Calvary Chapel's Pastor's Perspective

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Opening Remarks and Today’s Topics

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon a little bit early today going for a jumbo edition just a jumbo edition for People like Ralph who can just never be satisfied no matter how much extra we do but just one of the crosses we have to bear and You know, we know that eternity is coming when there will be no disappointments whatsoever.

Anyway three subjects to get to today if That is if my audio program decides not to crash as it did just a few moments ago right before the beginning the program I mentioned on Twitter and I also mentioned Mmm, did I mention on the blog?

I guess I mentioned on the blog. Who knows? Yeah, I mentioned it in an electronic way That I was sent over an email from Referencing a phone call on the pastors perspective program and I went ahead and took the time to Download it on iTunes and Take a look at what was there? and I did find it rather rather intriguing and Worthy of a a quick listen.

I don't know that we're gonna spend too much time on it But I think it's rather illustrative of the kinds of responses being offered to reform theology out there so we'll do that and Then we will get back to Harry Knox and we will also get back to Abdullah Kunda and we will make little noises as we are trying to find the locations where everything is and Well, we'll get there eventually so I think I've got everything queued up again Even though I did it only in the past last like, you know, 90 seconds or something like that.

But hopefully everything is is there so we're gonna start off. This was a program from the 21st of May of this past month, so it wasn't all that long ago and Let's just let's dive in take Listen to what what happened on how are you?

I'm fine. How you doing today? Good. Thank you.

Okay, I I had a question designed with for both Chuck and you but I'm just gonna go ahead and fill with the question. In 1st Corinthians 126. Now I'm having an extended and exhaustive discussion with a brother in the Lord who? in simple terms basically says that the gospel is.

You know God has done what he's done right now. It's your choice. You choose heaven or hell. Basically, you know your salvation is up in the air and it's your choice. Are you going to accept it? And I think you you have that view that if that man is Making the decision Whether he will be saved or not.

Yeah.

Sovereign Grace, the Call of God, and Human Responsibility

Well, well God well, yes, and no God the Holy Spirit convicts. That's the job of the Holy Spirit. John 14 through 16 Jesus said I'm going away. It's necessary I go away the Holy Spirit the Comforter will come in my place and John 16 Roy tells us he will convict the world of sin.

So no one can come to the Father except for the conviction of the Holy Spirit unless the Holy Spirit draws him. That's very clear but we believe God in a sovereign choice and a sovereign will has given human beings the responsibility of Responding to that call and so yeah, we've got both things going on.

God certainly has to call the person. God certainly has to woo them, but we have to respond to that. There's a personal Responsibility there. So yes, we do believe that.

Well, that's interesting that you would put it that way. I mean I understand what he's saying. But we just had calling and wooing made identical things so. That almost sounds like general call and effectual call the same thing as the Southern Baptist statement.

And I wish we didn't call it. The traditionalist Southern Baptist statement put it that we talked about last week. And the people continue to talk about even Roger Olsen keeps talking about it. But the the confusion of the specific call and the general call that was a part of that document Sounds like is present here as well, and I think the caller is going to bring that up.

Okay, so you believe he gave that equal calling to everybody. Well. He got. Well. He gave the calling to everyone. Yes.

So now to see that the caller said an equal calling and Then Stuart says well the calling yes. Well, is that I? Would love for someone to ask the question Does God try equally? with every person because I think everybody I don't care how Advanced or non advanced you are in your theological thinking if you if you're familiar at all With the narrative of the Bible as a whole.

You're gonna go. Well obviously not. I mean clearly the the Jews had advantages that The Babylonians did not that the Egyptians did not that the Nigerians did not and Even today there are certain nations in the world where?

There is much more Opportunity to hear the gospel than in others. So It's obvious that if God's trying equally with everybody that's not working out real well and So upon what basis does he distinguish.

And I think one of the reasons that maybe they don't want to go there is because no matter what you end up with God having to choose and. And once that's introduced if that has anything to do with the final result That that doesn't work.

Well for the synergist. Okay, so going down to the scripture then I.

First first. Corinthians 126. I'm looking at it. Mm-hmm. Okay, Paul says for you see your calling brethren. How that not many wise men after the flesh? Many mighty not many noble are called but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty.

