaukee is listening. Doug in Milwaukee is listening. He has a really odd. He goes to bed at very strange times for living in Milwaukee.
It really is really Really is strange anyways on the program today what we're gonna do even though I've already wasted eight minutes of your time. Hopefully didn't completely waste eight minutes of your time.
I thought the John Piper observation was pretty good myself, but I'm getting back to Port poor Sam poor Sammy is is confused thinking that Doug is in Milwaukee. He's not part of the joke on that, but that's that's okay.
We'll let we'll let Doug explain that a little joke to him. Oh we have three. We are in the middle of three different Discussions all at once we have been listening to the Wallace-Ehrman debate for a long time.
We have been listening to the Adnan Rashid presentation. And believe it or not if you recall We actually started sometime this year, I think it was this year. The Emir canner sermon one of the few Canner sermons these days that did not get cannerized.
And if you have not been keeping up with that there is a new word. We need to add to the English vocabulary. It is it is a verb to cannerize is to preach a sermon and Yet to do it basically in Secret and Then to make sure that despite the fact that it recorded just fine.
There is a technical difficulty in Providing that sermon to anyone who might want to listen to it, especially if they want to listen to it online. That's what it means to cannerize a sermon and so This happens primarily to Ergin, but evidently it happens to emir as well.
Primarily Ergin will will be asked to come speak someplace, and he'll say sure I'll do that however you can't tell anybody I'm coming except inside the church and ask them to keep it quiet and Then you can record it, but then you have to delete it or I'll have to kill you Something along those lines, and that's what's going on with With the canners these days, and we had started listening to a presentation he had done actually in October of 2010 as I recall on on the Radio free Geneva, but I didn't since we're.
I Guess I could have played radio free Geneva and radio free Damascus on top of each other which would have been an interesting mixture of Odd statements, but I decided not to do that so that's what we have on.
Yeah, that would have been pretty tough for the person running the board as well. Yes, I know candor claims is for his own safety. He used to be used to be talking about Yes, his safety all right the safety of his job.
It's for my own safety. It's all those jihadis chasing me around and all those fatwas they've proclaimed upon me for debating all those people in Arabic and imams And mosques and yeah, right. Uh-huh sure that's that's right so anyway.
We need to get back to all these and it was interesting. We had just stopped at a pretty decent Location actually in the emir canner sermon, and so it's a good a good place to Pick up again, so hopefully I've got everything plugged in here right and hopefully you've got everything plugged in out there, right and.
Here we go. If evil glorifies God. Why fight it?
Now if evil glorifies God Why fight it. That's what he just said and You know I'm sitting back going okay. This is a general of is this a general theistic objection. Because I mean is He is he arguing that God is not? glorified.
Even in the evil in the world so so he has a God who created. He doesn't want evil to exist. But he created knowing evil would exist, but he's not gonna be glorified. So God chose to do something that would not result in his own glorification evidently.
But as he explains his objection, that's not actually it doesn't end up actually being what he's saying.
Here listen listen to the full thing. Let me explain myself if evil glorifies God. Why fight it? Here's the question. Here's. A young man looks at his father. And says I wish you were dead. The father gives him everything he wastes everything doesn't he?
So much so that he goes into the worst place a Jewish man could go. He is going to feed the swine. The pigs were atrocious. They were unclean. They were cursed. Okay.
It's been so long. Let me just mention the scriptural text for this Discussion and this and he of course has mentioned Calvinism, and we've corrected many of his misapprehensions of it. The Scriptural context is the parable of the prodigal son.
Which I've asserted is primarily focused upon the relationship between the older son and the younger son and the older son the father and the complaint of the older son which who represents the Jews and the reception of the prodigal.
And his rejection of that and and things along those lines. That hasn't been the context he's used, but that's. Anyways, just so you remember what the context is is the prodigal son.
But the issue is not merely about depravity. It's about the author then of Depravity and here's the question of the hour. If God doesn't want someone He doesn't want someone from the foundation of the world.
So why are the unelected born?
If God does not want someone Then he does not want someone from the foundation of the world. So why are the non elect born? That's a fair question. I mean, but you need to realize something. It's a fair question against a theistic system.
Because it's just as much an issue for him I mean the term elect is found in Scripture. It's it's there. You you have those troubling texts about about God. You know those who've been who've been appointed unto disobedience and keeping them under punishment and and you've got all this stuff there.
You you may not preach in such a way that you ever have to touch on those texts. That's unfortunately the common way in Certain Baptist circles. But this is more of a question for general theism than it is just about reformed theology.
Because everybody has a doctrine of election if you make the elect based upon their activities you still have the elect and as long as you think God has knowledge of all future events and contingencies and everything else you still have to answer these questions yourself and.
So Ymir Kanner Needs to explain if God knew What the eventual fate of every person would be based upon their free will actions which seems to be his Viewpoint of things not because of God's divine decree.
But because of Well man's actions so so God's actions depend upon man's actions and yet as long as God knew that I suppose He could be an open theist I could I suppose he could reject that God has exhaustive knowledge of future events including the events that come from the free will actions and choices of men.
I Suppose that's a possibility. I would be surprised I would think there would be a lot of discussion of that on the net someplace if he had been open to say that but You never know. I mean these guys They don't seem to take too well to being examined as to their Specific claims about themselves and their theology and things like that.
So assuming that he's not an open theist. Then he has to answer the same question because God knows Exhaustively who is and who is not going to accept him even on his grounds on his perspective. And so why would God create them knowing that by creating them?
He is going to be giving them the opportunity of their own fundamental condemnation and and in fact by extending their life and giving them the blessings of his son in his moon and and the Rain, and and and all the blessings of common grace.
