Salt Lake Recap, Open Phones

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 -3202 or 1 -877 -753 -341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We are live this morning on the

Tuesday morning edition of The Dividing Line and it is a rather cool morning here in Phoenix.

It's normally up in the upper mid -eighties now this time of year, heading for the nineties. We sort of zoom through the nineties.

There's just only a few weeks when we hit that one and boom, right into summer. And it's coming quickly, but today it's rather chilly outside.

That won't last long, I'm afraid. But it's a beautiful day and it's good to be with you. Yesterday the

Lord reminded me of my mortality and we had that little, there you go, little well, what shall we say?

We went a little bit past where we needed to be there. A little bit of the weakness of the flesh, shall we say.

Lost six pounds in 24 hours. The rapid diet plan that reminds us that we are all mortal and so I'm just going to take advantage of that and just try to keep going south on the scale there for a little while.

But feeling fine today, a little weak, but feeling all right.

And it's always a reminder that we have, most of us have far more good days than we have bad days and generally we aren't thankful for all the good days we have.

We let them just sort of go by as if we are somehow owed those things and in fact we are not.

But anyway, notice I did not say anyways, I said anyway. We had a week worth of ministry last week at the

LDS Easter pageant in Mesa and let me just give you a number by the way before we get started here, 877 -753 -3341, 877 - 753 -3341.

If you have some questions or comments on the dividing line today, some folks actually call in early rather than waiting for me to raise a topic and that always gets us going.

But if you'd like to get in today because you actually have something hopefully somewhat along the lines of what

I know something about, I'm not one of those folks that claims to know everything there is to know.

There are all sorts of issues that I go, duh, duh, oh. But if it's in my area of study then give us a call 877 -753 -3341.

If you don't know you'll find out quickly enough and especially if it's on the subject of eschatology.

But anyways, I said anyways again. Anyway, last week I'll admit it was a little tough to get into the ministry in Mesa even though I was sitting down figuring out the numbers.

That was, it was 21 years ago. Well, 21, not 21 years but when you start counting how many years you've been doing things.

It was 83 so it was full 20 years and this would be the 21st year then that I was out there that I first went out to the

LDS Easter pageant. Then the next year, 84, we were out there for a couple nights.

It was just a couple of us and we were in company with a fellow by the name of Wally Tope and that was an interesting year because that was the year that a fellow by the name of Craig Ray showed up with a a file folder, not a file folder but what am

I thinking of? A notebook, a three -ring binder with pictures of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker and Jimmy Swaggart running around saying, that's what these people are all about, that's what these people are all about.

It was very, very interesting. And then the next year, 85, was when we hit it full bore.

I was taking an evangelism class in my senior year in college and what I did is I designed the whole outreach, made up a map of the whole area, we printed tracks, we had shirts made and we hit it big time.

I mean it was organized, we had meetings beforehand, that's when it really, really started was in 1985.

So we've been doing this for a long, long time now and it was really hard to get into it this year simply because of the fact that we did not expect that we are going to be able to do it.

Two weekends before when we were at the General Conference of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake, we had not done what we had done since 1984.

We had not passed out tracks during the conference and it was because the presence of the

King James Only Fundamentalist Baptist individuals who walk around with signs that are abusive, they abuse the

LDS people, they hurl insults and basically poison the atmosphere, make it impossible to honor the gospel through its proclamation.

They had told us that they were going to be coming and I had no reason to believe they would not.

However, I can hear you some for some reason, Mr. Pierce, not sure why, but I can hear you in my earphones and since I can't hear what you're saying, it's driving me crazy.

I'm still hearing Mr. Pierce in my earphones. I'm not sure why, but anyways, something's been bumped and so I'm having someone whispering to me.

Anyways, anyway, you all hear everything that we do in this place, don't you?

Anyways, I had a thought when I was up in Salt Lake.

I had considered going down to the conference, just sort of looking around. We had some time during Saturday, even though the weather was lousy and it was horrible and it was snowing and it was raining and it was, it would have been one of the worst weather situations we'd ever faced in 18 years up there.

But I thought, you know, maybe there is truth to the saying, out of sight, out of mind.

And so I didn't go down hoping that maybe they would not, they would not, you know, if they don't see me, if they don't, you know, if I don't interact with them, if I don't challenge them, if I don't rebuke them, whatever, then maybe

I'll, they'll just get bored with me, you know, maybe they show up with their little signs about me and their little bald headed cap to put on a kid that can't even pronounce

Gale Ripplinger's name, whatever. Maybe if I don't show up, they'll just sort of get bored and they won't, you know,

Mesa, Arizona, that's a long ways away. We got to spend money to get there. I don't know if that was the reasoning or not, but they didn't show up.

