July 23, 2013

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 good morning, welcome to the Dividing Line on a Tuesday morning, our regular time though,

I think I'll probably be going late today. I need to get through all of the

Yusuf Ismail Bashir Vania material before I head to South Africa. We're putting together the final touches on the schedule.

They would like me to stay like a week longer than I can. I cannot stay that long.

I have an expiration date. I read that email yesterday and I got the impression that they were just planning on keeping you.

Yeah. You just go down there. And a number of debates. I mean, it's like two, you know, sometimes May is two a day. I mean, we're going to shoot right past the one thirty mark real easy on this one up at about one thirty five, one forty, somewhere around there.

I don't know. And not a one of them has been in Arabic in a mosque, though some have been in mosques.

None of them have been in Arabic, though I have used Arabic and probably can pronounce it better than certain people who should stick to Swedish.

But anyway, there is a by the way, so many things. Let me see. I'm going to forget all these things.

Lagos is putting together a collection of my Baker publications, which you go Baker. I've never seen.

Baker owns Bethany House. So what's neat about that is Mary Another Redeemer and my two youth books.

What's the dude's the door and what's with the mutant? The microscope will be available. I hope they include the really cool, fun artwork we did for those youth books, because I met a lot of adults who really liked, especially what's the mutant and microscope, because it is sort of explain things on a on a youth level that they were like, that's cool.

So anyway, that'll include letters from Mormon Elder and everything that will be in Lagos and it's but it's on prepub right now.

So who knows if it'll make it, you know, some some prepublication, you know, and I haven't ordered it.

What? Yeah, letters in there to remember. They published it for a long time.

They released it to me to allow it to other people, but they they did. They did publish it. So I guess

I don't know how it all works. People going, how can you not know that stuff? Look, you write it, you give it to them.

They publish it. I Lagos. We even had people saying, well, hey, how come the Pirate's Freedom's on there?

Well, the Pirate's Freedom's not published by Baker. That's why. And well, why didn't you? I had nothing to do with it.

Nobody talked to me. I didn't hear from Lagos. I didn't hear from from Bethany House. Nobody. I'm just an author.

I'm just I'm irrelevant. I don't. I suppose you could put things in contracts to where you control such things.

But I've I just write the book, give it to them, and I just want it out there. And then we go.

So anyways, there is a prepub on at least my Baker stuff for Lagos.

For those of you who have the Lagos program and it's on it's on prepub, which means

I have no idea if or when it will ever actually become available because a certain number of people have to purchase it before it becomes available.

So just mention that Friday night, I'm going to be at the Grace Life group in at Grace Community Church in Southern California, better known as John MacArthur's Church there.

And this came up really, really, really, really, really, really fast. And it just so happened that I could do it. I still have a doctor's appointment on Friday that I need to call them because I don't think it's real.

I think I think that was a that was one that was like, you know, you put into your calendar six months ago and then something changes and it gets canceled anyways.

And so I don't think it's real. But anyway, so I'm supposed to be in Southern California very, very, very briefly on Friday night to speak on Islam at Grace Community Church.

And then we are planning and I should have had my calendar up here so I could do this a little faster.

But we are putting the final touches on a presentation.

I will be speaking, Lord willing, the 7th and 8th in the

Dallas area, 7th and 8th of September. I'm sorry. 7th and 8th of September in the Atlanta area.

Let's get this right and then flying to Dallas. And we are putting the finishing touches on arranging.

And this is that we need to get hold of Shamgar. OK, I need as impossible as it is to get hold of Shamgar.

We need to get hold of Shamgar because I'm heading to Dallas. He's in that area. We need to minimally, minimally live stream the audio of this.

I would rather live stream the video of this because we're going to be playing video clips. But we are putting together a presentation in the

Dallas area. One of the nights, the 11th, I will be speaking on Islam in general for Christians.

But on Tuesday, the night before that, I am going to do a full presentation within driving distance of Arlington Baptist Bible College, or whatever it's called, entitled,

Ergon Kanner, One Man's Jihad Against Christian Apologetics to Islam.

I'm going to put together all the clips. I'm going to put together all the evidence. And we are going to discuss how one man can start off just by puffing his resume, but by step, by step, by step, by step, over time, with the willing assistance of quote -unquote discernment experts, end up becoming a one man jihad against meaningful

Christian apologetics to Islam. And so we want all of the students and the faculty of Arlington to know about this, to recognize that they are welcome to attend.

It's not right next door, unfortunately, but if worst comes to worst, they can tune in the live broadcast and listen for themselves.

And obviously, obviously, if Dr. Ergon Kanner would contact us and like to request an opportunity to dialogue about what

I say, we would be happy to do so. But everybody in this audience knows the man would never face me, never in a million years face me.