He's giving them all this time to heap up for themselves greater and greater condemnation and There will be no glorification of God in the destruction of the wicked from his perspective so The question would go to him now from the reformed perspective that it's not overly difficult to answer the question if he was really interested in what the reformed perspective is as We pointed out earlier, and I know it's been quite some time, but so I have to sort of go back and do a little Restatement of things and I apologize and allowing so much time to go by.
I have been doing a lot of traveling recently, but It's not overly difficult to answer the question. And that is I think it is absolutely necessary for a Christian to to understand deriving primarily from Ephesians chapter 1 and and texts and in Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Where you start touching upon these things looking at at? John chapter 6 and The interaction of the Father and the Son to bring about salvation of God's people. John chapter 17 the high priestly prayer you put all this together and You see that it is the triune God's intention To glorify himself through the demonstration of the full range of his attributes.
That he is going to glorify himself in the salvation of particular people. Yes, but likewise He is going to glorify himself in the perfect demonstration of justice the restoration of all things through Christ Jesus.
And that is not a grounds of universalism unless the universalism you're talking about is the universal demonstration of God's glory both in the demonstration of his grace his mercy and his love and the salvation of specific people and the demonstration of his wrath and his anger and his holiness and his justice in the Right and righteous punishment of those who love their sins.
Despite the clarity of the revelation the existence of God around them and the great abundance of God's grace that has been shed upon Them in the common grace that all mankind experiences. So there you have a I think a rather full Explanation of why the non-elect exist.
If it really goes back again to a question that I first was asked by a professor many many many many years ago a Dear brother in the Lord who is no longer with us. But from whom I learned much. Who I think would have bristled at being called reformed.
But in many ways he was that just wasn't a part of his background and tradition. But I remember very clearly in a theology class that I says I only see three possibilities either God can save everyone God can save someone or God can save no one and In only one of those three options does God have any? freedom to act.
In only one of those ways does God have a choice. If God saves no one then there is Absolutely, no demonstration of his mercy and his grace. If God saves everyone there is no demonstration of his wrath and justice and holiness.
But by having the freedom to save as he chooses God is free himself to act and to reveal himself as he sees fit and That is the case here. It seems that what emirs question really is and this is this again.
This is where I Really hope and trust that by playing these these sermons and and by dealing with these Presentations and and debates one of the reasons we do this is I I'm trying as best I can to encourage every person listening to this and I So appreciate our audience and I so appreciate the people who write in and say, you know I listen while I'm doing this and that and I've I've encouraged a bunch of people to start listening this program all exercising.
I mean I'm gonna be I'm gonna be doing about I don't know six At least six hours worth of exercising myself tomorrow. And I have lined up a whole lot more than six hours for the stuff because I listen to it a double speed so We've got a really really Important and exciting show coming up.
I haven't scheduled the exact date yet because I need to work with Michael on this but Michael Brown will be joining me soon and We are going to do Minimally, I hope minimally, it'll be an uninterrupted hour, but I'm hoping for a jumbo a 90 minute segment because you know, he's got his own national to our radio program.
So he's a busy guy. So grabbing that much time from somebody is tough. It'll be it'll be tough for me to do the same thing but The gospel according to Isaiah 53 has come out. The book is available in our Amazon bookstore and I need to blog that and I got my copy and Michael wrote the the chapter on Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53 now, I'm promoting the book despite the fact that one of the authors the book is David Allen David Allen of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary who falsely identified me as a hyper Calvinist of the John 316 conference and Then despite being corrected even by the people even by the person he was quoting whose definition was completely Misused and has been told that he insists on continuing to say that in the published version of the John 316 conference.
But despite that I'm still promoting the book. See some of us can do that. There are other people that would never promote anything I contribute to. Because well, anyway, that's another issue so the Isaiah 53 book has come out and I've it's it's I saw it.
I put it we it was on pre-order for like six months and It's been really delayed and coming out and I can't complain about that. Look how delayed my book is but Feeling really guilty about that right now, but anyway We are we are making progress there.
Thankfully The as soon as it I saw it coming out I contacted Michael said what I'd love to do is have a program where we can get together you and I we go through Isaiah 53 based on the Hebrew text and we just Exegete the text and we talk about this tremendous text and and of course, he's more than happy to do that.
And I'm really looking forward to doing that. Somebody kick Ralph out of channel. He just needs to be just needs to be done. It's it's it's just has to has to be done. Anyway, um, so that's coming up and I'm really excited about that.
And I hope you all will be listening in to that but what I want to do in this in in on this this program and Is to is to illustrate and to demonstrate and to Model how to analyze arguments first and foremost logically Foundationally Rationally without letting your emotions getting get in the way and here you have a Statement by Ymir Kanner that is specifically designed to create an Emotional aura that keeps you from recognizing what the objection fundamentally really is.
Why does God create the non elect? That sounds like well, that's a fair question, but there's given the context What you need to recognize is that it is Fundamentally an attack upon God's freedom. It is a an objection hiding behind a question That is really an objection to just basic Christian theism.
When you ask a question that is just as valid your own position, but you use it as an objection against somebody else's position. That's not good thinking. That's not good theology either so Keep that in mind when you when you hear objections like this Consider well, what is is being stated and what the foundational but the foundation of it is.
The argument from reformed men like John Piper was to glorify God. Well that takes away God's sovereignty. Have you ever thought about that. Not follow this? He's gonna argue.
That God's sovereignty is taken away if He's glorified in the demonstration of his justice Toward men and women who are judged on the basis of their love of their own sin and The and the commission of that sin and their their rejection of him.
And you might go. How's that? Let's listen. Listen to how this works.
