November 23, 2004

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 morning. Welcome to The Dividing Line. It is Tuesday, the 23rd of November.

The year has disappeared. Once September hit, it was like those video shots you see of the first really bad ice storm back east.

And, you know, I sort of wonder how folks end up right where they end up with the video cameras to catch the car as it tries to stop and it just, right on by, into a tree or into another car.

You know, you wonder if the guy holding the video camera doesn't like work for an insurance company or something. And what are all those buckets behind the guy?

How did that happen? That bridge normally doesn't freeze up. Well, anyway, the days have...

He got out of his own car after it did the same thing and he took his camera and said, this looks like it could be cool.

I could make... I might be able to make enough money selling these videos to pay for the repairs I just did.

It doesn't happen much out here. The only time we run into each other that way is either in the first five minutes of our twice yearly rainstorm or during a dust storm.

That's when you just can't see what's in front of you. And we had a couple of really big ones in dust storms out on I -10 this year.

I mean, like 35 cars piling up and trucks and it's ugly. Anyway, what does that have to do with this?

I do not know. But all I know is we're coming up on Thanksgiving. Oh, hey, you know, we didn't talk about this, but it's no one's going to be listening to us on Thanksgiving.

You know, it's going to be like, like death out there. And besides that, four o 'clock on Thanksgiving Day is going to be only two hours away from popping a 24 pound turkey out of my oven.

And it's going to smell so good that I'm not going to want to be over here. So I'm sort of figuring this is the only one for this week.

What do you think? Oh, unless you want to pre -record something. Oh, that's always exciting. I love pre -recorded shows.

We could play sections from the debate. Get people to, you know, something like that.

Well, you could have fun with that, too. Oh, yeah. But that I've always avoided doing that.

Well, not always, but I've pretty much avoided doing that. I mean, there are some sometimes when the debate was, you know, really badly one sided, you know, but I don't know that I would do it with that.

But anyways, well, we'll think about it and we'll put something on the blog and warn folks about that.

So anyway, Rich has to work, but you get off. Yes, play the debate.

All the cheap people haven't bought it yet are going, play the debate. We can record it for free. But anyway, then we can all pirate the debate.

See? See? There's old Kev over there in California. I'm not going to say anything more about Kev because that's not nice.

Anyway, before we go back to, well, first of all, 877 -753 -3344.

We haven't taken a phone call since before the cruise. So I'm starting to wonder a little bit about this.

OK? So 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. Certainly something has happened since the week before the cruise that someone wishes to comment on.

I've said something. Last week, all the programs we did, I was playing stuff and, you know, doing the catch everybody up routine and stuff like that.

Well, the other thing is, I've seen that there's been a lot of commentary on the debate itself in the chat room.

Yeah. Well, there has been. Get some phone calls on. There you go. 877 -753 -3341.

I mean, I have the staples thing. I have it queued up and ready to go. And then I also have, I tracked down with like 14 seconds before the program started,

I tracked down the other MP3 I was looking for with the fellow commenting on John 6. I'd really rather do that one in bits and pieces than just play the whole thing.

So I've got that available. So it's plenty to do. But still, I would sort of assume that there would be some questions concerning, especially now that the

MP3s are out, people are listening to MP3s. There's been some interesting reviews posted as well in various places.

I have gotten the distinct feeling that there are certain people who either write for or make comments on certain blogs who are very, very disappointed in the debate.

And they're disappointed because they expected me to be a complete and total jerk or something. And they expected, you know, blood to be running on the floor and all the rest of this stuff.

And I just get the feeling that they're just, if they would just be really honest themselves, they would have to say, well, yeah, that did sort of clarify the issues and certainly could tell by the end of the debate what the two sides were about and which scripture passages they feel are determinative.

And so, you know, if a debate is supposed to allow me to do, you know, to do my own study and to have a better understanding of the issue and clarify things, then

I guess that's what it did. And you can just sort of tell. So it was, that's interesting.

The first call requires that I have cable, which I do not, but we'll allow the caller to go with that.

But anyway, as you line up on the phone lines, we have one person so far. As you line up the phone lines, let me just mention, some of you probably don't realize how important, or at least in my thinking, the current blog article is on our.

That's interesting. I had not. I just saw a comment posted by Wonky and Channel and I who said that I had not seen that one.

I didn't know I had been reduced to stuttering and speechlessness. That's that's interesting.

I wonder who, maybe they edited the, the MP3 and threw in some, some clips from someplace.

But anyway, I did want to mention it's gonna be really hard to do this when he answers my question, which takes some of you may who don't understand the channel, stuff like that.

They don't hear what I say. Oh, I've never even heard of him. They don't hear what

I say for about 30 seconds after I say it. And then when it takes time to type back, uh, this could be like a 45 second delay.

And so sometimes when I like ask for information and then 45 seconds later, Oh, okay. That's what it is. That's why.

So that's for those of you who are unaware of the, the, uh, cyber situation, I'm going to try to ignore that issue right now and just mention for a couple of moments, the current blog article in regards to Richard Mao, Fuller Seminary and the situation and the, uh,

Mormon tabernacle in Salt Lake City. For those of you who have not been keeping up on it, there was a, a rather historic, it was not the first time it has happened.

