Redefinition of Marriage

Webcasting around the world 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. And he just barely gets the headsets on in time to swing the microphone around.

If anyone in the audience is a fellow cycling enthusiast such as myself, you know that the second stage of the

USA Pro Cycling Challenge ended about 32 .4 seconds ago. And American T .J.

Van Gorderen pulled it off, came out of nowhere. It's like a helicopter dropped him out of some place right at the end of the race.

I'm not sure how he did that, but anyway, it's good to be with you on whatever day of the week it is today.

I think it's Tuesday. I used to be able to see that calendar on the wall a lot more clearly than I can anymore.

But yes, I think it is Tuesday. You know, I was just looking at the material that we have from Harry Knox and I came to the conclusion that we are about 30 seconds from the end of the meaningful material.

I mean, yeah, there was stuff during the Q &A that was interesting. But as far as the whole reason

I wanted to cover the Harry Knox materials, because Harry Knox represents what you all are encountering,

I just want to tell everybody, I really I do see the tweets and at least some of the emails and people coming to channel and things like that of people saying, thank you so much for covering the homosexual issue.

I was, you know, a street witness, someone in Twitter said I was street witnessing in London this week and the stuff that you've been doing was extremely helpful.

And, you know, students in school getting hit with this stuff right, left and center. And so I, I fully understand.

I hear that and I'm extremely thankful and appreciative of the kind words and I wish we did not have to take time to respond to these things.

I, you know, as I said, my the generations before us didn't address these things very much, which may be why we're addressing them.

But I don't think so. I don't think so. I, I, I see it.

It seems to me, you know, we had somebody come into channel and, you know, sort of on a we have people come into channel and they're they've got a crusade.

They've got one point. Sometimes we have to refer to him as the one string banjo.

You know, it's got this got one note. And no matter how hard you can tell, if you tried to get them on to some other topic to see if there's some balance, it just wouldn't happen.

I'm not sure that's the case of this fellow. But this one particular fellow came to channel and he just kept pounding away.

Pounding away at one question, and that was

I, I had said, look, how can we say God bless America when

America is so absolutely intent upon just just the most extreme forms of rebellion and expressing absolute detestation for basically the entirety of God's law?

How can we say God bless America when the idea of repentance, holiness,

I mean, every week brings us new evidence that that from the very highest echelons of our of our government through universities, military, we just I mean,

I'm surprised there hasn't been a huge celebration in. San Francisco, last week, we got our first opium openly lesbian general in the army,

I believe it was. And her lover put the stars on her uniform, you know.

And every aspect and then the young generation just doesn't think anything's wrong with this stuff anymore.

It's just, well, you know, well, anyways, we we had this guy come in and he says, well, look, my generation thinks racism is worse than homosexuality.

And the founders and and everybody were racist. So how could

God have blessed that? And, you know, the first thing that I wanted to say to him was,

I've never said that we could say God bless America because America is a wonderful place in the sense of no nation can ever claim a blessing from God based upon how wonderfully obedient they are.

I mean, if the Old Testament tells you anything, it tells you that. How many times did

God say to the people of Israel, I didn't choose you because you are the greatest or the best or anything else. I chose you to demonstrate my power, my grace and blah, blah, blah.

So, you know, I it was the idea was never, well, we used to be good and now we're bad.

There is there. I kept trying to explain to this young person, there is a vast difference in what we're doing today.

You might say that evidently the idea was, well, you know, those preceding generations, they were just all a bunch of hypocrites.

Well, I'm sure there's hypocrisy in every generation, but in our laws, in the public mores, there was something called shame and it was directed at those who violated moral standards.

Now the homosexuals yell shame at anyone who dares to expose their sinfulness. But back then, there was shame attached to certain behaviors, including homosexuality.

There was shame attached to the abandonment of children or all sorts of behaviors.

And the idea that everybody was a wild -eyed racist was just absurd. I've told my story on that, told that story when

Votie Balcombe is on and I'm not going to repeat all that. But anyway, but there is when you have sins like homosexuality, which are so plainly and so clearly laid out in Scripture.

I mean, I know there are entire books that people have written to try to get around this. I almost kept the website, but if I kept all of them open,

I'd have 47 tabs open in my browser all the time. But there was a

Jesus and homosexuality website somewhere. And this guy had come up with this, well, you've got to, what was it, not duties, somethings, commandments and jobs,

I think is what he called it. Remember, you saw it. Yeah, I think you were in channel at that time and came up with this.

You divide everything up and Jesus, Paul and who else was it?

There's three people in the New Testament. I think it was James. Jesus, Paul and James. They all taught the positive thing.