If John Piper is correct that people are created for nothing else to be damned and the reason they are damned now. Now just stop. Did you catch that?
Nothing else than to be damned. That is not of course what the position of John Piper would be or Anyone else who's reformed? That you've now taken the end final Position of someone and Said there is no other that's like saying the only reason we're saved is to go to heaven.
Dr. Cantor, what about all that? Sanctification stuff and and glorifying God and obedience to Christ being conformed the image of Christ and you know the interaction we have with others and and being conduits whereby God's grace can flow into the lives of other people were made more like Christ and there's just so much of that stuff that just got absolutely Chucked out the window by emir Cantor.
Now. Do you think he doesn't know he did that? Or is it just that? Well, it's those Calvinists. I don't really have to worry about those Calvinists Anyways, I don't have to worry about accurately representing them.
I think that's what it is. I Think that's that's how most of these guys behave is now. I don't have to worry about that I'll need to be fair to them. I can just I can just go ahead and you know.
Um is that God gets the glory. Then would not God's glory be dependent upon the burning flesh of those who would not go to heaven?
Would not God's glory be dependent upon the burning flesh of those who would not go to heaven? Well, first of all, it'd be those who would not repent of their sins. And I just have to ask emir canner When you look at Genesis 18 and 19 when you look at What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah?
Dr. Canor Can you look past your biases look past? Maybe even sir your bigotry Just long enough to ask yourself the question Was God glorified? When that nation that nation state was a city-state back then who knows how big it was but when that area which was known far and wide for its perversion its open promotion of Sexual license a complete perversion of the created order when it was destroyed when God's justice came to bear.
Are you saying God was not glorified. I Don't know where you get this. God is dependent upon thing God freely chose To glorify himself in this particular way to say it There was something outside of him acting upon him forcing him to do it this way.
That's ridiculous. But are you really going to say That God will not be glorified When his justice is done when when God killed the firstborn emir canner in Egypt have you ever thought about what that was like?
Most of us just sort of put that off to the side. Don't we? We don't really think about the wailing and the crying and and as as the Israelites are going out There are these Egyptian women with with tear-stained faces Taking the bodies of their firstborn to be buried.
We don't we don't think about that part we just think about the the joyous part of the people going out right, but there was weeping and moaning and grieving all Through the land and Dr. Kanner, are you going to for the sake of your traditions say that?
That that event Did not fundamentally point to the justice of God against an idolatrous nation That had received so much from the hand of God in the way of common grace and blessings and Yet refused repeatedly in the person of their leader to worship the one true God they were steeped in idolatry and It's it's so easy for the sake of promoting your tradition to undercut the seriousness of Biblical revelation as is being done here in emir canner sermon.
But we can't do that. Not if we're serious about the Word of God and So no God's glory is not dependent upon their burning flesh, but their burning flesh demonstrates the holiness and justice of God and Dr. Kanner if God is not glorified in the demonstration of his wrath against sin.
Then dr. Kanner he's not glorified in the cross Where his wrath is seen in its starkest and fullest measure. Got to be careful dr. Kanner. When you think you've come up with an argument and in reality You're striking at the very heart of the faith.
Literally to believe such a thing would be to deny the sovereignty of God because the sovereignty of God and Demonstrating his glory would be dependent on people going to hell and therefore the unelect Would have control over God's sovereignty.
Now I.
Can see why someone who Maybe has no concept of what God's sovereignty is. Which you know, unfortunately that term gets thrown around a lot. I Maybe just doesn't do a lot of thinking on these issues might Look at that and go.
Wow, that's a that's a that's a great great way of putting I had never never thought of it that way. There's there's one little problem and that is that's not what God's Sovereignty is all about in the first place.
God's sovereignty has to do with his freedom. To decree his own glory and to work as he sees fit in his own creation. To bring about his glory in the way he chooses to do so and he chose to do so through the demonstration of his wrath.
It doesn't make the means that he's ordained Something he's quote-unquote dependent upon. The only way you could come up with that is to really not understand the categories of God's sovereignty power the decree of God And his activity in time.
But that's what Amir Kanner has done. He's basically brought God down from the lofty eternal position placed him in time and said well If if God's could be glorified then he's he's dependent upon these things which which he what which he ordained ordained to his own glory which came into existence at his command and Function as he chooses them to function.
So keep that in mind as you Listen to what this man is saying at this particular point in time.
Something to fathom and consider. And I know it is a deep thought but if evil glorifies God, why would we fight it? In fact when we look out into this world and we say you know what there was that murder in Toledo today or.
Think about that for a second if evil glorifies God Why would we fight it? Now, how would you answer that? I mean, hopefully once again Hopefully you you you you try to back away and You look at the foundations of The question and what he's trying to do is set up a conflict a contrast a Contradiction Between What God has decreed to take place?
That is his sovereign decree and his prescriptive will his this is trying to create a contrast and conflict between the Decretive will of God and the prescriptive will of God that's found in his law because in his law We are given a revelation as to what is pleasing to God How we should behave as his creatures and As such What should be the desire of our heart if we want to be like God and we want to be pleasing to him and So we do not desire What is opposed to his prescriptive will?
We Truly desire in our hearts because he's written his law upon our hearts To love God and to be obedient to him and to see his will done. We do not have access to the decrees of God That is something that is known only to the triune God himself and So we are not accountable to those decrees and We certainly see and I see it's a little bit distracting but we have a sort of a heckler In channel today some guy named Jesse and He seems to think that God is limited by his covenants and he was just earlier saying that God cannot be glorified by evil.
