Will Kinney

10 views

August 9, 2011

Well, Will Kinney got his 15 minutes of fame today…ok, 12 minutes, 19 seconds to be exact. I started off the program, explained the situation relating to Erasmus’ problems in accurately obtaining the text of the book of Revelation, went over what The King James Only Controversy says on the issue (including the footnotes containing relevant information), and then played Mr. Kinney’s comments from the video linked below. Then I brought Mr. Kinney on, and…well, you just have to listen for yourself. Only rarely do you encounter this level of religiously induced irrationality. I have seen it often in Muslims (Osama Abdullah, Nadir Ahmed, Ehteshaam Gulam), Mormons (Stan Barker, Louis Midgley, Kerry Shirts), Roman Catholics (Art Sippo) and yes, even atheists (atheism can become tremendously religious in nature). But KJV Onlyism seems to attract these kinds of folks. Just look at the likes of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Steve Anderson and now Will Kinney. An amazing exchange with a man who simply refuses to acknowledge facts and logic. A sad insight into the strange, circular world of cultic King James Onlyism. After we had enough of Mr. Kinney’s wild circular thinking we moved on to continuing our response to Phil Fernandes’ opening statement, and then in the last half hour continued our response to Roger Perkins in his debate with Matt Slick. Another 90 minute jumbo edition of the DL! I will post a video of the first hour later today (for those who wish to watch that first exchange, at least from one side of it!).

Comments are disabled.

00:12: Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.
00:19: 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.
00:27: Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
00:34: 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
00:43: United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
00:50: James White. Thank you, and welcome to the Dividing Line. Is that we all set up there?
00:58: Yes, no, maybe. Give me a shake of a head, something over there. Is that? You don't know.
01:03: I'm getting no information. Okay. I think what we're going to do today, we've got another jumbo
01:10: DL heading your direction. I was originally going to be addressing two topics, and then talking about something else that's come up, but I'm going to have to reverse things so that we are going to first address the issue of King James only -ism, then we will go back to addressing issues related to the
01:31: Fernandez -Comas debate and the Slick -Perkins debate as well. Let me give you some background information, and then we will dive right into it.
01:41: On page 66 of the original edition, there's a new edition of the King James only controversy, but since this was the one that was used in a video that was posted recently, page 66, the
01:53: King James only controversy, I am discussing how the Textus Receptus was put together, and specifically
02:01: Erasmus and the Greek texts, Stephanus and Beza, and so on and so forth.
02:07: Under the topic, a closer look at the Textus Receptus, one brief paragraph on page 66 reads as follows.
02:18: Two more interesting problems in the TR and Revelation should be briefly noted. The first is the addition of the phrase,
02:23: Him that liveth forever and ever at Revelation 5 .14. This edition is found in only three suspect
02:29: Greek manuscripts, but is absent from Roikland's manuscript. In Revelation 15 .3,
02:34: King of Saints, which should be either King of the Ages, NIV, or King of the Nations, NASB, the
02:41: TR's reading again fails to have Greek manuscript support. Now, at this point,
02:47: I have a footnote, footnote number 47, or in this case, end note, because in the original edition, the notes are at the end of the chapters.
02:59: And end note number 47 says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the
03:04: TR reading. Now, why would I say that the TR reading, that is the
03:09: Textus Receptus, fails to have Greek manuscript support, and then provide a footnote that says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the
03:20: TR reading? Well, if you were following the end notes as you were reading the book, you can go back and you will see that in footnote number 41,
03:30: I said the following, as we will note, Hoskia 141 is almost certainly a copy of Erasmus' printed text, and is hence nearly worthless as a textual source.
03:41: The same is true of Hoskia 57. And so I provided a footnote where I noted that Hermann Hoskia, in his 30 -year compilation of the sources of the
03:54: Book of Revelation, had listed two manuscripts, two manuscripts in support of the reading
04:02: King of Saints at Revelation 15 .3, the problem being that both of those manuscripts come after the printed edition of Erasmus, and hence are handwritten copies of a printed book, and hence are, of course, irrelevant because all they're doing is repeating what's already in the work of Erasmus.
04:26: Now, why do I start off with something as obscure as something like this? Well, it is interesting to note that, for example,
04:33: Hermann Hoskia spent 30 years of his life collating all of these manuscripts of the Book of Revelation. And he has an extensive work
04:39: I have at my library. And the numbers he used are not identical to the numbers we use today.
04:45: He used a different numbering system, and you have to go to his books, and there's a chart that translates them and things like that.
04:53: And so if you're using modern Bible software, you will see a different set of numbers, but there are ways of figuring out which ones are which, and so on and so forth.
05:05: And that's all very interesting. But the reason I raise this is that a few people began making a reference, sending me emails.
05:20: I think Sam Shimon was the first one to send me an email with a link to some videos that were being posted on YouTube by Mr.
05:30: Will Kinney. And so I started listening to them. I downloaded the first one, converted it to MP3, listened to it while I was driving up to Riding Mingus Mountain on Saturday.
05:43: And then I, in looking for information about who had been the host of the program and stuff, because it was, there was some, well, let's just say it's like a lot of King James Only material, rather nasty.
05:57: You know, I'm a deceiver and a liar and I engage in Bible blunders.
06:03: And, you know, used car salesmen and all the rest of this stuff, you know, the standard King James Only, in -your -face type stuff.
06:10: And so I want to know, you know, if I'm going to talk about this stuff, I want to have the background, want to know who's who and so on and so forth. And so I went on YouTube and I found that there were a couple other videos that I hadn't seen.
06:20: And so I started listening to one. It was initially about Colossians 2 .9, and I'll get around to that eventually.
06:26: But there were two things. It was about half an hour long. And on both these videos,
06:32: Mr. Kinney is just simply reading articles he's posted on the Internet. And then there's some interchange with the host of the program.
06:42: And Monday morning, as I wrote, I listened to this second video. And as I was listening,
06:50: I was intrigued by what I heard, at least until I got back and then read what
06:56: I just read from my book. I don't carry my books on the bike with me. That would be a unnecessary aerodynamic drag, to be certain.
07:06: So I want to play for you what was said specifically about this text and let you judge for yourself.
07:18: And then Mr. Kinney actually has called in, so we will see what he has to say as well.
07:23: Let's listen to what Mr. Kinney had to say about Revelation 15 .3 and my comments in the
07:30: King James Only Controversy. This one I thought was hilarious. This one is a good one. In Revelation 15 .3,
07:37: it says, Thou King of Saints. One of the silliest comments
07:43: James makes is his criticism of the King James Bible reading found in Revelation 15 .3.
07:50: Here we read. Now, please note, this is what I've said is silly. That's the assertion that's being made.
07:56: And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy words,
08:03: Lord God Almighty. Just and true are thy ways, thou King of Saints.
08:09: King of Saints. James says on page 66, the King of Saints should be either
08:16: King of Ages, NIV, or King of the Nations, NASB.
08:23: The TR's reading, again, failed to have Greek manuscript support. So what
08:29: James is saying here, you know, on page 56, he says that the King of Saints is wrong when he says it does not have
08:36: Greek manuscript support. That's one of the statements. And it should be either King of the
08:42: Ages, NIV, or King of the Nations. Again, there's two different readings out of two of his different Bibles.
08:48: He recommends, by the way, those three reliable translations in his book, the
08:54: NIV, which reads one way, the New American Standard, which reads another way, and the
09:00: New King James, which still reads King of Saints, which he's now criticizing. Now, let me just mention here,
09:06: Mr. Kinney always brings this up. I simply said in my book that given the differences in translational methodology, and I had an extensive discussion of the difference between formal equivalency, functional equivalency, et cetera, et cetera, recognizing that there are differences in the approaches of each of these, that they are reliable, consistent translations of the underlying
09:28: Greek text. I had an entire discussion of the fact that the New King James is based upon a completely different Greek text.
09:35: Mr. Kinney always ignores that. He criticizes me, well, this is the New King James, King James, you disagree.
09:41: Duh, I know that. Anyone who reads my book knows that I know that. All I said was the
09:46: New King James is a reliable and excellent translation of its underlying Greek text.
09:52: Nothing, nothing more than that. But it becomes a constant criticism by Mr. Kinney.
09:57: We'll be asking him why he cannot see the distinction that I myself made since he says he's read my book four or five times.
10:03: You see what a phony he is? These are reliable versions. And then he criticizes the reading found in one of the books.