We only had one individual who showed up last week and he's not been in Salt Lake City to my knowledge.

Jim Webber is his name. And he had the standard kind of signs.

The one that was over the top was Mormonism is worse than homosexuality.

But at least when you walked up to him, first of all, he's not yelling and screaming at anybody. He doesn't have a bullhorn.

He doesn't have all the rest of that stuff. He's just standing. He stood on the other side of the street away from where we were.

He stood there and as people would come up to him, they would ask, what do you mean Mormonism is worse than homosexuality?

And he'd say, well, homosexuality is a sin against the flesh. Mormonism is a sin against the spirit.

It's idolatry. Now, I still don't understand the reasoning that says start your witnessing situation with the other person as mad as humanly possible.

But it did probably start a few conversations that otherwise wouldn't have started, I guess. So he was only there the first three nights.

He wasn't there the last two nights. And the last night he was there, I went over and at one point he motioned me over.

He was in a conversation with a 19 -year -old Mormon gentleman. And the man had made some comments about the text of the

Bible. Mr. Weber is not King James only. And so he asked me to address his issues.

And so I did so. And we basically, back and forth, dealt with what he was saying and worked together fairly well.

It was somewhat encouraging along that line. But he wasn't there the last two nights. And nobody else showed up.

No one else, none of the other King James only folks showed up. So maybe some of you were just praying really hard.

I know some folks on the channel said they were. And so we had a very peaceful time out of the pageant.

Like I said, it was easy for me to get into the thinking, but eventually was able to do so.

And had some good conversations, especially on Saturday night. Had a number of lengthy conversations.

That night had two conversations with return missionaries that went very well. And during the week

I'd had two conversations with 19 -year -olds that were planned going on their missions also that went very well.

Planting seeds, getting an opportunity to really communicate without a whole lot of rancor.

What I didn't have this year, which has been fairly normative over the years, but I'll admit has become a little bit more uncommon lately, was the one on 15 or 20 young people type conversations.

That used to be, especially in the first 10 years, very, very common. It's become much less common of late.

And I don't know if it's because there's discussions in the ward chapels or if it's just that Mormon young people don't have as much interest as they once had in theological issues or just not as much of a strong belief in what they allegedly believe.

I don't know. I don't know what the reasoning for it is, but we used to have much more of the large group conversation where you had to focus in on one person and all the rest of that kind of thing.

That just isn't, at least the past couple of years, has not been as common. But one of the biggest reasons this year was quite calm and peaceful was,

I discovered later, the Mesa Police Department asked the church, the

Mormon church, to no longer have the centurions. Now, what was it, about three years ago?

They do it for about three years, I think it was about three years. They did a program where they would have, you'd have to be,

I would imagine, minimally six foot two tall. I think that was probably at least the minimum.

Some of these guys were six five, six six, six seven, big guys that would dress up as Roman centurions with swords and helmets, and they'd basically do battle with us, almost.

I mean, they're right on the corner. They would step into conversations. They're big, imposing figures coming out, looming out of the dark, and they really, very much increased the temperature of the conversations and just the encounters that took place there.

There was a King James only yelling, screaming style guy that was there last year who got arrested, and that increased temperatures and all.

But the police asked them to stop using the centurions, so there were no centurions at all out there.

And it really made for a very peaceful time out there, good conversations when we had them, but not the big, large groups and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

And so that was how it worked, and it went fairly well.

So we were very thankful for that, and we pray the Lord will bless the tracts that were distributed, so on and so forth.

So anyways, that's a little report on last week's ministry there in Salt Lake City.

And so we already have folks online who would like to comment on, well, actually just ask questions,

I guess. And so we'll be taking your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Yeah, someone, I thought about it, someone mentioned I should bring my gladiator sword. I have the, all my friends got together for my 39th birthday a few years ago and gave me the sword from the film

Gladiator. And that would have gone over real well, no two ways about it.

But I did not want to dress up in the plastic armor that they had to wear.

Besides, that looked like it chafed by the end of the week, it really did. It did not look comfortable at all.

But it would have gone over well, and I can just see us out there swinging away to each other with real physical swords instead of the spiritual type.

But all right, let's go ahead and take our phone calls. Let's start with someone who had better have a question about repentance and conversion and not seek to bore the entire audience with discussions of syntax.