Well again, this is just a person doesn't understand the Bible doesn't doesn't know the Bible. There are so many instances where God has utilized the evil of men's hearts for his own glory. You have the great instances in Genesis 50 and You have the Incident in Isaiah chapter 10 and of course you have Acts chapter 4 as well text we've gone over numerous times That Demonstrate without without any question The reality of God's actions in this way and by the way, Jesse if he wants to Demonstrate his Continued ignorance can do so over in apologetics, but not in prosper again for the next hour.
I just Dispatched him there and since he's listening if he wants to go to apologetics and blab blather on he can blather on there. Vinny over at Fuller Just said if Yahweh doesn't have the sovereignty to freely act.
Why does Ergen Kanner have the sovereignty to block me on Twitter? Yeah, well anyway Let's let's get back here whenever I've still got other things to get to here, and I've been going a little bit too far.
But anyways, let's let's get back to what even your camera said there was that rape in Detroit today. And if we have no will in life, then.
Why fight if we have no will in life. Who believes that? Not reformed folks. We have a will and the redeemed will wishes to see the purpose of God accomplished and There is no contrast there's a contradiction here.
Why is it. I want to know why is it? That people like Ergen and Ymir Kanner have to constantly misrepresent the people. That they are saying are wrong. How many times do we have to hear these folks say that we don't believe men has a will.
Man does have a will it is enslaved to sin. John chapter 8. Jesus taught it he who commits sin is the slave of sin doesn't mean the will is destroyed. It means it's enslaved. That's just how it works.
This is the best of all worlds and we should be pleased.
This is the best of all worlds that we should be pleased now this actually goes back to Voltaire and and to the French and light the French, you know period of time around the Enlightenment and this is the best of all worlds.
No, actually, that's the Molinus view. That's not that that's not really. That's not really the the Calvinist view. This is the world that God decreed and He has his purposes for it and he will glorify himself in those events.
That doesn't mean that there couldn't have been a world where everybody was just sweetness and light, but God has his purposes in Bring about this world and these events to glorify himself and any little creature Who thinks himself so wise and so insightful and so smart and so?
Intelligent that he can climb up on his two legs and look at God and judge him when God has said I am the one accomplishing my purpose in the heavens and the earth and Raise a little objection about well, that must mean this is the best of all worlds is truly foolish is truly truly foolish and Certainly not Functioning on a biblical level now, I just looked in channel again.
Here is an irony Doc is on TBN right now. It must be the way of the master yes, uh-huh. Oh, yeah the way the master Watchtower show is on. Yeah, well if it's the Watchtower or the Mormonism show, that's pretty much me.
I did I did most of those actually so That is that does make me feel odd and strange that I am on TV and at the same time that I'm doing this. Because I can guarantee a TVN wouldn't have me on if I was talking about this.
At least not for very long. I would get canter eyes as well. But it is so cool I'm sitting here talking about this at the same time that we're we're on we're on TV and what a. That's that that is rather ironic and good at the same time.
Well, we will continue on with emu canter. But I have gone well into the next section and we only have 45 minutes left on the program. Anyways, and So let's move on to the next Portion of our three today and let's get a little bit more into the J. Smith Adnan Rashid debate.
We've been listening to Adnan talking about the Gospel of Thomas and all sorts of other things as Adnan is want to do and So we we press on with that where we last left off and I don't remember where it was either.
But we'll find out together. It's a great adventure. Okay, this is this is your general this is this is what happens when you have an an Islamic apologist who does not want to Apply the same standards to the Quran that he's going to apply to the New Testament.
And so he gets hold of Metzger's books and Rather than reading them in in fairness He well doesn't read the fairness and one of the big problems that Adnan has is that? He will look at the works of someone like a Bruce Metzger and He sees the word corruption and he attaches a meaning to it that quite simply Metzger himself would not have ever accepted and That is he does not understand that from a scholarly viewpoint every single written document of the past that has been transmitted to us by means of a Manuscript tradition.
So in other words if you find an original in a You know the cave someplace in A somehow hermetically sealed bottle so it comes to us without a manuscript tradition there It does not come to us by being copied down.
Then you could talk about something that is not corrupted. But almost nothing I cannot think of anything outside of a You know an inscription on a wall That has come down to us in in any other way works of literature come down to us Through a manuscript tradition the Quran comes to us through a manuscript tradition and What Adnan needs to understand is if he's in all through this debate?
He does this he? Grabs hold of one definition of corrupted. He puts that in a Islamic context of original lost Preservation not practiced and Then just harps on it over and over again what that means is that since the Quran comes to us in the same way and We know without a shadow of a doubt of textual variation in the text of the Quran.
We know about Abdullah Ibn Masud we know about Ubay Ibn Kabh. We know about surah 2 222. We know about Daruf. And we're not just talking here about the the the various readings. We know about The fact that sometimes something said ornament sometimes some said gold.
There are variations that the early Tafsir literature admits were there and they're not just Well, that was the crazy dialect versus some other dialect. It's not about that Not about that at all there were variations therefore Using Metzger's definition we can talk about the corruption of the Quran.
We could talk about the writing corruption and restoration of the text of the Quran and None of that would actually address the fundamental question and that is can the original be? Reconstructed. Metzger clearly believed that the original of the New Testament could Be reconstructed that the manuscript tradition was more than sufficient to do so.
I don't know what he would have said about the Quran. I do not know of any place where he addressed it but in light of the Uthmanic revision and in light of the destruction of Manuscript sources that were used to create the revision of the Quran I'm sure he would have raised that issue as having grave consequence upon the process of restoration, but the point is That throughout this debate He refuses Adnan Rasheed refuses To allow the definitions which are inherent in the scholarly sources that he is actually using To have their place and that is That is just Inappropriate and if if Adnan will Accept my challenge to debate these issues I will emphasize them repeatedly.
