A First Century Witness to Justification By Faith Followed by Open Phones

Greetings and welcome back to the Dividing Line. We're doing a special program today because I'm going to be a little busy on the morrow.

So we're also going to take some phone calls today. Open the phones at 877 -753 -3341.

I do have some stuff to talk about first. So you can call in, you'll just be sitting on hold for a while, but you can call in if you want at 877 -753 -3341 and we will get to calls eventually.

I wanted to start off with a very well -known text, one that, you know, we probably don't revisit it as often as we as we should.

I remember it was the centerpiece of my debate with Mitch Pacwa back in 1991.

First debate was in August of 1990. So we're, we're coming up, you know, next year, we'll be, we'll be coming up on an anniversary of, goodness, 30 years, three decades of doing moderated public debates.

And that's not something I ever expected.

I'll be honest with you, but that's, that's what has, has marked what we have done for a number of years now.

And in that debate, which I would love to be able to show you, but the videotape wasn't provided to us and was never made available, we focused upon Romans 5 .1.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have received our introduction into, by faith, into the grace, this grace of which we stand, so on and so forth.

The key being, of course, the issue of how a person is justified.

And in this case, the assertion on Paul's part in the, and this is, what would be a hinge text.

If you follow the argument of Romans, you know that there is the hinge at, well, you know that Romans 1, universal sinfulness,

Romans 2, the Jewish condition, Romans 3, we are all sinners, all have fallen short,

Jew and Gentile, and then the hinge text there, once you've established universal sinfulness, is being justified.

So now we enter into justification. So 3 and 4, into this verse at the beginning of 5, the method of justification, faith, not by works,

Abraham was justified by faith, he was not justified by works. Example that shows the consistency of what

Paul says, what James says, is in regards to Isaac, the offering of Isaac, there's consistency between both.

Anyone who tries, everyone who tries to create a contradiction between James and Paul only demonstrates they don't know enough about either one of them.

Or they just absolutely have no desire to see the harmony.

Well, somebody must have heard. So what does that mean?

What? So I'm live now, but I wasn't before.

Look, YouTube has changed its settings, and it's being really herky -jerky in how it's picking up our connection.

So it looks like the intro of the show, and as you began to it, didn't stream at all. It just sat there and spun.

And then when I disconnected and I reconnected, boom, you were live for everybody.

So everybody's watching and listening to us do this. And go ahead and start over. So you'll have to edit it together later on and put a start on it?

I'll just upload the backup, because we have been recording. So do we just start from the top, or what?

I would just go ahead and start from the top. Okay. Right now, just let it fly, this is live, and it's

YouTube. They're experimenting with too many things! All right. Well, welcome to The Dividing Line, folks.

We are going to be taking phone calls, I hope, a little bit later in the program at 877 -753 -3341.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, but I have one item to address beforehand, and so you might be on hold for a little while, but if you'd like to call in, that'd be great.

877 -753 -3341. And we began debating in August of 1990.

We're going to be coming up on 30 years of ministry now, 30 years of debate ministry.

The ministry came into existence in 1983, so we're not too far away from coming up on 40 years for that.

But be that as it may, one of the earlier debates that I did was with Dr. Mitchell Pacwa, a

Jesuit priest. We have the audio available.

We don't have the video, even though it was videotaped. We were never provided with those videotapes. But we debated justification, and one of the key texts that we looked at was

Romans chapter 5, verse 1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have received or obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand and we rejoice or we boast in the hope of the glory of God, exult in the hope of the glory of God.

And, of course, the key issue is the nature of justification as laid out by the apostle

Paul here. Some people try to create a contradiction between Paul and James at this point.

Anyone who creates that kind of a contradiction is only demonstrating that they don't know enough about either

Paul or James. I'll be perfectly honest with that point. It is not difficult to recognize what

James and Paul are saying in their respective contexts, and anyone who attempts to say that there is a fundamental contradiction between them has their own axe to grind, because you can very fairly allow

Paul to speak for himself and James to speak for himself, and they're saying the same thing. I demonstrated that,

I think, rather fully a number of years ago in a book called The God Who Justifies. But anyway, the point is in Romans 5, 1, the act of justification, first of all, something that is done to us, therefore having been justified, and then it is something that we look back upon.

It is not something we are hoping to obtain in the future. Therefore, having been justified, we have peace with God.

Now, there's a textual variant there. It's one letter difference, difference between ekomen and ekomen, which, by the way, if you were to adopt all the craze of utilizing modern

Greek pronunciation, wouldn't sound any different. But it's a difference between an omicron and an omega.

It's a difference between the indicative and the subjunctive. Even if you took it in the subjunctive, it would be an exhortation, let us have peace with God.

The vast majority of folks recognize that in Paul's theology, the indicative is what should be read here.

We have peace with God because justification has already taken place.

Otherwise, what he's saying is because justification has already taken place, let us enjoy the peace which we have.

There's really not much of a difference between the two. The point is that justification is something we look back upon, and it is something that has been accomplished by faith.

And so, you're aware of the solas of the Reformation, you're aware of sola fide, that faith alone saves, and of course, that in Reformed theology, that saving faith is never alone, that it is not an alone faith, it is a faith that in Reformed theology is accompanied with all the other things that God does when he regenerates an individual and he brings a person to spiritual life.