Otherwise, I am going to go into discussions of what people do on rooftops. So let's go ahead and talk with Chris in Peoria.

Hi, Chris. How are you doing, James? I know things about you,

Chris. Be careful. Listen, it was a ruse that I wanted to talk about repentance and faith.

I really wanted to debate you about the alleged anaphoric use of the article on James 14.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, sure you do. I'm calling Dr. Thomas right now.

You know, he and I get along and he can still change your grades, so stop it. Right. My question for you is that, because I'm having a discussion in actually a different room with a gentleman.

We are discussing the relationship between faith and repentance and conversion. And I believe that they happen in terms of temporal time.

They happen simultaneously. They happen at a point in time just as justification and faith do and regeneration and faith do.

However, I believe there's a logical priority of one to the other. But I'm willing to reconsider. I wanted to get your opinion with regard to does repentance logically precede faith, its conversion, or is it after faith with an understanding that they both really happen simultaneously at the point of conversion?

But does one have a logical priority to the other just as regeneration has a logical priority to faith even though there's not a temporal priority?

That's obviously a big question. A lot of folks haven't really thought about it.

And what it really raises is the fact that we tend, in at least

American evangelicalism in the broad sense of that term, to view these particular issues almost as a singularity, using a temporal term there.

I do think that there is everything right about recognizing that regeneration is a point action type situation.

Therefore, we need to talk about saving faith. We need to talk about the repentance that is associated with saving faith.

But also, you then go back and read earlier Christian writers. And this is where I don't think this comes into the conversation very often because not many people read earlier

Christian writers. And you encounter this discussion, for example, on the part of Spurgeon and others.

That's why early, only in the sense of a couple centuries ago, you encounter this discussion of the struggle for assurance and peace and this period of conviction and the unsettled soul seeking mercy from God.

And there's almost no place in our modern discussions for a process like that because we have so focused the temporality of it, especially in light of the fact that you look at Romans 5 .1

and Paul looks back upon his justification. It's something that, having been justified, we have peace with God, all the rest of those things.

And so it's an important question that I don't know that I have all the answers to, certainly, because it's one of those things

I think is very good to talk through. Now, as far as the logical relationship,

I think one would have to ask, can there be a repentance in the sense of, can repentance be seen as a process?

Not in the sense of the repentance associated with saving faith, where I confess my sins, and of course, you know, hamalageo,

I think there's an element of that word that I think is very important that we emphasize in our preaching, where we are confessing the righteousness of God in the identification of our sins.

To speak the same word is, I think, very important to emphasize that we are acknowledging that God is righteous to be angry, to have wrath against our sins, and to punish with death those that commit those sins.

I think that's a major portion of what that means that we no longer really emphasize hardly at all, and the results have been devastating.

But I'm not talking so much about that kind of repentance in recognizing the righteousness of God in light of the

Gospel, but is not history replete with individuals who become troubled over their lives?

They become troubled over their sin. They become troubled over their lack of peace. We would call these individuals, even in a

Reformed sense, they are seeking something, but they don't know what they're seeking. And it's because of the work of God in their life, of course, but it's

God's grace that has brought this about. But can there be that prior to regeneration? A preparation, a process.

These are all issues that, unfortunately, I don't hear a lot of conversation about. And so, you know, when you ask that question, which one logically comes first?

Well, obviously, you're right. Saving faith cannot be separated from repentance from sin, and vice versa.

And if that is the fruit of regeneration, then yes, we can put all that together. But does that mean that there is no process that God might bring us through for his own purposes?

For example, a person who went through that kind of struggle in their own conversion is going to be the kind of person who's going to be able to help another person in knowing what the commands of the

Gospel are, and to direct them to Christ, and to preach in such a way as to not direct people to the isms of men, but instead to the truth of the

Gospel. There's all sorts of issues here that I've thought about, and your question raises, but I don't know that I hear a lot of discussion about these things.

Yeah, okay. Well, I appreciate that. Because I recognize there's a repentance in conversion and a repentance in sanctification in the same way that there's a faith in conversion and a faith in sanctification.

And the way I have always understood the repentance in conversion is a determinate purposing to turn from sin generally conceived.

It's not cleaning up your life before you come to Christ, not specific sins. That would be with regard to repentance and sanctification.

You repent specific sins as they occur. But that repentance in conversion is turning from the lordship of sin and self to embrace the lordship of Christ by faith.

