March 2, 2004

from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded

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

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

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

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

James White. Legend has it that in later years,

St. Peter, the head of the Apostles who was by that time the first Bishop of Rome, fled the city to escape the persecution of Christians taking place there.

While on the road, he met Jesus coming from the other direction. Peter asked Jesus, Quo vadis, which means, where are you going?

Jesus answered that he was going to Rome to die again for his people. Chastened, Peter immediately turned around and headed back to Rome.

Now we have arrived at a similar crossroads, a moment of decision or delay, action or inaction where you must choose whether you will act on what you know to be true about Jesus.

This choice is not some small matter, but one of great importance. The time is now to seriously consider and respond to his call to follow him.

What can you do to respond to what Jesus has done for you? Here are three recommendations. Number one, purchase a

Bible and begin reading the Gospels. Remember though, that while the Bible contains life -changing eternal truth, it is not always an easy book to understand.

St. Peter stated as much when he said that some can twist the scriptures to their own destruction, 2 Peter 3 .16.

So you need to be careful. It's one thing to break a man -made law. It's far worse to get one of God's teachings wrong.

That could have eternal consequences. We need to follow the lead of the Ethiopian eunuch who realized that he needed a teacher when he said, how can

I understand unless someone guides me, Acts 8 .31. This leads us to the next recommendation.

If you are a non -Catholic, find a local Catholic church and meet with a priest. The Catholic church has been given the authority by Jesus to teach in his name.

By following the church that Jesus established, you can be sure that you are plugged into the apostolic faith, the faith that has been given the gifts of the sacraments, divinely given leadership, and the promise of remaining faithful until the end of time.

While there are instances when individuals in the church fall into error and sin, we need to realize that the church is both divine and human.

At no point, however, will the church teach anything but the truth, because it is protected by the

Holy Spirit. God has ordained that it will be here with the Gospel fully intact until the end of time.

If you are a former Catholic, meet with a priest to be reconciled with the church through the sacrament of penance.

Confession, although a little scary to some, is liberating. Your confession is protected by the seal of confession, which means a priest can never reveal what he has heard.

Quite simply, the confessional is the safest and best place on earth to ask God's forgiveness.

Three, after a period of prayer, study, and frequenting the sacraments, become active in your faith.

A believing Catholic is an active Catholic, either through apostolic works or a life of serious prayer for the rest of the church.

Your new life of faith will be a fantastic journey. Be assured of the prayer support of your fellow members of the church.

Although you may never meet the humble priests, sisters, brothers, and lay Catholics dedicated to prayer, know that they are praying for you.

Well, have I gone Catholic? People are asking. No. No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No.

No. No.

No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No. No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No. No. No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No потом it's actually numerically the same event.

So my question is, number one, does that make sense? And number two, how would you respond to that?

Well, that is the orthodox statement, and I'm sure that O 'Brien would agree with the assertion that there is only one sacrifice that is re -presented in the

Mass. And so it is a part of dogmatic theology that there is only one sacrifice, but there is a re -presentation of that sacrifice in the

Mass. Now, does that really make any sense? Well, when you start pressing on that particular issue, the

Roman Catholic apologist will in essence indicate and assert at that point that since Christ was an eternal person, then his sacrifice can take on non -temporal aspects and can be re -presented through time without it being re -enacted or re -done or be there be more than one sacrifice.

Now, of course, the question then becomes, well, are you saying then that Christ's flesh is outside the realm of time?

Was Christ's flesh outside the realm of time lacrosse? There's all sorts of stuff you get into that obviously is far beyond anything that the biblical writers ever gave consideration to.

And we've discussed that a couple of times on the program in the past, especially when reviewing some of the discussions by Dr.

Scott Hahn on that particular issue. Now, I've responded to it a number of times, beginning in January of 91 in a debate with Mitchell Pacwa and in each of the debates that we've done since that period of time.