A Dwight Moody preached in the tabernacle twice. I didn't know that until of late and it wasn't completely unusual.

I mean, Brigham Young, if you, if you go to, uh, off the top of my head, as I recall, it's journal discourses, 16 page 46.

There is a discussion there where Brigham Young invites, tells the Latter -day Saints they should invite others to speak, uh, from their pulpits, uh, and that Mormonism is so true that the truthfulness will, of, of Mormonism will be demonstrated through that, uh, kind of, of experience.

And that's obviously not what modern Mormonism has done. Uh, but, uh, that's, you know, uh, neither here nor there, but it's not the first time this has happened, but for a long time there has been no kind of communication like this to where, uh,

Ravi Zacharias had an opportunity to speak, Richard Mao spoke, Greg Johnson spoke, and from all

I've heard, uh, Ravi Zacharias used his time to speak the truth, uh, that he did not, um, uh, make any references to, uh,

Mormonism in such a way as to confuse people. Uh, he spoke of, uh, of the one true

God and of the, the work of, uh, of salvation. He, uh, everything, from everything

I've heard, he used his time in a meaningful fashion. Okay? So, no one has heard me, uh, criticizing

Ravi Zacharias, um, I have not, I've gotten the URL to where we can now order the, uh,

CD of the presentation, but I haven't gotten around to doing that as of yet, so, uh, but I have not criticized, uh, him for, either for speaking or for what he said.

What has caused the greatest discussion, as I've mentioned in previous

Dividing Lines, was what was said by Greg Johnson, especially by Richard Mao. Now, Richard Mao was not the president of Fuller when

I was there, uh, I graduated in 89, and, uh, he became president later on, so I do not know the man, he came from Calvin College, he calls himself a

Calvinist, says he's Reformed, uh, Fuller Seminary was way off to my left when

I was there, and it has left the left, uh, since then, it continues to go way out there.

Uh, some people know that, uh, the professor who told, uh, Mel White that he was a homosexual

Christian was a Fuller prof, and, uh, you know, there's just all sorts of whacked out leftist stuff that goes on in various places, there's a few conservatives too, but, uh, generally, it's way, way, way, way, way out there, and, um, uh, my first encounter with Mao, interestingly enough, would have been around, uh,

I don't remember the specific date, I didn't bother to go into the internet and track this down, because various Mormons have noted this, but Mao went on an

AOL chat, remember when they used to do things like that, I don't know if they still do anymore, but, uh, I don't pay attention to it, but he went on an

AOL chat, one of these scheduled chats, where you could ask questions, and he was talking about Mormonism, now, to my knowledge,

Mao's never done, uh, missions work in Utah, or anything like that, but he had started doing these conversations, uh, with people in, uh, in Salt Lake City, and so,

I asked a question, I got online, I asked a question, because all the questions were completely missing the point, uh, the point with Mormonism is you start at what defines a religion, and Christians are monotheists, we believe there is one true and eternal

God who created all things, if you don't understand that it is part and parcel of Mormon teaching from Joseph Smith to the current prophet, that God is an exalted man from another planet, that he cannot create anything, he cannot say let there be light and there is light, he only organizes pre -existing matter, he has not eternally been

God, he is not the only God, uh, there are universes, not just a universe, there are billions of other gods, etc, etc, if you don't understand that about Mormonism, then you don't understand

Mormonism, now, are there some Mormon scholars on the bleeding edge of the left, of Mormon scholarship, who are trying to reformulate this polytheistic religion in terms used by historic

Christians, they talk about omniscience, or omnipresence, and things like that, yes, they are, uh, but, even at that point, the use of the terminology requires it to be completely redefined, uh, meaning that, what you really have going on in those situations is, is, uh, people like Stephen Robbins is saying that God is omniscient in this universe, that is, the universe populated by mortals who are, of course, his offspring, um, but he's not omniscient about these other universes, and things like, it has nothing to do with historic

Christian belief on these things, but we're using the same terminology, well, it's really easy for someone who doesn't have a lot of interaction with the wide spectrum of Mormonism, doesn't have a lot of interaction with the irregular believing

Mormons, hasn't read their stuff for years, uh, didn't, uh, hasn't taken the time to read a marvelous work of wonder, articles of faith, and Mormon doctrine by Bruce R.

McConkie, and all the rest of that stuff, it's real easy to, to meet quote -unquote other, uh, scholars, colleagues at BYU, and just assume that, uh, that all is well, and that we know what happened, uh, when, how, why the divide came out, we can see what happens when a, an otherwise good scholar in New Testament, generally, anyways, uh, tries his hat at apologetics.

There is this attitude in the academy that apologetics is not a, an area of study that requires meaningful scholarship.

It, it's just something that anybody, as long as you are a scholar of anything, you can just walk into the apologetic, uh, field, and, uh, talk to a few folks, and all will be well.

You will, you will know everything there is to know. And that's exactly what has happened here.

Uh, going back to the AOL chat, I asked the question about monotheism. Isn't the real issue with Mormonism monotheism?

And remember what, you know what his answer was? Some of you may have looked into this, uh, but probably not many of you.