That's the way I've always understood it. Yeah, but I think I would add to that what

I had mentioned earlier, and this only struck me. I'm not sure exactly what prompted it. I think it was in the sermon prior to the

Lord's Supper Sunday evening. We celebrated the supper Sunday evening, and there was something in my fellow elder's sermon that caused me to give a lot of consideration to the fact that, and part of it is due to the fact that I have really focused on Romans 3 .19

over the past number of months in regards to its testimony concerning the nature of the closing of the mouth so that every mouth may be closed.

All the world may become hupotikos, answerable, exposed to the judgment of God.

I think part of the problem that we're seeing in a lot of the church today, especially when, and everybody could tell when you came on the line,

I know who you are. You're involved in ministry. You're involved in seeking to bring the word of God and apply it to the hearts of the people.

Most of those who are involved in that work realize that in many churches there is a difficulty in applying the call to godliness to many people within the church because of a surface level understanding of the nature of sin and the justice and righteousness of God in being wrathful against that sin.

I think there is a part of Hamalageo that really speaks to that acknowledgement of the righteousness of God to judge sin that comes out also in Romans 1 when

Paul says they not only know that the judgment for doing these things is death, they encourage other people to do them as well.

That irony that comes out in the recognition of the true nature of sin, I think that's part of real saving confession and repentance as well.

And of course the role of confession and repentance needs to be discussed too. I don't know about you, but it's just not something that I hear a lot of discussion of because it's not, again, it's not quote unquote seeker sensitive.

That's not something that people like to hear discussed in the church anymore. I think it's a great area to discuss and I can't hardly even begin to address it here, but I hope people will consider it.

And I'm not sure which room you were talking about. It must not be in our channel. It's not in apologetics either.

I just looked over there. Or is it in apologetics? No, it's just in a private dialogue. Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, it's an interesting area and I think it's a very worthwhile area.

You know what? Why don't we do a book, The Lost Doctrine of Repentance in Today's Church? That might be a very, very good idea.

It's true because I think in some ways, repentance and confession, because I think in some ways that term confession, it's like a number of words that in essence we've allowed these solidly biblical words to be stolen from us because of their misuse by others.

You know, eucharist is a beautiful term, but you hardly ever hear

Protestants, at least non -high church liturgical Protestants, I guess, using that term because it has been so misused by others.

And I think confession is very much along the same line. But what it really means and how it should flesh itself out in our lives, that's something we need to talk about.

So good stuff. Yep. Thanks, James. Okay, man. No more climbing around on roofs with loafers, okay? No. Listen now.

Remember, you've got to consider the sources. I believe me. I trust that source to peel the weight bars off my chest if need be.

So I trust that source. I'll tell you next time. Okay. I'll tell you next time you come, I might be up on the roof waiting for you.

With a hose. Okay, man. All right. God bless. Bye -bye. Oh, some of you just must be going, what are you people talking about?

Oh, well, Chris there is the one who got me involved in going back to Normal, Illinois, which is going to the church.

I was just there a few weeks ago for the fourth time I've been there. Developed some real good relationships with some folks there at Calvary Baptist Church, Jerry McCorkle and my good friend

Rob Hogus. And Chris is good friends with Rob. And Rob is a monster.

The dude is huge. He can do 40 repetitions at body weight on the bench.

225, 40 times. Those of you who know anything about weightlifting are going, he's a big boy.

And Rob is my source. And I trust Rob implicitly. Anyway, let's go ahead and continue.

The lines are open. We have one more call, but there are other lines available waiting for you at 877 -753 -3341.

Let's go ahead and talk with Jeff in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Hi, Jeff. Hi, Dr.

White. How are you? Doing good. Good to talk to you again. Yes, sir. I have a secret. I'm actually from South Jersey, but I only work in Valley Forge.

Ah, okay. You make fun of Jersey every once in a while, so. So you were just trying to avoid being made fun of, is the point?

A ridicule, yeah, you know, that kind of thing. All right. Well, that's so you're hiding your true self just simply to avoid that.

Okay. Well, that's all right. I had actually a couple of questions. I wanted to, had a question about transubstantiation.

And I want clarification about something on new perspective. Just which one do you want me to do first?

Whichever you'd like. New transubstantiation question. I was reading a new book by Keith Matheson.

Yes. He has a book out about Calvin's Doctrine. And he does a critique. Uh -oh.

Uh -oh. Hold on, folks. Dr. White, you still there?

I'm still there. I lost you. Yeah, I lost you for a second. And somehow we got you back.