And, in essence, I feel that the strongest response to the issue of the

Eucharistic sacrifice being the same sacrifice as the sacrifice upon the cross, and I'll warn you ahead of time, this response really requires a

Reformed perspective, a Reformed understanding of the

Atonement. And since I'm Reformed... I've got that, don't worry. Well, good. Since I'm coming from that perspective, that's the only way that I can really present this, and that is, well, if that is the case, let's go ahead and grant that the

Roman Catholic assertion is this is the self -same sacrifice being represented. What was the effect of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross, according to Hebrews chapter 10, over against the teaching of the

Roman Catholic Church of the effect of approaching unto that same sacrifice in the

Mass? Well, according to Hebrews chapter 10, there's an entire article on this on our website, dealing with this very issue.

According to Hebrews chapter 10, that one -time sacrifice perfects forever for all time those who are sanctified, those for whom it is made, in fact.

And we discussed the syntax of the Greek and all the rest of that stuff in the article on the website, and I'd recommend it to your reading if you haven't seen it before.

But that is in contrast to the reality of the Roman Catholic position, and that is, any

Roman Catholic who really understands what they believe, if you say, can you go to Mass 5 ,000 times in your life?

Well, yes. How about 10 ,000 times? Yeah. Do you live a long enough life? Could you do it 20 ,000 times?

Yes. All right. Did any one of those perfect you? And in Roman Catholic theology, none of them perfect you, because it is the effect of the

Eucharistic sacrifice in your behalf is dependent upon your disposition as you approach it.

It is limited. You are not perfected by it. You gain grace by it, but when you leave that sacrifice, you are not perfected thereby.

Hence, my argument has always been it cannot be the same sacrifice because of the fact that it is so different in its effect than the sacrifice found in Scripture.

And then I do tie that together with the fact that right before Hebrews 10, 10 -14, beginning at the end of Chapter 9, the writer there emphasizes to us and explains to us the fact that the repetitive sacrifices of the

Old Covenant pointed to their imperfection, the fact they could not perfect you. And the repetitive, and even if you want to use the terminology, representation of the sacrifice of the

Mass has the exact same effect. It becomes a reminder of sins. In fact, if you get a chance, you might want to listen to the debate.

The debate itself was not overly useful. Both of the debates of Deningus, Roberts, and Genes and the

Mass have not been overly useful simply because of attitude and behavior issues. But at one point, in one of the two of them,

I think it was the first of the two, Mr. St. Genes makes the assertion that yes, the

Mass is a reminder of sins. And the writer of the Hebrews says that the repetitive sacrifice of the

Old Covenant were an anamnesis, a reminder of sins, but our anamnesis, our reminder, our memory in the

New Covenant is not of sins but of a Savior who bore those sins in our place. And so there's a vast contrast between the two.

That is how I respond to that assertion. And in doing so, attempt to present to the

Roman Catholic the biblical concept of the completed work of Christ, the finished work of Christ.

And of course, that does really require you to believe in substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary atonement is a reformed concept.

And hence, it really is not the type of response that you would hear in most of evangelicalism that is non -reformed because you really can't offer that kind of response.

It doesn't fit with your system because you've already agreed with Rome that in essence, the atonement creates a hypothetical situation rather than an actual substitutionary one.

Yeah, that makes sense. Is that useful? It is useful. I was going to tell you, in a number of Catholics that I've talked to, it seems that they rail against that Father O 'Brien quote.

They really don't like it because it seems to speak of Christ being offered again and again or a thousand times.

Well, you know, it's interesting. I was listening, and I understand that, and he's writing about 50 years ago.

Do most of these folks listen a lot to people like Scott Hahn? Yeah, precisely.

Yeah, there you go. And that's why. That was not really the emphasis 50 or 60 years ago.

I remember I was teaching over at Golden Gate. I think this was about two or three years ago. And I was there for like two weeks, and so you'd stay in the dorms and stuff, and I was in this nice little room, and I had the radio on because there wasn't a

TV in the room, and I had found the local Catholic radio station. I was just sort of listening in as I was writing something.

And they had, oh, what was his name? He wrote a shorter category. Oh, Hardin. Father John Hardin was on.

And I about dropped my whatever it was I was doing as I listened to him finishing up a devotional, talking, and he specifically said, and people would say, oh, you can't say it because you can't document it.

Yeah, I could not track down the tape or anything else, but I heard him say it. And it was an older tape.

You could tell it had been recorded a long time ago. And he was simply saying, he was talking about the beauty of seeing

Christ's death in the sacrifice of the mass over and over and over again.