Love the Lord your God and ethic of love. And then the jobs were just all the rest of the stuff, all the minutia, all the sexual laws.

And it was just such an obvious breaking up of the text and ignoring how each of the authors that they're quoting actually applied.

What does it mean to love the Lord your God? It means to keep his commandments. It means to honor his law. The very thing this guy was saying, you didn't need to worry about doing anymore, you know.

And so I know there's all sorts of this kind of stuff. And and I think that was the same.

Oh, and then somebody else suggested that that Matt Slick had had a exchange.

I haven't heard it, but someone told me he had an exchange with this guy who had written a book.

How was it? It wasn't Gay Christianity 101, but it had something about how to biblically defend gay

Christianity or something like this. And I I found it on Amazon, but it's been out of print for so long that like the cheapest one was one hundred and sixty seven dollars or something like that.

And I'm not going to. Yeah, I think it was Jesus on homosexuality dot com. Yeah, I think Bigelow's right about that.

But there's all sorts of it doesn't matter when we look at every single one of them.

We find that they are just massively warped. Unfair, prejudiced, inaccurate, untruthful attempts to get around a simple fact that most homosexuals already know, that is, the

Bible condemns their behavior. And what they love, you might say a lot of them don't love it,

OK, but if they're trapped in it, there is a point in time where they they turned their love to it.

And there's a warning in Scripture, folks. If you will not love the truth. God will cause you to love a lie, and this is something that our society and many people, many people in the church do not get.

People think that truth and error, right and wrong, it's just it just sort of exists.

And whether I deal with it or not really doesn't matter. That's not true.

If you purposefully. For the satisfaction of your lust as an expression of rebellion against your parents, whatever else it might be.

Getting back at somebody. Excitement of something new, whatever the thing.

If you will engage in behavior. That is fundamentally opposed to God's truth.

If you will show that you really don't love God and you don't love his truth, God is under no obligation to continue to make that truth available to you.

You may well because. You may well be given over, that's that's biblical terminology, given over by God in your lusts to that which will destroy you, that which is a lie.

And the fact that truth and error is a moral issue. That rejecting truth is an immoral act because there is a

God, he gives truth, therefore to reject his truth is to engage in immorality. It's it's it's rebellion against God.

That's radical thinking in in Western society. That's just radical. It's it's based upon the existence of objective truth, a creator, all the all the the fundamental violations of the dogma of secular humanism.

So anyway, when when you engage that kind of behavior.

You may be given over. And that's what we see going on in our society, you have people.

Who are attempting to redefine the very fundamental structures of society and the very fundamental teachings of the

Bible to fit their sexual lusts. That's what

Harry Knox does, that's what Matthew Vines did. At least someone like Dan Savage just doesn't bother.

That's almost refreshing. In one sense. It's it's offensive in another, but in one sense, it's almost refreshing to simply have someone who says,

I'm not going to bother with that. I'm going to live my life the way I want to live my life. I don't care about that Bible stuff.

It's just a bunch of bleep and it's gone from there. At least that's honest. You know, it's like Christopher Hitchens, you know, at least he was honest in his blasphemy.

I'll take that over John Shelby Spong any day. You know, give me my my pagans straight up, in essence.

So the fellow just would not grab hold of the fact that we're talking about something completely different than the all the imperfections of American society in the past is now you have a society that is literally enshrining in its existence and its statements.

Calling that which is evil, good and good, evil. There were always people.

There were people in at the time of the writing of the Constitution who wanted to abolish slavery.

There were always people who were who recognized that the

Western institution of this, which was so different than ancient institutions had been, and certainly different than any biblical model would have been, found slavery to be reprehensible.

But now we have in the highest echelons of society, people saying these behaviors, the murder of unborn children at a time, folks, when we know more about the development of the child in the womb than we have ever known.

Isn't it amazing to you? I remember years ago reading a statement of someone who said that the best way to get rid of abortion would be for the womb to become transparent.

Well, I understand what they're saying, but guess what? It pretty much is anymore. I mean,

I've mentioned I've got a grandbaby coming in December. And the ultrasounds,

I remember the ultrasounds back when my kids were born. I was quite proud of myself that I was able to make out something in that thing.

I was a biology major, so I was, you know. But I, in comparison to what we had, you know, a quarter of a century ago, the ultrasounds that they have now, where they can run it through this algorithm and in essence give you a 3D color picture of your developing baby.

You can look at the face and the arms and the hands and you can just, it's amazing.

And we know about DNA and we know about the human genome and we know that's not a blob of tissue.

We know that that's human and it's uniquely human and that there will never, ever, ever, ever be anyone exactly like that again.