10:10: Now see, and you say, why would you? Because he calls me a phony and a hypocrite and a liar, all based on his not understanding the distinctions
10:19: I myself make in the book. And anyone who's read the book knows that I made those distinctions.
10:25: So when you ignore the distinctions I myself make, when I spend paragraphs doing that, and then say
10:30: I'm a phony, well, I think you need to be able to answer for those things. One of them and the two other reliable versions both have different readings in them.
10:38: So I say, James is such a joker, isn't he? Oh, it's terrible. In his book, he recommends three different versions as being reliable and trustworthy.
10:48: New American Standard, NIV and the New King James. Yet all three of these, quote, reliable versions differ from each other.
10:55: And every erroneous reading of the King James book and the Book of Revelation that he discusses in his book is also found in the
11:03: New King James, which he recommends. Of course. Why? Because the New King James is a translation of what?
11:10: The very same Greek text. I know that. Everyone who read my book knows that.
11:16: There is absolutely no foundation for criticism at this point, if you would just allow what
11:22: I said to stand. Then he now gives us two different versions with two different readings and then lies when he says the
11:30: King James Bible reading fails to have Greek manuscript support. Now, did you catch that?
11:35: According to Jack Moore. Now, did you catch that? I lied when
11:40: I said there's no Greek manuscript support. Now, listen, you've not heard Mr. Kinney note the footnote.
11:47: It's right there, page 66, footnote number 47. Now, if you're going to say someone's lying and yet they've got a footnote at the very end of what you quoted that specifically addresses the textual issue, that's one of the main questions we're going to have for Mr.
12:01: Kinney today. Herman's book, that's Mormon, M -O -O -R -M -A -N, Jack Mormon.
12:06: He recently debated James White in England. When the
12:12: King James version departs from the majority text on page 110, he gives the evidence for the reading found in the
12:19: King James Bible, as well as that of, it's also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, Bishop's Geneva Bible, Living Oracle's, Young's, Webster's, Luther's Bible.
12:29: Now, let me just stop in the midst of this. This is something Mr. Kinney does all the time. He will spend minutes of these giving these long lists.
12:38: And what are they? They're all translations of the TR. What does that prove from a textual perspective, from a scholarly perspective?
12:44: Absolutely, positively nothing. They're based upon a Byzantine textual platform.
12:50: Congratulations. What does that mean? It means there's a difference between the modern critical text and the Byzantine text. But listing all of these translations as if it's relevant, total waste of time to anyone who's familiar with the field.
13:02: But it's something that you will hear over and over again. The Russian Cenotal Bible, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the
13:11: Reina Valera, 1995. It's found in the New King James. It's in the French Osterwald, 1996,
13:18: Portuguese de Almeida and Biblia Sagrada. And it's also in the modern
13:24: Greek, modern Greek Bible that's out there. Same reading is found in King James Bible.
13:30: Anyway, the Greek manuscripts of 296, 2049 and 2066 contain this reading.
13:38: Now, let's stop right there. He's reading from Jack Mormon. And he has now given three manuscripts that have this reading, 269 and 2049.
13:52: Now, 269 and 2049 are Gregory numbers. If you will check the charts published by Hoskier himself, those are the very two manuscripts noted in footnote number 47 on page 66 of the
14:06: King James Only Controversy. And both of them are handwritten copies of the TR. And hence are utterly irrelevant.
14:16: I did not mention 2066. Why? Look up 2066. Here is
14:21: Kurt Ahlen's Liste der Greik, Handschriften des Neues Testament.
14:27: This is actually an older one. It's still useful, but it's older.
14:34: They keep updating it. 2066, let me see here.
14:41: And what is the date? This is on page 165 of my edition. The date of this manuscript?
14:47: We know the exact year because it's dated. 1574. When did
14:54: Erasmus first put out the first edition of what becomes the TR? 1516. All five editions of Erasmus before this and the 1550
15:01: Stephanus text as well, all before this. That means that Jack Moorman's Liste gives us three manuscripts that were all handwritten after the publication of Erasmus' work.
15:13: Now, I took the time, and in fact, I have on the screen in front of me Erasmus' 1522 edition.
15:19: And it has King of Saints. So the question for Mr. Kinney will be a simple one.
15:25: Show us a single Greek manuscript that predates the
15:31: TR, that predates Erasmus' work that reads that way. And then you have a basis for calling me a liar.
15:38: Otherwise, you have no basis for the comments that have been made here at all.
15:45: And it is also the reading found in the Greek texts of Stephanus, Biza, Elzeber, and the
15:52: Trinity Bible Society's Scrivener text. Now, why even mention that? Of course it is.
15:58: They're all based on Erasmus. And Scrivener, what is Scrivener's Bible Society text? It is a fake
16:05: Greek text. He went back to the King James translators. He compared the five editions of Erasmus with Stephanus, with Biza, found out which readings the
16:16: King James translators chose and created a Greek text based upon what they chose.
16:22: It is textually irrelevant because it's based upon an English translation. And there is not a single
16:29: Greek manuscript on the planet. That reads like the
16:36: Trinitarian Bible Society TR. Not a one. Nowhere. Doesn't exist. So why raise these questions?
16:44: Why even, this is not even disputable stuff, but it's also not in the slightest bit relevant to anything that I said in my book or proving that I am a liar or silly or anything else.
16:58: So to say that, you know, this reading fails to have Greek manuscript support, it's just an outright lie.
17:06: He should have done his homework, you know, before writing this ridiculous book that he has with all this misinformation in it.
17:12: So I've written a ridiculous book with all this misinformation in it. And remember, it's Mr. Kinney who didn't read the footnote.
17:19: It's Mr. Kinney that didn't look at what was in the footnote. It was Mr. Kinney who didn't do the translation from the
17:24: Haskier numbers to the Gregory numbers. I did. I did. And so he concluded with these words.
17:33: None of the revisions agree with the previous versions. And yet Mr. White has the temerity to recommend three different Bible versions, none of which agrees with the others.
17:44: And then he lies to us about the King James Bible reading, not having any Greek support.
17:50: And I ask, would you trust this man to sell you a used car? Amen. So, you know, there are a few more examples, but just, you know, to see, you know, once you begin to examine where he's coming from and how he set up his own mind as his final authority, and he gives lots of just total misinformation in his book.
18:14: And, you know, the man has no inspired inerrant Bible at all to give to anybody. And like I said, you know, he just gives you reliable versions that differ from one another by thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings.
18:28: And that's what he has to give you. No wonder everybody's confused, you know, and that people would actually think this man knows what he's talking about.
18:37: Well, that's his gift. That's his gift. There you go.
18:44: Now you have the background on this issue of Revelation, chapter 15, verse 3.
18:52: And so I am very thankful to say that Mr. Kinney has called the dividing line today.
18:58: Hello, Mr. Kinney. How are you? I'm doing super. Thank you. Good. Well, we've got some questions for you.
19:03: I think you just heard all of that. Wait a minute, sir, if I could, please. Sure. You know,
19:09: I would be happy to address every single point you brought up there and why I specifically called you a liar.
19:14: I'd love to do that. First question, though, you never answer this.
19:20: Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Of course I do. What are you referring to when you say that?
19:27: What God gave us when he inspired the Bible. So in other words, the original is only. That's what's inspired.
19:35: Yes. God's writings. Yes. But I used a present tense verb. The Bible is. Yeah, God is.
19:42: Yeah, I believe God has preserved his word for us. Do we have the original, sir? No, we do not. Of course not.
19:48: So what are you referring to when you say the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Well, for a man who says he's read my book four or five times, it's shocking to me that you wouldn't know what
19:55: I mean. You're dancing around the issue. You're not answering the question. Mr. Kinney. Everyone on the audience right now has knows that I have refuted your allegations and that you have acted in your own mind, sir.
20:11: Acted in a very boorish manner. And so if you'd like to have a conversation, we can do that.
20:18: But most of the people in the audience likewise knows that I have repeatedly in the course of my ministry explained the mechanism by which
20:30: God has preserved his word, that he has not done so in a English language that did not exist when the
20:38: Bible was written. And that he has done so by transmitting those manuscripts all across the known world so that no editing and no changing of doctrine or belief could possibly take place.
20:53: And if those same people are also aware of the fact that I have contrasted that methodology with the methodology that the
21:00: Muslims would like to have used and that you would like God to use. And that is the concept of a edited, controlled transmission of a singular text.
21:12: OK, so this is why I was reluctant to call in, because you control the program and you just go on. I know what you believe.