This is why, with all due respect to my Arminian and Synergist brothers, you all have a tremendous difficulty in maintaining consistency in fighting against the sacramental system of Rome because you and Rome are both

Synergists. And you end up struggling with this issue of faith when you turn it into the autonomous act of man rather than the gift of God that is one of the many things the

Spirit of God does when he brings about regeneration. Once you understand

Paul's doctrine here, then you can understand having been justified by faith, you can say it is only by faith, but that faith is never alone without ever violating sola fide.

This is where the anti -lordship people have not only completely misrepresented what sola fide means, but have completely missed the point of the gospel itself.

It is God's intention that we be conformed to the image of Christ, that's what he's doing in us. That's the whole purpose of all of this.

And so, the empty hand of faith is the only way of receiving that righteousness, yes, but it is not faith only that God works within us.

And so, repentance is described as the gift of God, faith is the gift of God.

He is accomplishing his will and conforming us to the image of Jesus Christ. It's all the work of God.

And justification, however, which once you are proclaimed just, once God justifies you, you are in right relationship with him on the basis of what someone else has done in your behalf.

That is, your sins imputed to Christ, his righteousness imputed to you, you stand before him in his presence.

Now, obviously, those who are into the new perspective on Paul, some of them are concerned enough about this to at least try to get to the end point and say that they can get you the righteousness of God by a little different methodology.

But that is a whole another area we won't get into today. You can go back and listen to some of the things we've done in the past on N .T.

Wright and people related there, too. Now, why do I mention Romans 5 .1?

Because last night, and I don't want to, I'm not trying to steal all the thunder from you getting to watch this when it's available, but I did another

Church History segment for Apologia Studios, and we are going very slowly.

We're sort of just doing some reading in these early Church Fathers. We'll pick up the pace later on once there's a much larger amount of literature to be looking at.

But in working through what's called First Clement, which is a poor title, it's a very poor title, we're talking about the, traditionally, the first epistle written by Clement to the

Corinthians. Actually, it is an epistle written by the Church at Rome to the

Church at Corinth, traditionally a scribe to Clement. Now, if Clement's name is to be attached to it appropriately, we would understand, in light of the situation in Church history, that Clement was probably a scribe or one of the elders.

There was a multiplicity of elders in the early

Church in Rome, and there was no what's called monarchical episcopate until about 140

AD. So even the Roman Church did not believe that it needed to have a singular successor to Peter or anything along those lines.

They had a plurality of elders. And so what you have is an epistle being written by one church to another church.

And what is fascinating is that there is discussion. I was not aware until recently that there is discussion about when this was written.

Traditionally, it's placed at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, so around AD 95, which is very close to the end of what would be

John's life. So very close to the apostolic period. But there are some who argue, and it's based upon a text,

I won't go into it right now, but there's a text in the letter that talks about the high priests and the offerings, and it does so in the present tense, which could be written later on.

I can see a context, but it sounds a lot like Hebrews, and it sounds like the temple's still in existence.

Could it be that early? Could it be pre -70? That would be very, very early.

There are people that argue that, and if you want to see what the arguments look like on that, Kenneth Gentry addresses this in his book

Before Jerusalem Fell, and so you can see how people line up in regards to that.

It's a very early letter, and it is fascinating to realize that, and I'll just mention this pastorally for my fellow elders, here we have clear evidence that what church in the

New Testament received more apostolic correction than Corinth did?

None that I can think of, as far as just amount of material. And yet, 20 to 50 years later, they're still a mess.

According to this epistle, one, as it said, one or two men had successfully brought about a rebellion whereby all the presbyters, all the elders of the church, had been kicked out.

Now, that means those one or two people had to get a bunch of other people to cooperate with them, obviously, as well.

But Corinth is still a mess, and why do

I say that pastorally? Well, because we often hear people saying, oh, don't you wish we were back in the early church when the apostles were around?

Every time I hear something they said, I'm like, not been reading much in the New Testament recently, have you?

They had problems. They had lots of problems in the early church. And so, this epistle is written as a strong corrective, as a strong exhortation to unity.

I won't go into it right now, but the idea of a divided church was a absolute scandal in the mind of the early church, just a scandal.

And we live in a different context now, but we should be aware of how much of a scandal that was in the early church.

And that would be one good thing that we would want to have is a kind of unity.

Obviously, there's true unity based upon truth, and then there's other kinds of unity not really based upon truth at all.

But in the process of reading through this with the folks last evening, I ran across this text again, of course, had marked it almost 40 years ago in this particular book that I'm using.

And I wanted to just go over it, and then we'll go to our phone calls, because I think it is useful and helpful if we in the modern day are aware of those who came before us.

I realize this is not the standard way of the

American church to be thinking about those who came before us, or to be trying to learn from those who came before us, or even to emphasize the connection that we have to those who came before us.

But I think that's to our detriment, especially because of the fact that the parallels that exist between the early church in the first 300 years of its existence, and the persecution it experienced, and what we are facing, are greater than almost any other time in history.