Right face things of the world and the things which are despised has God chosen. Yes, and the things which are not to bring to naught the things that are right now what I'm seeing in that verse now.

I would have suggested to the caller To continue on even though it becomes a long section especially on a radio program. So that no one No one may boast before the Lord. Literally, it's no flesh so that no one living may boast before the Lord because X out to day who mice este en Cristo because it is out of him or by him.

That you are in Christ Jesus who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and Redemption or the justice has been written. Let him who boasts boast in the Lord. So this is very very clearly in Context talking about being in Christ Jesus and it's very very clearly in context talking about how this is.

This is why we cannot boast of anyone but the Lord because it's by his doing that we are in him who has become to us wisdom from God and Righteousness and Sanctification redemption. These are all obviously salvation words and that's the context.

But if you don't get that far Then you leave yourself open for well, what happens is that found the wise has particularly chosen to save the weak and the foolish ones and not many of the wise and the mighty so that indicates to me that this is God's sovereign choice of Choosing who is going to be saved.

Do you see what I'm seeing in this passage that there is not a You know a random roll of the dice in the composition of what the church is, but God seems to Look, you know singularly be choosing here.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I see what you're saying Roy, but I don't see that all in the passage. God has based basically Paul saying this look. He's talking to the Corinthians there. Let's remember who they are. They are the crummy Corinthians.

They are the chiefs of sinners there. You look at the composition of the church. They have come to Christ and what we're reading here is that look you people he has chosen. You don't see the Kings many of them and didn't say not any it said not many.

Let's make that distinction. They're not many of noble birth that born into privileged positions. Have as he chosen to do that and that's just been been the thing throughout history right now. Why is that the issue?

It's because of pride first. Proverbs 6 16 six things the Lord hates seven things are an abomination to him. A proud look is numera uno number one. And so basically where God gets his glory Roy is using simple people not that you know, not the Kings the leaders the presidents.

They're not the ones for the most part now there have been exceptions to that and we thank God for them. But part of the problem is the position these people are in now. It says nothing electing to salvation.

It says to confound the wise the wisdom of the world in other words the world system is looking to people who are in leadership looking to people who are in positions of Authority and What God has chosen what God has placed in the churches?

Anybody can come to him anybody any lowly people people who have basically no educational background. They can know Christ in a personal way and they can you know. Turn it like the 12 Apostles turn the world upside down as it were now as we saw.

That that that is not an exegesis. That's an excuse because he's ignored what follows immediately thereafter. It's just just just a matter of reading and context once again demonstrates the synergism.

Synergists don't read in context, but anyway, but even then he's still forced even though he says where's nothing here about election to salvation. He then talks about what? Election to salvation. They're they're all these, you know people that are not in in great positions and all the rest that stuff.

So he's even not not consistent at that point and Again if he just if they just gone on. So that no flesh may boast before God and and it's just because of pride. Wait a minute. Pride isn't a part of the sinners.

But this is God's action. Look to your calling brethren. Look look just look at verse 27. But the foolish things of the word of the world God has chosen. That's God's action. God is the subject. He's the one.

Performing the action of the verb. So are you saying that God's action was dependent upon the pride of men? That God can only do what the pride of men allowed him to do. I mean it always ends up turning the text on its head.

That's what synergism does. It always turns the text on its head and turns it upside down and makes the message.

The exact opposite of what it's actually seeking to communicate and so that that's what he's arguing here in first Corinthians because we got it again.

Keep reading the whole thing in context what came before what came afterwards what came what came afterwards, right. That that talks about justification sanctification. That's it comes very next part of the of the text.

He's rebuking a church. That's in sin.

And he's he's making an observation here. You know, you guys aren't the cream of the crop as it were. God's. God's using you to get his word out. You're preaching Christ in Christ alone. But it's not because of any great noble stature that you have.

So that's is his argument there in chapter one. Not, you know choosing for salvation and ignoring the other seat.

You got some huge problems Roy if he's not choosing for salvation, but the very next two verses said for by him X out to by means of him You are in Christ Jesus who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

It's right there. I mean The the the blinders of tradition that are on the the faces of the synergists is it's just absolutely positively an.