21:19: What I asked you was, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
21:24: You said yes. Yes, I do. Then I ask you, where is this Bible? And I've already explained to you.
21:29: And you did not answer the question. No, sir. You just won't accept the answer to the question. You just simply will not allow for factual information, sir.
21:37: Words have meaning. Yes, they do. They do have meaning. And that's why I'd like to ask you the question now, since everyone knows
21:44: I have answered your question. Why did you ignore, sir? Why did you ignore footnote number 47 on page 66?
21:51: I'd be glad to get to that. Please answer the question. I want to point out the fact that you are not answering the question.
21:57: And I will point out the fact that you seem incapable of accepting the answer to your question. And that almost everybody in my audience knows what the answer to that question is.
22:07: And they know I have explained it in detail for audiences all around the world.
22:13: Your unwillingness to accept those facts has nothing to do with the validity of those facts,
22:19: Mr. Kinney. OK, will you stop a minute, please? Let me explain something. You use a present tense verb.
22:25: The Bible is the inerrant word of God. When I ask you, where can I find this Bible that is the inerrant word of God?
22:33: You have nothing to give me. I most certainly do, sir. Just because you cannot understand how
22:38: God's truth is, sir, Mr. Kinney, just because you demand an English translation.
22:44: Which one of the King Jameses, sir, is your inspired inerrant translation? I'm asking you.
22:49: No, no, no. You answer me now, sir. You're the one who's called me a liar, falsely. Answer the question. Which one,
22:56: Mr. Kinney, which one is the inspired inerrant word of God? Is it the Cambridge edition?
23:02: Sir, you're lying right now. You said the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Is it the Cambridge edition, or is it the
23:07: Oxford edition? Is it the 1611? Is it the 1769 Blaney revision?
23:12: Which one is it, sir? Can you tell us? I've answered your question, sir. You just simply won't accept it.
23:18: Now you answer my question. Which one? You say you've got one, Mr. Kinney, Mr. Kinney, answer the question.
23:26: Answer the question, sir. You can't do it, and you know you can't do it. Which one is it? You're not answering my question.
23:33: Why go on? You're just... Answer the question, sir. You're not answering the question. Okay, how about answering any question?
23:39: Can you answer any of the questions I've asked you? Go ahead. Why did
23:44: I call you a liar, okay? Okay, let's hear it. Let's take a look at that. What does your footnote say? It says the
23:50: TR reading is lacking. Let me get it exactly here. No, that's not what the footnote says, sir.
23:57: What? Wait a minute. I'm going by your book. Yeah. It says, again, we find 57 and 141 being...
24:05: Stop a minute. Hold it, will you? I'm reading the book for you. I'm reading the book. Let me, you asked me.
24:10: All right. Let me finish. On page 66, you say the TR's reading, again, fails to have
24:17: Greek manuscript support. Right. Is that a true statement? Yes, it is. It fails to have
24:23: Greek manuscript support. Yes, sir. Then why on your footnote do you say we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the
24:34: TR reading? You just contradicted yourself. Every person in this audience who is rational has already heard me explain that in footnote...
24:45: Because I don't buy your contradiction. Sir, listen to me. Sir, listen to me. Listen to me. You have no idea what you're talking about.
24:52: You don't read Greek. You've never read Haskier. You couldn't use Haskier if your life depended on it, sir.
24:58: You just got done telling me... Listen to what it says. As we will note, listen, listen, as we will note,
25:05: Haskier 141 is almost certainly a copy of Erasmus' printed text.
25:11: Sir, I heard that whole thing. I know what you said. Okay, then, sir, can you explain to me...
25:16: Here's a simple way to prove I'm a liar. Name a single Greek manuscript before Erasmus' 1516 edition that reads
25:27: King of Saints. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about you, though. No, of course you're not concerned about that, because that's the only way you can be truthful.
25:35: Well, you stop a minute and let me talk. I'm looking at your book, this statement that you made in your book.
25:41: All right? That's what I'm looking at. Fails to have Greek manuscript support.
25:47: That's right. Is that a true statement? It is. Then why do you contradict yourself and say these other two ones support the
25:55: PR reading? Sir, I am sorry that you are incapable of rational thought, but everyone who can engage in rational thought knows that a handwritten copy of a printed book is not manuscript support, sir.
26:09: What part of these were handwritten manuscripts that were copies of Erasmus' printed work that came afterwards?
26:18: Can you not understand, sir? When Erasmus wrote the book, sir, was there a single
26:25: Greek manuscript that read the way the King James Version reads? Name one, sir.
26:31: If you can't, then admit that you were wrong. James, I'm going by what is written.
26:36: No, sir, you are going by your abject incapacity to understand simple human reasoning.
26:45: If I took Mr. Kenny, listen to me, Mr. Kenny, if I hand wrote a copy of one of your
26:53: Internet articles and change something in it, does that mean anything?
27:00: Of course not. And so we're talking about handwritten copies of a printed text.
27:08: Everybody who reads what I said knows that the only Greek manuscript support that would be relevant to a printed text is that which exists at the time of the making of the printed text, not something that comes later.
27:22: Are you telling me that you could write all you would have to have done is write a Greek manuscript of Revelation 15 today?
27:30: And that would prove me a liar because you wrote it after I wrote the book and after the
27:35: Greek text was printed? Seriously, sir. Calm down a minute. Calm down, sir. I'm looking at what you wrote in your book.
27:43: OK, and you don't seem to understand it. I understand your convoluted explanation.
27:49: Convoluted explanation. So it is a handwritten manuscript of a printed edition. And just let me get the point across.
27:56: Your point is irrational, Mr. Kenny, and everyone can see that. You wrote in your book, OK, in your book.
28:04: Was that a true statement? Yes, sir. That's the third time that I've said that it's a true statement.
28:09: Then you try to depict yourself in your book where you say that... Folks, here you go. Here is, this is the kind of thinking that produces
28:17: King James -only -ism. This is the kind of thinking, folks, that here is a man who cannot listen to rational thought.
28:25: So let's lay that one aside, because that one has been proven beyond all question.
28:31: Here's a man who is going to say, you can't predict yourself, because you mentioned manuscripts that were written after the
28:36: T .R. And there you go, and you don't understand it. So let me ask you another question.
28:43: You said in your video that in Colossians 2 .9, you said that there were two other places where the term
28:51: Godhead appears in the King James Version of the Bible, and both those places are translations of a word that is theos, right?
28:59: Well, it has that base root, but... No, it doesn't, sir. It is theos. Do you understand the difference between Epsilon...
29:04: You saw all the examples of other Bible translators who translated all three stuff in the same way. Hello, Mr. Kinney.
29:10: Mr. Kinney, do you understand the difference between Epsilon and Epsilon Iota? Yes, I do.
29:19: And so if a word is theos and another word is theos, do you think they're the same word?
29:26: No. Okay, so the root of the other two forms that the King James translates of Godhead is theos, theotae specifically, and theos.
29:35: They're not theos. Were you right or were you wrong in your statement in the video? They are related words.
29:41: You said they were based on theos. Are you saying that theos and theos are the same words? In fact, if you look up in the lexicons,
29:50: I mean... I do, sir, and they are in completely different words. No, sir, they are not.
29:57: No, sir, they are not. You are just simply wrong. Okay, well, some scholars say they are. You say they're not. Name one. Name one. Name one. You, the one who can't tell us.
30:04: Name one. Sayer! Sayer does not say that they are synonyms, sir. I got the reference,
30:10: I believe. Okay. All right, Mr. Kinney, I really appreciate you calling in because I do not believe anyone has ever demonstrated for us the fact that King James -only advocates, when faced with just factual evidence that is...
30:27: Factual evidence? Yes, factual evidence that they cannot possibly begin to conceive of accurately handling it.
30:38: I will say, Mr. Kinney, the form of King James -onlyism you represent is thoroughly cultic.
30:44: There's no question about it. And in fact, let me mention one other thing.
30:49: Do you think that Godhead means Trinity?
30:55: Yes, I do. That's how the dictionaries define it. So the dictionaries define
31:02: Theotokos, Theot, and Theos. No, dictionaries. You know, English dictionaries, the
31:07: English words... Why would the English dictionaries be relevant to the meaning of the...
31:13: Because God and the word is in English. Oh, okay. So it's been re -inspired. There you go. All right, thank you, Mr. Kinney!
31:18: Hey! All right, there we go, folks. I'm sorry, but the level of irrationality on that one just pegged the meters.