In other words, what Rome was demanding of the church is very similar to what our culture is now demanding of us, or what the

Chinese government is demanding of Chinese Christians, or North Korea, or wherever else it might be.

And so, we only show ourselves to be arrogant when we go, well, okay, so those people back then were believers, and they were indwelt by the

Spirit of God, but you know, we don't have to worry about how they handled it. I'm not saying that they did everything exactly right, but if you confess that they were

Spirit -filled believers, which all believers are, it might be wise on our part to go, hmm,

I wonder how previous generations of Christians handled some of the same things that we are handling, and that we are facing.

So again, the pinch of incense upon the altar issue comes up yet once again.

But having said all of that, this is the section, this is in the English chapter 32 of Clement's Epistle to the

Corinthians, or the Epistle of Rome to the Corinthians. And I'll just go ahead and read the whole thing.

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him.

For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God, and from him also was descended our

Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him arose kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah, kings of Judah, the whole screen jumped, nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.

All these therefore, were highly honored and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of his will.

Oh, I wasn't expecting you to put that up there, but that's all right. And we too, being called by his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which we have wrought in of heart, but by that faith through which from the beginning

Almighty God has justified all men to whom be glory forever and ever.

Amen. Now, you can see why this is relevant. And we too, being called by his will in Christ Jesus.

I didn't do a search, I should have. And I can do a search, actually. Might even do it during a phone call.

But this epistle repeatedly makes reference to the elect of God, to being called of God.

It is a constant theme. Now, if this is a church at Rome writing between 20 and 50 years after receiving

Paul's epistle to them, that makes sense, because that's what Romans does too.

You would think, you know, realize, they wouldn't have the entire New Testament. In fact, they'd only have, well, the church at Rome would have more than almost anybody else would have, for the obvious reason of the communi - it was the communications hub of the entire empire.

And so, there would be more probability of collections being made of the early

New Testament books at Rome than any place else. Ephesus would be a likely place as well. These major commerce centers would be the key areas, but Rome most especially.

But still, there'd be things they didn't have yet, but I'm sure they spent a lot of time with Romans.

And as such, there's a lot in Romans about the elect, about calling. You got

Romans 8 and 9 in Romans. Sort of hard to avoid that one. And you can see that kind of language then throughout what is being said.

Now, I want to go over to the Greek of this, and since you've got it up, let's blow it up here.

Except having blown it up, there it is. So, all of these were honored or glorified and exalted not through Auton, Haton, Aragon.

Their own works, same terminology that Paul uses in Romans, or their own righteous practices which they worked, but through his, to Thalmatos autu, which is the same language you have in 1

Corinthians chapter 1, where we have been united to Christ by his will. Through his will, and then the key text, and therefore, we, through his will in Christ Jesus, clathentes, have been called ou di haoton dikaumatha.

So, not through ourselves being justified, neither through our own sophias, wisdom, souneseos, understanding, use of bios, godliness, or works which we have worked in holiness of heart.

So, does that sound familiar? I mean, this sounds like Titus 3, this sounds like Romans 3, 4, and 5, borrowing a lot of the same language, especially seeing sophias here.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the author has seen 1

Corinthians as well, because he's borrowing a lot of the same language. Which would make sense, because he's writing to the church at Corinth, so there would have been correspondence between the two churches before.

So, this person is very, very familiar with Pauline language. But, so you have not through, we are not justified by means of these, ala diates pisteos, but through faith.

Now, faith has the article here, it is articular. And so, some translations, in fact, the translation

I was reading before said, but by that faith through which from the beginning

Almighty God has justified all men. So, they're understanding the article here, ala diates pisteos, to be but through that faith, and then with the repetition of dia here, through which all those from the age the

Almighty God has justified. So, their understanding is that the syntax would indicate that the emphasis here is upon the fact that justification has always been by faith, that the

Almighty God has always, from the ages, justified on the basis of faith.

To whom be glory forever and ever, or from the age of the ages.

Amen, is what you have here. So, why bring this up?

Well, it's fascinating to see an extra -biblical reference, possibly one of the earliest writings,

Christian writings, we have outside the New Testament. Especially if it's as early as pre -70, then it definitely is one of the earliest writings we have outside the

New Testament, and it is soaked in biblical language. We're always told, well, nobody believed in that justification stuff until Martin Luther came along.

Well, Martin Luther was born approximately 1400 years after this was written.

So, no, this is much earlier than that. Does this belief become encrusted with other things and generations that would follow this?

Yes, it does. That's why you need a Reformation. But here you have a very primitive assertion, not by all this stuff, but by faith.

And it's the same faith by which everyone from the ages, the

Almighty God has justified, that's how they've always been justified. This is

Clement, chapter 32, right at the end of chapter 32 of his epistle to, of the epistle of the church at Rome to the church at Corinth.

So, just one of many texts that we can look at and that are important to us in our study of of scripture.

Now, why did this go to that? I don't know why it went to that, but let's see what we've got here. Let's see if good old, what are we gonna do when flash goes away?

Oh, no. Okay. Alrighty, looking at the full phone lines here,

I suppose I need to be able to hear these folks. I can't really interpret what's being said just by looking through the window at Rich, so let's talk to Peter in California.