Even at the time where we know the most about the development of the child, we continue to murder them.

Mercilessly. We continue to use the very same type of technology to basically make our aim better.

Talk about something that brings, and in fact is, the judgment of God.

Because when you think about it, one of the biblical categories is the love of a mother for her child.

When a mother will sacrifice her child, that is the ultimate turning around of the natural human order.

And yet that's what we have today. I saw a picture of a woman going into, at 20 weeks, she's 20 weeks along with twins, going into an abortion mill because she just didn't want the hassle.

20 weeks along. And you just, you just go, what? I mean, there are so many people that would adopt those babies.

There's just so, but no, it's just too much of a hassle. I got my life. What kind of a life is that?

It's amazing. It is absolutely amazing how far we've gone into, and it's been appropriately called the culture of death.

Homosexuality is a part of the culture of death. It cannot bring life. It not only diminishes the human life expectancy by a tremendous amount, but it cannot produce life.

It is a part of the culture of death. The culture of death is me, me, me, me, me. I will consume upon myself and I will not give myself in service to others.

That's a, therefore, if I have a child that I don't want, hey,

Peter Singer thinks we should have 18 months or something like that. Just, I don't think I like this one. Kill it.

18 months after, after birth. And we call this man an ethicist.

So much for the meaning of the language. So much for the meaning of the language. This man teaches at a prestigious university.

Well, any university would have someone like that on its, that would even allow someone like that to walk through the front door is unworthy of the attention of any serious minded person from that point on.

No question about it. So anyway, all of that to get back to the fact that there, there was only just a small section left of the comments made by Harry Knox that we need to listen to.

Let's go ahead and just finish that up if we can. The Bible says just as explicitly as Paul says that he thinks what

Mike and I do in bed, which is such a tiny part of our lives, is unnatural.

He says that slavery is natural and that slaves should obey their, their, their masters and parents.

We have moved beyond that in conversation first with God and then with each other.

Now remember, we already covered this. You know, we moved beyond that. We don't need to worry about interpreting the

Bible in its context. We don't need to worry about God's law. We've just moved beyond that. And of course, it's a misrepresentation of the Hebrew concept of, you know, we, we, we already addressed all that.

Like I said, it's just the last little bit of his comments here. Remember, here is a man who started off his presentation trying to say that with fear and trembling, we need to read these texts.

And then once Mike responded with a strong response, what does he do? He, in essence, throws the

Bible under the bus. And we have come, in fact, to learn that we in the white part of the church have much to apologize to, uh, to people of color about, and also to women.

That's the moment we find ourselves. Okay. This is the part where we haven't, this is where we were last time.

...selves in. Uh, the scriptures say what they say. I leave you to argue amongst yourselves about it and work it through, um, with fear and trembling, but I will tell you that you should also be listening to the

Holy Spirit and watching the lives of your Christian, lesbian, and gay neighbors to see what you think about this.

So there you go. I leave it to you to work through the scripture stuff. Wait a minute. Didn't, didn't you just make an entire presentation where you were trying to communicate to people that these texts said what you were saying, but as soon as you're challenged, it's like, uh, uh, uh, and I don't find that to be respectful, let alone, it's obviously not respectful of the

Bible, but I don't even find that to be respectful to the audience, uh, or, or anybody else.

It was, um, it was very, very disappointing to hear that, but not overly unexpected to hear that, to be perfectly honest with you.

Um, so we had, we had dealt with that for a long, long time. Then I realized today as I was queuing it back up that there wasn't that much of it left.

So let's just finish it off again. That was a debate between Michael Brown and Harry Knox, uh, that took place in 2008.

Not much has changed since then. Other than, um, well, uh, actually

I don't know what denomination he's in anymore because he lost his, um, whatever his ordination had been in, he lost it.

And I don't think the United Church of Christ would have done that. So he probably is. I don't know. Uh, there aren't too many denominations, uh, thankfully that would have those folks, but, uh, uh,

United Church of Christ would certainly be one of them. Uh, it was, uh, Barry Lynn, of course it was, uh, ordained in the

United Church of Christ. So that gives you an idea, um, of what's going on there. So there you go.

Every single day new stuff comes out. I have people on Twitter asking me about this argument or that argument, some of which you've already addressed.

I did have someone asking me, um, was it this morning or last evening in Twitter about something

I had said right toward the end of the review of Matthew Vine's material, where he had said that he was taught in Sunday school as one of his part of his closing statements.

I think I didn't go back and listen to it, but it sounded familiar that, uh, he was taught in Sunday school that he was the creation of God.