Amazing thing to observe. If you say that God selected certain people then Salvation wouldn't be by grace through faith as Paul says in Ephesians to it be by God's decree, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't that be the case now the catch that? Did you catch that? I had never heard anyone use this objection before. I mean, it's totally vacuous. It's purely based on semantic games. But I never heard anyone if if what you're saying is true, then salvation wouldn't be by grace.

It would be by decree. Now think through that for just a moment. What does what is that supposed to mean what what is the what is the fundamental flawed Presupposition that is being smuggled in here that needs to be challenged that there's somehow a contradiction between God's having a decree To save by his grace or some other kind of decree or no decree at all.

I Mean, it really makes me wonder does does does the synergistic God have any decree? Does he have well? He's got a plan it but it's a very vague plan. He's just got a general plan. Well, so if he has a plan then salvation is by plan not by grace.

No, that's ridiculous. Obviously salvation by grace means that God Extends his gracious love and mercy To those who not only do not deserve that love and mercy But actually demerit that love and mercy they actually merit his wrath properly and justly but that is Descriptive of what God has chosen to do the means by which he has chosen to act Towards creation to his own glory.

But there is no contradiction. It's not well, it's either by decree or it's by grace. Well, do you believe God has a plan? Yes God. Oh, so you're contradicting it too because you think God has a plan but he has to be by a plan or by grace.

Well, no, his plan is for oh, so your presupposition doesn't actually follow through for yourself, right? These kinds of trite answers are Are met are not meant to clarify the truth of the gospel. They are meant to confuse it.

That's what bothers me when people say well, you know, this really isn't an important issue. We just need to put over to one side and we can all just get along. The problem is this is foundational it absolutely Defines how you're going to view God how you're going to view evangelism how you're going to view the church how you're going to view worship how you're going to view life and death and Callings in the church and the inspiration of the body.

It's at the ground of everything. It really does Touch on everything and you you see it right here.

Well, it's by means of but that doesn't negate the possibility that God Can still make the choice. Everybody knows and agrees we all. Be that repentance and faith is the action that brings us into into salvation.

Then why does he say whosoever will may come I?

Didn't and The caller is going to try to explain to to the gentleman What's the term whosoever means he's gonna go to John 3? But again As we have said so many many times before The emphasis upon the biblical text and he doesn't give us a he doesn't give us a Specific text even examined in context here.

The caller assumes John 3 16. I'm not really sure that that's what he was assuming. But he tries to explain it and it's it's sort of look it's hard to do when you're calling into a radio show. That's why you don't.

I almost never do that because look I'm normally on this end of things and I know that the caller is at the disadvantage no matter what and So, you know, it's much better to be on a program or something like that, you know that I understand that.

But anyhow, let's listen to how that went. There's everyone. Yeah whoever will. Everyone Believing in him did not perish but have everlasting life. There seems to be. I read it all my life the way you're talking about but I see the particularity side of that passage.

So, okay. Well, no, okay. Let me see if I get it straight. So you believe and you know a lot of people out there believe the same way that before this world was formed before was created God chose certain people for salvation and others for damnation.

Is that now here here again.

You hear you you get the air of equal ultimacy that you would think and I you know, we've talked about these folks before and They've made comments about things. I've said so you'd think that they might do some reading or you know At least listen a little bit, but it seems that synergists are content to read Well Secondary sources primarily let's put it that way and As a result, maybe they just don't hear you know, what we're actually saying.

I suppose that's a possibility. But we have corrected this error many many many times, but we'll correct it again the concept of equal ultimacy is the error that the positive decree to graciously save a people in Christ Jesus is Is Identical in nature and identical in Content to the decree of reprobation.

When they these are that's obviously not the case. There is no extension of the powerful mercy and grace of God Involved in the second act it is an act of pure justice. Whereas the other is an act of pure mercy and grace they are two completely different things and Obviously mercy and grace transcends justice but the synergists and and you know, the Calvary Chapel struggling with this they It's very very hard for them to deal with this because they're caught between a rock and a hard place the more they talk about it The more people read books about it The more they realize that their answers don't hold any water and that they're they're burning straw men.

So if they try to ignore it Then people still listen to the radio and they hear R .C. Sproul and people like that And if they talk about it, then people listen to the radio. They hear people I see so there you know, and since they don't have any meaningful.