And what happened was I had to undo call forwarding. That was my fault, folks.

My fault right here. And for some reason, my phone is now ringing. I'm not sure exactly why. But anyways, go ahead.

Okay. So he does a lot of good critiques of transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

Now, let me back up just a minute. This is his book on the Lord's Supper? Yes. It's entitled Given For You.

Okay. All right. That's from Canon Press, I think, right? No, that was his whole scriptural book.

Oh, okay. I forget which one exactly this is from. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Well, one of the things he mentioned, and one thing

I wanted clarification on about how Roman Catholic apologists kind of view it, is the way

Aquinas and other people have divided up substance and accident, it doesn't seem to be any different than a spiritual presence, because the substance doesn't have any physical attributes.

And it seems like they're trying to argue for non -fleshy flesh. Well, what they're trying to argue for is a physical presence that cannot be tested, especially in reference to taste or touch, or anything visible to the eyes, even though it is interesting that when you examine the history, the primary pious miracles that are appealed to as substantiation for the dogma, and let no one be confused by modern

Roman Catholic apologists, it was the pious miracles, just as it is the alleged miracles at Lourdes or Fatima today that's behind the development of Marian dogma, it was the allegedly pious miracles of bleeding hosts, hosts that when you wrap them in a napkin, the napkin would become soaked with blood, that kind of thing that was very much the impetus behind the eventual dogmatic formulation, and then the growth of that in the following centuries.

So it is interesting that, again, you see the same gap here historically that you see today between the official church -sanctioned dogma, which is much more careful in its formulation and statements, than the actual popular piety that you see in, for example,

Marian devotion today, the Marian dogmas of the church, you're more careful in the official statements, but then in the actual practice, it's all over the road.

So you're right in the official formulation and the argumentation, but in the reality, the biggest miracles that were considered to be a substantiation of this belief were, in fact, the ones that involved sort of a crossing of that border, but they were made extraordinary so that when you looked at that wafer, when you took that wafer, when you drank that wine, you tasted a wafer, you tasted wine, it looked that way, and therefore, you know, you weren't looking to that to be your substantiation, you were thinking about the great miracles that were out there.

Jeff, hold on just a moment if we could through the break, and we will continue with that, and your question on New Perspectivism, and everybody else at 877 -753 -3341, we'll be right back.

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. 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 imploring 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 AOMIN .org.

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.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils, they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements, and many

Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the

Papacy, the Mass, Purgatory and Indulgences, and Marian Doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the

Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at AOMIN .org.

And welcome back to Dividing Line, 877 -753 -3341, talking with Jeff in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, concerning the issue of transubstantiation, the nature of it,

Rome's definition of it, and all the things associated with that, specifically in regards to the non -fleshy flesh aspect of it.

Non -fleshy flesh, which of course, the real, I think, overarching theological issue that needs to be remembered here is without transubstantiation, you cannot have a propitiatory sacrifice in the concept of modern

Roman Catholicism. And it is that propitiatory sacrifice that to me is the greatest, and I will use the term,

I'm not meaning to use it merely to raise emotions, but to express a truth, the main blasphemy of Rome's teaching against the work of Christ is that the

Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, but that it perfects none of those who approach unto that sacrifice.

Well, it denigrates the cross. Oh, it does, very much so, and that I think needs to be the issue.

Unfortunately, most of the books that are out there these days that get published by evangelical publishers do not address those issues, they focus instead upon arguing about the nature of transubstantiation.

There's nothing wrong with addressing that, but if that is your main argument against the Mass, you've missed the point. And with that, let's segue to new perspective questions

I have. Okay. I was kind of curious, it's kind of hard to keep everything in your head, especially since a new perspective does vary from person to person.

Yes. So I was just wondering, I was just going to kind of go over what I think it is, and maybe what

I think is one of its main problems, or at least as it pertains to justification, is what

I've kind of come to understand was that they were arguing that Paul is not saying that justify means declare righteous in the forensic sense that we understand, but more in a sense of Judaizers were saying that you need to have a certain covenant marker in order to be in the covenant community, and to be justified means more to be in the community.

And I guess from that understanding, my critique of that would be that while that is somewhat true with the

Judaizers, I think Paul understood that to be in the covenant community or not to be in the covenant community meant you weren't justified in our sense, in the forensic sense.

So that was at least what my brief critique of new perspective was, at least in regards to...

Well, they would use the term covenant community not in the old Jewish sense, but in the new covenant community specifically.