And then he's a, uh, beloved child of God and, uh, that we should treat him as such.

And I had come back and said, um, no, you're none of those things. Well, I, what

I, I was only responding to his assertion that I'm a beloved child of God. Not that he not created, obviously we're all created, but the questioner said, well, so you don't think that, that God loves

Matthew Vines? And my response was very straightforward. Well, just as Jesus had a beloved disciple and yet he loved the disciples, and just as Israel was the beloved of God, even though God showed his love toward other nations in other ways, in the same way, there is a special redemptive love that God has for his people.

And while God's love is shed abroad all across the world in his common grace and his, in his mercy toward the fact that he does not destroy every sinner at the point where he could at the earliest point in their existence.

Uh, there is a special love that God has for his people, for his beloved people, for those, well, those who are in the beloved one and a person who remains in rebellion and who in fact then puts himself in a position of perverting

God's truth and leading others astray. Uh, that person is under the wrath of God and that is a terrible place to be.

And the only way to, to try to tell people you shouldn't say that to someone is to say that there's no one under the wrath of God.

And if there's no one under the wrath of God, then Jesus was a fraud. Think about that.

When, when people get all upset, oh, you, I can't believe you're talking about a wrathful God. Um, what's the cross?

What is the cross? The cross is God's fully and holy and just solution to the problem of wrath, to the reality of wrath, which is the necessary result of God's holiness and the existence of man's sin.

And so when people look at you and say, I can't believe in a wrathful

God, you just need to look right back and say, I thought you said you believed in Jesus.

Well, I do. Well, um, what did Jesus do on the cross?

What, what, what's going on there? And you're not going to tell me that, that you don't believe it.

You know, Jesus himself said it is necessary that I go to Jerusalem. It is necessary that I do this.

Why was it necessary? Why did Jesus pray three times to guard and let this cup pass from me?

It wasn't because he was afraid of death. That's not what he was.

That's not what he's addressing. When he says, let this cup pass from me. He who has been the sinless son of God for all of eternity in perfect communion with the father is going to be made sin so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The wrath of God flows out and is expended upon our perfect substitute.

And if you want to look at me and say, well, I don't like wrath. Then just be honest. Say, I don't like Jesus. I don't like the cross.

I don't like the gospel. Just be honest about it. Stop pretending.

And a lot of people going, Oh, don't, don't tell people that. And yet at the same time, those people recognize that when you have all sorts of people running around presenting false gospels, that it confuses people.

So think about it. What the world is saying to you when it says, Oh, you don't, don't talk about wrath, that's hateful.

Is there saying they hate the gospel. They hate the cross. Now you might not want to just say, so you hate, because that's just such a knee jerk reaction these days.

Um, but you know, uh, you might, might just want to point out.

We're talking about the concept of wrath. It is directly connected to the cross of Jesus Christ.

We're going to try to take a break at the top of the hour, and then we're going to dive back into, uh,

Paul Williams. And unless I guess if there's a call,

I suppose, I don't know. Is there going to be a call maybe possibly, uh, maybe during the break, we'll find out if we happen to have a call hiding in the wings someplace.

And, uh, if so, maybe we'll take that and then get back to Paul Williams. Cause we don't only have a certain amount of time between now and London.

And, um, we need to deal with that then. So we're going to take a break. Be right back right after this.

Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth. Letters to a Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional

Mormon missionary examining the teaching and theology of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints.

The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style, James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well -defined arguments.

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons.

Letters to a Mormon elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at aomen .org.

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios?

No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme Calvinism, defines what the

Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the

Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomen .org. Sneak a call in here before we get back to the

Paul Williams response and talk with Rick. Hi, Rick. Hi, James.

I'll try to keep my questions brief. I might have to take the call off air because I'm cheating.

I'm at work. So, yeah, and I'll try to make them work. But I didn't say where you're calling from, so I helped.

Oh, okay. I'll try to make my questions... Rick in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

How's that? You're fine. That's fine. I don't think my employer listens to your show, for some reason. Aw, everybody does.

I'll try to make my questions worthy of getting a free book one of these days. But you didn't give me a free book last time, either, so that's okay.

Oh, okay. My... Boy, we got a little entitlement mentality going on here.

Yeah, I know, I know. We always want something free in my generation. There you go. Occupy Wall Street.

Okay, anyways, I wanted to ask a kind of...

It's more of a personal question about, like, Phillips, Craig, and Dean. I heard on your show when you were mentioning that they're going to be at Scottsdale Bible Church, and I have some friends there.

And I was wondering, kind of on a personal level, I actually like some of their songs.