Now will he explain that number? How many of you I've had the opportunity now? I don't know how many times of doing my New Testament reliability presentation, and I actually go with a larger number I go with 400 ,000 and Then I explained that well 99 of them do not impact the meaning whatsoever and could not be explained to you outside the utilization of the original languages and That when you if you're really honest there are 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 viable meaningful variants in the text of the New Testament Now will he say that?
Will he point that out that is the big question with bated breath we press on.
These variants can be found in Greek New Testaments, and if you go to one such Greek New Testament you can find is Nestle and Alan text and if you go to it you see the text The main text and then you see the apparatus the footnotes.
In the footnotes you have all the variant readings.
Actually no you don't you don't have anywhere near all the the variant readings. Adnan. You have more in the Nestle Alan text than you have United Bible Society fourth edition corrected. Because the UBS text primarily focuses upon translations, I'm sorry of Variations that would impact the translation of the text into foreign languages because the UBS text Ostensibly anyways its primary usage is for Bible translators who are rendering the text you know out in the field into a Obscure native tongue someplace something like that and so they need to know where there are variants that would impact the actual translation and.
So there are many fewer Variants noted in the UBS than in the Nestle Alan many more in the Nestle Alan. But not as much information provided in the textual footnotes, that's basically why you sort of need to have both of them and any more today.
Even fuller Texts are being made available the CN TTS project from down in New Orleans and things like that that will go into even more of the evidence. Obviously having the Nestle Alan is I think one of the best texts to have.
I would highly recommend anyone I normally give. I've given Shabir Ali. I think I I may have given Basam Zawadi. I'm not sure I may have given Abdullah Al-Andalusi, I would have to go out and check ask them.
Copies of the NET NA 27 diaglot that has the NET which has Many of those variations listed as well. I think there are how many tens of thousands of textual notes are there in the NET have forgotten what the number is.
Together with the NA 27 on the facing page it in one volume provides you a tremendous amount of textual information. But of course today, let's be honest. No printed volume can any longer begin to compete with your iPad or your iPhone or your droid in Containing a huge and massive amount of textual data.
It's For me anymore, it's something that I have been hoping for hoping for hoping for now we have it I can carry with me. At least in my iPad, which is a lot easier for me to see but even in my iPod touch or something like that have a huge amount of Textual data available to you at such incredible speed that it's it's really a blessing.
But like I said too much is given. There are Suggestions. Oh, wait a minute. I by the way, didn't say that. I just I just say I say that a lot. I just just realized that didn't come out. Fix that one before we get much.
Oh Well, there's there's more varied readings. I can't tell you how many times I have stood before an audience. Honestly, I hope odd non listens this. I Cannot tell you how many times I Have stood before an audience and said when you hear anyone can see this is this is someone taking Bart Ehrman.
Without Bart Ehrman's knowledge because Bart Ehrman's a smart guy. All right without his knowledge and I said if you hear someone say to you and then they don't they do not qualify it. They do not go on to explain it to any depth.
If you hear someone stand in front of you saying there are more variants and there are words in the New Testament. You're listening to someone who's dishonest. Just just just that simple you're listening to someone who is dishonest.
There are hundred thirty eight thousand one hundred six two words and Nessie all in 27th edition of the Greek New Testament. So What? So what? Oh Well, there's four hundred thousand variants. That's that's like three variants per word such a presentation shows a Horrendous ignorance or a horrendous level of dishonesty one of the two.
It's got to be one of the two of. What's really going on? As we said 99 of them you could not explain they do not impact the meaning of the text. You're talking fifteen hundred two thousand. So the meaningful number is fifteen hundred two thousand comparison two hundred thirty eight thousand one hundred sixty two words.
That's why I can put up on the screen. And this is the one disadvantage of Discussing this particular subject on a webcast that's why when Alan Kershner and I did the discussion on the textual variant.
The major textual variant did Jesus or did Jesus not say father forgive them saying about what they do. What did we do before we did the entire program on it? We put an entire blog article up with all the information you needed to look at.
To be able to follow this because it's difficult to discuss this in just a voice format. There's there's no question about that. But if you're gonna be honest what what you do, that's that's why I as part of my presentation for years.
This was back when I was still using Bible works. I was still on a PC. I need to get some new graphics a little higher quality graphics out of accordance to do the same thing. But I did a comparison between The the two ends of the manuscript tradition what I mean by that is I compared the Westcott and Hort text With as I recall it was the Byzantine priority text.
Or it might have been the majority text one of the two. So you're comparing the Byzantine and the Alexandria and the pretty much the farthest ends and I I had The program mark in Places like mark Hebrews revelation in green.
Where there is a variation and especially like in Hebrews chapter 6 I found a section where there was exactly three small little Elements of green in this entire screen full of text there were three little places.
We're at the widest range of variation. There is a difference now it what you just heard from Adnan wouldn't tell you that has Adnan ever done that of course not. Adnan can't read Greek. He's you know he probably doesn't have Bible works or something like that should but Doesn't and So he's just fallen into the very same trap that I've warned people about over and over if you want to make if you want To know whether the person you listen to really knows they're talking about if they say this they don't and Adnan Rasheed Just said that and I would like to have the honor of explaining that to him in public debate.
That's not true. That's just not true. I mean they know the Muslims love the liberals. They love interpreters Bible Dictionary and things like that I am I am certain That there are in fact Some sentences someplace especially in Hebrews.
But let's let's let's just take that claim, let's just let's just let's go the mat with this we have Approximately two million pages of Handwritten text. That's what that's what Adnan is talking about right now is two million pages of handwritten text written before the electric light before reading glasses before photocopiers and before spell checkers.