They don't have a solid biblical response they have to come up with these straw men and that is a little bit of a Part of the problem that they're they're facing. Is that correct?

Better than memorize it. We're out to give thanks for you brethren for God has from the beginning Chosen you unto salvation. Forgive me. I need to quote script. That's that's okay.

Well now just just as an adjuster, right? The point is simply this. So why then would he say 2nd Peter 3 9? It's his sincere desire that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. Why did the Lord say that if these people have no chance?

Why did Jesus say over the city of Jerusalem? How often I wanted to gather you as a mother. Hen gathers her chicks or her brood under her under her wings.

But you were not willing catch it. There it is again. Yes folks I am starting to come to the conclusion that there is a new Calvary Chapel edition of the Bible. That has a major textual variant in it.

How often I would have gathered your children at that parts gone. Evidently at least in the Bibles found in the studio of pastors perspective. The actual text of Matthew 23 37 is not actually available because they can never actually quote it correctly.

And I laugh but it's sad, isn't it how many times in During the course of radio free Geneva's have we documented over and over and over again? Synergists Miss sighting Matthew 23 37 because their tradition has told them what it means not the words of the text.

They never exegete it. They just say it means this same thing with 2nd Peter 3 9. I mean we have and here you have one of the Leaders of the Calvary Chapel movement one of the top dogs one of the most one of the most recognized names and clearly he's never read the chapter in the Potter's Freedom dealing with the big three and You go.

Well, you're certainly thinking a lot about yourself that somebody should be reading your book. Do you have any idea? How many people today are in reformed churches that used to be in Calvary Chapel and they did read the Potter's Freedom.

I would just think I Would just think on a basic level that if your movement is losing people in One particular direction all the time, you know, you might want to familiarize yourself just just a little bit with why?

But we don't see that. We don't see that and I remember the other thing I wanted to get to on the program. They had it queued up just in a different a different window and it's gonna be the same type of thing.

We're gonna take a look briefly at some comments from Catholic answers forums. It's the same thing. It's the same mindset sadly that we're hearing here, you know, you just give keep giving the same answers and don't in any way shape or form press forward and Sharpen your answers and engage in what's being said it no.

No, you don't want to you don't want to do that that that just leads to more problems.

Why did he say something like that if they had no choice in the first place?

Well to the the those that are well studied on the other side. You gave two passages or the first one answered. Is that? The God is not willing that any of the election perish. I didn't say wait. Wait, wait, hang on.

He doesn't say that this is anyone should perish now. The elect is there's no qualification there.

Okay. Well, I could argue then Christ would never come back if God is not willing that any should perish that all should come to repent. And so never come back to give everybody.

That I'm sorry the caller missed that one. The the response of second Peter 3 9 is to point out what the context is. He is patient toward you not wishing any of you should perish. Who is the you in the context.

Follow the pronouns back? He changes from second to third person. They are mocking the promise of the coming you. The you he's addressing is not mocking the promise of the coming you. Follow the context.

You know if if this was some other subject if this was a subject about the resurrection. This subject with the deity of Christ these these Calvary Chapel guys would do that. They know how to do it. They know how to do exegesis.

I've heard Chuck Smith and other people do a good job on Orthodox issues, but when it comes to where their traditions are. They're as bad as the Roman Catholics. They have a tradition. But since they don't see it's a tradition because they're a non-denominational denomination.

Then that tradition can never be examined and boy if you want to get yourself in trouble. Be a Calvary Chapel pastor and say that openly. So you know what we really have traditions, and you know what I think if we're gonna be consistent ourselves.

We need to examine our traditions. We need to look really closely at our traditions. But oh that'll get you into a lot of trouble.

Yeah, there are people actually that argue that to it. In fact some Calvinists argue universalism because God's will none should perish all will eventually be Saving it. And you've got a Calvinistic universalism to that.

Everyone won't be saying I got a Calvinistic universalism.

Well if you can come up with moderate Calvinism, which is nothing but our minion ism. Why not just you know put two words that are completely kind of dictated to one another together.

I gotta go. I gotta go to some more calls. Nope. They don't like to know you're welcome, and no we appreciate your perspective. We can discuss this. I'm glad we can discuss this. Nicely you know. Admirably.