Hi, Peter. Hello, Dr. White. Hello. I just had a question about Sola Scriptura, where you asked for something that Jesus or the

Apostles said that's not recorded in scripture that we all agree on. And after I thought of the question,

I heard you also added a qualifier about that's been dogmatized. That was in the debate with Mitchell Pacwa, so it was in the context of the claims of Roman Catholicism to have an oral tradition.

And so I asked... I was wondering, where in that challenge would you put the Apostle, like,

Peter, saying, I'm not worthy to die in the same manner as my Lord? I don't understand the question.

Well, I don't know if... I actually haven't read the Book of Martyrs. Sorry if it's noisy on this thing.

I don't think that statement from Peter is in scripture, is it? No, but yeah, but we all agree that Peter said it, even though it's not...

I don't know that he said it. Do you know that he said it? Oh, it's passed around Protestant churches as traditions.

So? I don't... that's irrelevant. I don't know that he said it, and it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Okay. Well, could I move on to another question? If I were to say, if I were to try to bind someone's conscience and say this is an extra biblical revelation, okay, but I've never heard anyone do that,

I certainly wouldn't do it, so I don't get it. Oh yeah, it doesn't really have to do with the

Gospel. No, it doesn't. Could I squeeze in another question? Okay.

About the BDOT challenge. I'm wondering how a

Muslim might respond to pointing out that Jesus said that if I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid, but there's one who testifies for me, his testimony is valid, and then combine that with the verses where it says, a voice came from heaven saying, this is my son whom

I love, listen to him. Would that kind of answer the BDOT challenge? Well, the context of the first statement of Jesus is that he is saying that by God's law, the testimony of—it requires testimony of two or three witnesses, and he is providing those witnesses, both between the

Father as well as the works that he has done. So that's the context that is found there.

It's a little bit of a different context than the voice from heaven in Matthew 3 and the other accounts of the baptism of Jesus.

So I guess my suggestion is always to get into the immediate context of any passage with a

Muslim, just simply so that maybe they'll read a little bit more of the Gospels, because most of them don't read much of the

Gospels, and so that's always a good thing to do. But certainly that testimony of those who heard the voice and the testimony of the

Father from heaven would be relevant, yes. Okay. Thank you.

All right, thanks, Peter. All right, bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341, let's talk with Courtney.

Hi, Courtney. Hey, Dr. White, how you doing? Good. Hey, God bless you,

I've been listening to you since maybe 2015, felt a little guilty, man, by going on Sermon Audio and listening to all this information and not doing anything, man.

So I did buy King James, Only Controversy, and later this week

I want to at least donate to the travel fund. Well, there you go, we definitely need folks to be able to do that, that's how we get to where we're going.

Appreciate it, thank you. Most definitely. So my question today is, basically, I had a guy on the workroom floor approach me yesterday, and he asked me what

I believed, and then it went into, how could I believe in a God that would create a universe, knowing that it would fail, you know,

Satan falling, Adam and Eve falling, and setting them up, basically. And he said it doesn't make any sense to him, and he won't take a side, he doesn't have a worldview, he's claiming to be an atheist.

I'm like, yeah, whatever. And then another thing that annoyed me was the ignorance of biblical literature, basically using interpolation to find contradictions in scripture, and he sent me some videos from YouTube that grossly misrepresented the

Bible narrative, so I didn't even know where to start. But in my head, listening to him,

I'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 18, you know, I'm like, oh, here we go, but I want to at least show love and hear a mouth.

So my question is, how would you answer these questions, and what resources do you have on the subject?

Yeah, well, there's a lot of stuff there. When people attempt to do the contradiction route,

I'm certainly willing to try to work with them when they provide specifics.

In my experience, 99 .5 % of the people who raise the issue do not know anything about the context of the

Bible, they don't know anything about the original languages of the Bible, they don't know anything about how to interpret the Bible, the different kinds of literature in the

Bible. And unfortunately, the vast majority of Christians don't know those things either, and that's why a lot of those conversations never really end up getting where they need to go.

So how to answer contradictions depends on which one is being raised, and we have dealt on this program over the decades we've been doing it with dozens and dozens, hundreds, thousands of alleged contradictions, often within the context of, for example,

Michael Laicona's recent book, where he would say that Mark was wrong in regards to certain geographical issues in the

Galilee region, and so we went through stuff like that, and we often, well, just last week went through 15 alleged problems with the

Bible from a list that was provided. We've done that for years, and so, you know, there are entire books that, you know, the

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties does things like that, there's Haley's Book of Bible Contradictions or whatever,

I forget what that one was called. But there's, you know, in essence, the best way to deal with that is not to study supposed contradictions as it is to study real biblical history and biblical hermeneutics, because in the vast majority of alleged contradictions, it's simply a matter of not understanding what the text is saying.

And so, that's why when people have asked me over the years, you know, what were the most important classes you took in Bible college and seminary to enable you to do

Christian apologetics? It's pretty simple. Church history and Greek. The Church history, because the history of the

Church is almost always misrepresented, and very few Christians know much about the history of the Church, so as to be able to provide a response.