Two million pages now if We only had One copy of each book of each of each of the books in New Testament. How many textual variants would you have? None. Zip zero nada none, but how much confidence would you have?
That that one copy represents the original not much. Because you would have to trust. Oh Wow, you'd have to trust what the Muslims have to trust and that is that whoever made that one copy Got it, right and see Adnan.
You've got to trust that Uthman got it. And you don't even believe he was a prophet might have been a rightly guided Caliph doesn't make him a prophet. See, it's a sounds like such a great advantage to have an edited text.
But you have to believe That the editing was done perfectly by the editor. We do not have a Christian Uthman and so we have two million pages of handwritten text now. If the interpreters Bible Dictionary being interpreted by Adnan Rashid were to be honest You'd also have to recognize that the vast majority even of the variations even taking the manuscript tradition as a whole are Irrelevant.
The number of variations when you look at say the first 500 years would be much smaller would be a much smaller number and those early manuscripts Would have a tremendous amount of weight to them and so when you say well There's not a single sentence what you're saying.
Is it? Well, yeah, you know, there's a medieval scribe someplace that misspelled misspelled a word in almost every sentence in the New Testament is That relevant to knowing what the New Testament Originally said no it is not.
No, it is not In any way shape or form now again, I keep making the mistake of looking in a channel. It's always sometimes it's helpful. Sometimes it's really Distracting but Hebrew student is in channel.
So I'm just tired of hearing these guys complaining the New Testament is in far better shape than the Old Testament That can be taken in the wrong way. But what I do find interesting there as I've said many many times Old Testament textual criticism is a completely different world than New Testament textual criticism and maybe someday we're gonna have to have some folks on and talk about that and and talk about The Aramaic and and the the Targums and the Masoretic text and The relationship of different elements of the Masoretic text to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the origination of the Septuagint and even the fact that there are different streams in the Septuagint transmission over time and it's it's a Honestly, it makes the New Testament situation look simplistic.
Because you're talking about a very ancient document here I mean how many documents do we have that go back this far that we can have any confidence that we know what they originally said so It's a it's a it's a completely different world and there are very few people Who have ever mastered it let alone really even know What all the areas of challenge and difficulty and and Study would be in in that particular area.
But the reason I mentioned this that I thought it would be be Willing or interesting to throw in here again, throwing the channel into the into the mixer is A statement. I don't have it up in front of me.
I I know which book it's in in my In my library. No, no, you believe me. It's in a I think a 28 volume set or something. So It's if I recall correctly it is in Al-Qurtabi I could be wrong about this I this I'm going off top my head So I'm sure that I'm sure that Muslim by choice will put up a one minute and ten second video about how stupid I am by going off top my head, but Off top my head there is the Story related if I recall in Al-Qurtabi where Muhammad is sitting upon a cushion and The Torah is brought into his into his presence and Muhammad gets up from the cushion and he places the cushion forward and he has the Torah placed upon the cushion and he says I Believe what is in this book now?
Think about what Adnan Rashid is saying here and compare it with what his prophet said because the time of transmission and the difficulty of transmission. To that point I'm talking about the Torah the amount of time 2 ,000 years very similar But not Nearly the manuscript evidence that we have for the New Testament and yet his prophet could say I believe what's in this book not I believe what was in this book.
I Believe what is in this book? Hmm didn't seem. Didn't seem to be quite as Skeptical as his modern followers in regards to the transmission Text. Ah, well look at that Sunan Abu Dawood. Really? I thought for sure.
This is an Al-Qurtabi. A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah To Kuff so he visited them in their school. They said Abu Qasim one of our men has committed fornication with a woman so pronounced judgment upon them.
They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah who on it who sat on it and said Bring the Torah it was then brought he then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it. Saying I believed in thee and in him who revealed thee.
He then said bring me one who has learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi number 4431 in Sunan Abu Dawood.
So I am thinking of a further Addition to that because I have a fairly clear recollection That I had made mention of this at some point or made mention of something similar to it at some point and had said that it was in the Hadith because Sunan Abu Dawood is part of the of the Hadith and Sam Shamoon had told me I'm just going on memory here again.
I'm just going on my memory That I was wrong. It wasn't a Hadith. It was Al-Qurtabi. So maybe I'm thinking of something else I I Confess as I'm getting older. My memory is not what it used to be. But not too many people sit around remembering this kind of stuff.
Anyways, okay. So you got to give. I'm becoming I really am I am noticing it. I'm becoming the absent-mind professor. I can still remember stuff like this. But I can. I'm the guy that you see standing in the middle of the grocery aisle going.
Oh. It's sad it really is you're just noticing this yeah. Well, I'm noticing it myself pretty badly. Yeah, I am noticing it. There's no two L's. Yeah. Yeah. Mumbling in the cereal aisle. All right. What was I supposed to get here?
And you know. No, but I'm I'm seeing it. So yeah, it's it's happening. So anyhow. Let's see, maybe I'll could to be quoted from Sunnah. Yeah maybe but I I thought for certain that Sam had said it wasn't in the Hadith that I was wrong about that that it was In it was only in Al-Qurtabi.
So maybe there's something in in Al-Qurtabi that isn't found in Sunnah Abu Dawood that I had mentioned. I don't know. I Loathe to attempt to correct Sam on issues like that. Because someday his memory is gonna go to and that's just the way it is.
Anyways, what were we talking about? So Moses was in the bulrushes and No, let's get back to get back to Adnan Rashid here. No, no not too similar manuscripts Adnan to identical identical as in photocopy identical.
But again, you have manuscripts that are incredibly close to one another and the level of accuracy again as Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger would admit there is no work of antiquity with as early as attestation as wide as Attestation or as good as attestation as New Testament none zip zero nada.