And now, you know, that was the voice of an older Catholicism. Now the voice of the apologetic

Catholic is one sacrifice, which is dogmatically the assertion, represented, not resacrificed.

And so, you know, I've been very careful. If you look at the Roman Catholic controversy, I bring that out.

I let them define that that way. Fine, that's wonderful. But the fact remains it does not accomplish what the one sacrifice did.

And it is hard to understand the nuance that's being placed upon it when you really understand the doctrine of transubstantiation.

When you look back in church history, look what happened when transubstantiation entered into the thinking of the church at the end of the first millennium, the beginning of the second millennium, you see all the discussions coming up in regards to stuff about what to do if you drop a piece of the consecrated host and the wine.

That had never been a discussion in the church in the first thousand years. But all of a sudden it enters in, and when you understand transubstantiation, that becomes a sacrificial event unto itself.

So the idea of it just being a representation of that one, like I said,

I will allow them to say that, but I don't know that it really addresses the issue. It just requires us to be more precise in our phrasing of our objection to it.

Cool, thanks. And there are a number of people here at MIT who are definitely benefiting from your ministry.

Well, thank you very much. God bless. Wow, I've got to stop doing that British accent if we've got people at MIT listening.

I mean, those are smart folks. And they are.

And I hope they can appreciate a little bit of humor once in a while.

I need it myself. It's been a rough day. It's been a long day. It's not been a good day. But, you know, if every day was a good day, would you even be thankful for them?

I'd probably not. Did we lose? I saw something scroll by there about someone falling off the line.

No, we're okay? All right. We're fine. Okay, we've got plenty of room, however, at 877 -753 -3341.

877 -753 -3341 is the toll -free phone number.

And so, let's see. Yes, some of the 24 listeners go to MIT.

Let's go ahead and talk with Jeff in South Jersey. Hello again, Jeff. Hey, Dr.

White, how are you doing? Doing pretty good. I'm actually in Valley Forge right this second. Ah, Valley Forge, okay.

Yeah, that's where I work. Oh, all right. So you're sort of hoping that your boss isn't one of the other 23 people who listen?

It's a toll -free number. He doesn't care. Oh, so he doesn't mind that you're not working at the moment? It's 730 at night.

I hope he doesn't mind. What are you, a bank security guard or something?

Hey, there it goes. The guys are carrying the safe out right now. But I'm too busy. I'm on the dividing line.

Leave me alone. Yes, sir. Well, anyway, just a comment on what the last caller was saying.

It seems to me more for that that the

Catholic apologists kind of got caught with their figurative pants down with Hebrews, kind of like an ex post facto kind of explanation.

They had their beliefs, and then it's like, that doesn't really fit with Scripture. So anyway.

Well, obviously all of us seek to, you know,

I know that I take the time and listen to what someone else is saying. I try to listen.

If I'm going to be debating, if Scott Hahn would ever debate me, then I would obviously seek to make my presentation the most effective in opposition to Scott Hahn's presentation.

I mean, that's one of the things I don't like when I have to debate someone where they've never recorded something on the subject, never written something on the subject, because then

I cannot craft my opening to be most effective in regards to that particular individual, to use their terminology, you know, stuff like that.

And so I understand that part. But, yeah, there is, it is obvious to me anyways that the emphasis upon that one -time aspect is meant to short -circuit the common evangelical or even fundamentalist objection at that particular point.

The problem is many of those in that camp, because they will not think through or face difficult issues concerning the nature of substitution, the issue of predestination, election, things like that, they end up short -circuiting their ability to really provide a fully orbed response to that particular issue.

Gotcha. I had a quick question about Full Scriptura, because of my Braveheart joke last week

I wasn't able to get to. I know you have an upcoming book about that.

Just about done with it. And I enjoyed very much Keith Matheson's book, and he was very nice to me online.

Keith's a wonderful guy. He is a very wonderful guy. And I was kind of curious, since you had some of the same concerns

I had regarding the Heiko Obermann's views.