Uh, his answer was, well, you know, we're really not sure that the Bible teaches monotheism. Uh, you know, it looks like that the, uh, the early, uh,

Israelites were actually henotheists, and, uh, they had, uh, polytheistic bent, and, uh, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And the, the Mormons were just like, oh, yeah, he slammed white. Oh, it's great. Oh, see, the, the real scholars say that, uh, we don't know if there's more to what

God or not. And it's just like, woo, you know. And that's one of the reasons, liberals don't do well in apologetics. They just, it doesn't, you know, doesn't mix real well.

And, um, so that was my first encounter. I'm just like, oh, great, wonderful.

Uh, so, I was not overly surprised when I started hearing over the years that, that, uh,

Richard Mao was involved in these conversations, uh, that Greg Vettels, now Greg Johnson, uh, organizes up in, uh, up in Salt Lake.

And, and these groups get together with, uh, Stephen Robinson and, and Robert Millet and so on and so forth.

And, and they all get together and, and chat and, uh, you know, have coffee and, and do the scholarly thing. And, uh, so anyway, uh, that's somewhat of the background.

And so the current article on the, on the blog, I hope you'll take the time to read it because really, honestly, uh, things have not been going well for the

Mormons of late. And what do I mean by that? What I mean by that is, things would be going well for the

Mormons if in point of fact, there was, uh, a consistent testimony to the

Mormon people of the gospel. Okay. And that's what

I consider something going well for a people. But what's, look at what has happened over the past number of years.

You've had certain people who to create their own persona and their own, uh, reputation have been willing to sell their souls to farms and, and, um, become popular by shooting in the head, everybody who's ministered the

Mormons before them, uh, and hence, uh, get it, get, uh, the, you know, the approbation of Mormon scholarship, uh, through the, through, you know, just ripping on other people.

And you've got then on the extreme other end, the, uh, wide eyed, screaming, yelling, hate -filled

King James only fundamentalist Baptists, um, who stand out there waving temple garments and screaming, it shouldn't be

Mormon. It should be moron, which of course has ended all meaningful, uh, proclamation of the gospel outside of the general conference and has given them a siege mentality.

And of course, they're always going to just assume that everybody out there is like these people. And, uh, and now we've got a situation where you've got people standing in front of the

Mormon leadership, apologizing, not being specific, but saying we using the we have lied about you.

We have tried to speak to you without asking you what you believe.

Well, Dr. Mao, that is not true. Maybe you didn't, maybe you're guilty of it.

Uh, maybe there's some other folks that are guilty of it, but please, sir, do not libel and slander those of us who have bent over backwards to share with the

Mormon people and to do so fairly and accurately. One of the things that really bugs me about this is, look, my, my two books on Mormonism are not even in print anymore.

You know, one of the main reasons I refuse to sensationalize if I'm going to address,

I mean, I mean, look at, uh, uh, is the Mormon my brother? That's not an easy read.

Why? Because I had to be accurate. I took 76 pages to lay out what

Mormons believe about God and put each of the statements within four categories, depending upon their level of authority within the

Mormon system. So I bend over backwards to demonstrate the consistency of this teaching.

And it's, and it's from the beginning of Mormonism to the present time, you bend over backwards.

Those books aren't prayer of Jabez books. So they just, you know, there's,

I don't, I, I refuse to do the Godmakers II, uh, stuff that, uh, certain people get into.

And all the conspiracy theories and, and slamming on the Mormon leadership and accusing them of this, that, and the other kind of sinful behavior and private and all that don't do that.

And so here I am seeking to bend over backwards as, as the

Tanners have done, as Bill McKeever's done, you try to be as accurate as you possibly can be.

And here comes somebody who has no experience whatsoever, has never stood outside the temple in salt

Lake city. It was full exposure to Mormonism is, is coffee clutches with liberal

BYU professors. And this person dares to stand before the

Mormon leaders in the tabernacle and accuse us of having lied about the

Mormons. Excuse me, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

And that's why I use terms like ignorance and hubris. What, what an amazing illustration of the attitude of the academy.

This is the attitude I saw in 1998 at the evangelical theological society's meeting in Orlando, Florida.

That's why I've never gone back. I could not believe the willingness of the academy, not only to be just completely self -absorbed, we are the academy, but to just shred those who have, who have ministered and sacrificed to minister accurately the gospel to people in these contexts.

Oh, well, you know, they need the guidance of the, of the academy to the arrogance was just beyond stifling.

It just, it just made me ill. It was extremely disconcerting. And so here it's been a bad period of time for the

Mormons because now, now, I mean, talk about handing to those who would seek to keep the gospel from Mormons, the greatest gift they could ever ask.

You see, we're constantly in the struggle of trying to get Mormons to deal with the issues. Let's, let's deal with the book of Abraham.

Let's deal with what the Bible says about the nature of God. Let's deal with these issues. And so what happens is these

Mormons will go to their apologists and their apologists primarily seek to not interact with the, with the, with the fullness of the presentations being made.

They seek to undercut the credibility of the people who are saying it. They go ad hominem.

And so talk about being handed the best ad hominem attack on the planet. Here's the president of Fuller Seminary saying that what we've said all along is true.

