July 10, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

James White. And good afternoon and welcome to The Dividing Line.

It is good to have you with us. Way too loud there, I think I'm going to start bleeding from the nose in just a moment.

There we go. I think we need to just sort of weld that particular thing to one particular position.

It's good to have you with us this afternoon. We thought we were going to be roasting out here, having rolling blackouts, everything else.

Everybody had us all freaked out this morning. It's going to be the hottest day of the year and records are going to fall all over the place.

And it hasn't even hit 110, which for some of you would be a bad thing. But we were expecting 115, 116, 117, things like that.

And you start getting within five degrees, the all -time high, and yeah, that's when it starts getting...

But it just didn't do it. And that demonstrates the fractal nature of weather.

Yes, indeed. Some of you know I love fractals and fractal art and all sorts of stuff like that.

And see, weather is fractal. See, it's very complex. But anyway, that's not really what we're talking about today, but it's good to have you with us.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. We didn't take any calls last time, and in fact,

I didn't even... I think I got through four of the clips I was going to play, and I had,

I think, 13. I didn't even get close to playing everything I was going to play last time.

But that's not really relevant at all, because I'm not going to go back to that right now. We might in the future, all depending.

But unfortunately, most of the time in responding to Mr. Hunt, you're saying the same things over and over again, because that's what he's saying over and over again.

And maybe once the book comes out or something like that, we can do something a little bit more than that. But for the moment,

I don't see that that's really overly relevant at this time. And what does seem to be very relevant is the issue of whether we can, in point of fact, know what the

Scriptures say. Now, you may not think that's really much of a relevant question.

You may say, well, of course we know what the Scriptures say. You can just read it.

Well, of course, there are issues that immediately come up when we start talking about the reading of the

Scriptures, the exegesis of the text of Scripture. Did we not, in fact, discuss, even in responding to Mr.

Hunt, the fact that he is examining the text of Scripture with a set of presuppositions, a set of traditions in his case, firmly in place?

And hence, when he looks at words such as John 6, 44, and you have the phrase there, is not able, his lens, his tradition, translates that into is not willing.

Now that's not what the words mean, but that's the resultant understanding that is presented.

And so, we recognize that it is important to allow the text to speak for itself, but A, how do we do that, and B, can we do that?

There are certain individuals, there are certain people, there are certain perspectives out there today that would indicate that in reality we cannot.

We cannot rid ourselves of our traditions. We cannot rid ourselves of the fact that we stand in a different time, in a different place than did the original writers, and therefore, some would say, certain philosophical perspectives, in essence, will attempt to tell us that written communication, that the written form of language is insufficient to communicate the

Word of God in the first place. There is a philosophical mindset, and there is a philosophical position that, in essence, questions whether we can even speak of issues of absolute truth if we do so in human language.

Is human language capable of engaging this kind of a subject? But even within the

Christian faith, you have all sorts of different perspectives, and there are those who, in essence, would say, look, the written word, for example,

Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic epistemology, very frequently will get to the point of saying that the written word cannot be sufficient in and of itself because it is not self -interpretative.

And since this written word goes out into all these different cultures, there needs to be an external authority that can then modify that message so that it can be intelligible within a particular cultural context.

And therefore, the Scriptures, in essence, become subjected to this external authority, and they become communicators of sort of a conceptual truth, but not an objective truth.

And obviously, whatever mechanism you need to interpret the Word becomes superior to the

Word and cannot be examined on the basis of the Word. And so there are those that would take that kind of a perspective as well.

And then, recently in some discussions, we've heard a lot about this idea that we are, in essence, looking for the wrong thing when we go to Scripture, seeking purity of doctrine as if the

Scriptures can give us this kind of absolute certainty, and I'm not just talking about on issues where people disagree,

I'm talking here about specific beliefs that are fundamental and foundational to Christian faith.

I've been told recently that when you engage in exegesis, you obviously are bringing your traditions with you, and you cannot escape them.

You simply, it's not possible. Evidently, no matter how hard we try, how much the

Spirit is with us to desire God's truth, that we will always miss it because it's just not possible to do.

Well, what I'd like to do today is I would like to look at a passage of Scripture that is very relevant to this whole discussion.