Specifically the idea of Tradition Zero, Tradition One, Tradition Two, right? Tradition One, Tradition Two. One of the things

I always liked with Full Scriptura arguments, at least vis -à -vis the

Roman Catholic Church, is that you can go back to the New Testament and kind of see how Christ as kind of a model for, you know, their view of Tradition Two or whatever, obviously does not fit what

Jesus believed about Scripture. You know, that kind of thing. And I was wondering if in your book you deal with Heiko Obermann's position at all, or if you do something similar where you go to the

New Testament to kind of view how Jesus uses Scripture. Yeah, I did address briefly

Christ's view of Scripture. It is limited primarily to 225 pages, so there's only so much you can do.

And what I'm trying to do is, in reality, use this book as a primer, a means of exciting someone, so that they'll go out and get the

Webster King set, they'll go out and track down people like Salmon or Whitaker or Good, you know, track down some of these older works and really dig into them.

But most folks aren't going to do that, so I want to try to do something to where, you know, these individuals are going to be excited about this subject, at least get a good grounding in it, even if they're not going to go far beyond that into some of the deeper stuff.

So it is somewhat limited. I did specifically interact with Keith's assertions in regards to the issue, and in fact

I sent, I believe, I'm trying to remember, I think I sent, well I know I sent something on the Canon to him,

I'm not sure if I sent that particular section. I will one way or the other. Anyways, I did specifically by name make reference to his position and pointed out that in reality what he says against solo scriptura,

I had said much earlier in 1995, 1996, in my

Roman Catholic controversy book, in saying what solo scriptura is not, and I had likewise said those in debates going back to 1993 and earlier than that, so that clearly

I agree with him and his concerns that the scriptures were not given to us to be, you know, set off in a hyperbaric chamber someplace and have an existence all of their own that's not a part of the church.

The church is given these scriptures as a purpose in the church, so on and so forth. But I then took exception to the assertion that there is a quote -unquote apostolic tradition that seemingly originates from the apostles that as far as I can tell from Keith Matheson's perspective is in essence what

Irenaeus said, and that is it's a really, really boiled down apostolic creed type thing in regards to there's one

God, create all things, Jesus Christ his son, and died on Calvary's cross, and rose again the third day.

Maybe that's the extent of what this is, but somehow this becomes necessary to properly interpreting the

Bible. I did address, for example, the fact that if a Mormon comes to the scriptures with an external authority that says plurality of gods, and then they slap that on top of the scriptures, they're obviously going to misread the scriptures.

But the problem is the Bible is very clear on the fact there's only one true God. Every one of these traditions that the early church fathers talk about are actually sub -biblical.

They're derivative from scripture, and I don't believe that they existed outside of scripture. And I basically just took umbrage with or disagreed with the formulation that in essence says there is any kind of extra -biblical, whether you want to call it revelational or not, tradition that is required to make scripture understandable.

I think that scripture in and of itself speaks of God's authority, and that it does so in such a way that it does not require that external witness of some sort of tradition.

So I do by name deal with that. It's only probably six or seven paragraphs, but I do recognize that that position's out there, and try to make some helpful distinctions between what

I'm saying and what he's saying, and of course what he's really representing in that is a popularized view of Heiko Obermann's viewpoint.

Yeah, I know it gets to the perspe... You're going to have to help me with this word. Perspicuity.

Thank you. Scripture. I thought something had just gone wrong with the phone line there. I was going to let you go right off.

That's why I needed a little help. But I do remember reading a review of Webster King from him where he highly recommended it.

Yes, uh -huh. So... Yeah. Theirs came out after his, and I would be interested in knowing if he would make any adjustments in light of their work.

I don't know if he would or wouldn't. I'm not in any... I do not want to take on Keith Matheson, don't want anybody to think that somehow

I don't think he's a wonderful guy and that there's not great stuff in his book, as there is. I just disagree with him on that point, and in regards to that particular issue of the tradition, and it sort of goes back to some of the stuff that I'm hearing from these quote -unquote reformed

Catholics, and I'm not saying he's one of them, but there are those who are really developing that to a point where I'm starting to really wonder if many of them actually do believe in solo scriptura.

Well, I asked him about, via email, about, say, Martin Luther or whatever, because the curriculum wouldn't be completely clear on everything, and I didn't get any impression that he didn't want the

Reformation to happen or that was unwarranted. Oh, no, I don't think so. I'm referring at this point to other folks where there's much more discussion of that.