31:30: Just pegged the meters. Here you've got someone who doesn't even understand the doctrine of the Trinity. This is where it really gets to me.
31:38: It's one thing for them to lie about me. And I don't think we've ever had a better example of someone who...
31:44: You can have the facts right there. Oh no! You're a liar! Oh no! It's just amazing. I was talking about having a debate with this guy.
31:53: I don't think it's possible. A debate requires a rational person. Does this guy drive down the right side of the road or the left side of the road?
32:00: I mean, it's just amazing. I now understand. I wasn't saying, is he
32:06: British? Come on, I like my British friends. That's not... What was it? Sir Brass said, no, he drives down God's side of the road.
32:16: He's quite convinced of that. What an amazing experience that just was. Wow. So there is
32:26: Greek manuscript support. It just came about after the TR. That's all. So you could invalidate any one of my statements just simply given his reasoning.
32:35: All you'd have to do is rewrite a new manuscript today. And I'm a liar. There you go. I'm sorry, folks.
32:43: I either have to laugh or cry. But when you have... But do you see why this kind of thinking is cultic?
32:51: I mean, I don't know of Mormons that are that twisted in their thinking. I really don't. It's incredible.
32:58: Pierre is a major step up. Oh, big time. I like talking to Pierre. He still doesn't get it, but I like talking to Pierre.
33:05: But at least he can reason. And there is just no reasoning going on there at all. That is absolutely amazing.
33:13: That gives you a good sense, folks, of the kind of responses that the King James Only controversy has gotten.
33:21: And stay far, far, far away, folks. Stay far, far, far away.
33:28: Because that is absolutely amazing. Wow. Wow.
33:35: Just... I wanted to ask him if he was familiar with the problems that Erasmus had in producing the text of TR.
33:42: It doesn't matter to him. You see, that historical stuff doesn't matter. Because we've got the inspired word of God in English.
33:48: That's our final standard. So all that historical stuff, it doesn't matter. There's not a single Greek manuscript in the world that reads like the
33:53: King James version. It doesn't matter. Because the King James is it. That's the far -right,
34:00: Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, cultic type of King James Onlyism.
34:07: There you go, folks. Will Kinney. And wow. I was going to mention, if there had been some rationality there, some of the...
34:18: He actually said... He pointed out the word Godhead appears three times in the Bible, and that's relevant because of the Trinity. So you've got numbers of words.
34:27: How many times the words appear, that becomes relevant. And if Godhead means the
34:33: Trinity, then you look at Acts 17, and that's the Trinity that Paul's talking about. Really? Honestly?
34:39: And we know the Trinity by looking at creation? Really? Honestly? Now, he's just wrong about...
34:45: He said in his video that the other words are based on theos. It's not. If you can't tell the difference between an epsilon and an epsilon iota diphthong, sorry.
34:56: And when you look them up, you'll have to look up different words. They're not found under the same entry in the lexicons.
35:02: There's a reason, because they're different words and they have different meanings. Well, anyway, there you go.
35:11: What an experience that was. I was about to give the phone number. And instead, we need to get back to our discussions here on other subjects.
35:21: And I'm going to actually enjoy listening to significantly more rational people than what we just had.
35:29: All right. Let's get back to, since I've spent five minutes extra here, let's get back into the
35:35: Fernandez -Comas debate. Something of a little more value, shall we say?
35:42: And we are about 41 minutes in. I want to... I may let some stuff pass here,
35:47: Mr. and Dr. Fernandez, is what I'm going to say, because I want to get into the interaction, because that's where the federal visionism started coming in.
35:56: And that's really where more of, I think, the real debate took place. So let's... Oh, you know what?
36:02: I played that last one on a different computer, and I can start playing this all I want, and it won't make any difference.
36:09: But it will now. So let's listen to right where we left off with Dr.
36:16: Fernandez. We just had
36:27: Hebrews 10, 26, 29, just fly by there. I'm not sure what its assertion was and how it's relevant to this particular point.
36:35: But I'm at Hebrews 10. Did I finish?
36:41: We'll be starting at 15 the next time we're in Hebrews, which should be at the end of this month. So we'll be getting to 26 to 29, probably
36:51: October, November, somewhere around there. So for a rather full discussion of...
37:02: I just read something in Channel, and that wasn't nice. Scott, I'm going to kick you when I get done with this.
37:09: For a rather full discussion of that particular text, hang on. Remember that?
37:24: I mentioned to you that twice in the opening statement that Brother Fernandez would misquote
37:33: Matthew 23, 37. And there he just did, because that's not what it says. It does not say that Jesus spoke to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but they would not.
37:46: He was addressing the Jewish leaders. This was a statement of judgment on the
37:53: Jewish leaders. We've gone through Matthew 23, 37 over and over again. I just did Matthew 23, 37 on...
38:03: I think it was last Sunday in Sunday school. And so you can go to Sermon Audio if you want a fuller discussion of that.
38:19: Now, and what does that mean? Does that mean that they were resisting the Holy Spirit's attempt? Because they were elect, the
38:25: Holy Spirit comes to give them spiritual life, to take out their heart of stone, give them a heart of flesh, and that that's what the
38:31: Holy Spirit was trying to do with them? Because again, if any of these texts are going to be relevant to quote -unquote irresistible grace, which is what we're talking about here,
38:39: Matthew 23, 37 wasn't about that. Acts chapter 7 wasn't about that. So far, we haven't had anything that is at all relevant to the actual
38:46: Reformed position in regards to the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about the sovereign regeneration of a sinful heart.
38:56: It's no sense for God to plead with us to accept his grace if it is irresistible to the elect.
39:03: Where does God ever plead with us to accept his grace?
39:08: I'd like to see that text. Because I know that God commands men everywhere to repent.
39:14: And I know that God does plead with mankind. But why does
39:20: Dr. Fernandez feel that that is in any way, shape, or form contradictory to a
39:25: Reformed understanding of the use of means? Now notice, he's talking about irresistible grace, but he seems to think that any expression of grace that is resisted means that all grace can be resisted.
39:37: Can't there be a sovereign grace of God, whereby he brings about the regeneration of his elect people that is not the same as the grace of God?
39:45: Right now, I'm praying that the grace of God would restrain the madness of evil men in London. I've got a lot of friends in London.
39:53: You know, I don't want my dear brothers Roger Brazier and his family,
39:59: Priscilla and Justin, and Doug McMasters and his family, and his wonderful dog, and all the wonderful folks at Trinidad Chapel.
40:08: And I don't want any of those folks harmed. So I am praying that God, by his grace, would restrain the evil of men.
40:15: Does that mean that in my thinking, the only way to do that is by regenerating every single one of them?
40:21: Of course not. If God restrains men's evil, is that not an act of grace?
40:27: Of course it is. Is that the same thing as bringing about regeneration? No, it's not the same thing.
40:35: So just simply coming up with something, it's straw man argumentation.
40:54: No, the Bible does not everywhere imply that God has the ability, in light of the fact that you have the direct statement of Jesus, that man, u dunatai, does not have the ability to come to him, unless the
41:08: Father who sent me draws him, and I'll raise him up on the last day. If you say God draws everybody, you're now a universalist, because the drawing results in being raised up on the last day.
41:17: So, direct statement. How many times did Jesus say, u dunatai? You do not have the capacity.
41:22: You do not have the capacity to hear. You do not have the capacity to come, unless God does something first.
41:28: So we've got implication over against direct statement. That's what we have here.
41:37: Isaiah 45, 22, John 3, 16, Matthew 11. John 3, 16, is that for everybody?
41:46: Or for those who believe? I mean, the particularity is right there in the text.
41:53: It doesn't address who can and who cannot believe. But right there, you have a particularity that in the next two verses, and those who are not a part of that particular group that believe, the wrath of God abides upon them.
42:06: So, again, these are traditional interpretations that just don't pass the exegesis test.
42:12: I think 28, and again, the list goes on. In fact, when Paul was asked what a person must do to be saved, he did not give the
42:20: Philippian jailer a Calvinistic answer. Oh, yes, he did. And that just proves to me, brother
42:27: Fernandez, you do not know what we believe. Because if anybody walks up to me and says, what must
42:33: I do to be saved? I'm going to answer exactly as Paul did. Why do you think that's inconsistent for me?
42:39: Where in Reformed theology do we have some different message? And why do you assume that if I say, believe in the
42:47: Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, that I am somehow making that person sovereign over God?