He can't, and he knows it, and it drives him crazy, drives him crazy. He knows it. But if he'd like to show up, the invitation is open.

So we will have information about that and how you can attend if you're in the Dallas area that should be, should be,

Lord willing, Tuesday night, September 10th. I mean, there's nothing on a

Tuesday night that's going to get in anybody's way. You don't have to go to church, et cetera, et cetera. So Tuesday night,

September 10th, Ergon Kanner, One Man's Jihad Against Christian Apologetics to Islam in the

Dallas area. We'll be giving you details on that and details on where I'll be speaking in Atlanta the preceding weekend as well.

So there's some of the things coming up there. I'm speaking twice at PRBC.

I'm going to be in Pryor, Oklahoma at two different churches, August 23rd and following.

23rd, 24th, 25th, I think is, yes, sir? I was just going to say, while you're on the calendar issue here,

I want to point out there is now, believe it or not, shock of all shocks, a public calendar people can access.

If they use Google Calendar, they can click. If they're in the store, eventually it's going to land on the main page of the website when we redo that.

But up in the upper right -hand corner, there is a live real calendar.

They can click Google Calendar, and they're going to pop up what your schedule is all the way through as far out as we've got it locked in.

So as we update it, they can actually go and click on it. If they're in the area you're going to be speaking, they can actually click on the event and lock it into their own calendar.

Cool. So nice new feature. Have you been adding stuff, even this morning? Because this isn't what my calendar looks like.

I haven't added yet this morning. Really? No. That's weird. So I see more things on this calendar than I see on the one on my laptop.

That's probably not a good idea. Because I don't really look at this one. Well, we'll take a look at it after the show and get it all tweaked.

Yes, I guess. In October, South Africa, the 2nd through the 9th,

London is before that. Need to get back in touch with our

Roman Catholic friends in London to firm those things up there as well. But after I get back from South Africa, this is all in the

Lord willing category, I'm going to be heading down to Votie Balcombe's place in Spring, Texas, the 18th, 19th,

I think maybe the 20th. I'm not sure. But that weekend down there, heading back to Texas, I'm going to be talking like this by the time

I get all that stuff down there in Texas. And then 25th through the 27th, going to be up in Vancouver, Canada for the

Sola Scriptura conference up there as well.

And so visiting our Canadian friends at that particular point in time. And then

I've got something in Tucson toward the end of November, then our regular trip to St.

Charles in December as well. So I think I'm going to actually make it to platinum level, frequent flyer this year.

I am going to be renting that Tom Hanks movie Terminal, because that's sort of how

I'm going to be feeling coming up with all that. So anyhow, that's oh, and I knew

I was going to forget this. Next Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, July 31st,

August 1st and 2nd. So starting a week from tomorrow, I will be guest hosting live three hours each day for Janet Mifford.

I will be I'm not just going to be a guest on her program. I will be the program. I will be the host of the program.

And right now, looking at having Carl Truman on on Wednesday, hopefully Kay Scott Oliphant on on Thursday.

And I still have a few more emails to send out for for other folks. So if you listen to the

Janet Mifford show, it's on Salem Broadcasting whenever it appears in your time zone, your time area, whatever.

I will be guest hosting for Janet Mifford, the 31st, 1st and 2nd, the first of July, 1st, 2nd of August.

And looking forward to that. And that could be very interesting. And of course, it could be very dangerous to have

Carl Truman and I on with me as the host on a national. It's one thing here.

You know, people expect it on the dividing line. Okay. Yeah. I should invite Irving Kanner.

Yeah, that that's not going to happen. And his first English accent in the transmitter will shut down.

Well, it's not just one transmitter. It'd be many, many transmitters that would have to shut down as soon as I do my first. But Carl is

British, for crying out loud. So he can he can say whatever he wants. But it could be dangerous for for he and I to start talking, especially if I end up going the direction

I'm thinking about going and asking about his little book that I read recently, where he basically says the key issue is going to demonstrate that evangelicalism really doesn't mean anything anymore is the subject of homosexuality.

And boy, I could get us into a lot of trouble first day. I mean, I could be it. Who knows? We'll we'll find out.

But that's that's next week. Guest hosting for Janet Mefford on the 31st, first and second.

So if you want to listen to that, oh, get Lou Rug on. Yeah, that would be that'd be really great. That would really help ratings a lot.

Yeah. I was at Proverbs 129. Is that what it was? That what it was? I forgot what that was. I've lost my track.

OK, I saw an article on Fox News that concerned me concerning Sergeant Lane Wilson, a 27 veteran, 27 year veteran of the military, was formally reprimanded for an email he wrote last

December to the chaplain at West Point and his six year reenlistment contract was reduced to a one year contract. John Wells, an attorney representing the airmen.