And I consider myself reformed and Catholic in a small -c sense, if that meant connected to the ancient church.

I don't know what that means anymore. Maybe I'll have to redefine

Catholic in that sense. Well, I'm referring to the... I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I just want to make sure everybody understands

I'm referring specifically to a movement along those lines. Well, I was excited about the movement for a little bit, then

I'm like, I'm in grad school right now, so I'm going to just move on to other things.

All righty. Well, I appreciate your call, sir. All right. All right. God bless. God bless you. Bye. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be going to Drew in Idaho after we take our break. And after you call, 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back. A godly man is such a rarity today.

So many stars, strong and true, quickly fall away.

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

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.

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.

The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org.

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

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

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived, bodily assumed

Queen of Heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

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

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

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

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE. If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org,

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

Back to the dividing line.

My name is James White. We are taking your phone calls today at 877 -753 -3341.

Let's go up to Boise, Idaho and talk with Drew. Hi, Drew. Hey.

How are you? Good to talk to you. I had a comment,

I guess, about something in debating Calvinism. I just got one of your signed pre -order copies.

It's been good. On page 212 and 213, it's in the debate on irresistible grace.

I noticed the first time I read it, in Dave Hunt's response, there are two paragraphs right next to each other that kind of make a contradictory argument.

He's arguing against faith being a gift, and he says right at the bottom, he says,

Jesus never once doesn't say that faith is a gift. Indeed, no one can even approach God without faith.

Hebrews 11, 6. But if faith is a gift, why don't the elect all live lives of perfect faith?

Clearly, there is a responsibility on the part of the person exercising faith. But in the next paragraph, he says,

White attempts to use other scriptures to support his contention that saving faith is a gift, but none directly says what he wants it to say.

And then he goes on to say that these passages about faith, that it is granted to believe in him, it says that it has to do with faith to live the

Christian life after being saved. And I thought it was interesting because he was saying, well, it's not a gift in the paragraph before.

And then he says, well, it is a gift, but it's a gift given after one is saved to live the

Christian life. But if that's true, then wouldn't it be that everyone who is a

Christian is then given that gift and then lives the perfect Christian life? Yeah, he says on page 213,

Yes, one of the fruits of the Spirit is faith, but this is faith given to believers for living the

Christian life, not faith given to the unsaved for believing the gospel. So he now wants to basically divide that up and say that, well, yeah, once you believe, then you're given faith to live the

Christian life. As if the initial act of faith, that's something anybody can do. We can work that out from within ourselves.

But then for some odd strange reason, the Spirit has to give us faith to live the Christian life. Yeah, there's no question that over and over again people have been saying, how can he make statements like saying there is not one verse that says faith comes by regeneration or there's not one verse that says this and I've shown no verses that say that.

I even had to say a couple times, wouldn't it be a whole lot better to just simply say I disagree with the interpretation you've given of these verses, not that I haven't even made an argument.

I mean, it really does. That's been one of the main objections that people have voiced to me, not anything about what

I said, but basically, why in the world debate this guy? I mean, he's not up to par here and I've tried to explain to folks, look,

I'm not the one that contacted Initially Loyal Publishing and started this thing. They contacted me after I wrote my open letter to Dave Hunt and they invited me to do this particular book and I told them up front,

I gave a number of objections. He doesn't do exegesis. He's not going to stay on topic and each time the publisher said, all the better for you.

And so that publisher was not the one that ended up publishing it, though. They were bought out by Multnomah.

So, hey, you know, I just look on the back, it says Tim LaHaye and Chuck Smith. So I figure that means it's going to get read by folks who otherwise would never touch anything

I've ever written or ever would write. And will some of those folks actually just skip my parts? Yep. I realize that.

There's nothing I can do about that. Some, however, will not. That's important. It was good.

I like the, you know, I noticed you didn't really respond to that, but that was because it was exegesis. Yeah, what are you supposed to do?

Yeah, I mean, I had to look at each section and remember after the initial response, you have exactly half as many words to respond to what came before.

You've got to pick and choose. And when he's going all over the road, I had to try to keep it somewhere in the topic or no one would be able to make heads or tails out of it.