42:53: I'm letting them know what that person needs to do. That person needs to believe, to repent and believe.
42:59: That's what I tell everyone. I know that that person will not do so from the heart unless God by his spirit enables them to do so.
43:07: I'm well aware of that fact. But brother Fernandez, I don't know who the elect are. That information is not given to me.
43:14: So I get to preach the gospel to everybody and leave it to God's spirit to make it to come alive in people's hearts.
43:21: Isn't that neat? But that is, sir, a Calvinistic answer. Instead, he proclaimed, believe on the
43:29: Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Acts 16 31. Now, I agree with my opponent that all true believers will, by the grace of God, persevere in the faith.
43:41: Now, at this point, I want to sit down with brother
43:46: Fernandez. I would love to get together with him at my favorite little
43:52: Mexican restaurant. And I tell people when they have me come in to speak and stuff, you know, where do you like to go to eat?
44:01: Well, I love Olive Garden and I love good Mexican food. But when
44:06: I travel, I pretty much put up with almost any Mexican food because we're sort of spoiled here in Phoenix.
44:13: We've got a lot of good Mexican stuff. I love chips and salsa. The folks down in Houston at the church down there,
44:20: I was just down there a few months ago. The first time they came in, they did it again this time. I never lose weight when
44:26: I go to Houston because they put me in this suite that has like a little kitchenette type thing in it. And they put these awesome chips and salsa in my room.
44:37: We're talking a bag this tall. And of course, no one can see this, but the rookie can see it. And I mean,
44:43: I could sit there and eat all day long if I wanted to. I love chips and salsa. I would love to sit down with brother
44:50: Fernandez and talk to him about this because there is no consistent possible way on God's green earth that you can believe everything he's just set up this point and then believe in eternal security of the perseverance of the saints.
45:09: You just can't, it doesn't work. Perseverance of the saints is a Calvinistic doctrine.
45:17: It is all based upon the fact that Jesus Christ saves perfectly. If it is your free will to get into it, are you telling me once you get saved, you lose your free will so you can't get back out of it?
45:28: It's just fascinating to me. I love my inconsistent evangelical brothers because you see, at this point, they see that I'm right.
45:40: They see that I'm right. They do not want to have a savior who cannot actually save, but they just don't want to take everything that that means.
45:51: The reason, you know, Jesus said, the one who comes to me,
45:57: I will never cast out. And that is fundamental foundation of the perseverance of the saints.
46:04: But that's half a sentence. And you see, the first half of the sentence is, all that the father gives me will come to me.
46:11: And the one coming to me, I will never cast out. You see, the reason he will never cast out is because it's the father's will that he saved all of the elect.
46:18: There is no reason to believe in the perseverance of the saints if you do not believe in the electing grace of God, the specific electing grace of God and his capacity to save his elect perfectly.
46:30: There's just no, it just ain't. Hence I accept the fifth point of Calvinism. Not because of unconditional election,
46:36: I reject that. But because of God's promises and God's grace. What? God's promises and God's grace.
46:43: So what? You still have free will. You've told us we have free will. You've told us that God wanted to save the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but they would not.
46:51: He tried to save them and he failed. How on earth then can you say, well, once you're in, then he won't fail?
46:57: Do you lose your free will once you become a Christian? Honestly, I would love to talk to somebody once.
47:05: Maybe we do the next time we have open phones. I'd love to talk to somebody who holds this position.
47:10: And I'd love to find out, why do you believe this? Why, why do you believe this?
47:17: Let me just tell you, Rich, you getting complaint calls or something? No? Oh, okay. What? What? I can't hear you.
47:24: And I've never learned. Just doing a little tech support. That's all. A little tech support. Helping, helping the gentleman with his feed.
47:29: Okay. All right. That's good. Just wondered, because the phone had been ringing, and then just wondered if, you know. All right.
47:38: Now remember, whenever we're doing these mega DLs and I'm doing debate stuff, if Brother Fernandez calls in, he gets, he gets, he gets, you just let me know.
47:49: And if, if Roger Perkins calls in, you bet. Just let me know.
47:55: That's, that's the one exception to the rule. That'll come up on my screen here and you let me know. And we'll, we'll go from there.
48:03: All right, let's get back here. The Bible teaches that true believers are sealed for the day of redemption, born again of imperishable seed.
48:10: Why is it imperishable? Why is it imperishable? There are all sorts of examples of apostasy in the
48:16: New Testament. But you see, when you have apostasy mentioned, what does
48:22: John say? They went out from us. So it might be demonstrated they're not truly of us.
48:28: If they had been of us, what does it say? They would have remained with us. Why? See, there's the, there's the ground of eternal security.
48:36: If they had been of us, in other words, if their nature had been changed by the sovereign work of the spirit of God and taking out that heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh, they would have remained with us.
48:49: But to demonstrate that they were not truly of us, they went out. There is no such thing as perseverance of the saints without the sovereign electing grace of God.
48:58: Can't be. The truly redeemed will never perish and cannot be snatched from their Savior's hand.
49:04: Why not? Why not? Why can't, why can they? If, if, if God was trying to save them beforehand, prevenient grace, prevenient grace.
49:17: What's the difference, Brother Fernandez, between prevenient grace and sustaining grace?
49:23: Why can one try and fail and the other will never fail? Why? I'd like to know.
49:30: I honestly, that's one of the things I hope I remember. I hope Brother Fernandez will come on after we finally get done reviewing all this stuff.
49:36: And I want to know, what's the difference between the grace that's, that sustains you now and the grace that's trying to save the man next door and failing?
49:48: If all grace is just grace, if you can't have, and we just saw this about irresistible grace.
49:55: Brother Fernandez quoted texts that were not about God's grace that's trying to save somebody, but he made all grace the same.
50:05: So if you can resist that grace the way that he just argued against the irresistible grace point, then why can't you resist this grace?
50:16: Just wondering. I think it's something a lot of people wonder about. Those who are justified will eventually be glorified.
50:23: Do you hear that? Oh, oh, oh, Brother Fernandez. See, at least I know Phil and I could sit down.
50:29: I would not experience what I experienced the first half of this program. I love Phil. He's a great guy.
50:36: He does sound like someone you'd meet at Cheers or something, in the Bronx or New York or something like that.
50:42: Hey, let's go have a beer together or something like that type of thing. It's funny, but we could have such a great discussion about this, because what did he just say?
50:55: Did you catch what he just said? What was the reference that he just used? I remember right where I was on the road, right when
51:03: I heard this one the first time, and I just about drove off the road and I heard it. He says, all those who are justified will eventually be glorified.
51:14: What is that? That's the golden chain of redemption. What's the golden chain of redemption?
51:19: It's Romans chapter eight. And what does it say? For those whom he foreknew, not about whom he had foreknowledge.
51:27: Foreknew is an active verb. It's an active thing that God does, and it's not taking in knowledge of future human actions.
51:35: It's a choice on God's part. For those whom he foreknew, he also be predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, or he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
51:44: And those whom he predestined, he also called. And those whom he called, he also justified. And those who be justified, he also glorified.
51:50: If what he's saying now is the link between justified and glorified is unbreakable, which is the only sensible use of this text, then follow the logic.
52:03: If the link between justified and glorified is unbreakable, the link between justified and called is unbreakable.
52:10: And that means the calling here is a specific calling. And that means it's not given to everybody. And that's election.
52:18: And the link between called and predestined is unbreakable.
52:23: And predestined and foreknown is unbreakable. And those are all divine actions. And that's
52:28: Calvinism. It's right there. And so I agree. I agree,
52:34: Brother Fernandez. Everyone who is justified will be glorified. That is one of the points
52:40: I make with Roman Catholics because they believe that you can be justified and then not glorified. But you see, the only consistent way to argue that is to recognize all the rest of that truth, that beautiful, beautiful truth that is found there in that text.
52:58: And so the golden chain redemption, boy, you don't want to go there when you're arguing against Calvinism because that is
53:04: Calvinism par excellence. And nothing can separate believers from God's love.
53:10: The Apostle John indicates that those who apostatized from the faith were never really true believers.
53:17: I want to share with you my own view of divine sovereignty. Okay, they were never true believers.
53:23: Well, then what's the distinction between a true believer and a false believer? It's the nature of their faith.
53:30: Now, faith is something you work up within yourself and everybody has the capacity by prevenient grace for doing so. How do you distinguish between the two?
53:36: Why does one person's faith persevere brought in by prevenient grace and other person's doesn't brought in by the same prevenient grace?