And now there are questions, and again, this is where there's lots of differences of opinions, but there have been those who have raised the argument that if some new perspectivists were consistent, they would have to argue that justification by faith is only really relevant to Gentiles, and that Jews and the

Judaizers, by doing what the Judaizers were doing, if they just stopped trying to make Gentiles do what they were doing, that what they were doing was okay for them.

In other words, their covenant was okay, and it really starts to blend in with a mono -covenantal perspective that does not see much of a distinction between old and new covenants at all.

But again, it depends on the flavor that you're talking about. And for me, one thing to remember, first of all, is that the origination of new perspectivism does not come from a conservative background.

It comes from much more of a, from my perspective, a liberal background, a

European background, in the sense of a view of Scripture that is not,

I don't believe is as high as conservatives have. I don't think that there is a commitment to a consistency, even within an author, let alone pan -canonically across the entire canon of Scripture in the theological teachings that are there.

There is much more of a willingness to allow for what is generally called tension in the text, which is a nice way of saying,

Paul contradicted James, Peter contradicted Luke, but we won't call them contradictions, we'll just call them tensions.

And that really goes back to a whole different view of where Scripture comes from. The problem is, new perspectivism is being brought into conservative circles through people like N .T.

Wright, John Armstrong, and others, and that teaching just doesn't fit well, resulting in what

I've discussed in the past, for example, the amazing interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5 .21 by N .T.

Wright being promoted by him, and then that appearing within conservative, what used to be conservative, reformed literature like John Armstrong's materials, and that creates this,

I think, dissonance, because the view did not develop out of the milieu of a high view of Scripture, and so when it's forced into that, something's got to give somewhere, and what gives is the question.

As to the issue of forensic justification, these people will still use that terminology.

N .T. Wright will affirm, briefly anyways, a belief in forensic justification, but will say, but we need to derive it from passages other than that which we have been deriving it.

Well, without an imputation of the positive righteousness of Christ, which is now openly denied by these individuals, even the conservative ones, the whole idea of a forensic justification becomes very much flattened and minimized over against the concept of the covenant community, and the idea that Paul's doctrine of justification,

A, was not only non -central to his proclamation, but B, was primarily a political instrument to maintain the unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Now, here's where some of this grabs hold of people, is because I've said for years that part of Paul's concern, especially in Galatians, is that he saw in the activity of Peter at Antioch, the danger of two

Christian churches, a Gentile Christian church and a Jewish Christian church, and he recognized that that cannot be, that the ground is level before the cross, there cannot be these two different things.

But that does not mean that the truth of justification then became an instrument by which to somehow maintain unity.

It was instead the very nature of the gospel that denied that there could be such a division that he was defending.

It wasn't something he came up with to try to fix a problem. The problem was because of the denial of the pre -existing truth of how a person is made right before God.

So, that to me is extremely important in understanding where this is coming from and how detrimental new perspectivism is.

It seems to me that one thing in what I've been reading kind of troubles me is that a proper response on our side would be to show how the

Judaizing heresy would have

Paul naturally flow out with a traditional understanding of justification.

How that heresy would touch on it, and that's why he would bring it up. Also, another thing that bothers me in Romans, it's more a positive, it's not, in Galatians you can kind of get away with maybe something, but in Romans he's actually, it's a positive presentation, it's not a rebuttal sort of thing.

And for me it's also, they're basing it off of their response to first century Judaism.

But first century Judaism doesn't equate to Judaizers. Exactly, that is one of the major reasons, for example, that Dr.

Carson's work on the subject, which, let's be honest, is not available for most lay people in the sense that it is so very, very in -depth and scholarly, but the reason he started where he did in the series that he's doing is to demonstrate that there isn't this monolithic scholarly consensus that many new perspectivists claim there is, regarding the nature of first century

Judaism, which then becomes the overarching context that is forced upon Paul's writings.

Right, and they aren't Judaizers. They could be Pharisees. There is all sorts of different groups, there is all sorts of different,

I mean he came out of the Pharisaical element himself, and obviously it would be those individuals who would be most likely to go after him, but the point is, you allow

Paul to define the position that he is arguing against, you don't say, well, Paul missed the emphasis, or Paul didn't understand, and this is where the foundation of the system came from in more liberal views.

They had no problem in saying that Paul did not understand, or he had an unbalanced view of what these individuals were saying, that there was statements of grace.

Well, good grief, you can find statements of grace within Mormonism. That's the same error as taking some statements concerning that in Mormonism, and expanding it out and saying that's all of Mormonism.