And then the other thing, of course, knowing the original languages. Hebrew is great, too, but the vast majority of alleged contradictions are focused upon the

New Testament, which was written in Greek, and that is one great advantage of being able to read that language, is that very often, it is a contradiction of ignorance.

It's assuming the English text is saying something that the underlying Greek text isn't. Or, for example, when the

Mormon missionaries, this is one of the first contradictions allegedly, one of the first contradictions pointed out to me, was when you compare

Acts chapter 9 with Acts chapter 22, you have in the King James version of the

Bible, anyways, a contradiction, because it is said that the men who were traveling with Paul, in one place they heard the voice, and in the other place, they didn't hear the voice.

And so, you know, if all you've got is the King James, it sounds like there's a contradiction there, not like it's an overly important point, but that's what they're attempting to communicate.

And so, that's why I went through alleged contradictions in Letters to a

Mormon Elder, went through that one rather fully, did the same thing in my book Scripture Alone, basically looking at categories of alleged contradictions, rather than trying to do, you know, all the individual stuff.

But you started by saying that this individual had said stuff like, why would, you know, I just don't know how

God would create a universe that's going to go wrong, and so on and so forth. So, there is a presupposition going on in the person's argumentation, and that presupposition has to be addressed first, or you're just wasting your time in talking about the alleged issues of contradiction, because their presuppositions are going to keep them from hearing anything you're saying about everything else.

And so, obviously, challenging the person by saying, well, wait a minute, you're saying that God created the universe, it all went wrong.

What if God created the universe, and this is what he intends, he is working out his will, he's provided redemption from the evil of this universe, and he's going to be glorified in it all at the end?

Have you ever considered that as a possibility? And secondly, what is your alternative?

If you are an atheist, you do have a worldview. They try to hide it, they don't want to have to defend it, but they have a worldview, and they are borrowing from the

Christian worldview to hold theirs together. So, if they're going to talk about evil, where did you get the idea of evil from?

If we are nothing but stardust, if we are nothing but, because in the current cosmology, anything that exists on this planet came from other stars.

Stars exploding, stars forming, all the elements, everything that is a part of this planet came from stardust, and has been organized by some utterly unobserved and unimaginable process into the complicated living organisms that we have today, but that doesn't change the fact that we are simply chemical reactions amongst bags of moist stardust.

And moist bags of stardust, or as, since I'm a

Trekkie, I'll use the famous line that came out of one of the Next Generation episodes, ugly bags of mostly water.

Since we are ugly bags of mostly water, what ugly bags of mostly water do to other ugly bags of mostly water is not a moral issue.

There is no morality. You're just stardust bumping into other stardust. Who can say that anything's wrong?

Who's to say that what Mao did was wrong, or what Stalin did was wrong? There's, there's, it's all, the only, the only thing that they're proving by making that kind of argument is that they're made in the image of God, they know that there is a moral right and wrong, they're borrowing from our worldview to then argue against our worldview, which is an incoherent action to take

So this will be seen very, very clearly in a couple weeks when

Pastor Jeff Durbin, my fellow pastor at Apologia Church, and I will be debating two atheists in Salt Lake City, and you will see exactly how this happens, because one of the two atheists is a medical doctor, he's a brilliant man, he's doing wonderful work in prosthetic limbs, and in doing that, he is stealing from our worldview constantly.

All of his work is based upon the coherence that is provided by our worldview, not by his worldview, and that will become a central aspect of the discussion,

I assure you, it's, it's just, it's, that's what's going to happen. So I'll be tuned in for that.

Yeah, well, and if you'd like to see how this works, then I debated, the first debate that I did with Dan Barker at the

University of Illinois a number of years ago would be something you'd want to watch on YouTube. You'll also want to watch the three -on -three debate that Saiten Bruggenkate, Jeff Durbin, and the pastor of the church they were at did against three atheists at a

Bonson convention about, I don't know, three or four years ago. That's available on YouTube. I've seen that one.

Okay, so you've seen that one, so you've seen how that... I've seen most of them. Yeah, I've seen that too, and I sent them one of you, and I think it's to Janice on free will, and what's the other one?

It was free will and predestination. Yeah, but St. Janice is a

Roman Catholic, so... Right, because, well, that kind of was in our conversation. It was a 40 -minute convo of just everything, but I kind of feel vindicated, because some of those points you made about him being on borough capital,

I made that to him, and I said, please, I position, and then he got back on his feet. So I had him cornered, but the conversation ended at you know, it's whatever on that part.

It was no hate, no cussing out or anything, but I'm like, you don't see it. So I just went home and I prayed for him, but thank you for saying what you said, because I did say that.

I did say some of those points. Okay, good, good, Courtney. Well, keep praying for him, and listen to that debate.

There's a number of good books available, Taking Every Thought Captive, Greg Bonson's material, highly recommend it for you.

And Greg, is it Pratt? I think it's P -R -A -T -T. There's a blue book.

I think it's called Every Thought Captive or something like that. Anyways, I can see the cover. I don't have it here right now, but there are some good books available out there, too.

Courtney, thank you. We got other folks got to sneak in. We'll talk to you later. Thanks. God bless you. Take care. All right. God bless.

Bye -bye. All right, let's keep it at these three calls if we can. Let's talk to John.