Well, it doesn't happen to be true, but that's not going to be heard much up there in Salt Lake.

So it's been a bad time for the Mormons. Uh, you know, I'm not saying that Richard Mao means to do that.

He did it out of abject ignorance. Ignorance joined with the attitude of the academy that says, if you're an expert in one area, that means you're an expert in all.

I've seen it so many times, and it is so distressing and so sad that I really do hope you will take the time to read the entire article because it's not your normal blog article.

I mean, there's a fair amount of material in there, but I hope you'll take the time to read it. So with that, 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341, let's go to our first phone caller and let's talk with Tim.

Hi, Tim. Hi there. How are you doing, sir? Good, thanks. I don't know if you had a chance to catch

Rick Warren on Larry King last night. Well, that would require cable, something that I do not have. So no, I did not see it.

Good call. You can't get the transcript online. He said something interesting. I just wanted to get your opinion on it.

He said, by the way, there's truth in every religion. Christians believe that there's truth in every religion, but we believe there's just one savior.

We believe we can learn truth. I've learned a lot of truth from other religions because they all have a portion of the truth.

I'm wondering what you think of that. Well, you know, that's a wonderfully postmodern kind of statement that you can defend by saying things like, well, you know, all religions say that we should follow the golden rule and their version thereof, and all religions say that we should honor marriage, and actually that's not true, but in general you can make that kind of a statement.

Generally, I have found that people who rely upon that kind of argumentation are trying to avoid offending the postmodernist who struggles with the idea that there has been a revelation of objective truth, and hence, you know, we look at Mormonism, use that as an example.

Do the Mormons teach true things? Of course they do. They teach you should stay married, now anyways, to one woman.

That hasn't always been the case, but you should stay married, and you should avoid premarital sex, and all those things are quite true, and that you should, you know, not beat up on your neighbor, and you shouldn't jump into stands and beat fans up.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's another issue, and all those things would be true, and so on that level you can say, yeah, but of course my immediate response to that is, and so you learned that from the

Mormons? You learned those truths from Buddhism? Of course not. What do you have to learn from these religions if, in point of fact, what they're saying that is true is already a part of the

Christian revelation? Why didn't you learn that from your own Christianity? That what's trying to be avoided, of course, is to make the blunt statement that outside of what

God has done in Jesus Christ, God does not honor any of those religions.

In fact, those practitioners of those religions are dishonoring

God. They are refusing to believe his own testimony about his own son, and that is the issue, but they're afraid to say that, and so I would, my response at that point would be to say, that's not how you approach the issue of truth and of the centrality of the

Christian faith. What we need to do is to emphasize, look, we are not saying we created the

Christian faith. We are not saying this is our creation, our creation is the only way to go. We are saying the Christian faith has been revealed by God in the person of Jesus Christ, and that we have to believe what

God has said he's done in Christ, and to question him is to, in fact, reject his own truthfulness.

That's what we need to be doing. We don't need to be trying to make people like us by, in essence, compromising the uniqueness of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus.

That doesn't accomplish anything. So whether or not it's right, you believe it's the wrong approach? Well, what

I'm saying is, you could technically defend it, but I don't see any reason to do it.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to take that, to even make the statement, because it's not addressing, you know,

I don't know what the question was that was being asked. You know, it was completely irrelevant. He just kind of came up with it.

Yeah. Generally, when I hear that, I just immediately go, no, no, we don't want to be giving people the idea that this is a fashion show, and we just think that Christianity has the best fashions.

That's postmodernism, and you're going to be, you're hearing that phrase because more and more

Christians are starting to go, well, you know what? If postmodernism is the way to go, then we're just going to have to, we're just going to have to go that direction ourselves, and we have to embrace that.

In fact, I don't know if I can pull it up here quickly enough, but there was a advertisement that was sent out just yesterday from a book distributor that we've discussed in the past on my blog, and someone was quoting it.

In fact, in Channel, maybe if they could re -quote it, I could see it, but it basically said, the Reformation's over.

We need to, in essence, get over it, and that's, yeah, here it is, here it is.

This is an advertisement for the next Reformation, Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity by Karl Rasky, and part of the statement, the statement from the, everybody knows what

I'm talking about, Discerning Reader says, It is time to put the Reformation behind us, along with its warring children, fundamentalism, liberalism, and the many flavors of evangelical

Christianity that have done more to dogmatize, politicize, and commercialize the gospel than truly manifest its saving power for postmodern times.

Serious Christians need a fresh start. Here is an essential point of departure. So here is a defense of embracing a postmodern perspective on the issue of the and we're being told, hey, this is the direction to go.

That's going to be part of the next battle, I really do believe, for the church today, is the entire issue of truth, and it's not that that's new, it's just that it keeps getting repackaged, and it takes on new terminology, and the people who are pushing it adopt new terminology and hide behind that new terminology and deflect criticisms of their position by using this new terminology, which then requires the production of new defenses of the truth that deal with that, and so the apologetic task goes on from generation to generation.

All right, thanks for calling, Tim. All right, God bless. 877 -753 -3341.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, and as far as I can tell, only

Tim has taken the time this morning to pick up his phone and to participate in the program today.