All righty? Yeah, I thought it was excellent. Okay, well, thanks. Thanks a lot. What verse did

I write in the front? On the front? John 10, 26 through 30.

There you go. Okay, all right. See, I had a whole list. I kept trying to mix them up so that it wouldn't just be the same one.

All right, Drew, thanks a lot. No problem. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. Well, you know, let me try to work this out to where we can get our last two callers in.

And the only way I'm going to be able to do that, because Pierre and I go on forever. So hold on, Pierre, and let me talk quickly to Wayne, and then we'll talk with Pierre to close things out.

Hi, Wayne. Hi, how are you doing? Doing good. Good. I just want to commend you on your stand on getting into the movie,

The Passion. Well, I've taken a stand in making sure people know what it's about and recognizing, you know.

I'm an ex -Catholic. I came out of Catholicism and got saved. And I just want to commend that you're warning people, basically, about the system and stuff like that.

I think people need to understand that the battle of the Reformation is not over. A lot of folks may not even be showing up on the battlefield anymore, but those issues are still vitally important.

And I know of at least one situation where we've had an opportunity of beginning a fruitful dialogue on the issues surrounding

Roman Catholicism as a result of the film. So I'm thankful for that. The first thing

I said back in December when I first started to address this was, Look, it's coming.

We're going to have to do something about it, whether you see it or not. It's coming, so we need to be prepared. We need to be talking about the cross, understanding what we believe, things like that.

That's the opportunity we've got. So it's not popular, believe you me, but, hey, you know, you've got to do what's right.

Yeah, I agree. I've been saved now for 10 years, and talking to brothers and sisters against the

Catholic Church after coming out of it, I find I meet a lot of opposition, even among the brethren. Oh, yeah.

And I just wanted to commend you on that. I read a lot of Spurgeon and Pink, and they talk a lot about, you know, against the

Catholic Church, too. And I just wanted to commend you about it. Okay, well, I appreciate it. Yeah, God bless you.

All right, thanks a lot. Thanks, bye -bye. All right, bye -bye. All right, let's go to and talk with our good old friend,

Pierre. Hi, Pierre. I was calling today because I wanted to get your view on how you would define the world as used by our

Lord and Savior in John 3, verses 15 through 17, because it seems that Dave Hunt is right, that one would have to redefine what the world is if one is going to be a

Calvinist. Or one would just actually have to admit that the Gospel of John itself uses the

Greek term kosmos in 14 different ways. Can you speak up a little bit? For some reason, I'm having a hard time hearing you.

Nothing I can do on my end. Okay, that's better. Whatever you did. That's completely somebody else's control.

But what I just said was, rather than redefining anything, what we might want to do is simply to recognize that the

Gospel of John itself utilizes the Greek term kosmos in 14 different ways, and hence the assertion that Calvinists are redefining world.

Actually, what Calvinists do is, as I point out on our website when I responded to Mr. Hunt initially on the subject of John 3, which you can find in my open letter to him, and that goes into much more detail in regards to this particular issue than I can on the program,

I just simply recognize that the term is used by John in a number of different ways, and therefore we need to not just read it in our tradition, but instead read it within the context in which the writer uses it.

And that is what we do with John 6, as you and I have discussed before in any other passage.

So, in John chapter 3, the assertion is not that the term world is being defined in the sense of whether this is talking about every single human being,

Jews, Gentiles, or the created order, or the world that's certainly not being used in the sense that Jesus uses it in John 17, where he prays for his own, he's not praying for the world, this is a different use, but that's not really the issue at all.

The point of John chapter 3 is that God's love is expressed by the sending of his son, so that all the believing ones, the ones believing in him, would have eternal life.

The only ones who have eternal life are the ones believing in him. That's the only term in John chapter 3 that delimits anything that's relevant to the subject of Calvinism or Arminianism or anything else.

And if you think that Mr. Hunt is right, then it sounds like what you're saying is you'd look at the word whoever and assume that that is actually representing something in the original text that denies any particularity on God's part in the subject of election, which is also not what the passage is referring to either.

Is that what you think he's correct about? Is that the whoever somehow denies the existence of election?