Now notice the complete abuse of the English language at this point and maybe it's because English is clearly not odd Ron Adnan's best language but He's using the term similar for the word identical. They're not the same word.
They don't have the same meaning to say there's not too similar, which means they're completely dissimilar. They're completely unalike. That's ridiculous. That's not the case. I can show you I can bring up papyri manuscripts.
Well, I can just prove this really easily in my presentation On New Testament and I'll do this and I and and I will be happy to quote Adnan at this point I can show you the I happen to have pictures of p66 and p75 two of our earliest manuscripts of the Gospels very very early Manuscripts of the gospel and I can show you The beginning of John in both of them and they say and our K in halaga Sky halaga st.
Prostante on kathay. I was saying halagas and they say the exact same thing. They're identical now listening to Adnan here you'd be going all they all must say different things. It's ridiculous absolutely positively ridiculous and I don't get the feeling that Adnan is extending even What would have to be an honest effort here to understand even the critics like Ehrman an effort that we of course attempt to Make all the time when representing Islam.
They all are because they are all clearly obviously Copies of a single original. Now some of them like Codex Bezet Canterbury Jancis clearly Come from someone who was not trying to do strict copying but the vast Majority come from and Ehrman will admit this and Ehrman will correct Adnan Rashid though I don't think Ehrman would ever even dialogue with Adnan Rashid given the things that he said Bart Ehrman would correct Adnan at this point as well because he's just completely off base in what he's saying and No, that's that's that's not the question we do have what they wrote and that is why we have spent so much time interacting with The best the other side has to offer.
I mean if you don't think Ehrman's one of the best things that has to offer then you can suggest somebody else if you'd like but This is one program where? We have clearly demonstrated that we're not looking to entertain people into listening because we've spent hours Going through Bart Ehrman's presentations and hours going through his his debates responding to point after point after point after point and That's why I asked the questions that I asked in the cross-examination in my debate with Bart Ehrman and We've covered all these things.
I just don't get the feeling that a Adnan has ever listened to that and be that if he did he's ever understood it. Because this is your standard this is the this is the kind of stuff you get from your standard Muslim on the street and From your standard unbelieving college professor in the community college, and they're both wrong.
If that's the case that's impossible to know what Muhammad dictated on non you just have to be consistent. You just have to be consistent. If you're going to use that kind if you're going to if you're going to say That the Earliest and widest and best attested of antiquity work of antiquity the New Testament.
Far more than anything else if you're gonna say that that body of manuscript evidence is insufficient to give you Confidence in the construction of the original then you really need to be consistent and reject the Quran as well.
You need to go whole hog. Go ahead and embrace Bart Ehrman's complete Skepticism his hyper skepticism and. And you're just gonna have to go to the point of saying we cannot be certain about what anything prior to 1949 actually said.
And why 1949 boys and girls? Because that's when the photocopier was invented. That's right because even printing Printing doesn't do it. No no no no because you have to typeset printings. That's a process of copying.
So not until 1949 with the photocopier can you have any certainty that you know what was in a written document? Because there is that element of human foibles and imperfection. So there you go so there you go, that's.
If you're gonna be consistent. But this consistency thing's been a problem with a lot of my Muslim friends down through the years. We've been engaging the subject. There's a man who has never done any amount of New Testament text Himself I can guarantee you The confidence of the man who has no idea what he's talking about.
That's that's what you've got right there. It's sad.
If these manuscripts are not from God because they're not from Matthew Mark look at John even if they were inspired. Then can we trust them? No we can't. We cannot trust them. We cannot base our faith upon such shaky grounds.
We can't we cannot. How does that then impact the Quran? I mean why not why not? Be consistent. But you don't get consistency on this point. The Quran all that's over there that's different we trust it.
New Testament all the completely different Standards even though the Quran tells you not to use unequal weights. Muslims don't seem to be. You keep looking in. There is my phone going off in the other room.
Oh, that's nice. Well There's yeah, and I understand why. Because we're doing it at a time that we're not supposed to be doing it so someone probably my wife is going where is hey and I forgot to tell her that we're we're doing the dividing line at this point in time so but at least I didn't bring it in the office and.
And then do that what I've done many times before. Answer the phone. Hi dear. Yeah, I'm doing the dividing line. Uh yeah, I know I didn't do that.
But even if we accept that we have for argument's sake. We have what Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote even if we accept for argument's sake. That what we have today was definitely written by Matthew in his gospel was definitely written by mark in his gospel was definitely written by Luke and John and Paul.
Even if we accept that we have that even if we accept sign copies. Do these Gospels and these writings substantiate the belief of James?
Sorry, Jay white I forgot about this. I didn't know this is coming up. But first of all the first thing the first thing that I need to laugh at there. Not in a disrespectful way, but just found funny.
Sign copies do we have any signed copies of the Quran? No, so again double standards all along, but then I Do take it as a as a great honor. How many times I've been listening to people debating other people and they have stuck my name where it wasn't supposed to be.
Does that mean that I haunt their dreams at night? But but I appreciate that the poor Jay Smith just became Jay white James the Jay white I mean whoever that guy over there is. Thank you. I'd none. I I I won't mind if in our debate you call me Jay Smith or something like that That would be that big.
And I do too that's that makes two of us I love that Don't take it wrong. I'd not I think it's you know, I'd not and I sat in the in the studio at the unbelievable radio broadcast and Adnan's a nice guy, and I'm sure we'll have a great debate.
He's way off on this one and if he's smart, he won't agree to debate me on this because it's my area and That He doesn't know he just have to admit, okay, I've said some things. He's gonna have to pull the the stunt that Bart Ehrman actually tried to pull.