Hi, John. Hey, Dr. White, how's it going, buddy? Doing good. All right, great.

I just had a couple quick questions. 1 Corinthians 12, 31, it's very odd to me, but eagerly desire the greater gift.

It sounds like an addition to the sentence before that. I don't know if you know exactly what

I'm referring to, but... Well, the sentence before that is the lengthy discussion of the fact that there are different kinds of gifts, and God has set or appointed in the

Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then dunamis, working of miracles, then charismata, hiamaton, gifts of healings, helps or assistances, administration, kinds of glosson tongues, and then after that, all are not apostles, are they?

And Paul uses may here because the answer is supposed to be no.

All are not apostles, teachers, all are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healing, all don't speak with tongues, do they?

There's an important point right there, because there are certain theologies that say, well, yes, actually, everybody does, but the answer to scripture is no, they don't.

All do not interpret, do they? And then the section that you're talking about is, but be earnest, earnestly seek ta charismata ta maizana, so the greater gifts.

And I would... Are you telling us to do that? Yes. Uh -huh. Okay. It just seemed weird, it seemed almost as if he was saying, but these people also earn or eagerly desire greater gifts, and then he goes on, but I will show you a way that is beyond, or that is better.

Well, I would think that the greater gifts is, you know, some people will put a paragraph here and make a break, and I show you still a more excellent way, but...

The greater gifts are actually what he's going into now. That is quite possible. Now, I can't prove that, it could be possible that there is a gradation of the gifts above, and that he's saying that some are more important than others, and so obviously the reality that there are still apostles, when

Paul is writing, should be more important to people than the lesser gifts, that's a possibility, but it's also possible that this is a transitionary statement into, yeah, the way of love is greater than all of those things.

I feel like it is, too. I think people get caught up on the numbers, not remembering that they were not there. Oh yeah, that's true.

There's no question about that. There weren't any numbers, weren't any chapter divisions, paragraph divisions, or anything else, just one long line of capital letters, which when people try to read those manuscripts, they're like, what in the world is that?

So, but yeah, that's a possibility as well. I mean, we have to be really careful, because I think you have to be careful, especially in this section, because sometimes people come up with interpretations, and then they become really dogmatically wedded to them.

They are, yeah, the charismatic movement. Well, and the cessationists can be, too.

You've got to be, the point is that I think this is an approach with humility, and very often they're not approached with humility.

Most of the time they're approached with tradition, whatever you were. Yeah, tradition, but you can be very proud of your traditions, too.

I think the point is that when we give an interpretation of a text, then we need to be, if it's possible that the language would allow another way of connecting it, then we need to allow that, and we need to admit that.

A lot of people just are not willing to do that, and when they hear somebody doing it, oh, you're being wishy -washy, or you're being squishy, or you're not, no.

The reality is, you know, I've mentioned this a number of times over the years, but I remember a conversation I had after church one night decades ago with a friend who was very, very sharp, learning

Greek language, etc., etc., and he had been having a conversation with a cultist about a text, and the cultist had given an interpretation.

He's like, I don't know how to get around this interpretation, and I said, well, you can't.

It's possible. In that particular sentence, it is possible to understand it that way, and he's like, but that can't be, and it's like, no.

The ultimate justification of God's truth is found in the fullness of God's truth.

Any particular verse can be twisted one way or another. Sometimes it's twisting, sometimes it could legitimately be understood another way, but not when taken with the entirety of Scripture.

People want to have the fast, easy, dirty, single verse, Greek is my nuclear bomb,

I can get rid of any misinterpretation idea. It doesn't work that way. That's just not appropriate, and it ends up creating a lot of the heat that we see,

I think, in much of the online argumentation that takes place. Oh yeah, especially online.

All right, thanks, John. Yes, I had one more question, if you've got time. 1 Corinthians 13 .10,

which is perfect when that comes? Well, that's the return of Christ.

I believe that that is the end time, yeah.

Everything partial will be done away when Christ returns. So I know some people interpret that as the completion of the canon, that's a very common argument.

Man, that's really hard to read out of that text. That seems to be something that's read into the text.

It's not impossible, but it would be really, really, really hard to defend that,

I think, against a... Also, when you take into account the rest of Scripture... I'm sorry, all of a sudden, I can't really hear you real well,

John. Oh, sorry. Okay, yeah, there you go. Anyway, I appreciate it, man,

I appreciate it. Great, it's always good to talk to you. All right, thanks, John. I hope YouTube straightens it up for you.

Okay, thanks, all right, bye -bye. Are we having YouTube issues? No. Oh, okay, all right.

Well, everything's fine down here. How are you? Yeah, okay.

All right, Catherine. Hello, Catherine. Hi, how are you?

Good, except that the call screener said you're in Canada. I know, don't get me started.

Okay, all right, so... Yeah, my question is, basically, how do you address leadership when you have concerns of them teaching things that are unbiblical, or basically a low view of God?

I attended an evangelical missionary church of Canada for 14 years, and it was just within the last eight months that I came to understand

Calvinism and limited atonement, and I was watching one of your old Radio Free Geneva's, and once I came to that determination,

I realized I couldn't attend that church anymore, as they hold to more Arminian perspective and start attending a

Reformed Baptist church. But they hold something called Freedom Session, which is a healing ministry to help people with anxiety, depression, or for a lot of women who come to Christ but have had abortions, and the pain that comes from that.