It's relevant specifically to a conversation that we've had on the Dividing Line before concerning the teachings of various individuals at the

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church gathering last

January and the January before, and the resultant theology has come out of that.

These individuals are Reformed, and therefore, in fact, many of them would say that I am not Reformed because I am not a

Paedo -Baptist, I'm a Credo -Baptist, and even then on certain issues especially concerning the nature of the

Church, the extent of the Church, the character of the Church, the New Covenant, the meaning of baptism, the objects of baptism, all these issues are very much on the table right now as we consider the teachings of men like Douglas Wilson and Steve Schlissel.

And in that context, I have raised the issue of the false brethren that the

Apostle Paul makes reference to in the Book of Galatians. This has especially come up when in conversations with Reformed individuals who hold this perspective the assertion has been made that the way to deal, for example, with Roman Catholicism is not to simply engage in sloganeering, which is the rather obvious slur that has been cast in my direction, that we're in defending sola scriptura and sola fide and sola gratia and sola

Christus, that these are slogans, and that we're just simply yelling at the

Catholics and not engaging them in dialogue, because we're just sloganeering. That's all we're doing.

And in that process, it has been said to me by more than one individual, that not only are the

Roman Catholics our brothers, because they have experienced trinal baptism, they have experienced baptism in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and hence have been joined to the Church as a result of that, but that even the worst individuals that we can look at within the context of the

Catholic Church, some have gone so far as to insist that even the worst, most immoral, murderous, corrupt,

God -hating, Gospel -denying Popes were our Fathers in the

Faith on the same level as any 16th century reformer. That's pretty much a direct quote in regards to the

Fathers in the Faith, and specifically that was about the Borgia Popes, and if you know anything about the Borgia Popes, I just described them as immoral, murderous, corrupt,

God -hating, etc., etc. The idea being, it doesn't matter that they were what they were, as far as their behavior and their character is concerned, they experienced baptism in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and therefore they are our brothers. Now, most of these folks would make a very quick assertion that the elect are known only to God, that is not our purview, and they would say, look, this is all just a matter of how we view the

Scriptures, that is, either we can look through the lens of the Covenant and view election in that way, or we can look through the lens of the

Covenant and view the Covenant that way, and this is the difference between us, and so on and so forth. But it ends up having very important ramifications in regards to how we view the evangelization of Roman Catholics, so much so that within the past couple of weeks we had one

AAPC individual, very supportive of that movement, who in essence, in his writings, indicated that Roman Catholics and Reformed Baptists need to sit down at the table with them to discuss

God's truth. In other words, we were put in the same position in relationship to them in regards to the need to discuss these issues, and so on and so forth.

So, what I'd like to do today is I'd like to look at this passage, because I have raised, and I keep requesting from individuals, an exegetical response, and whenever I ask about Galatians 2, especially verses 4 and 5,

I get, well, you know, you're just assuming that you're not interpreting this within your

Reformed Baptist perspective, and you're bringing all these traditions, and so what I'd like to do is

I would like to look at the text, and I would like to give you my comments on it, and then if any of those folks would like to call in and explain where I have violated the sound canons of exegesis hermeneutics, where I have imported my customs,

I'd like to know where it is. That would be very helpful. So far, I can't get anyone to, in essence, do these things, and to help me out in understanding exactly why it is that exegesis cannot bring us to a position of truly understanding what the

Scriptures have to say. The importance of doing exegesis, we should note that.

We've noted it in the past, but let me note it again. The reason that we do exegesis is so that we can demonstrate our honor and obedience and love for God.

That's not normally why you hear people say we do exegesis, but you see, when we do exegesis, when we take the time and the effort to examine the grammar, the syntax, the close context, the context within a particular pericope, the context within a particular author, the context within the entire

New Testament, the background, the history, the setting, the customs, the impact of those customs upon language, sources used when citing other ancient documents such as the

Septuagint, etc., etc., etc. When we take the time to engage those subjects and to equip ourselves to honestly handle the ancient text, we are doing so not so we can then somehow lord this over someone else, but we are doing this,

I do it so that I can teach within the context of the local church, so that I can write, so we can do this program, and do so in such a way as to honor

God. Because you see, if we don't do that, then what we're saying is we don't want to hear what

God said and what He is saying right now. Because remember,

Matthew chapter 22 tells us, when we read the scriptures, that's God speaking. It's not what God said, past tense only, but God continues speaking.