Bart Ehrman didn't want Dan Wallace to quote from his earlier works. It's gonna have to be a don't quote me, bro. Don't quote me, bro and so yeah, yeah Ehrman's changes views and But he doesn't want to have to admit these change of views because then that breaks the link between himself and Metzger.
That's the problem there. Well, I'm changing his views is actually valid unlike Barker who hadn't changed his views and still didn't want you. That's true. That's true. That's true. But But I think both of them if they're going to make that argument need to admit I've changed my views and here's why I've changed my views but They didn't necessarily want to do that.
But yeah, don't quote me, bro. I don't think I'd not be able to do the don't quote me, bro. I've got this debate. This isn't all that long ago and He's gonna need to answer for his his his statements here, there's no question about believe that we find.
So This is a two-pronged attack. Basically that Adnan is launching because the topic was supposed to be Who is Jesus? So here's the two-pronged attack. First you attack the New Testament. Then you try to raise contradictory statements regarding the deity of Christ in the documents you've just now attacked and I hope that it's not and we all agree that We've all gotten together and agreed that this is way to do it because there's no way for a Christian To defend all these things because to be perfect honest with you It'd be sort of like me addressing What is the consistent teaching of the Quran.
Regarding Tawheed and throwing in a bunch of stuff about the textual history of the Quran into my opening statement and now My opponent has to respond to two different subjects rather than one subject that's that's.
Unfortunately, it is very common in debates. But if you really want the debate to be focused, you know, you don't do this kind of thing.
Jesus Christ was a man. The Gospels tell us that he was for example a man approved of God in the book of Acts 2 22 and John 8 40.
Jesus is Known as a man which of course all Christians firmly completely 100 believe and if anyone rejects the Jesus Christ came the flesh. They are Antichrist and they are to be rejected. We believe that completely.
Yep, that's why we believe he's prophet priest and king. You don't believe the priest and King part, which is unfortunate.
In and John 4 19 8 40 and 9 17. He's also called a servant of God with capital G if he himself is capital G.
Servant of a God is God. How can it be a servant of God if he is God? How can he be a servant of God? Now you hear Muslims saying that all the time what is the Fundamental misapprehension that you must now you would think that someone with as much experience as Adnan I've discussed these things with Adnan.
I've explained these things to Adnan. Adnan doesn't get it. And there's a difference between not getting it and at least this is this is the dividing line between the bulk of Islamic apologists and the best Islamic apologists is the best Islamic apologists actually understand what it is.
We're saying an attempt to argue against that the bulk of Islamic apologists are limited by the Quranic worldview to the point where they cannot even hear what we're saying and. And therefore their arguments are generally not overly Compelling or powerful because they they won't take the time to listen to what we're saying and to to recognize what we're saying and.
And that is a real problem. How can Jesus be the servant of God and God. Well, what's the assumption Unitarianism? We're not Unitarians. We believe that there is one Being of God shared by three divine persons the Father Son the Holy Spirit and those divine persons are distinguished from one another so That's not an objection to us.
How can he be the servant of God? Well, the Son became incarnate the Father did not and As the incarnate one he was the perfect man and as the perfect man, you're going to serve God, etc, etc. There you go but that is dismissed as a given from the worldview of Adnan Rashid.
Attention how can he be a man because you are assuming that God is a Unitarian term referring to one person rather than recognizing the biblical teaching that Yahweh is manifest as Father Son and Holy Spirit that that term Yahweh referring to the being of God is used to the father.
It's Yahweh that laid our sins upon the Messiah. It's used to the Son. We've gone over that in depth in the past six months numerous different ways and but just once again Hebrews chapter 1 John chapter 12 and the Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh and.
So that one name which is conspicuously absent. Seemingly unknown to the author of the Quran and yet it was so important. To the authors of the Bible used thousands of times in the Old Testament and then it comes into the New Testament not in form but in Identification and then come to Quran which is supposed to be the continuation of this line of Revelation.
It's like We forgot all about that stuff. It's one of those things that has always caused me a very To be very interested in the claims of the Quran at that point.
If he himself is God, how can he be a prophet of God at the same time?
Because of the incarnation of the Sun That's the Christian answer always been the Christian answer. And Adnan until you take the time to actually start understanding the Christian worldview from within The biblical revelation and within our way of understanding you will not be an effective opponent To what we believe you won't.
You will not be able to raise meaningful questions. Because you cannot break out of the very limited Perspective and quite honestly the inaccurate perspective that is found in the Quran itself.
He's a man. He's a servant of God. He's a prophet of God.
All of which we completely agree with and Every single author just cited by Adnan Rashid would agree that he's all those things. But the problem is he's also more than just those things. You have to admit Adnan that.
Those authors you just quoted likewise say that Jesus is more than that. They say he is Kurios. They say he is son son of God son of man. They say he is Priest. They say he is King. Do you admit all of those things as well?
I guess I'm pretty much out of time here anyways so. There you go. There's the there's the music. Two Interesting debates today two interesting topics. We've gotten into emir. Is it odd? We respond to emir canner and then we responded to Adnan Rashid hadn't really meant to put the two together there.
But it is an intriguing thing that we would respond to both Lord willing. We should be back at our regular time on Thursday. I might have to bump it up a little bit because I'm the speaker at the PCA presbytery meeting for the area on Thursday evening and it's way out in Gilbert.
And so I'm gonna have to check the time to see we might have to move it up just a little bit. So I don't have to rush but giving my presentation on Islam at that on this Thursday evening, but we'll be here for the dividing line sometime on Thursday.
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 six. Oh two nine, seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine.
You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen 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. Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.