No, I think that the statement of our Lord and Savior clearly implies that he came as a

Savior to every single human being upon the face of the earth, past, present, and future.

Why do you say that when the text itself specifically limits eternal life to those who believe?

That's the whole difference between the Calvinists and those who believe in free will.

God did, in fact, die for the whole world, but eternal life is available only for those who follow his teachings and who accept him as their

Savior. That's interesting because when you say follow his teachings, what you believe is different than what

Mr. Hunt believes in regards to the nature of faith. That's the case, but the point being is that what our

Lord and Savior is saying is that those who believe on him and who accept him as their

Savior are the ones who are to be saved. But nevertheless, he clearly states that he came that the world might not be condemned.

And the only way to correctly understand it or to make it sense within the Reformed position, you'd have to, as Dave Hunt seemed to indicate, to translate the word the world to refer to the elect.

No, not at all. Because, again, you're ignoring the fact that... Do you think there's only one use of the word world in John?

I think that you can use it in different ways. There's no question about it. Okay, but why do you assume that world here means every person who's ever lived?

Why do you think, for example, that what this is really meaning is for God so loved the

Canaanites who lived in Canaan when the children of Israel were in Egypt to whom he sent no prophets and whom he just waited until their iniquity was filled up and then wiped them out, man, woman, and child, by the

Israelite armies, that God loved that Canaanite so much that 1 ,400 years later, in complete ignorance to them, he sent

Jesus to save somebody else other than them? How does that flow from the text?

Well, I think that, first of all, the problem that we... or the difference that you and I would have, me as a

Latter -day Saint, is that I don't know anywhere, at least not that I recall reading, in this state that no prophets were sent unto them.

It's true, it might not be mentioned that prophets were sent, but you're making an assumption that no prophets were sent to them and that they were not in any way warned.

I would submit to you that that's not the case at all. So you believe that God was pleading with the

Canaanites prior to sending the Israelite army in to wipe them out, man, woman, and child?

Well, I don't know that for a fact. All I'm saying is that it's a distinct possibility and I think, in fact,

I would say it's very likely that he would have sent prophets unto them also.

It's a moot point because there's really nothing in the text, as far as I know anyway, one way or the other, that argues the point.

And so what I wanted to say, of course, as a Latter -day Saint, we believe that the teaching of the gospel goes on well beyond this life, as you well know.

I understand that you do. And so it would make entire sense within the context of the

Latter -day Saint position that God would send a son, even if he had not sent prophets unto them, knowing that in due time they would be taught the gospel and they would have an opportunity to make a choice for Christ or to reject him in the spirit world, as suggested in Peter.

Which proves again the fact that when you look at John chapter 3, you're not reading

John chapter 3 in the context of the Bible. You're reading it in the context of Mormonism. And so when you talk about the natural reading, we're not talking about the natural reading within John's context.

We're talking about the natural reading when placed within the context of the writings of Joseph Smith, written in 1830 and following, through 1844, and developed on another continent.

And hence those become, since you believe that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of any book on the

Earth and that it's been translated correctly and the Bible is only the word of God as far as it's translated correctly, then that really does become the lens through which you look at this.

And hence when I point out that it just doesn't make any sense within one sentence that specifically limits eternal life to those who believe, to read the first part of that as having this extensive idea of every man, woman, and child who has ever lived.

That is coming to you from your understanding of LDS theology. There's nothing in Peter that talks about sending missionaries to spirit prisons.

Christ's proclamation of those were spirits. Spirits is never used in that way of people. It doesn't fit the context of what's even being said there.

So we again have another one of those situations, Pierre, where we've got eisegesis versus exegesis, and the eisegesis is produced by the fact that you have an ultimate authority in the priesthood of the

LDS church and in the teachings of the modern prophets that override the exegesis of the text itself.

Well, I would in part agree with you in that we all look at Scripture through the lens of our own prejudices, if you will.

I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Well, I think that's pretty much what you said.