We are approaching a divine text, a supernatural text. There's no question about that. But you see, if we don't do exegesis properly, then in essence we are forcing our words into God's mouth.

We are forcing our traditions into God's word.

And that's disrespectful to God. It does not show love for God. It does not show an appreciation for His truth.

And so though many people think it's somehow inherently unspiritual, opposed to the spirit of God, to engage in the work of exegesis,

I can assure you that, at least in my experience, and I think there's a lot of folks who could understand this and comment on it themselves, in my experience, some of the deepest spiritual experiences that I have ever had, have been in the context of the close examination of the word of God in doing exegesis.

It is not an unspiritual thing, it is truly being spiritual in examining the text.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to go to Galatians chapter 2, and I would just like to, again, it's always important to establish the context, place what you're reading in a particular context so you can see what comes before and what comes after.

Most folks know that Galatians is without a doubt the most strident of all of Paul's writings.

When you translate the epistle itself, you discover that it is written in such a form as to separate it from the rest of Paul's epistles.

Now, obviously that doesn't become a ground for saying that it's somehow not written by Paul in any way, shape, or form.

The point is that as he wrote this, and he does indicate at the end of the letter, see what big letters

I'm using in writing to you, it seems anyways, and there's different theories about this, but it seems he wrote it himself.

There's no Emanuensis, no scribe mentioned in this letter as there is in others, like in Romans, where he's named by name.

So, it's not dictated. It seems that Paul wrote this himself, and being in that situation, it's very obvious that his whole heart and emotions were very much active in the writing of this particular epistle.

The grammar and syntax is what you'd expect of a person who is very much involved and very much passionate and indeed shedding tears as he writes and addresses this particular issue.

And obviously we know what it's about. Most of us know Galatians 1, 6 -9, the anathema, the condemnation of the false teachers, the false prophets.

And the false gospel. The assertion in that passage that these individuals specifically wish to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

There's almost nothing at the beginning of the letter at all in regards to commending the churches in Galatia.

It immediately goes into this tremendous attack upon false teaching and false teachers, who

Paul never addresses in the second person. He never says, and you false teachers.

He's writing to the churches in Galatia, but isn't it interesting that even though these individuals would be sitting there hearing when this letter was being written, he does not address them.

He only addresses the church, not the false teachers, which is very, very interesting.

Galatians chapter 2 begins with these words, then after an interval of 14 years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking

Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up and I submitted to them the gospel which

I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running or had run in vain.

But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

But it was because of the false brethren, secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, in order to bring us into bondage.

But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

And then he continues on to describe his relationship with those who were in positions of authority, and then even describes the tremendous encounter between himself and Peter at Antioch, where he says again that Peter was not walking according to the truth of the gospel.

That phrase is used twice here in Galatians chapter 2. And it's obviously a very important word, a very important phrase,

I'm sorry, we'll look at it more in just a moment, but he says that Peter and the others were not walking in, the actual term is a verb

I've used in the past, orthopodeo, it means to walk straight in accordance with the rule. They were not walking straight in accordance with the rule of the gospel.

What they were doing violated the rule of the gospel itself. Well, obviously the gospel has to be discernible and understandable in light of the fact that the apostle

Paul could speak to the church, and he could talk about false gospels, and he could be amazed that they would be deluded by a false gospel, and obviously the gospel was well enough known that he could then hold

Peter accountable to it as well. Now someone might, I guess, make the argument that that's no longer the case.

That the scriptures are not sufficient to communicate that to us. But that would be the only way that a person could get around the clarity of the assertion that there is a truth of the gospel, it's knowable, it was known, and Paul held the churches in Galatia accountable for knowing the truth of the gospel.

So, with that in mind, I would like to go back to Galatians 2, 4, and 5 because that's where this issue has really come up.

That's where it's been focused in the discussions that we have had with the various sundry individuals.

I read the section again, this is from the New American Standard Bible, but it was because of the false brethren.

Pseudadelphoi. Pseudo, you can hear that. Pseudo meaning false.