What do you mean? I have to drink my protein shake. We have to do that. Why is there, what has happened to breaks?

Why do I no longer get them? Well, are you impressed with how quickly the

DVDs, the CDs, the MP3s went up? What does that have to do with my break? Well, it's because I've been doing that, and I haven't had a chance to make some new spots.

Of course, we could advertise, if you'd like, the conference and the debate. Never mind.

What was that? All righty then. Ice up here.

Good stuff. All right. All right. Well, I just had my break. Actually, I should hand this to you and rinse that baby out.

Anyway, what happened to the PRBC spot or to stuff like that?

We do have that. If you'd like to listen to that spot real quick, we could do that spot. You know what?

Now it would be sort of no longer really relevant, huh? Clicking down to the spot.

We really, really don't need to do that. I think we've had our break now.

Yeah. Yeah. That's definitely a break. All right. Yep. That was a break. Oh, here. Hang on just a second here.

Well, we got 10 seconds. No, we really don't need to do that. Okay. All right. Now, in 10 years, the

Dividing Line will be brought to you by Insure. No, no.

It's better to depend. Yeah, that's true. We should get hold of Ice up here. Let them know that I just drank an

Ice Up Here protein shake during our break. On the air. Actually, it was only half of one. I'd gotten the first half down before the program started, but I was just a little bit concerned about slamming the whole thing right before the program, if you know what

I mean. This microphone is very, very close to me, and so I just didn't want to do that.

It's a strawberry Ice Up Here. It's very good. Good. 40 grams of protein, because it just worked out.

I mean, as you probably know, I just ran in here right from the gym. It was great, which is probably why

I'm talking so fast, so we can move on from there. We don't even have any crank calls.

Well, just so you feel better about maybe taking a break and not taking a break, here's the reintroducing.

You see, we're back. There's the reintro. That's not right. I'm sorry.

That's not right. I have to tell you something. You did miss, I think, the best Steve Camp concert we ever had.

I'm sorry to tell you that. Oh, wow. Steve's concert was

Saturday afternoon. We were at sea, and it was the last thing, and it was really, really good.

Awesome. It was great. Anyway, well, thanks for that thing there.

I'm getting yelled at by Texans, which is a scary thing, because, well, you know, it's got to give

Texans some credit. They generally do not shoot each other on deer hunts, as happened yesterday.

Was that Wisconsin? It was Wisconsin. That was sad. That boy needs to visit the electric chair or something.

Man, that was horrible. Anyway, well, for those who aren't calling, the number is 877 -753 -3341.

So let's go ahead and get back to the tape of a convert story.

We started playing this last week. This is from 1995. Tim Staples is interviewing a lady who converted to Roman Catholicism from, well, she said from the

Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but I'm not sure if we've gotten to the section yet where she happened to mention in passing she was actually at a

Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church. Now, excuse me, but how does that work?

You're not really a good Orthodox Presbyterian. In fact, let me check here.

Yeah, we have an Orthodox Presbyterian elder in channel right now, and so I'd like to ask our

Orthodox Presbyterian elder in channel, would you consider a church member who is actually attending a

Lutheran church, rather than your church, to be a good Orthodox Presbyterian? And I will give you his answer if he happens to be listening.

Then again, he may not be listening because, you know, he just may not be. I certainly wouldn't, and so maybe that section will come up here.

I'm trying to remember exactly what we covered last week. But the last thing we covered was Tim's in -depth discussion of the friend of his who became a

Calvinist and lost 40 pounds. Our Orthodox Presbyterian church elder has said, nope.

That's the official response of the OPC. Nope. His friend became a

Calvinist and lost 40 pounds and went to the doctor, and it was all because he'd become a

Calvinist. But as a Calvinist, he thought he was going to hell. And so I'm just sort of like, wow, okay, that's a fascinating story.

So we pick up right after that. So Mr. Super -duper -person -on -the -other -side -of -the -wall,

I -need -to -play -sounds -now, and here comes the sound. But I think that's just a funny story, and thank

God he got out of that misunderstanding. But I think that's an important point that you bring up, because we have to understand that what we believe about God is crucial to our relationship with God, obviously.

And doctrine, false doctrine, kills. False doctrine, as St.

Paul says, makes shipwreck of some people's faith. You know, I appreciate,

I agree. I completely agree with Mr. Stables's point, of course, from my perspective. It is his false doctrine that kills, it enslaves.

But at least the one thing about folks like Tim Staples is, you can disagree with them, and they're not going to pull the postmodern, well, that's your view, but my view's this, and our views are all equal, and da -da -da -da -da -da -da -da, and all the rest of that stuff.

Everybody on the channel is now discussing the Calvinist diet, and I'm wondering who's going to copyright that one first.

I'm not sure. These issues that we talk about between Protestant and Catholic are crucial for eternal salvation, and here you were, a young child, you were trying to do the best you could with the theology you were given, and yet this theology led you to a hatred of God.

Now, of course, as I mentioned last week very briefly, anyone from an

Orthodox Presbyterian Church perspective who is led to hate

God by a recognition of the biblical doctrine of his sovereignty, his providence, his creatorship, our total depravity, his freedom, what is that person from our perspective?