I've heard before that they're modalists and that they're non -trinitarian. And, you know,

I've read what you've written about them. And I've also, like I said, on my own study of that, you know,

I've known them to be modalists. And at the same time, there's still a few of their songs that I actually do like.

And from time to time, I lead worship for, like, the youth at the church that I go to down here. It is a

Reformed church. But I find myself uncomfortable playing any of their songs, even though for myself,

I could sing some of the songs that they've written, like, You Are God Alone or the Revelation song.

I actually think they're great songs, and I think if applied appropriately, I think they're wonderful songs to lead, you know,

Christ's church in. But, I mean, is that something that should really concern me?

I mean, it's one thing to hear them singing, because they possibly are singing to a different person than I'm singing to.

I mean, does that make sense? Well, it makes sense in the sense that that's the problem.

It's not that we don't have enough. We've got lots of excellent music that we can utilize that is going to say everything that needs to be said as far as expressing our worship toward God.

This is a group that is—they're not ignorant.

That's the problem. They know exactly what they're doing, and they've been approached by many different people over the years to attempt to reason with them on these issues.

They've been in the midst of sound churches, or at least semi -sound churches anyways, enough times, that they are either continuing to positively promote a falsehood or simply refusing to accept a truth, one of the two.

And so, do we really need to be having to re -translate the music?

Because, like I said, when I first found out about them, I was listening to them too. I like their music as far as just what it sounds like.

But then once I realized, okay, I need to—if I'm going to be interpreting what these men are saying in the context in which they wrote it, which is what

I want to do with Scripture, it's what I want to do with reading any historical document, it's what modern man refuses to do most often, then

I'm going to have to interpret their words within a modalistic context. And so, that's going to change everything.

And do I really need to be having to re -translate everything when there's all sorts of solid

Christian writers out there that are writing music? That's the problem. And then the fact that they are then coming into churches, and that many of these churches, unfortunately, lack discernment in regards to fundamental theological issues.

And they know this. We've challenged them on it many times, and they want this to be happening.

You have to start wondering if they don't want to see these bridges broken down—I'm sorry, walls broken down and bridges constructed,

I guess is the appropriate analogy there. It really does make you wonder if that's exactly what they want to have happening.

And so, yeah, I understand they've got a good beat and some nice lyrics and stuff, but I don't sit around listening to the

Mormon Tabernacle Choir either, but they're really, really good, you know? Yeah, yeah,

I get you. If I have another quick second, I know when

Rich was asking what I was—two words to describe what I was talking about, what I wanted to ask you about, probably seemed extremely divergent topics.

Oh, they did, yeah. Gay marriage and Philip Spring and Dean, yeah, that was— And what, did they preside over one?

No, no, that's not my question. Obviously, being a believer,

I'm 100 % in line, especially a Reformed believer. I love your show, and I'm in agreement with you on everything as far as the biblical side of things, but also politically,

I'm a libertarian. So as far as marriage is concerned, someone like me—and

I'm just asking for, like, your opinion on this. I mean, is there any correction that you would offer me if necessary, you know?

As a libertarian, I tend to think that I would rather government be completely out of the picture and not issue marriage license and not, you know, say that we, the state, give you the right to marry at all, because that right didn't come from the state in the first place.

It's not technically even a right. It's an institution by God, and I would be one of the people that would say,

I think we should leave it up to the church, and obviously that's going to present somewhat of a problem, because there's plenty of non -Orthodox—I won't name any churches, but there's plenty of, quote -unquote, churches, you know, that bang -shoulder -shrug, arms up, head tilted churches out there that'll marry gay people, if you want to use the word marry.

I still don't think it's appropriate, but there's plenty of churches out there that would do that, and obviously, you know, a church like yours or mine, you know,

Orthodox churches, won't. And I would just—I know that if things went the way

I would have them go, with government being out of the way, both sides would seemingly at least, you know, be happy.

I don't foresee there being a big political debate over this at all, just because, you know, a normal Orthodox church is going to say, no, we won't marry you, we don't believe that we should, and the government can't force them to marry you.

But if you want to go to another church that is willing to do that, then go there, kind of a thing.

I don't know, I just—that's kind of where I've fallen in that whole subject.

I still believe that it's 100%, you know, against God's word, I still believe that it's sinful,

I just— Well, what about polygamy? Polygamy? Yeah. Yeah, that's—you know,

I will admit, that's an inconsistency on, you know, the part of being a libertarian.

I personally—you know, there are certain things that I would—that

I can see making illegal. I mean, it strains me to say that.