Adelphos is the plural, the false brethren. Now we know what pseudo is, the idea of a pseudonym and things like that, and so these are called false brethren.

But it was because the false brethren secretly brought in who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus in order to bring us into bondage.

But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Now, let's look at the text and let's see if we can understand what it is that Paul is communicating, understand the words within their context, and embrace them.

But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in.

Now, when we think of this phrase false brethren, actually it's a single word, two words put together, these individuals, what was their relationship to Paul and to the

Christians in the various churches in Galatia?

Well, why call them false brethren? Well, I think the text helps us in a number of ways to understand this.

First of all, even before the word false brethren appears, we have another term which the

New American Standard translates as secretly brought in. It can also be translated, for example, the

UBS lexicon defines that as brought in under false pretenses.

False pretenses. Both of these terms would seem to direct us to the idea that these brethren were within the fellowship, they were brought in, but they were brought in under false pretenses.

They did not have a true standing within the fellowship itself. And that, of course, some of the other terms that relate to this, of course, is that they slipped in, they snuck in.

All of these terms refer to dishonesty, they refer to some sort of lack of integrity.

These are individuals who are where they are, but they are not supposed to be there. And it's interesting when

Paul then describes, you know, they've been brought in secretly, they've been brought in under false pretenses, they've snuck in for what reason?

Well, they snuck in to spy out our liberty. And that's a term that's simply used for spying, but when you spy, do you spy on your own family?

No. You spy on others. We don't spy upon our own nation, we spy upon another nation, or they send spies over to our nation, etc.,

etc. Spies, again, fit directly into the terms, the words that Paul is using here in regards to this concept of dishonesty and secrecy and sneaking in.

That's what spies do. And so they have snuck in to spy something else.

What is it? To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. So notice, he refers to the false brethren, but he refers to them in the third person, and then when he talks about the

Christians, he says, our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. And then having said that, he then explains why would they sneak in to spy these things out?

What were they looking for? What was their purpose? Remember, in Galatians chapter 1, he had already said, the false teachers themselves.

It was their purpose to pervert the gospel, to twist the gospel of Christ. He does not say that this was done innocently on their part.

This was not done simply because they were not well taught or something. These individuals wanted to pervert the gospel of Christ.

And here in Galatians 2 .4, the verse ends with the phrase, in order to bring us into bondage.

We have liberty. We have freedom. And he uses two terms here which are well known antonyms.

The first term for freedom or liberty, and then he uses the very term that means make a slave of, and it's an emphatic term.

And so he's using two strong contrasting words. We have liberty in Christ Jesus, but they want to bring us into bondage.

And later in the epistle, he will talk more about this, and he will say that, you see, they want to see you circumcised.

They want to see you engage in circumcision, enter into their viewpoint so as to bring you into bondage.

This is the difference between the freedom that is in Christ and the bondage that they are in. Nowhere does he ever indicate these people are in Christ Jesus.

In fact, that would violate the very contrast that he's attempting to present. And so, he says it was because of the false brethren, secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

They want to remove us from that state of liberty in Christ Jesus, and instead place us into a position of bondage.

That was their purpose. Paul continues. He says, but we, the leaders of the church, did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Now, I personally think this is one of the most important verses in the

New Testament. We did not yield in subjection to them. They brought force against us.

They sought to accomplish their goal, which was in order to bring us into bondage.

But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, for any period of time whatsoever.

There was never a time where we gave in to their demands. There was never a time when we gave consideration to exchanging the liberty that we have in Christ Jesus for the bondage that they sought to bring us into.

Now, someone may well ask, did they know at the time that these false brethren had snuck in that they were false brethren?

And how then does Paul, in looking back at this situation, identify them as false brethren?

What basis, what grounds does

Paul use to identify them as false brethren? Well, that's very, very important.

We still need to look at the phrase, so the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But we have gone through our first half hour of the program already.

When we come back, I'll continue that, and then we'll take the one phone call we have on the subject of solo scripture, and we'll be right back.

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free? A New Cult?

Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture. The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed queen of heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ, and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman the

Bible calls blessed among women and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at aomen .org.

We do not want to change the commands of God based merely upon our cultural preferences and our philosophical presuppositions, and so we are examining

Galatians chapter 2, and I just asked the question, how is it that Paul knew that these were false brethren?