And that kind of thing. We don't want to argue and yell at each other something like that. We just have a different perspective on this. We believe that you know Christ died for the whole world. People are human.

God into sovereignty made us humanly responsible in other words. You know at the end of the day we have a choice. And we're gonna be judged on that particular choice. Christ died for sinners. The Holy Spirit woos us to come to him.

But at the end of the day we can choose whether to accept him or reject him. Whosoever will may come.

That is the gospel message. That's what we preach and so so everybody has the capacity. Everybody has the ability. Even though. None of those texts, and he didn't even cite any text. I mean where is that what.

What. Give us give us a context here, so we can actually look at it. Are we talking about John 3 16 or what are we talking about? We're not told. But everybody has that ability despite the fact that Jesus plainly said no man has the ability.

So we preach every man has the ability. Jesus taught that no man has the ability. Okay there you go.

It's so we're not telling people out there. Sorry you know God did not choose you before eternity passed you ah. There goes the straw man.

As If anyone is telling anybody that Nobody's telling on that because what you would you have to be able to do you'd have to be able to say I have knowledge Of who the elect are. So there's there's a huge straw man gross misrepresentation of the other side.

Always comes out eventually though we give a message for everyone to come to Christ. Anyone can come if you're listening to my voice right now. And you haven't believed in Jesus. The good news is you can believe right now and become a Christian.

You can have faith in Christ even today by trusting him as your Savior. That is showing how you are indeed one of the elect one of the chosen by you choosing him, okay?

After after saying that there really isn't a show and any elect now. Basically, I think what he was saying is by your choice you enter into the chosen you Determine who the elect are not God as if there is any text of scripture that even begins to suggest.

Such a wild and crazy thing. Well there you go. It's it's disturbing to me. It really is disturbing to me that These guys will continue to say what they say. But they will not take the time to actually listen to the other side as I said.

That's not unusual. But what it's more disturbing to me to see it amongst people that I would identify as Christians and upon people that I identify as being a part of a false religion and that's the perfect transition into a thread that appeared on the Catholic answers forums and Someone by the name of Arizona Samson.

I have a feeling I know who that probably is. Um. Posted my challenge evidently taking turrets and fans. He typed out what I said last week in Challenging the call to confusion guys to debate the issue of the bodily assumption of Mary and posted it and.

The responses were very very interesting. It didn't take long before the responses were almost all just completely ad hominem. Just how mean and terrible and nasty I am and and one guy. Let me see which which page it was on.

One guy said that. He saw me debating two Jewish guys, and I was rude rude rude. I needed a an attitude adjustment is. Is what he said yeah here? It is. This is Nicaea 325 says precisely why I stopped listening to mr. White.

He is rude, and I once saw him debating two Jewish men. Same attitude rude. The guy needs an attitude adjustment. I'm sitting here going to Jewish men. I've never debated two Jewish men, and then I realized what it was he was talking about this Jewish voice broadcast.

It was me and Michael Brown. Versus Anthony buzzard and the other fellow whose name I can never remember because he really didn't really didn't show up in the debate. But um there was one little problem there.

Neither one of them were Jewish. The only Jewish guy in the panel was Michael Brown for crying out. That's it, and if we weren't debating Judaism. We were debating Unitarianism. I was defending the Trinity, but you know these these these guys are just so massively biased well the terms bigoted I mean the Catholic answers forums are filled with bigots.

I mean there, what is a bigot a bigot is a person who has an irrational incapacity to fairly listen to or deal with someone because of their prejudices, and that is a perfect description of Almost everybody in the Catholic answers forums.

I've ever seen they're willing to believe anything. You know they went after my doctorate in Columbia and all of us this stuff once again. That's all I can do. They can't respond to the argumentation, and I think it's funny.

Let's see that was 19 1998 and so it's been 14 years isn't it amazing that all these people who run around Calling Columbia a degree mill in 14 years. No one's plunked down what they call their 75 bucks to get a degree from there.

You know why because not a one of these people could pass the first class. They couldn't do it. And it's it was thousands of dollars and numbers of years of work. And they couldn't do it, and they they don't know that because they don't they don't care enough about that.