I don't technically think polygamy is something that—if people want to do it, I would draw the line at bestiality and all that stuff, but that's just because it's—

But why? Yeah, yeah. I mean, because now you have to start dealing with public health issues, adult incest, bestiality, what business is it of the state to determine consent ages.

The fact of the matter is, if you're going to have a society, a society is going to have morals.

If you read the Minor Prophets especially—I'm not saying the major prophets don't deal with this, but it's a theme that runs through the

Minor Prophets—there is the absolute necessity for every nation, not just Israel, but part of the judgment that God brings upon the nations around Israel has to do with the basic reality of morality that every nation is judged by.

And so, widows and orphans, any nation that allows the abuse of widows and orphans is seen to be under the judgment of God.

Well, why? I mean, why should the state care? You know, it's because there is a—I'm not going to call it a minimum level, but there is a created level of morality that must exist for human beings who are created in the image of God to be able to live with one another.

And as a Reformed Christian, I would think that you would recognize the concept of total depravity and the fact—

Oh, I definitely recognize that. Like I said, it was just—I can see the inconsistency.

You pretty much just changed my mind on the issue. Just trying to go to the foundational issue of—because people have asked me that question, and it raises all sorts of issues of theonomy and all sorts of things like that, but I don't claim to have all the answers as to how it all works out, but there's one thing that I think is really beyond any question, and that is that if we are created in the image of God, then for us to live together with one another, we have to look at what the

Bible says about what our behavior needs to be toward one another. And when we look at what the

Bible says about what our behavior is going to be, we recognize what we need to—you know, we need to look at rape and adultery and these things and recognize that they destroy the human family and result in the destruction of anything that could be close to a society that would be viable over time.

And so, you know, that's just something that I think we have to deal with, we have to recognize, and that's where I'm going with that.

Okay? Well, I guess—I hadn't really thought completely through all the issues, but like I said,

I think you just changed my mind on the subject. You can now say that someone on the right side of 30 has accepted correction from an elder.

All right. Hey, thanks, Rick. No problem. Have a great one. All right. God bless. You too. Bye. Bye -bye.

Well, it looks like we're going phone calls today for the rest of the program, which isn't all that long anyways.

That's okay. We'll get back to Paul Williams, maybe have a little more time on Thursday to dive into that.

So let's keep going. We've got two more calls here, and they're all on the same subject.

So I guess we're going to continue and have a consistent program today.

I guess that's a good thing. Let's talk with Jason. Hi, Jason. Hi, Dr. White.

Thanks for taking my call, and thanks for your program and to everyone else there in your ministry. Well, you've now talked to two of the three people that are in the office today, so—

All right. Well, thank you, guys. In your book, The Same -Sex Controversy, do you cover the rebuttal arguments to the

Scriptures where Jesus refers to the created male -female order when the

Pharisees talk about the divorce question? I don't think I worded that right, but basically,

I see pro -gay Christians saying, well, when you use that Scripture, Jesus is talking about divorce, and that has nothing to do with gay

Christianity. So I don't want to take up your time on the air, but if that covers it in the book, you know—

Well, yeah, I mean, there's obviously a positive presentation, but if I were on Larry King, who doesn't—I guess, actually, he is doing a program, again, on some network that about four people on the planet are even aware of.

But if I were on a Piers Morgan show or something, which

I never will be, I can guarantee you that. But if I were to be, the first text that I would address would be

Matthew 19, which is the text you're referring to. Because when people say Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, that betrays an amazing level of ignorance of what

Jesus positively taught on the subject. And Matthew chapter 19 contains some of the most profound teaching from the lips of Jesus concerning the nature of human sexuality, the nature of humanity as being created by God, the nature of the human family, and what

God's intention for human sexuality was from the very beginning.

Now, the fact that he's addressing the concept of divorce, because they ask, well, why did then

Moses say to give her a certificate of divorce? He says, because of the hardness of your heart.

But he said, from the beginning, it was not so. And then the positive teaching upon which he answers that question and upon which we must answer every question regarding the nature of marriage is

God's creative purpose in creating male and female, one man, one woman, husband, wife, have children, man leaves family, marries woman who also had a father and a mother, and they start the process all over again, having had modeled for them the proper relationships of husband and wife, etc.,

etc. So if they say, well, that's about divorce, doesn't mean anything, then they're just, what they're saying is, you cannot give a positive teaching in response to an error, and therefore you could not derive anything from anyone's teaching or from the response to any question, for example.

And that's just ridiculous. That's an ad hoc argument, and you just need to go, why? Why do you say that?

Why, because he's talking about marriage or divorce, does that mean it's not relevant to the concept of marriage?