False brethren do not come into the fellowship wearing pink and purple polka dots and signs around their necks that say,

I am a false brother. My claim of brotherhood is false.

It has no reality. I have been secretly brought in. I've snuck in to spy out the liberty that you have in Christ Jesus because I'm seeking to bring you into bondage.

They don't come with owner's manuals that tell you how to handle the false brethren within the fellowship, and we know that this very same apostle in Acts chapter 20 said that men would arise from the very ranks of the eldership and would speak perverse things.

Now, if we are to know who these people are, we must have some means of so doing.

There has to be some objective revelation. There has to be some objective standard to which we can appeal to be able to recognize these individuals, and if we've gotten to the point today where we can't tell the difference between a

Reformed Baptist and one of the Borgia Popes, then the Scriptures, we might as well just sell all of our

Bibles that have the nice pages in them to be rolled for cigarettes. I mean, that's about the only thing they'd be worth having, because otherwise they have absolutely positively no meaning to us any longer.

If the knowledge of what the Gospel is has been so completely corrupted and lost to us that we have to look elsewhere to find out.

So, how did Paul know that these were false brethren? Well, it's because of what they did, because of what they taught, because of their activities.

He was able to determine in...afterwards, he doesn't say anything about having some supernatural revelation where God gave him this dream and all the false teachers glowed in a certain color.

In fact, he even identifies them as false brethren on the basis of what their desires were. They wanted to bring us into bondage.

They wanted to bring us into subjection. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour.

And why? Why not? I mean, you could certainly get along a whole lot easier today if you'd just simply give in.

If you'd just yield in subjection. If you wouldn't be so pig -headed, as people would say that I am.

Well, that last phrase is extremely important. So that the truth of the

Gospel would remain with you. You see, the wonderful promise of Scripture is that the truth of the

Gospel abides with God's people. And if they had yielded, if those apostles in that sensitive, precious time of the primitive church had yielded in subjection, the truth of the

Gospel would have been destroyed. It would have been obliterated.

But you see, that's not God's purpose for His church. God's purpose for His church is that we would always have the truth with us.

That is the promise that has been given to us. And God is sovereign over all things. And He has overruled men's desires.

And He strengthened the apostles and gave them insight so that they would not yield in subjection to these false brethren, so that the truth of the

Gospel would remain with you. And it has remained with us.

You see, if these individuals had brought us into bondage, that's not the

Gospel. That is not the truth of the Gospel. Paul had already said, there's only one

Gospel. And when someone preaches another Gospel to you, it's not really another. It's a perversion.

It may use the same terms. It may use the same language. The people who preach it may try to act like you and talk like you.

But it's not the truth of the Gospel. Paul did not act like many people today act.

Because you see, let's make application now. Let's ask some questions of the texts that we've looked at.

These individuals had been brought in. They had snuck in.

They claimed to be brethren. They were obviously in some situation to be in dialogue.

This was not some external religious body that came along and said, hey, let's have some ecumenical discussions. These people were in the fellowship.

They claimed to be brethren. But they were false brethren. I mentioned before, and if you're actually following along in your

Bible, turn over to Acts chapter 20. I just want to emphasize this.

I know we've got some calls. I'm sorry. I think this is important to cover though.

Acts chapter 20, verse 28, Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.

I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

And from among your own selves, men will arise speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

Speaking perverse things. Perverse things.

Now what does that mean? Well, these obviously have to do with teachings. And they will, from among your own selves, these men will arise speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

Therefore, be on the alert, Paul says to the elders there in Ephesus.

If we make an application, then obviously there are those who, while they may claim to be our brothers, are not.

They may look like us. They may be baptized like us. It is hard to imagine that these individuals would have been in a position to be dialoguing with the very leaders of the church in regards to the nature of the gospel and the nature of circumcision and the

Christian faith had they not even taken the first step in trying to make themselves look like Christian disciples.

So here you have baptized individuals who are in the church. They even may be in positions of leadership.

They certainly are in Acts 20, because they arise from the eldership. You don't become an elder if you're not baptized.

They're baptized men. And Paul says they're false brethren. Pseudedelphoi, false brethren.