Is this person a good Orthodox Presbyterian, or is this person in need of regeneration?

Yes, indeed, but that doesn't end up being discussed. I want to try to get to the call today, because the first caller was actually really good, and it was sort of funny to hear

Staples backtracking and backpedaling, but let's move on here. I, in defense of the

Calvinist here, would say, well, that's Annie's problem, if that sort of understanding of God leads her to hatred of God.

How do you respond to that? Well, I think that most Calvinists who are born and raised into the church,

I don't believe that most of them really have looked at it. They just get the few verses they need to back up their five points.

Wow! When I heard that one, I was like, man, I think back over all of my dialogues with Roman Catholics and their minimal interaction with the biblical text, and then

I think of some of my Orthodox Presbyterian friends, I think of some of the pulpits

I have preached from in Orthodox Presbyterian churches, and the in -depth exegesis, and I just go, come on, please!

There is no way that the scriptures are being addressed in the way they're addressed in your standard

OPC in any Roman Catholic parish on the planet.

Give me a break! That is absolutely outrageous. Right, but what

I see is that there are a lot of kids who I grew up with in our youth group, and in our camps, and the things we used to do, that have left.

They've either gone to some other church, or they've gone to nothing at all, and it's really sad when

I say, I mean, granted, that's a sign of the times, but I believe that the Calvinist doesn't really realize what they do, and I don't think that they've looked at, ultimately,

God is the author of evil in Calvinism. Well, here we go into the standard stuff, of course, the kind of objections, and I'm just like, wait a minute,

I don't know what her experience was, okay? I just happen to know people like Bill Shishko, and Jason up in Salt Lake, and the guys in the channel who are

OPC, and some of the OPC guys who've come to my debates, and things like that, and yeah, we've got disagreements.

We lock horns on the baptism issue, but we stand shoulder to shoulder in witnessing to the

Mormons, and the Roman Catholics, and in defense of Sola Scriptura, and I really, really appreciate these guys, and I've been in their churches, and I've talked with their people, and I'm sitting here listening to someone going, we never thought about these things.

What do you mean we never thought about these? One of the biggest criticisms I hear being thrown at the

OPC, or similar to arguments being thrown at Reformed Baptists, is you all spend too much time on doctrine, and talking about the decrees, and so which one is it, you know?

Which of the arguments is actually the case here? I don't know. Is it possible that this young lady had questions about the

Odyssey that she didn't get answers to? Well, I suppose so, but I certainly know that the answers to such issues are readily available if you want to find them, but please don't forget to put these two things together.

Here you have someone saying, we never thought about these things, but I hated God. I haven't found the people in any

Reformed congregation that were honest enough to say they hated God, to be the ones who are overly serious about theology to begin with, right?

I mean, if you hate God, why in the world are you going to be getting into this stuff to begin with? That I can't begin to understand anyhow.

Right, yeah, and that's devastating, of course, to any notion of God. Perhaps we could get into a little bit of doctrine,

Annie, and I would also like to emphasize, I think, in our short time together, that you have a tremendous story.

I think that your conversion story is very touching. It's emotion -laden because, obviously, it wasn't easy, was it?

Not at all. That's an understatement, folks, but perhaps before we get into the doctrinal issues, which

I really want to dive into, perhaps you could share a little bit about just how difficult it was for you, and maybe you might even want to tell what you thought of me the first time

I met you. Well, when I first met Tim, I was fighting so hard to stay

Protestant, and many of my Protestant friends don't believe that I was fighting to stay Protestant.

You know, it's been my experience that these folks really want to try to emphasize how hard they were fighting, yet so many of them...

Now, she's going to claim that she talked with a well -known theologian. They're going to mention the name here. But, you know, my experience has been that they've already made the decision, and they're not even...

They even know where they could go to get answers, but they don't want to go there. That's been my experience. Everybody that I know who has converted, who knew me before their conversion,

I was not the one they came to to ask about. They kept away from me.

They made sure there was no, you know, connection there whatsoever. That hasn't been my experience.

And they can believe that if they want, but it's... The truth is, I just wanted to prove that the

Catholic Church was false. Someone challenged me. An Anglo -Catholic challenged me on the Bible alone, and I thought, well, who is this guy?

So, I just... Now, notice, folks, how many times have I said this? Every time

I review Catholic convert stories, what do I say? The common theme with 95 % of them.

Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Why do I spend so much time talking about these issues?

Why do we just put out an entire book, Scripture alone? Why do I keep saying this is a

You look at the Da Vinci Code out there. You look at what's going on in our universities. We as believers, not as apologists, not as the oddball in the congregation who's got a real interest in these things.

Every believer needs to become an apologist in regards to the inspiration, inerrancy, transmission, and translation of the

Bible. It is not any longer something you can simply say, well, I'll go get somebody else to talk about this.

No. If you are going to open your mouth as a believer in our culture today, you need to know why

Sola Scriptura is true. I'm talking about the canon. I'm talking about textual issues. I'm talking about translational issues.