It is. And it's really interesting to see the counter -arguments that are thrown, and then

I think even just the subversion of the truth. I shared the five -hour examination of Matthew Vines that you did with someone, and he just completely overlooked your arguments and then misquoted you, basically, on several points.

Well, if you're going to twist the creator -creation relationship, it's a whole lot easier to twist my words than, you know, it's easy to twist my words.

I'm just a sinful human being and don't express myself with perfect clarity. God can express himself perfectly, and people can still twist

Jesus's words, so that doesn't overly surprise me. But again, remember, unless the

Spirit of God grants repentance, or even grants, look, unless the

Spirit of God grants the action of restraining the sinfulness of the human mind, grants common grace so as to bring enlightenment, so that there can even be rationality.

I mean, we are talking about a situation that goes right back to what Isaiah said.

We're living amongst a people who call light darkness and darkness light, and that is the perfect fulfillment of what

Paul said in Romans chapter 1, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Their foolish hearts were darkened.

Darkness. What does that mean? It means a lack of light, a lack of what we need to be able to reason properly, to see truth, to see connections, to see reality appropriately.

People who wander in darkness are going to say some really, really strange things.

Yeah. But that's where we are. And we've got to get rid of all of this pragmatism that has been pounded into our brains, because what happens is you try to talk to someone like this, and you get nowhere with them.

And so you go, well, that didn't work. I've got to come up with something else. No, you don't. You're called to be salt and light.

You are called to be a witness. You are not called to determine what God does with your witness.

You know, we learned this a long time ago in a very different context, but it's the same principle. When we'd stand outside the

Mormon temple in Salt Lake City and pass out tracts, we learned early on, you know, at first, it was almost a personal affront.

Every time someone would come and take a track, spit on it, rip it up, stuff it in your pocket, you know, make sure you're watching them while they're throwing it in the trash, et cetera, et cetera.

But eventually, we got to realize, we would call them fallen warriors.

We had given the testimony. We had done what we were called to do. We did so respectfully.

If they had wanted to have further information, if they had wanted to talk about the Bible, if they had wanted to have a gospel witness, we were there to give it to them.

We had done what we were called to do, and we just had to realize it's up to God what's going to be done with his witness.

And in fact, it is absolutely valid to recognize that when you bear testimony, if God uses that simply to increase the judgment of the person to whom you're speaking, then you have been faithful, and that's up to God.

It's not up to you. And we've just got to, you know, I'm trying to use this program to get the word out to people.

You've got to get rid of any pragmatic thoughts you have in your mind and saying, well, you didn't get this person to agree with me, then

I must be doing something wrong, as if that's what you're called to be doing. No, you have to be faithful to the scriptures.

Sure, use their language, speak to them in a way they can understand, all the rest of that kind of stuff, but never, ever, ever get the idea that, well, because someone rejected what

I had to say, then I need to come up with a different way of doing it. As if the acceptance of what you're having to say is the standard by which you judge the value of the witness that you're giving.

It's not. So hopefully that can be encouraging to you. Yeah, well, your program's definitely being shared, especially on that Huffington Post article on Pais.

Lots of people were referencing you. Really? If I may just ask one thing— Wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm not aware of what you're talking about.

You know, the article on the centurion— Right, right, right, right. Well, a lot of people were posting links to your video on that.

I didn't know that! I did not know that. That's cool. It's encouraging. I know you got another caller.

I just want to ask one real follow -up that I was confused on something. You were just talking a few minutes ago on age of consent, and a few podcasts earlier you had mentioned how, you know, when you reference intergenerational love and how the issue of age of consent is arbitrary, are you basically—when you're saying that, you're basically saying that, well, you know, one person might have the ability to judge whether that act is okay, and so really the age of consent is arbitrary.

I'm not sure that I said it was arbitrary. I've said that historically it has been viewed in very different ways.

That's one of the reasons that I addressed that is because I have to deal with the issue of Muhammad and Aisha, his very, very young wife that he consummated the marriage at age nine, and there was a time even in Western Europe when the age of consent was 10.

And we today, you know, 18, you know, so 16. Well, there was a time even in the

South where it was 14. So in other words, it's been variable over time.

I wasn't saying it was arbitrary. I was just simply stating that there has to be some societal understanding of these things, and what's the basis going to be upon which we make that kind of a decision.

And, of course, the whole idea of, quote -unquote, intergenerational love is a completely different concept than what is the age of when someone could meaningfully enter into a marriage relationship, where a marriage relationship involves the family, protection, one man, one woman, lifetime commitment, that kind of thing, to where you recall, you know, people who used to be married for as many as 70 years because they had gotten married when they were, you know, 15, 16 years old.