And it's their purpose to pervert the gospel of Christ and to bring us into bondage.

So the question I would ask is, where is that wrong?

Where is what I said wrong in regards to the text? Is the text insufficient to tell us these things?

Am I just making these things up? Are the words on the page, do they no longer have meaning because of Plato?

Because of the Enlightenment? These were written before the Enlightenment, and yet it seems that Paul functioned on the basis of an absolute truth here.

He seemed to understand very discreet propositions, and he used words that had meaning and we can determine what the meaning was when he said them.

And if we can do that, are we then not responsible as these are God's words, living words, to apply them today?

I think that we do. Now if I've read some tradition here, what is it?

Where did it come in? Where did it cause me to miss the meaning of a term, the syntax, the syntactical relationship between words?

What is it? That's what I would like to understand. That's what

I would like to know. 877 -753 -3341. Now I don't think that either of our callers right now actually called to discuss that particular issue, but the first question is at least somewhat related there.

And so let's go ahead and talk with Fred from, I don't know what, Canyon Country is? Canyon Country.

What in the world is Canyon Country? Oh, Canyon Country, California. Yes. Oh, I didn't see this little CA sitting down there.

It's Los Angeles. Oh, okay. All right. Yeah, I think I met you, well I know I met you, at Grace Community Church.

You came back, or out to see us in November, and spoke to one of our Wednesday night gatherings.

Yes, yes. Actually that was September of last year. Oh, September? Yeah, I knew it was last fall sometime.

It was the first Grace Bridge, it was the first Grace Bridge meeting after the break for the summer. Yes, that's correct.

It is correct. You were with, I met you back in the hallway with Phil Johnson. Oh, okay, yes, yes, yes.

Okay, I got you. You two are probably my favorite Sunday School teachers. I appreciate both of you and your passion.

But I'm not trying to look like Charles Haddon Spurgeon personally, so. Right, right. No, that is true.

Well, my question primarily is, I don't know if it relates to what you were just talking about there or not, but someone gave me a copy of R .C.

Sproul's essays, well actually his essays in honor of R .C. Sproul. And one of the essays in there has to do with Sola Scriptura, by a guy named

Keith Matheson. Uh huh. Now I know Matheson wrote a book on Sola Scriptura, and I've not read that, but I just sort of gleaned his position,

I guess, from his brief essay he contributes to this book. Yeah, it's called The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Yes, and he, what

I just, I don't know, I was just sort of troubled by some of the things he said in there, and I can maybe have you correct my thinking about it because I don't want to be misjudging the guy.

Right. But he basically lays out, you know, he gives like a historical context for his understanding of Sola Scriptura, and he kind of, he's basing his work, it seems, on a guy named

Heiko Obermann. Heiko Obermann. Heiko Obermann. Yeah, he taught, in fact, I think he's still teaching.

Well, he may have stopped, I'm not sure, but I attended a doctoral seminar that Heiko Obermann was putting on in his home in Tucson.

He taught at the University of Arizona down there for many, many years. Right, right. Well, his, I'd never heard of the guy, so I wasn't sure if he was right on or not, but his, you know, what

Matheson's kind of pointing out here is that there's, in his view, this is like three different traditions of how we understand

Scripture. The one tradition, or tradition number one, is what he would call, in fact,

I got it highlighted here in my book, he said, the New Testament Scripture, along with the Old Testament, is the sole source of inspired revelation, and it is to be interpreted by the church within the context of the apostolic rule of faith.

And then he goes on and talks about the second tradition, which is more of the idea of, oh, the theory of revelation, let's see, according to this idea,

Scripture and tradition are two equally authoritative and supplementary sources of divine revelation. And then the third position, which is what the

Roman Catholic Church would teach about a living magisterium. And then he has like his, then a fourth position that he kind of comes up, called

Tradition Zero, which is sort of the, whatever you think the text is saying, you know.

And well, what I was sort of troubled by, and I hope I'm not reading him wrong, is that in his discussion of this, in his history of the development of the various positions, that sometime in the 12th century he was claiming that there was a gradual shift from an allegorical hermeneutical methodology to more of an historical and grammatical methodology of biblical interpretation.

And throughout the rest of the article it seems that he equates that if you're not holding to the allegorical approach to hermeneutics, well then somehow you either fall in the camp of number two or number three or the zero camp.