You say, that's a lot of study. Yes, it is, but the very foundation of our faith, if we believe

God has revealed His truth, He's revealed it in Jesus Christ and in His Word. That is the foundation.

That's where the attacks are. We have to know these things. It can not be put off any longer.

You must learn these things. It is a must for every single believer. Period. End of discussion.

I wanted to find the Bible verse because Sola Scriptura, which says the Bible alone for your authority, demands that I get a

Bible verse to back this up. And so I poured through the Bible from my limited knowledge and I couldn't find it.

So I asked, at the time I was attending, I was a member of a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation.

I asked the ministers there who were scholars. Okay, I need to look at my time here.

1124. I love digital stuff. All right, let me see if I heard what she said.

I was attending, I was a member of a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation. Okay, she didn't say she was attending.

She started to say that. Then she said she was a member. So I'm not sure why this was sort of labeled and advertised as OPC.

Well, she was raised OPC, then she became Lutheran. Now, folks, there's a few sort of important differences there that I don't get the feeling she was aware of.

So we're not talking about someone here who is truly, you know, grounded in the faith and grounded in her position, which might explain some of the comments that are made about Calvinism in passing.

I asked the ministers there who were scholars in their own rights. And I asked my father, who's on the board of a prominent

Calvinist seminary. No, I don't know which one that is. I sent my uncle, who's a

Presbyterian Church of America minister. Ah, so now we have the PCA getting thrown in there. Got a bunch of PCA folks in channel.

There you go. I asked many people who knew Protestantism backwards and forwards, and none of them could find it.

And I felt like I was drowning. I felt like I couldn't do anything.

I had to find this verse. It was like God was just pushing me to do it. And I just wanted to prove the

Catholic Church false. And I knew it was false. There was no doubt in my mind. I mean, nobody loved

Martin Luther more than I did. And by the time I had met you, I was seeing in scripture that the

Bible alone is not in the Bible. I couldn't find it. And if I hadn't found it in eight months or nine months, as it was when

I met you, then I didn't believe I would find it. There you go. There is to me.

How many times have we heard that? How many times have we heard that exact?

Well, I looked for it, but I couldn't find it. Well, if this was someone who had been grounded to begin with, then the the argumentation used by Tim Staples is not the best.

OK, I'm sorry. Tim's a nice guy, but this isn't the top drawer stuff.

So I'm out there looking for these answers for eight months.

Well, who are you talking to? Well, I went to my father. I don't know if she did or didn't.

I don't know what those conversations were. Many times, people will say that, well,

I talked to people. And then when you go back and you start pressing, what they did was they sort of threw out something vague, maybe over Thanksgiving dinner.

You know, what do you think about such and so, you know, and they will think that that's actually asking the question.

Sometimes since it's asked in such a casual way, it doesn't get much of an in -depth answer.

But that's been again, I'm just talking about my experience. I've got some experience in dealing with people who have converted to Roman Catholicism over the years.

And that's sort of been how it's gone. So by the time

I met you, I was fighting and I had to put this defense up because I really want to stay Protestant. And I just thought you were saying all this stuff about faith alone and the

Bible alone and you were attacking my Protestantism and I just hated it. So constantly, instead of realizing that my

Protestantism was wrong, I took all my hatred and defensiveness and put it on you. Oh, you couldn't hate little old me, could you?

But Annie, I would like you perhaps to talk a minute about the emotional difficulty with your family, because I know part of the reason why you were defensive is the same reason

I was. Let me get past it. I want to find the caller. I think in some sense, doesn't it?

Point is that, you know, I'm looking at this waveform. Some of you know what I'm talking about and it's sort of neat.

You can sort of tell right where things are. Representing Calvinism. Starting with the beginning of the show, when

Annie, by the way, Annie, this is Rick. Hi, Rick. How are you? Good.

I have on my monitor, Rick, that you're from Georgia. Yes, sir. And are you in Georgia right now?

Yes, sir. What part? The northern part of the Tennessee -Georgia border. I get the feeling they know this guy.

At least I get the feeling that Annie knows this guy, which is interesting given what he's going to say here. Oh, wonderful.

Right. Wonderful. At the beginning of the show, I mean, I just have a few comments in terms of representing

Calvinism. Because when we argue against a position, it weakens our position, unless we're fair to the position that we're arguing against.

And you know that as a professor of apologetics. But one thing I might say is that the

Calvinist makes a distinction between arbitrary and nondiscriminate. Right. So the

Calvinist is going to say that God's choice is not arbitrary, rather that it's nondiscriminate. And further, in terms of Annie's articulation of Reformed faith,

I might say... Now, let me just mention, I appreciate that. I appreciate the distinction is made there, because that very same distinction is not made by a lot of folks, even

Protestant folks today. But notice the objection, God is arbitrary.

And I have said many times an arbitrary, a sovereign being cannot be arbitrary.

The very term does not fit with that. And so that's what he was addressing there. And unfortunately,

I think he realized he would need to talk so fast to get a word in edgewise on Tim Staple's program that he just keeps rolling.

And he gets, I'm looking here, I would say he gets about 10 minutes.

So that's not bad. I mean, people ask, why don't you call those programs? Folks, believe me, when you call in, and especially when the host has his finger on the button,

I, by the way, on this program do not have a button. The phone calls are completely controlled by someone that I cannot see.