No, actually you read Joseph Smith carefully, and he was a crass works salvationist, but you can still find statements that, taken in a certain context, would have that particular perspective to it.

But that is the point, is that just simply because you can find people in first century Judaism, who had this view of the covenant, and a view of God's grace, does not mean that Paul missed the emphasis, nor that we have missed the whole point of his exegesis of the

Old Testament Scriptures, and his emphasis, as you very rightly pointed out, on the positive element of justification as being the grounds of our peace with God in Romans 4 and 5.

That's where, again, we must have the highest view of Scripture as the revelation of God.

And it's not overly surprising to me that even within, not the openly new perspectivist group, but I'm thinking of one individual who's a part of another movement that we've talked about on the program before, who has also come out with the conclusion that justification is nothing more than the inclusion of the

Gentiles in the covenant. It's not surprising that that then also goes along with, from his perspective, this constant attack upon Scripture being propositional.

The Bible does not reveal propositional truths. The Bible is God giving himself, as if we cannot derive or even recognize propositional truths in Scripture.

So it does seem to go hand in hand in that kind of a situation.

So I think you're right on the beam, and you're seeing exactly what needs to be seen in those areas.

Oh, thank you. And yeah, for me, it was kind of an eye -opener when I read through Romans.

It wasn't in reaction to anything, but he was actually building the case, and he starts with the wrath of God.

And if he starts with the wrath of God, then it's kind of hard for that argument to kind of be, oh, and then he's talking about, like, you know, badgets.

And that didn't really make any sense to me. Well, see, God's truth can even make it through to New Jersey.

That's very funny. All right. Well, if you're in California, I can make fun of you.

Oh, believe me, I am not in California. The people's republic, they're on. Amen. All right.

Well, thank you very much for your call today. All right, thank you. God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341, that's the number that David in Austin, Texas, called.

David, how are you today? Oh, sorry, I just felt there for a minute. You just what? I drifted off there for a minute. I'm doing fine.

How are you feeling? Feeling much better today. As I said, I'm trying to look at it in a positive way.

I lost 6 pounds in 24 hours. Let's just keep going in that direction. Wow. Well, whatever kind of virus that is, send it this way,

I guess, put it in an envelope. Well, the strange thing is a good friend of mine in Florida who talked to me on the phone yesterday when

I sounded like death warmed over has the same thing today, and we're starting to wonder, is this some new technologically advanced version of a virus that can be spread by phone line?

The worst thing was he was talking to me on my cell phone, so I don't know how that would work, but anyway. Well, it's not because if they get in my phone line, they might be able to spread through the chat room, too.

That's true. That's true. Yes, sir? A couple of quick questions, kind of the same area of question.

I haven't heard a lot about Open Theism lately, and I know that Piper has a new book out, but I'm wondering if it's kind of died down or…

Well, I'm not the best person to say

I have my finger on the pulse of much of evangelicalism. I mean… I mean,

I know it's still there. Oh, it's still there. I just haven't heard a lot about it. And I think that it's, for some folks, there's somewhat of a pause right now in light of the upcoming

November meeting of ETS and what's going to happen in regard to the removal of certain

Open Theists based upon their view or lack of view on inerrancy. So I really don't go out looking for articles on Open Theism or anything right now, but you're right.

I don't hear a lot of discussion of it. I think the sides have been fairly well drawn up, and I think those seeker -friendly churches that have found it to be a useful means of finding a way around offensive theology are going to continue to utilize it.

And those who recognize that it creates a god who is a little more than a swami, as far as his trustworthiness goes, are going to continue to reject it.

And whether there's going to be any new eruptions of support for it,

I have no way of knowing. But you're right. I really haven't heard a lot about it. But then again, I don't even read

Christianity Today, so how would I know? Aside from Piper's new book. Yeah, and that was expected,

I think, for a long time. It's almost like it came out a little bit late in some senses.

But certainly the two sides have stated their case, and I think if you're not convinced at this point, really now the situation is just people who start encountering it and the constant discussion of it that will come from there.

But again, I don't think the debate we had on it was really, from a biblical perspective, all that challenging.

Certainly you have to discuss Genesis 22 and passages like that, but really as far as there being sound, compelling interpretations of passages in Isaiah 40 -48 or things like that, it's just not there.

So for those who have, again, similar to the last question, a pan -canonical view of Scripture, that it is all

God's Word, that that is why Paul could say all Scripture is theanoustos, not just simply sections of it or those that are more important than others and things like that.