53:44: That's why I don't believe in that kind of prevenient grace. And we've not heard any defense of that kind of prevenient grace either anywhere along the line.
53:53: ... and human responsibility. I reject the logical order of God's decrees as spelled out by the different types of Calvinism.
54:03: From my understanding of the Bible, I would propose... Now, let's talk about the the order of the decrees here for a moment.
54:09: We're talking about the order of salutes. We're talking about... Sometimes you hear people talking about infralapsarianism and superlapsarianism and modified superlapsarianism and all the rest of that kind of stuff.
54:18: And I'm glad that he used the term logical order of the decrees, not chronological order of the decrees, because we're talking about God and his infinite mind.
54:27: For me, the fundamental focus of any God -centered reading of scripture that tries to answer the question of this issue of the orders or the ordo salutis or the order in God's mind of his purposes, you will very quickly discover the difference between a
54:47: God -centered and a man -centered reading is where God's purpose of self -glorification comes in.
54:54: Is there a purpose of God's self -glorification or not? And with that, listen to Dr.
55:01: Fernandez's presentation. Following logical order of God's decrees. Number one, the decree to create.
55:08: Number two, the decree to permit the fall. Number three, the decree to provide salvation for all.
55:16: Number four, the decree to draw all people to himself through prevenient grace. Number five, the decree to save those who freely believe.
55:24: Number six, the decree to complete the work he starts in all believers. And number seven, the decree to eternally condemn those who do not believe in Christ for salvation.
55:35: What's missing? There's nothing about God's glory.
55:41: There's nothing about what God does to glorify himself. You might say, well, it's all to his glory. Well, why would some of those things be to his glory?
55:50: The, you know, what's, what glorifies God about using prevenient grace, but failing? Trying to save individuals he has not decreed to save.
56:00: Well, what, what's God glorifying about that? That's why in the reformed discussion of the decrees, that focus has to be upon God's free, the triune
56:11: God's free choice to glorify himself, the demonstration of all of his attributes, to all of creation that has to be at the start.
56:21: And that's what orders everything else. It's a great discussion of that. And Robert Raymond, if you want to take a look at it, I believe that God in his sovereignty chose to save those who under divine persuasion and drawing freely accept
56:32: Jesus as their savior under divine persuasion and drawing. Does everyone receive the same level of drawing and persuasion?
56:43: If they do, then the only thing that makes us to differ is that we were better. Because if God tried equally hard with everybody and you,
56:51: I'm sorry, there is just no way you can argue that. Again, Amorite high priest, let's just bring him in here, ask him the question.
56:59: And what did God do for you? You know, what, what prophets were sent to you? In comparison to a person sitting in a solid evangelical church, the
57:07: Bible in their hands today? Sorry, you don't tell me those are equal. So if, but if God tries equally, then what makes us to differ has to be inside ourselves.
57:21: And so we will have a reason to look at those who are not saved and say, you had the same choice
57:26: I did, but I made the right decision. Ha ha. I don't think that that's going to be the case in any way, shape or form.
57:33: But if God doesn't try equally well now, why then do you have this whole prevenient grace thing?
57:40: You've got different kinds of prevenient grace, which doesn't really then rescue you because that means
57:45: God has chosen to give more grace to certain people. And now you got to explain why that is. I believe that it is a greater sovereignty for God to exercise control over truly free beings than it would be if he only controlled whatever comes to pass because he controls each person's will.
58:03: Now, as a Molinist, however, and he's eventually going to give really
58:10: Molinistic answers, and I need to write to him again because I didn't hear back from him after the second time. I wanted to ask, is there, and I've asked him, is there anything in William Lane Craig's presentation of Molinism that you would disagree with?
58:23: Because I'd like to know that. But he does give a Molinistic answer later on. And if that's the case,
58:30: I'm sorry. But it's a greater sovereignty for God to rule over truly free creatures.
58:37: In other words, it can't be that compatible as freedom. The Molinist says that where God has to run all these possible worlds and he just can do the best he can.
58:49: That's a greater sovereignty to go, well, this is the best world I can come up with. This has the best mixture of lost and saved.
58:59: But it's not the result of his will. It's not the result of his decree. The only freedom God has in Molinism is to choose whether he's going to create or not.
59:06: That's it. Because everything else is determined for him by this middle knowledge that does not drive from his being.
59:16: Which in of itself is sort of a scary thing. That sounds like a good place to take a break because this is a mega long one and I have a protein shake here that I'm not going to drink while humming.
59:28: I learned my lesson last time. I may be dumb, I ain't stupid. We'll be right back. The King James Version Answering those who claim that only the
59:41: King James Version is the word of God. James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true
59:52: Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.
01:00:06: You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin
01:00:14: .org. Pulpit Crimes The criminal mishandling of God's word may be
01:00:20: James White's most provocative book yet. White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.
01:00:30: Based firmly upon the bedrock of scripture, one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word.
01:00:39: What has happened to this sacred duty in our day? The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain.
01:00:47: Pandering to pluralism. Cowardice under fire. Felonious eisegesis. Entertainment without a license.
01:00:55: And cross -dressing, ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women. Is a pulpit crime occurring in your town?
01:01:02: Get Pulpit Crimes in the bookstore at www .aomin .org. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.
01:01:20: Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.
01:01:26: In their book, The Same Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the
01:01:32: Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including
01:01:40: Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.
01:01:49: In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.
01:01:59: The Same Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality.
01:02:05: Get your copy in the bookstore at www .aomin .org. It's been a while.
01:02:29: Now, it's been a few weeks. We've got people on Facebook going, just keep going. Yes, yeah, just make—
01:02:35: Okay, two hours now. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know. If it was like the first half hour of this one,
01:02:44: I think I'd lose my mind after a while. But that's what happens when you open up the phone lines.
01:02:51: Wow. I'm still just shaking my head. I mean, you know, it's one thing, you know, we're about to go to the
01:02:59: Perkins slick thing. And, you know, I've criticized Roger, and I will be criticizing him some more.
01:03:07: I mean, it's just the nature of what we're doing here. And there are times I just go, oh, come on, man, don't even go there.
01:03:15: And obviously, I really believe oneness theology is a heresy, and that it's an error, and so on and so forth.
01:03:23: But here you've got a guy that claims to be a Christian. And there is for a
01:03:29: Christian to refuse to use reason, not talking about being a rationalist, not even talking about the whole area of supernaturalism, but to just refuse to use reason.
01:03:42: I mean, what does the man do for a living? You know, what if he's an engineer?
01:03:48: I mean, you couldn't use that kind of thinking. You'd have floors built on top of other floors without anything in between them.
01:03:56: You know, I mean, it's just unbelievable. Just unbelievable. All right, let's shift gears, which isn't all that easy to do.
01:04:06: As you can tell, I'm still thinking about some of those things. Let's go back to the Matt Slick and Roger Perkins debate.
01:04:13: If we get past this one, the other debate with Brett Graves is the sound quality is a whole lot better.
01:04:24: In fact, I've almost thought about going to just because of that. Figge and Channel saying he's no engineer.
01:04:30: That's because Figge does engineering work, but especially a structural engineer. That's right, that's what he does.
01:04:37: Anyway, the sound quality of the other one's better, but same material pretty much. But let's pick back up where we were.
01:04:53: With thee, who was it that was praying? Divinity or humanity? Who was it that was praying?
01:05:00: And Matt Slick will answer this question during cross -examination. The question is invalid because you are trying to create a quandary where there is none.
01:05:12: You are making a division where there is none. It's the oneness people that have two persons in Jesus that can communicate with each other.
01:05:22: Christians believe that Jesus is one person with two natures and persons communicate, not natures.
01:05:30: So this is not a human nature communicating with the divine nature.
01:05:37: That's ridiculous. This is one person who self -consciously recognizes that he existed in the presence of the
01:05:48: Father in eternity past. That is the only way these words make any sense. You need to understand what the oneness person is trying to get you to think,
01:05:55: John 17 is saying. When Jesus says, Father, glorify me together yourself with the glory which
01:06:00: I had with you before the world was, what they want you to understand that to mean is this is a human being who did not exist before the world was, but he's come to understand that he was a plan in the
01:06:13: Father's mind. And so this is a human creature asking to be glorified with glory which a plan had in God's mind before creation.
01:06:28: I think I am being perfectly accurate in understanding the oneness position here because if this is some idealized concept, some plan that has no personal self -existence, then these words make absolutely positively no sense at all.