So I wasn't saying that—I'm not sure how you heard me saying that, but what

I was making reference to is the fact that just historically there have been lots of different standards. I know you weren't condoning it.

You weren't saying it as if to condone it. I wasn't trying to put that in your words. I was trying to understand it so I could mention that to someone, because just like what you said, it seems, you know, when someone seems shocked when you make the comparison between these types of different paraphilias, and they say, well, you know, that age thing, it's too young.

Well, you say, well, you know, that's just your relative interpretation based on today's laws, you know, 300 years ago it was okay, and who are you to say that today's laws are—

Well, of course, the problem is partially—part of the problem 300 years ago is you could have a 40 -year -old man who wanted to marry a 14 -year -old girl, which seems very odd.

That's totally different than two 16 -year -olds in Mississippi who remain married for 70 years.

I see a massive difference between one man, one woman marrying very young, and a much older person marrying a very young person for, shall we say, inappropriate reasons.

I see a vast difference at that point, but the problem is they are confusing categories, as they very often will, in attempting to put something together.

But hey, I do need to get to Gregory real quick, but thanks for your call today, Jason. Thanks for your call, God bless you all.

All right, God bless, bye -bye. And let's real quick get to Gregory. Hi, Gregory. Good day,

Dr. Wright. Yes, sir. Yes, I'm trying to be quick as possible. Actually, there are two issues that I would like to bring up.

But one of them is not really on the topic, but the first one is on the topic. But if you would allow the other one, no problem. No problem to me if you would allow the one that is not allowed.

But the one that is on the topic is that the colleague you were speaking with, when he said he's a libertarian and he doesn't believe government should be involved in marriage,

I agree with him, but not from the libertarian standpoint. For example, this gentleman by the name of Ted R.

Weiland, he wrote a book called Bible Law versus the United States Constitution.

I've seen it. Perspective. Yeah, I've seen it. And I agree with him.

I agree with him that I believe that the Bible is the

Constitution and the law of every country in the whole world. And so I believe, since in the

Bible, marriage was not a church or state issue, I still think, since I believe and agree with him concerning the

Bible, I have to come to the conclusion that the government, not the church, should be involved in the institution of marriage.

It should be as it was in the Bible. The government, not the church? Right. Right.

Neither the government nor the church should be involved in the sense that you have to attend either to the courts or you have to go to a minister to get to be married.

I don't believe that that is scriptural. I believe that once the man makes the covenant with the woman, because I think it's

Malachi chapter 2, say, called the wife of the man's covenant.

And so I understand that to mean that once the man makes a covenant with the woman and she accepts it, then in the

Bible, that is considered to be a marriage. Whether you go to a church or not is not necessary.

It's not necessary. Well, very briefly, the issues I think we need to keep in mind is we don't live in a situation where, for example, two people can get married out in a very rural area and basically have almost no connections to or interactions with other people in most of the

West today. And the question becomes when we live, for example, in a society,

I live in a major city, one of the five largest cities in the United States. That means that I own a small amount of property.

I own a house and I drive on roads, and that means that I have a car. And so there's the need to be able to, for example, maintain the roadways, which means taxation.

I'm going to have interaction with other people, so there's going to be standards for how I drive my car, even though those standards seem to be sliding very badly these days.

But anyways, in other words, there's much more interaction between myself and others.

And that also means that, for example, there is issues related, and this is a big issue, related to education, taxation, etc.,

etc., that really complicate this issue and make it very different than two people in a very small community on farmland, far away from other people, where there's not going to be that kind of complication.

And the question is, when you do have complex societies, as we do today, with educational systems and hospitals and electronic systems and grids and sewer systems and all the rest of that stuff, once you have that level of complexity, what is going to be the moral and ethical foundation by which you determine whether the society is going to encourage monogamy and faithfulness or discourage those things?

That is where I think the complex questions come in and require us to really make some difficult decisions and applications.

And that's, I think, what we're talking about today. But thank you, Gregory, for your phone call today.

And down there in the West Indies, listening, obviously, by the internet, because that's the only way you listen to this program.

You say, we've got a good signal, don't we? Well, it's called the internet, so I'm not really sure if the signal thing is overly relevant.

But anyway, we will be back, Lord willing, on Thursday. I have a feeling

I'm just, out of guilt, going to have to do at least a jumbo edition on Thursday. So keep an eye on the blog.

Follow me at DrOakley1689 on Twitter, if you want the fastest updates on what's going on with the dividing line and other fun things as well.

And we'll see you on Thursday. God bless. We need a new reformation day.

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

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

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

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.