No, what I said, no. What I did not say that Scripture is basically up to, well, you have your prejudices, you have your traditions,

I have my prejudices, my traditions. The point of practicing the rules of hermeneutics, of looking at context, of looking at grammar, of following those rules that are meant to filter out those external influences that would keep us from hearing the meaning of the words as they were written by the authors and as they were intended to be understood, that practice of exegesis is not something that you as a

Latter -day Saint can engage in because of your expanded canon,

A, and, B, because of the overriding authority of the living prophets and apostles who you believe to hold the same ability of revelation as the apostles of the

Lord Jesus Christ who gave us the Scriptures and laid the foundation of the Church in the Bible.

And so what I'm simply saying is we can't approach the text in the same way.

I'm not approaching the text by saying, well, I'm just going to try to find Calvinism here. I'm approaching the text as saying, look, you have a delimiter here.

You have a phrase that says, so that the believing ones...

Now, if that's the delimitation in the text, then why you would take kosmos and expand it to a meaning that it only rarely could ever have.

I mean, for a Jewish person, world, kosmos, even when it's talking about human beings, would primarily mean

Jews and Gentiles. That's how John uses it when he talks about the sacrifice of Christ in Revelation chapter 5.

He says, For by your blood you have redeemed unto God men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

There's world. If you want extensiveness that transcends culture and language group, there it is.

Tribe, tongue, people, and nation. But that doesn't mean every single individual in each one of those groups.

It's men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. So that's what I'm trying to illustrate to you is the difference between those two approaches.

Well, I can certainly understand where you're coming from, except that we have a lot of individuals like Dave Hunt, like Adrian Rogers, like a number of others whom

I've heard you talk about and listened to on other programs also, who clearly translate, who really read this exactly the way

I do. Yeah, they have their traditions too. See, that's what I'm saying. You have the idea that you're the only one who's given the correct exegesis of this passage.

That's because whenever I engage those folks, the few that will even do so, on the level of the text, they implode.

They can't deal with the text on that level. And I've just demonstrated that you're not doing it either.

You're reading your LDS presuppositions into it. So far you haven't dealt with the uses of Cosmos.

Had you even ever looked at the uses of Cosmos in the Gospel of John? Had you ever looked at the delimiter there?

Have you looked at what's in the book? I'm not sure if you've picked up the book or not, but in the book

I discuss these particular issues. Which book is that? Debating Calvinism with Dave Hunt.

No, I have not. I would figure how many times have you called in in defense of Dave Hunt you'd want to pick the book up?

In fact, if you get it from him, he might sign it for you. I've heard your discussions on the program over and over again, and it's very clear to me that you're altering what

John is quoting our Savior as saying. I think it's very clear that God intends to save the world, not only from this passage, but from numerous other passages throughout

Scripture. Well, that's exactly how Dave argues. The problem is, I've just demonstrated, that the only reason you believe that is because you're not listening to the text itself.

You've got all these other things, you're reading it into that, you haven't explained why, in light of the fact that the text itself says limits eternal life to the one who believes, how then this demonstrates a universal love for every single individual who has ever lived to limit eternal life to many of them who will never believe.

How does that demonstrate that? I think I have. I think we've already discussed the fact that the issue has to do that God provides salvation to everyone who wants to partake of it.

Where does John 3 .16 say that? See, that's your presupposition. No, it's not. It says so right here.

Okay, where does it say that? Where does it say provide? Where's the word provide? The word provide is not there, of course not.

Oh, well, wait a minute. See, that's what exegesis is about. No. It's not? I think you're entirely wrong about that.

You're trying to limit the exact wording here, and you don't want to go outside to look at other texts that talk about this subject.

That's called exegesis. No, it's not. It's called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics and exegesis.

You cannot isolate a passage and try and interpret it independent of other passages that discuss the same topic.

But, Pierre, the problem, and I'm not even trying to do so. What I'm saying to you, though, is you cannot say, well, these other passages say this.

You have to interpret them, too. Just like to interpret this. You're reading those presuppositions into this text.

You've given us no basis for it, and haven't answered the questions of the text itself. And that is the continued demonstration that that's what always happens when you try to fit man's alleged libertarian free will into a scripture that teaches that God, and God alone, is the sovereign king over all things.

We'll see you Thursday morning, 11 a .m., here on The Dividing Line. God bless. I believe we're standing at the crossroads

Let this momentous flow away We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for We need a new

Reformation day Brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona 85069 You can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org

That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.