01:06:53: They just don't. And listening to oneness advocates try to get around John 17 is painful.
01:07:02: It really, really is painful. And it just doesn't work. The humanity was praying.
01:07:08: Hebrews 5 -7. So he prayed from the standpoint of a man. Now, did you notice how the quality changed there? Every once in a while, all of a sudden, good quality, and it pops back to room sound.
01:07:19: So evidently, they had the close -up microphones that were working, but they only got little snippets out of them.
01:07:26: Not like we can complain about having had bad audio recordings of certain debates. Barry Lynn comes to mind.
01:07:34: We've had technical difficulties as well. But we looked at Hebrews 5. Hebrews 5 says nothing.
01:07:40: It says, in the days of his flesh, he prayed. It doesn't say he prayed from his flesh. That is a misuse of Hebrews chapter 5.
01:07:49: Not a second divine person that the Bible never once even acknowledges. Hebrews chapter 1, if you read it closely on the
01:07:56: Bible there, if you read it closely, it mentions the Son as being the Son who has spoken to us, the
01:08:02: Father rather has spoken to us through in these last days. Then he says he will walk into the world, and the
01:08:08: Son is begotten. Why that's my point? Can I determine— Now, now, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
01:08:14: Hebrews chapter 1 is as bad as John chapter 17 is for the oneness person.
01:08:22: Because, again, long ago, many times and in many ways,
01:08:29: God spoke to our fathers by the prophets. But in these last days, he has spoken to us by his
01:08:34: Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he made the world.
01:08:39: Not through which also, but through whom also. The Son was the one through whom he made the world.
01:08:49: Now, what must be the case? Again, listen to what the oneness advocate is saying. The oneness advocate is saying, no,
01:08:56: God created everything. And they'll go back to Isaiah 44. I alone did this.
01:09:03: And again, that's referring to the being of God, not persons of God. But as it may, it's one of my favorite verses in dealing with Mormons.
01:09:09: But they'll run to someplace else rather than dealing with what is said here, through whom also he created the world.
01:09:18: So from the oneness perspective, God made the world in light of his plan to enter into flesh as Jesus.
01:09:30: But that's not what it says. It says, through whom he also created the world. The role of the
01:09:36: Son as the instrument of creation, not as an idealized plan, but as the actual one who creates
01:09:42: Colossians chapter one, is utterly overthrown because of the demand for Unitarianism by oneness theology.
01:09:55: And someone says, well, the Bible doesn't know anything of this second divine person. Well, here's a divine person who creates the world.
01:10:02: And he's clearly distinguished from the Father. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.
01:10:10: And he upholds the universe by the word of his power. This is a plan?
01:10:19: Or if this is the Son, and talking about after the incarnation, are you telling me a mere human creature is the radiance of the glory of God?
01:10:28: Is a mere human creature? Could a creature that came into existence at Bethlehem be the exact imprint of the nature of God?
01:10:39: And could a mere creature who came into existence at Bethlehem uphold the universe by the word of his power?
01:10:48: Because clearly, after making purification for sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high, we're talking here about Jesus.
01:10:59: So is it just his human nature that made propitiation for sins? Was it the death of a merely perfect man?
01:11:07: You know, Matt Slicks really could go after this. He's gonna say, that's what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Well, yeah, the
01:11:13: Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in a ransom sacrifice, and that Jesus could be nothing more than a perfect man. And that is not the
01:11:20: Christian doctrine of atonement. That is not sufficient to answer to the demands of God's justice.
01:11:29: One perfect man cannot bear the sins of all sinful men. That is why you need to have a truly divine saver.
01:11:39: But Hebrews 1, clear distinction. Yes, it goes on to an FIG as Yahweh.
01:11:44: And if you assume Unitarianism, then you go, well, how can that work? But if you don't assume
01:11:50: Unitarianism, if you don't reason in circles, if you actually try to prove what you're supposed to be proving in a debate, not just assuming what you're supposed to be proving in a debate, then what the
01:12:02: Bible is telling you is that we have at least two divine persons here who are distinguished from one another.
01:12:08: They're both engaging in divine acts, and yet they are clearly distinguished by their acts from one another.
01:12:16: The Father does not become flesh. It is the Son who became flesh. The Father does not die.
01:12:23: It is the Son that gives his life. That doesn't mean cease to exist. That's another one of the big problems here, is that oneness advocates will equivocate on the meaning of die.
01:12:34: And say, oh, you think God died? Then who was around the universe? Well, death does not mean a cessation of existence.
01:12:44: Got to be very, very careful in looking for equivocation. Using a term, bringing that term into the conversation with one definition, but then we change the definition later on in the very same sentence, normally coming to a false conclusion.
01:13:00: Could the eternal
01:13:06: Son be born? Of course he could. That's the same objection that Muslims make.
01:13:14: How can the eternal God enter into his own creation? Well, if he created it, why can't he enter into it?
01:13:21: You've got to give more than, I don't like the idea, or that seems inappropriate, or something like that, because Mr.
01:13:29: Perkins here is assuming the meaning of born has come into existence. He's taking how that would be applied to a human being and transferring that back upon the relationship of father and son, which is inappropriate in light of the fact that it is an eternal relationship.
01:13:45: And it did not begin at a point in time, but is an eternal relationship.
01:13:50: And without him, yet a son definitely has a beginning point in time. Revelation 4 .4 says the
01:13:55: Son was made of a woman. So there you have the Son has a beginning point in time.
01:14:01: In Oneness theology, the Son is not an eternal person, but the Son had a beginning point in time. Now, we of course believe that the
01:14:10: Incarnation took place in time, and that the physical body of Jesus came into existence in time.
01:14:17: But since you begin with the assumption of Unitarianism, there you have
01:14:23: Jesus being limited in that way. The Greek word for made means to cause, to bring to existence.
01:14:33: It might, depending on the context. But if you're saying that Galatians is telling us that the
01:14:41: Son as the Son came into existence at the birth of Bethlehem, that's not what it means.
01:14:47: And we just read Hebrews chapter 1. The Son was the one through whom all things were made. It's very, very clear.
01:15:07: Now here we go. Here's some more lexical abuse.
01:15:16: What you're going to hear is Bauer's lexicon, the most respected one. And I just, I don't remember if I've said this during the programs.
01:15:24: I might repeat myself. I don't know, because I'm listening to these things while writing, and I'm thinking about these things and can't remember exactly when
01:15:29: I've said what. But be very careful of exaltation of lexical sources.
01:15:36: I've already explained a lexicon gives you a semantic domain. And you can cite a lexicon and say this particular lexicon's editor interprets the use of this word at this text to be such and so.
01:15:49: That's one person's opinion. That's no more than a commentary. And of the writing of commentaries, there is no end.
01:15:57: But I'd like to point something out to Mr. Perkins. You know, if we were to sit down and have a little conversation, I would point
01:16:04: Mr. Perkins, I would get out. I've got both of them. Back when I was in Bible College Seminary, the current edition was
01:16:12: B -A -G -D. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Dunker. The Big Green Monster.
01:16:19: And I still have the Big Green Monster in the other room. Had a sort of white, creamish cover on it, but the covers never lasted long.
01:16:26: And I would open up to the term arsenicoites. Arsenicoites.
01:16:33: Homosexual. And it's a term I've done a lot of work on in light of my debating homosexuals and those who promote homosexuality.
01:16:41: And if you looked at the second edition, it would have a certain length to it.
01:16:50: Then you look at B -DAG, which is the current edition. Sort of the Pepto -Bismol colored version. Third edition.
01:16:56: Bauer, Dunker, Arndt, and Gingrich. And if you look up arsenicoites,
01:17:03: I've not actually measured it with a, you know, how many lines and stuff, but it's at least a third, if not twice as long.
01:17:12: Well, 50%. No. How would that be? Two thirds, if not twice as long. There you go.
01:17:17: Something like that. The entry has expanded massively. And when you look at everything that's been added, did the meaning of the word arsenicoites change between those two editions?
01:17:29: No. But a huge explosion of pro -homosexual material has been published since then.
01:17:41: And clearly, for reasons of political correctness, B -DAG has included all that stuff and has altered the definition given.
01:17:53: Now, so I would ask Mr. Perkins, have you changed your definition of homosexual because of that?
01:17:58: I sure hope not. Which means what? Which means that even when it comes to the lexicons, you have to exercise discernment.
01:18:10: You say, discernment, can't there just be something I accept?