And his claim is that the classic reformers were trying to call the church back to Tradition One, which in his view,

I would take it to mean that you're going to be a paedo -baptist and all the things and nuances that are connected to Presbyterianism.

But it just seems like he bags on any idea of a literal approach to scripture, not in a wooden literal approach, but just more the idea of looking at the grammar and kind of the things you were just mentioning.

Well, that's why your question actually is smack dab on exactly what I was saying, because the book represents the perspective of New St.

Andrews in Moscow, Idaho, Douglas Wilson, Douglas Jones, and the whole movement up there, which is as very strong medievalist leanings, studying of the medieval period.

And you made one statement that I don't know that I could do.

I'm not sure that's I don't think that's what he was saying. And that is in regards to the allegorical interpretation.

I don't think that's what he's attempting to say. So much that, as to say that there were those who engaged in, had already corrected the abuses of origin before Luther and Calvin and others, which at least within scholarship is true.

But as far as actually popularizing that and standing up against church, no one did that until the reformers did in a specific way that they did.

But the point that you're raising is quite accurate to what I was addressing.

And that is there is within this Douglas Jones, Douglas Wilson, Moscow, Idaho, New St.

Andrews. And then that's that because Wilson has spoken and speaks at the

AAPC meetings, which is what I was discussing. Right. This does all come together in the sense that there is this discussion within Matheson and within this movement of the role of the church in the interpretation of scripture.

And they are reacting against the idea of me and my Bible out in the woods under the tree, which certainly the

Bible itself does not teach. But unfortunately, what has then developed and people in our chat channel and others who are listening know exactly what

I'm talking about. Just over the past couple of days, we have been in dialogue with some folks that follow that perspective very closely, who have quite simply refused to address the text

I just addressed on the basis of saying, you've got all these pre -exegetical issues you need to deal with, that is all the cultural influences and all these other things.

And that's why you need that that interpretation by the apostolic rule of faith.

Well, what is the apostolic rule of faith? I mean, I would argue that if you look back at the primitive church, the early apostolic period, you look at, for example, in Irenaeus, in the apostolic period, right after the apostolic period of the church, he talked about tradition, but the tradition was sub -biblical.

That is, the tradition was a summary statement of the fact that God alone is creator, and he sent

Jesus Christ, and Christ is the only Savior. Now, that's obviously sub -biblical. That's not something that exists outside of scripture or something along those lines.

That's what he identified as his tradition. Now, the problem is, as I see it, the

Moscow folks are also into, for example, the ecclesiastical text, the idea that the church has determined the form of the

New Testament in regards to textual variance and things like that. And in fact, if you go on the

Credenda Agenda website, there's a disputatio, a brief debate between myself and one of their leaders on that very issue.

I've read through that, yes. Yeah, and this whole thing, it sounds wonderful to talk about the church did this and the church did that, and the church interprets scripture, and the church determines the text.

But which church are you talking about? And when did they do it? I mean, it's a little bit easier to,

I think, refute that position textually, as we did in that debate, because there's just never been a time.

Well, I'll take it back. There was a time. The Pope tried it once, and it was extremely embarrassing. But there's never been a time when the church got together and said, here's our choice on this variant, and here's our choice on that variant.

It just hasn't happened. It's just mythical. And the problem is, it's the same argumentation that is utilized in regards to how the quote -unquote church interprets scripture.

Now, a lot of folks think that if you deny the role of the church in interpreting scripture, you're saying that the elders of the church do not have a teaching authority within the fellowship of the church.

And I'm not saying that at all. God equips men to teach the word of God within the context of church.

But here's where they would say, see, here's your Baptist presuppositions. Well, yeah, I'm a Baptist, but I am a

Baptist in regards to the nature of the church, because I believe it's what the New Testament teaches is the nature of the church.

And we're talking about local groups, not autonomous in the sense of on an island. They're interrelated with one another, because they all believe the same thing, but they have elders in those churches.

And as far as the authority goes for discipline and teaching, that's where the buck stops, in essence.

There's not some hierarchical situation that determines those things. That's what the New Testament, I believe, very clearly teaches.