And hence, I cannot coordinate with getting rid of somebody at an overly high rate of speed. I can get rid of somebody, but I have to type in a message to the people in control who have power.

That's one of the reasons I don't call in is people have that kind of control. And so he actually did a fairly good job.

Let's continue listening to what he says here. What she's referred to as the five points of Calvinism was developed in response to what the church deemed at the time,

Armenian heresy. So to present Calvinism positively, only in the form of something defensive,

I think in some sense does it an injustice. I would agree with you that those distinctions are made.

However, from my perspective, I think the difference could be sort of summed up like this, that God, there's a shipwreck out in the middle of the ocean, and there are a bunch of people out there drowning.

And God, of course, is there. He's present. He doesn't go around and dunk them all and drown them.

That is Tim Staples' understanding of Reformed theology right there. Now, remember,

I have frequently on this program over the years and on our website pointed out that Tim Staples has no clue.

And given his background as a AG youth minister, sorry, those of you from the

Assemblies of God, but not too many Assemblies of God youth ministers that I've ever met, would

I trust to accurately define Reformed theology, okay? And very few of them had any

Reformed leanings at all. And if you have Reformed leanings and you're in the AG, you know how utterly unusual you are.

And then he said he was Southern Baptist. But remember last week, he said, as a Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God, we didn't have that belief.

So he didn't even realize there was such a thing as Reformed Southern Baptist, as Calvinistic Southern Baptist.

He doesn't know anything about the Founders Conference or James Boyce or any of the rest of that stuff. And so there you give, there you have,

I'm sorry, a real good indication of what

Tim Staples believes about Reformed theology. You know what? If I thought Reformed theology was what he thinks it is,

I wouldn't like it either. But thankfully, it's not anything close to what he thinks it is.

However, I mean, it's his grace, according to Calvin, whereby he pulls certain ones out, right?

Right. So he doesn't go around. And if I know Annie wasn't intending on doing that, if that's what she presented.

But to me, I think that what's the difference ultimately, if those people that are drowning don't have a choice, they have, there's no way for them to be saved.

They cannot choose even to lift their arm up to God. And of course, what are they doing?

If this illustration was true, what does the Bible say, man, in that shipwreck, in that water, what's man actually doing?

Is he crying out for help? Is he swimming toward the ship? No. If the life ring is cast to him, what is that man going to do?

He is going to not grab that life ring and be pulled to safety.

He's going to try to pull the person off the ship into destruction who's throwing him the life ring.

And of course, all of this, really, to use R .C. Sproul's illustration, people aren't floating around the sea looking for a life ring anyways.

They have been eaten by sharks and their remains are at the bottom of the Marianas Trench and so on and so forth.

But even if you want to use the still on the surface thing, they're in rebellion. They're doing everything they can to try to sink the ship that's coming to save them.

That's where the non -biblical anthropology of Rome comes to fruition.

And it's interesting, I might mention we've had some Church of Christ folks who pop in out of channel. They have the same anthropology that Rome does.

And they don't like to hear that, but it's true. They have the exact same view of man and sin and his capacities that Rome does.

In fact, at least dogmatically, you could say Rome has a higher view, because even

Staples here isn't quite, I don't think, dealing with the necessity of grace issue and some of the things that might come out of a more

Augustinian thread. He's certainly not Augustinian in any way, shape, or form. An Augustinian Roman Catholic would be having some problems even with the way that Staples is expressing things here.

God's hand, what's ultimately the difference? Well, ultimately the difference lies in the notion of what

Reform scholars often call federal headship. And this is something that Augustine was very much in favor of when he debated

Pelagius in the fourth century and the Council of Orange in 529 essentially declared

Pelagius heretical. Augustine's position was this, that when

Adam sinned, the effect of Adam's sin resulted in the absolute moral depravity of the subsequent souls the subsequent people who would be born after him.

And so the notion is not that some want to choose but can't, as though God is keeping them by some natural cause.

And you would acquiesce, I think, Tim, that these distinctions between arbitrary and non -discriminate and natural and moral ability are very important, because if you're a professor of Catholic apologetics, you understand the scholastic tradition and their interest in being very exact in their position.

Sure. That's where we're going to pick up next time around. I appreciate the caller from Rick from Georgia who made these important distinctions.

And it is interesting to hear some opportunity. It doesn't happen very often.

The rest of the callers were all Roman Catholics who were just reiterating the same points that were being made by others.

But it is nice to hear a response that's being provided. Probably not going to be here

Thursday. Check the blog to see if we're going to do something else. Otherwise, we'll be back next

Tuesday morning, 11 a .m. Mountain Standard time.

And we appreciate your... I am giving thanks for all of you who listen and support the ministry.

It is very, very important to be out there. We thank you for your support, and we hope that what we've been doing this year, especially in the debates and the

DVDs and things like that, has been a great benefit to you, and that you'll continue to pray for us. Thanks for listening.

God bless. We were standing at the crossroads, let this moment slip away.

We must contend for the faith the fathers fought for. We need a new reformation day.

Do it, tear it down. Brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 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.