01:18:16: You know, do I have to look into everything? Yeah, actually, that believer -priest thing.
01:18:25: Yeah, it's a real bummer. Never does really allow you to just become apathetic and sign yourself up. You don't have any responsibilities over anybody else.
01:18:31: That's true. Yep. Mm -hmm. Goes throughout your entire life. That's how it is. And I understand the motivations people want.
01:18:40: They don't want to have to check stuff like that out. You just want to give it to me, black and white.
01:18:46: We had a guy on for the first half hour. That's exactly where you're thinking. Don't want to have to think about that stuff.
01:18:51: I don't want to have to worry about what Erasmus did. I don't have to. No, don't confuse me with the facts. I've got my black and white and I will attack you and call you a liar if you disagree with me.
01:18:59: That's just the way it is. That's the mindset. I hope Mr. Perkins wouldn't take that perspective.
01:19:06: But anyway. That is not what
01:19:24: Bauer says about the use of Logos at John 1 -1. That is just a direct abuse.
01:19:31: You don't go, well, the root meaning and then make specific application. That's not the application that's even made in Bauer.
01:19:42: All right. So you just got to be, you just have to use these sources much more carefully than this.
01:19:49: But like I said, especially when you get into the debate with the Church of Christ fellow. And did we ever hear any back from anybody?
01:19:56: Because I said some nice things about him. I'd love to arrange a debate with that fellow.
01:20:01: Oh, well, we'll just have to remind me to try to track him down and send him an email because I would love to see if he'd be willing to do that.
01:20:09: But in that one especially, it became the great battle of the dueling lexicons. It's like, yeah, well,
01:20:16: Thayer says this, while Bauer says this. The one I don't generally hear them quoting is
01:20:21: Lowe Anita. Well, Lowe Anita says that normally doesn't happen. But W .E. Vines and some of these things like that.
01:20:28: And it's just that's not how you do exegesis. You argued the, you identify the semantic domain of the word, and then you identify its use in the context.
01:20:38: And that requires exegesis. And by the way, it's logos or logos. It cannot be logos.
01:20:44: It's just another, it's psalm, not psalms and revelation or relations. And there we go.
01:20:49: Not a second divine person, but it's a concept in the mind of God, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
01:20:56: A concept in the mind of God. And then he goes, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, as if that certainty of the incarnation means that the second person in Trinity was just simply a plan.
01:21:08: Since God intended to do something in time, and it's certain it's going to happen, that means that the son is impersonal and is a plan in pre -existence.
01:21:17: No, that's not what it means. He mentioned 1 John. But yet we did not hear that it said that the son was that which they saw, which they handled, which they were there in us.
01:21:28: What part did they handle? What part did they see? Divinity or humanity? And notice the false division that is being made.
01:21:36: 1 John tells us very clearly the word became flesh.
01:21:42: What's the whole point of John's warning is that there are going to be false teachers who are going to deny the true humanity of Jesus Christ.
01:21:51: And they are the Antichrist. And so John is saying
01:21:56: Jesus wasn't just a chimera. He wasn't just a phantom. We touched him.
01:22:01: We ate with him. We talked with him. We know he truly existed.
01:22:07: He had a real physical body. The Gnostics, who are dualists, denied the physical reality of Jesus Christ. But who was that?
01:22:15: It's the son who was in the flesh. Nowhere does
01:22:21: John say that's the father. And that's where eventually he is going to make the presentation here.
01:22:27: And I'm not going to repeat this because I've already put the video up. But I put a video up a couple weeks ago when
01:22:34: I first heard this debate. This is the debate where Roger Perkins pressed 1
01:22:39: John 3 .5 into service to say that it was the father who was manifested to take away our sins.
01:22:49: And I demonstrated exegetically in context that that is a gross abuse of the words of John.
01:23:00: And eventually, you know, I got the feeling that Matt had not heard that argument before, and I wouldn't have either.
01:23:08: I even, after I heard it for the first time and had responded to it, I got out a bunch of my oneness books from years and years.
01:23:13: I had to blow some of the dust off the top of some of them and looked around. I didn't find anybody else making that argument either. So somebody can always come up with something you've never heard of before.
01:23:24: And it takes time to look up the facts, to find out what's really going on. And eventually,
01:23:31: Matt gave a pretty good response to that. Because just by going below that, you have, for this reason, the son of God was manifested.
01:23:38: I went through the use of afanerothe in the johannine literature and demonstrated that that's just a horrible abuse of 1
01:23:45: John 3 .5. But at first, you could just tell, even Matt was going, what? Because it just, it was outside of the realm of what you normally would expect to hear being argued.
01:24:25: This is something that he brings up a lot. And so I think you need to understand it. His argument is, since Jesus said to the woman, well, the
01:24:33: Jews know who we worship. In contrast, the Samaritans, who had, in stepping away from the entirety of God's revelation and God's people, setting up the temple there and so on and so forth, had stepped away from that.
01:24:49: We know who we worship. Therefore, there can be no further revelation in the incarnation outpouring of the
01:24:56: Holy Spirit so as to lead to the doctrine of the Trinity. So in other words, we need to believe only what the Jews believe.
01:25:01: Again, this is where I've found fascinating parallels to the arguments of the Muslims, because their whole argument is, in fact, this is a
01:25:10: Quranic argument. That's what's interesting. It's a Quranic argument, because anybody who knows the Quran knows that one of its arguments, repeated more than once, especially in Surah al -Maidah, is, do not commit excess.
01:25:25: Do not commit excess. And so from the Islamic perspective, you have the Old Testament revelation.
01:25:30: It's monotheistic, assumed to be unitarian, and there can be nothing more than that.
01:25:36: And if there is something more than that, it's excess. It's excess. And that's exactly what
01:25:42: Roger Perkins is saying right now, is he's saying, Jesus endorsed the Jewish view of God, and therefore there can be nothing more than what the
01:25:50: Jews understood of God. Now, of course, one could argue that Jesus ripped and shredded the
01:25:59: Jewish abuse of what they believed about God. You could easily argue that they had set up an idol in the place of God because they didn't truly fear
01:26:06: God. But that issue aside, was Jesus wrong to say the
01:26:12: Jews know who they worship? No, they knew who Yahweh was. But that does not limit
01:26:18: Yahweh's self -manifestation to unitarianism. The fact that the
01:26:25: New Testament writers can use the one name Yahweh of the Father and of the
01:26:30: Son and of the Spirit, and yet do so in distinguishable contexts, demonstrates that the writers of the
01:26:40: New Testament were not limited as Mr.
01:26:46: Perkins would limit them. And again, for Mr. Perkins, my argument in The Forgotten Trinity is quite clear.
01:26:54: I agree 100 % with Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. The primary and foundational evidence of the
01:27:03: Trinity is to be found in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
01:27:09: That takes place between the Testaments. And just as the writer of the Hebrews tells us that the law of God, that law which is so highly exalted in the
01:27:21: Psalter, you think of the 119th Psalm and its constant exaltation of the law of God, that law of God, if that was but a schion, a shadow, not having the essence of the good things to come, but a mere shadow of the things to come, how can you limit us?
01:27:42: Because I think if, honestly, if you're going to be consistent with this type of argumentation, you would not be able to believe the book of Hebrews.
01:27:49: Because the book of Hebrews says, yeah, they had that, but there's so much more. It pointed forward to a greater fulfillment.
01:27:58: And if you're saying, well, we can, all we can do is, we can only go as far as the Jews have gone at that particular point in time,
01:28:04: I think they had gone farther than Mr. Perkins thinks they did, certainly in the New Testamental period, especially in their views of the
01:28:11: Devar and wisdom and so on and so forth. But leaving that aside, I do not believe that in any way, shape, or form, we are limited by the
01:28:21: Jewish understanding at that point. Wow, that was a day.
01:28:30: Thanks for listening to the program. All I can say is, boy, we need to pray for Mr. Kinney and anybody like him.
01:28:37: Uh, because that is a level of, um, of self -deception that is absolutely shocking.
01:28:44: It truly, truly is. Um, anyhow, there you go, folks.
01:28:50: Uh, Thursday, Jumbo DL. I don't know. Maybe we'll just, we'll try a regular one just for this, just for the fun of it.
01:28:58: But I might come across something that I want to talk about between now and then. Who knows? We'll see you on Thursday.
01:29:03: God bless. Um, the dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.
01:29:55: If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.
01:30:00: Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the worldwide web at AOMIN .org.
01:30:07: That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.