And so they would say, see, that's where you miss it. And they want to come up with this more nebulous concept of the church, even to the point of the church being me.

I'm in the church. I was at least baptized properly. Not at the right time of my life, evidently, but I was baptized properly.

And the Borgia Popes, who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as little infants, and grew up to be murdering, slandering,

God -hating people. But we're all in the church together. And somehow that great mass, which has nothing that connects it together, even in the sense of any even similar faith in the gospel, somehow becomes the church that does all these things.

So I throw my hands up in the air and go, I'm sorry, I don't see anywhere in the

New Testament. And as soon as I say that, well, that's just your Baptist presupposition. And again, I throw my hands up in the air and go, wait a minute.

So we can't go to the text. We can't ask how the apostles viewed this. No, you cannot. Yeah, that sounds kind of confirming what

I was already sort of thinking in my head. But, you know, I just want to get your... Have you seen the set by Bill Webster and David King?

I'm actually, I've been, yeah, I've been aware of that for some time. I just, you know, we just had a baby.

Oh, I believe me. We have to learn to budget. I fully and completely understand.

But just remember, the lowest price is available right here at www .aomin .org.

I was going to also tell you, I appreciated your articles in the CRA journal about the

Muslim apologetics. Oh, great. And I was curious, are you going to put together a book on that subject?

You know, the thought had crossed my mind, but when I presented it to my primary publisher, the response

I got back was the word on the street, the word in Christian publishing is books on Islam are dead.

It's gone. It's passed. It's irrelevant. So they didn't have any interest. So, well, that's something you ought to,

I don't know, some way we can raise some money. Because that's definitely going to be a book that a pastor will need.

Well, you know, that's worth coming in our society. You do know that we're addressing that issue when we, before and on the cruise that we're doing in December.

And I know you just had a baby, so don't rub it in. Yeah, I want to pick up those tapes. I understand.

I'm going to get back and make those available. Yeah, that's something that I remember back, gosh, when I was in college, which is ancient history now for me, which is in, you know, 89, 90, coming across these

Muslims who, you know, they were using the same similar techniques you were highlighting in your article.

Right. And I just thought, you know, if there was some comprehensive book that maybe, you know, someone who's addressed these various arguments.

Now, you're familiar with answeringislam .org, right? Oh, yes. I'm familiar with them. You know,

I got, you know, the one person that, I guess, because he's an L .A. personality now, Robert Morey.

Right, right. And Morey has, you know, as far as some of his, you know, he has good stuff with regards to the history and things of that nature.

But I'd like to see someone who, you know, actually deals with their arguments.

Morey does to some degree, but not really sufficient for what I was kind of looking for.

But your articles in the journal were outstanding, because it kind of hit the things that I needed to think about practically.

You know, when you talk to a Muslim about the Trinity, you know, what would we need to scale here in Overton? Have you ever seen the debate

I did with Hamza Abdul -Malik? No, I haven't. I've heard about that. Yeah, I think you'd enjoy it. I think it would, it not only, you know, the debate itself wasn't the best thing, because he eventually ended up admitting why he had taken the debate.

And it wasn't actually debate the subject of the debate, it was to attack the Bible. But what was really,

I think, really illustrative of the whole situation were the questions at the end.

This long line of Muslims, trying to stare me down at the at end of this debate, and the kind of questions, the things that they clearly had completely missed in my presentation, had not heard.

And there wasn't much I could do about it, given the minimum of time that we had. But you could tell exactly what things had found no hearing on their part.

Part of the reason being that they all got up and left about five or six minutes into my presentation, and came back about 10 minutes later, so they missed the vast majority of it.

They went out to do their prayers. But you might want to track that one down sometime, it'd be really useful.

Okay, Fred? All right, thank you so much. Okay, thanks a lot, man. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. All right, hey,

Corey, give us a call again next week. Well, you know what, that's not going to work real well, because I'm going to be gone next week.

But hey, we'll work something out. And we appreciate your listening to Dividing Line today. Hopefully some of the comments today were useful to you in regards to exegesis, and the sufficiency of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture.

It's important stuff we'll be talking about more in the future. God bless. 85069.

You can also find us on the worldwide web at aomin .org. That's a -o -m -i -n -dot -o -r -g, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.