And one of the things that they made us read was called, this book called, A Jesus -Shaped Life, and while reading it,

I got so angry, because it was a very, very low view of God. They basically said that Jesus was really close to God, that He only used

His power on behalf of others, and that He did all these miracles, so of course everybody wants to follow

Jesus. And also at one point was talking about healing, and how all these miraculous healings happen in their church, and that anyone who wasn't healed was just because they didn't have enough faith, and they didn't really know how to use the authority of Jesus' power good enough.

And I was just amazed by how, really,

I found it was just disturbing. And so when we came to the group session that we were, as facilitators, supposed to talk about this book,

I thought, okay, I'm not the only one who had just seen this, but everyone in the group, and there's about 30, loves the book, and the leadership were promoting this book.

And I'm just like, am I just crazy? Am I just being cynical? And so I went back to the elders at my church, and some of the deacons as well, and I showed them this book, and I said, can you read a bit of it?

Am I just being cynical? And they saw all the concerns and more than I did.

So it's been really put on my heart that I should talk to the leadership. Okay, so the leadership...

I'm a little confused as to what the leadership is, because it sounded like, when you first presented it, it sounded like this is the leadership in your church.

No, not my church, the Reformed Baptist Church of this Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada.

Okay, okay. So the leadership is... so you have the pastor who leads the whole healing ministry, and then underneath that there's the lady who runs

Freedom Session, and they work together, and it's them that we're seeing promoting this book, as well as...

I don't know, I found it a little confusing how they said we could disciple non -believers, where I'm like, when they need the

Holy Spirit dwelling within them and their heart to be unhardened, to be able to hear and be discipled too.

Yeah, that is sort of a first step. I'm looking at the book here, I don't know anything about Bob Rognlein, is that how it is?

I think it's Roglin, I could be wrong too. Roglin? Okay, maybe the N is silent, I don't know. But I don't know anything about him,

I don't know anything about the book, I apologize for that, but yeah, it's totally different when you're talking about the leadership of your own church over against what sounds...

is this a parachurch ministry, or is it underneath this other church it used to be a part of? No, it's completely separate.

It's just Freedom Session originally came from Vancouver by Ken Dyke, and then now it's held in multiple different churches across Canada, as well as it's starting now to just go into the

States, but this used to be my old home church that I attended for 14 years.

Can anything good come out of Canada is really the question. Well, I mean, look at our

Prime Minister. Actually, I was just waiting for Syton Bruggencate to say something, but anyway, no.

Well, yeah, okay, a couple things. I can't comment on the book because I don't know where it's coming from,

I don't know what the issues are. If it is in any way, shape, or form talking about discipling people who have not been called to repentance and faith, that in and of itself is problematic.

There's a lot of people who think that that can be done incrementally, that you sort of get people to like Jesus and then eventually deal with the sin and discipleship thing.

That's not how the Apostles ever, ever, ever did it. They recognized that, man, is it enmity with God?

Jesus taught this, Paul taught this, it's biblical, but a lot of people shy away from it because it's countercultural today.

So maybe that's where it's coming from, I don't know. If this is not a church, then sitting down with someone and presenting a biblical understanding of anthropology, of what man is, the rebellion of sin, the need to submit to Christ, to have the

Holy Spirit understand spiritual truths, whatever else it might be, might be something that you want to invest time in, and it might not.

It depends on how long you've been associated with someone. It simply could be that from the beginning, the organization has been based upon less -than -biblical foundations and trying to change it now might just be the recipe for a lot of heartache and frustration for you, to be perfectly honest with you.

Whatever the situation is, and whatever you decide to do, being relatively new to the faith, to the understanding of Reformed faith, you probably have heard me talk about the cage stage before, and so whatever you do, you want to do so very prayerfully and asking that the

Lord would give you a true spirit of gentleness and grace in whoever you speak to about these things, recognizing that God opened your eyes to the truth of his sovereignty and your deadness and sin and your nature as his creature in his own way, and that you can't tell him he's got to do it in the same way for everybody else at the same time, basically, is what

I would say. And so, just make sure that however, whatever kind of a discussion you have, a letter that you might write, sitting with somebody over coffee, whatever it is, just soak that time in prayer and seek to be a channel of grace, even as you stand for God's truth in that situation.

That's always, I think, the best advice to have in that type of a situation.

But, you know, I'd ask my elders, do you think it's even worth making the attempt, or is this just a clear indication that this is not something that I can be associated with in the future?

So, without knowing the specifics, I can only get that specific in my response.

Yeah, it was kind of hard, because I mean, a lot of these people at the

Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada I've known since I was really young, like, I'm talking nine years old, when

I first moved from the East Coast over to the West Coast. And it just feels like there's now been, within the last year, a switch in the

Church, and my parents, who also have gone there, and my mom, I'm the one who introduced her to Calvinism and is now on board, too, because I'm definitely still in the cage phase.

But they were also saying, yeah, where's the Gospel being? And they will spend most of the sermons just trying to get the non -believers, but not giving the meat and potatoes to the believers who've already been there and need more.