If you have that high view of Scripture, this system simply cannot recommend itself to you in a long -term fashion.

One other question. I read your article, the new article on the website. Ah, yes.

Really good. And I was curious, are there any King James Onlyists at this point who will debate you?

Is there a single one? I can't think of any. We have invited many.

And there's two kinds of King James Only folks. Well, there's obviously more than that, but two that I really discern.

And that is the Ruckman -Riplinger style that simply is cultic in its applications and in its behavior, way out of bounds as far as being rational or reasonable.

And then you have a more tame variety that I might identify with someone like D.

A. Waite or David Cloud. But I have invited both David Cloud and D.

A. Waite over and over and over and over again to come on this program, to defend their assertions against me, to defend their teachings in a fair way, where they have equal time, things like that.

D. A. Waite is in New Jersey, which is significant in the last call. And he will not do it.

I just found out this morning. It was interesting. When I posted that article,

I dropped David Cloud a note to let him know it was there. And he wrote back and said, you know, well, good for you.

Maybe I'll look at it sometime, but no way as far as a debate. And then our folks in Florida didn't mention this to me, but they went ahead and did it anyways, which is fine, contacted him because we're trying to find an opponent for the debate before the cruise and contacted him.

And he and I discovered I didn't know this. He lives in Nepal. David Cloud does.

And so travels a little bit to live in Nepal, too. I had no idea that that's where he was.

But he has declined that. He does travel in the United States. And he was in a seminar attacking

Reformed theology only last year. And that's when we had first contacted him about doing it. He just simply won't do it.

So, no, I can't find anybody. We keep trying, but they'll all write books against me, but none of them want to face me one -on -one and actually discuss this issue in a scholarly fashion.

Well, it's a cross -examination. They probably are through the motorway. Cross -examination does create problems for King James only as motorways.

Hey, thanks for calling today, David. All right. God bless. Hey, let me mention just in closing the rates that we have on this cruise.

Folks, I told you last week, 306 plus port taxes. Everybody else is paying 1607 for the same cabin plus port taxes today.

You cannot get on a five -star cruise line for what we've got these rates for. But remember something.

There are only so many cabins on a cruise line, on a cruise ship. And we are running out of cabins.

That's just all there is to it. So if you've been putting it off, folks, let me tell you something. It's only a few weeks before Christmas.

This is the greatest guide. This is the greatest gift you could ever get your wife a week away from everything.

She's treated like royalty. You get to eat like a king. There's a whole gym there.

It's beautiful. We're going to get together. We're going to have Bible study and fellowship. And we're going to let the ladies get together in one group and the guys in another at times.

And it's just going to be a great, great time. So don't put it off because eventually there's only going to be certain kinds of cabins that are available.

And they're not the nicest ones, though I'll be perfectly honest with you. The absolute lowest level cabin on this ship is nicer than the best cabin

I've ever been in on any other. So it's hard to lose, but eventually this ship will sell out.

And so if you've been putting it off, I'm going to tell you something. Now is the time to do it. Click on the website.

I've updated the list. I put a new little thingy there on the main page about the rate reduction.

All the new rates are there. You can see what they were, our group rate was, and what it is now. And that's not what everybody else is paying because our group rate was a whole lot lower than what everybody else is paying now.

I mean you're never, ever going to get on a cruise at any time anywhere for what you're going to get on this one.

Just not going to happen if you've ever been thinking about it. Now is the time to do it. So don't put it off.

All sorts of folks are going to be on there. Silly Brit's going to be there. And you can, who knows, maybe

Rich and I will do a mock dividing line and talk to each other across a fake wall.

You can see what you've been listening to all these years on the dividing line. Who knows? Lots of things that we're going to be able to do.

It's going to be a wonderful time. So please, don't put it off. Hit the website. Hit that little link.

Look at the ship. I did a little updating of some of the stuff on the website. And make your plans.

Because it is going to be a really neat, wonderful time. There's going to be some folks coming from the chat room.

You'll be able to meet our resident rocket scientist, Balthazar Wallybolt, all the way from Australia.

Oh, I got to do an accent today. Yay! I did it right as the music came up.

So you can't all just turn off your connections. Anyways, it's going to be great.

So do not put off this. Because the next time, it's going to be more expensive.

There's nothing we can do about it. So make sure to hit the website. Take a look at it. Thanks for the calls today. Great discussions.

We'll be back again, Lord willing, Thursday evening. Five o 'clock Mountain Standard Time here on The Dividing Line.