But there was a fascinating statement. There was all sorts of stuff about well. You know all he wants to do is debate. Just a just a word of remembrance. How did I get into debating? How did I get into debating.

I was challenged by Catholic answers to debate for the first time in August of 1990 and my first debates were with Catholic answers and all my first debates were on the subject of Roman Catholicism, I'm not the one that started it they challenged me.

And now they don't seem to be doing any debates at all in fact isn't weird. I've debated Tim Staples. Work it where do you find the Tim Staples debates on solo scriptura or papal infallibility or purgatory.

Only here you don't find them from st. Joseph's communications that record the first two of them. They don't make those available for some odd strange reason and It wasn't all that long ago that I debated Tim Staples in a formal format right here on the dividing line and Nobody on Catholic listens to Catholic answers has ever heard of that.

Oh, they've heard about a lot of Tim's debates, but for some strange reason that one No one ever makes mention of just in case they may have lost the audio.

I'd be more than happy to send them a copy.

You know what I'll make that offer. You know in case they cuz maybe they just lost our email address and haven't been able to ask how to get hold of it. Again, that must be the only reason that they would not even mention the debate on purgatory.

Because I mean everyone Everybody in this thread Would believe that it would be impossible For Tim Staples to have lost a debate on first Corinthians chapter 3 and purgatory. I mean that that just couldn't happen, especially since I'm such a rude hack, right?

Yeah, okay, but. Yeah, you know then you had a few folks but here Biz cath canter Regular member prayer warrior and forum supporter. Dun-dun-dun. Isn't my imagination or are these sola scriptura types getting more militant by the day.

Frankly there is no need for debate if you read the challenge rant. It is clear that it is ego and not zeal for truth that drives this individual. We pray for his soul. So when when Jerry Matics and Catholic answers first contacted me, I wonder oh, never mind that's.

That's looking for consistency. So we don't want to go there. But here was the line here was the line on This listen this on this specific subject. I would only say that he who denies the mother Also denies the son and leave it at that Again we pray for his soul.

So listen to that. Listen to that I challenge men who are subverting the faith of individuals by a not-so-subtle attack upon the perspicuity Authority and sufficiency of the inspired Word of God the very word that Jesus directed us to.

I challenge them to debate The dogmatic Assertions of the Roman Catholic Church the infallible Dogmatic assertions now I can just now just sitting here thinking, you know, I bet you they get around that the only part of What's that?

What's it munificent of us deus was that what was that name? I don't have it up in front of me, but I was trying to remember the Latin. But I think that's what it is. I think I was the name of the definition of the bodily assumption I'll bet you what they'll say is the only part of that decree that is infallible is The actual definition and Not the statements leading up to it which included the lies and they are it's just there's no other way to put it.

I Mean, it's a lie on the level of saying Lee won at Gettysburg. Okay. The lie and there's some people in the audience good. Well, baby. Well, wait a minute. Uh-uh. Assuming knowledge of History here might not be a good idea.

We majors. It's a check. He's that old. I Thought we fixed him. It wasn't either six billion dollar man or something like that. Never mind. And Turretin fans saying Lee did win again at Gettysburg and it was it was Corporal Lee on the northern side, I guess what no, no, no be careful.

No eyes.

You see you went too far. Back the people listening who would have a problem thing. You Lee majors. I think the bionic ear. Yes.

Yeah, let's see. It's I know anyway, it's a lie to say that This has been the belief of Christians from the most ancient times. It's a lie to say this dogma is grounded in Scripture. It's just not true and You would have to be completely unprepared and Not be a student of Scripture or history at all to lose a debate like that.

Which is why it's not going to be accepted now. There was some guy in this in this thread is I'll do it as it's like who's that? I have no idea who in the world the guy is but if you'd like to you know send us some information as to Who he is and why he would be a worthwhile person to debate.

But anyway Here I am addressing that challenging them to debate on a simple factual matter really and Here is a Byzantine Catholic cantor who in response that says He who denies the mother also denies the son.

Now why is that phraseology sound familiar to us. Because it's actually based upon first John if you deny the son you do not have the father and That's a vitally Important assertion. It's it's vitally important in how we evaluate Judaism today, it's vitally important to how we evaluate oneness theology.