And I mean, going from that then to a Reformed Baptist Church was like night and day, in the most amazing way possible.

But it's just concerning, since I'm like, I know these senior pastors, I've known them and I've talked to them and sat down with them for multiple times, and I find it funny, it's just the last year that there's been this switch, and it's within this last year they started implementing this book in all the ministries in the

Church. And so that's why I'm like, it's just heartbreaking, obviously. Well, I hate to say it,

I mean, obviously there's lots of liberal churches in Canada. Yeah, there's lots. And those that had not been openly liberal are still deeply influenced by the culture, and the culture has moved left.

And a lot of us have been sitting around going, what happened in 2018? Something did happen in 2018.

There was a switch that was flipped someplace, and you're not the only one going, hey, something has changed.

And that's happening in the States as well. It really is. Well, if you say anything here in Canada, you're pretty much looking at getting arrested.

Oh, well, I know. We still have the First Amendment. I'm not sure how much longer we're going to have it.

But yeah, I get it. I mean, you've got people in the

UK being arrested for misgendering somebody on Twitter.

I mean, this is frightening. We need to push back against it, but also be prepared that if the

Lord gives the West over to this kind of insanity, the West ain't going to last very long before something else takes its place.

So let's be ready to step in and do the right thing, I suppose. But yeah, whatever you do, just make sure to be very gracious as to how you approach it.

And talk to your elders and say, do you think this is worth doing since I have these connections? I've known these people for years and years and years.

It might be just simply for you to find out what did happen, what has been the influences. That might be something worthwhile just for you to understand, too.

But without knowing the specifics, that's about the best I can do for you. OK? OK. Sounds good.

All right. Thanks, Catherine. All right. Thanks for calling. All right. Bye -bye. So we lost our last caller, huh?

Oh, man. Well, actually, we got started at six minutes after. So we're pretty close on there.

Wasn't too bad. So I'm noticing after all the talking yesterday and then teaching last night, now this morning,

I'm heading toward the Barry White sound. Could do a little bit of work on XM Radio, listening to Barry White.

I did appreciate, I'll just mention briefly, Courtney making reference to the fact that he was looking at donating to the

Travel Fund. We've got lots of traveling coming up, and that's very, very helpful.

Of course, General Fund needs to go on, too. That's what keeps these lights on and keeps Rich over there banging on YouTube, trying to get the thing going.

And of course, prayer for all the work that's coming up in Salt Lake City.

The next immediate thing will be the... See, I'm not saying three debates, because I'm not doing three debates.

I'm doing two debates and a dialogue, but it's sort of a similar thing.

I get it up there in Salt Lake City. On consecutive nights, I've never done anything like this before, and I blame

Jason Wallace. Wallace is a Scottish name, and we all know what

William Wallace was like. I mean, he was a maniac.

Have you watched Braveheart? I've watched Braveheart many times. Do you remember that scene where his wife's been killed, and so he comes into the village on the horse, and the

British soldier comes up and slow motion grabs hold of his horse, and he's looking down at him.

He's got his hands up and then hits him with the thing. I think that's what

Jason looks like when he does sermon prep once in a while. Right as he... Wham! That type of thing.

So that's what... I wonder if Jason's going to watch this. So Jason sort of figures that I have...

Because then he's going to have me preach the next morning after doing these three nights. I don't know what he's expecting, but if you've been to the

OPC church, the pulpit is up about seven or eight stairs, and so if I fall out of there, you're done.

They actually had someone pass out up there after preaching, and so getting them down the stairs is interesting.

So anyhow, good thing I've overcome my fear of heights. Yes, very much so.

I was never overly nervous, but don't get me talking about how much stuff there is in the pulpit, because that...

I could never have been a Presbyterian. No, no, it has nothing to do with it. No. The Lutheran pulpit in Germany was significantly higher than Jason's is, but anyways, we've got lots going on up there, and then like I said, one day to pack and head to Australia to see all my friends down under in Sydney and in Melbourne.

I am a little worried about that, because the Rugby World Cup is going to be going on, and so I don't know if you remember, but I was at David's church years ago when the

World Cup was on, and we had to move the time of service, because no one would show up, because Australia was playing

New Zealand, and so once the haka starts, they ain't going to care what

I'm talking about. Some people have no idea what I just said, but people down there know exactly what

I just said. So anyway, we've got that coming up and the debates in London, so we need your support for those things.

And don't forget, of course, you know, guys, the greatest gift you could get for your wife would be to take her on the cruise next year to Israel and to Rome and to Athens and to Ephesus.

I mean, guys, just think of, I mean, talk about winning points.

It would be awesome, wouldn't it? And ladies, that hard -working man in your life, wouldn't that be an awesome gift for him too?

Now I just want to go, Alaska. No, no, no, no, no. Ephesus.

Ephesus. Can we get Mike to do that? Just Ephesus.

Athens. You can't do it with Tel Aviv. It doesn't really work all that well, but I'm sure we'll be visiting

Tel Aviv too. But don't forget the cruise September 2020 coming up.

That's going to be really, really exciting. So anyways, thanks for watching the program today. We'll be back with you next week,