So we're only getting one side here. I realize that said the military coerced his client into signing the one year extension after they canceled medical benefits for his wife, who is suffering from stage four breast cancer.

It would seem to me that canceling the medical benefits for a sick cancer victim to coerce an underling to sign an illegal contract constitutes cruelty and maltreatment under the

Utah Code of Military Justice, Wells said. This type of action is unconscionable and I would expect the guard to initiate investigations around the case.

The issue is Wilson, who is a devout Christian and has religious objections to gay marriage, found himself in trouble after he wrote an email to the chaplain at West Point.

This is wrong on so many levels, he wrote. If they want to get married in a hotel, that is one thing. Our base chapels are a place of worship and this is a mockery to God and our military core values.

I have proudly served 27 years and this is a slap in the face to us who have put our lives on the line for this country.

I hope, sir, that you will take appropriate action. This does not happen again. Instead, the military took action against Wilson, accusing him of bringing, quote, disgrace and discredit, end quote, upon the

Air National Guard and failing to, quote, render the proper respect to a commissioned officer, end quote. Quote, you are hereby reprimanded, end quote, read a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Tobias.

Quote, as a non -commissioned officer, you are expected to maintain a standard of professional and personal behavior that is above reproach.

You have failed, exclamation point, end quote. I just want to go, how do you determine what is above reproach?

That requires a certain standard of morality, doesn't it? It does even for the military.

A public affairs officer with the Utah Air National Guard told Fox News they could not comment on Lane's case. A June 19, 2013 memorandum from Lieutenant Colonel Tobias to Wilson indicates his religious — now listen to this — his religious objections to homosexuality made him incompatible with further military service.

Now, remember, keep that in mind. We talked about his feelings about DADT and how he doesn't agree with it,

Tobias wrote. I then told him that maybe this is a good time for him to move on because we've been ordered to not have an opinion about gays in the military.

And we need to treat them as we would treat anyone else in the service of our country. So you've been ordered not to have an opinion.

Really? No you have not. You've been ordered to have an opinion. And it needs to be a positive one.

It needs to be a good one. You need to confess this is good stuff. This isn't sin.

This isn't rebellion. This won't bring the wrath of God. 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, 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, 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, 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, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

They want uber rights. They want to silence, silence the expression of any statement that would say that homosexuality is evil.

That is what, that is what they want. Okay, I, we must, must, must, must, must, must, must finish the

Calvinist call -in show because we're almost there. I mean, we're this close. We've just, we've just got to get it done.

Um, so I guess, uh, we do have a phone call. So, uh,

I'll, I'll try to get that. I, I, I need a little bit more information would be good, but, um, cause it's sort of vague right now.

Uh, but, uh, we got to get the Calvinist call -in show done, uh, because we've, we've been dragging it out too long that there's just no trace, but so we only have a few minutes left.

Let's, uh, I, I played, I played this question last time, but then I didn't get to comment on it. So I said, we'll just start there.

So, uh, picking back up with the Calvinist call -in show, Michael Brown, and again, sped up just a little bit.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I, of course, some of my positions would have to line up more on that side. And I don't just consider you like Armenian as well.

I love your eschatology. Um, the question just to make it a little bit interesting, if I could, is how, then,

I mean, as far as free will would be, um, would Judas Iscariot have free will to not fulfill the scripture, or was the scripture only predicting from foreknowledge?

So if that be the case, the scriptures that speak about Jesus, was

God just saying that Jesus was going to be put up on a cross, or was it foreordained from the foundation of the world to happen?

And of course that was. But was Judas Iscariot, or, you know,

Esau, for that sake, predestined from the foundation of the world to be in the position that they were, the scriptures?

And if not, then what's the difference between the two, and how can we exegete between what is actually, uh, predestined or foreordained, or just was foreseen?

Now again, I think that's an excellent question. It is, uh, it goes to very important issues.

Uh, for example, the issue of the crucifixion.

Think of all the quote -unquote free choices on the part of so many men went into the issue of the crucifixion and the event of the crucifixion.

The timing, the people involved, Judas, a very important element of this, a vital role, the inside man to allow the

Jewish rulers to do it in such a way as to not necessarily incite the mob, the issue of the relationship to Passover, all of this stuff.

There are just so, I mean, clearly, this type of specific prophetic fulfillment is one of, is the reason that open theism will only ever appeal to people who are willing to sacrifice biblical authority.

The only way. I mean, you look at this, and if you say, well,

God doesn't know for certain the actions of free creatures, because if he did, then they're not really free, and therefore, he only knows what's natural and not what flows from the actions of free creatures.

There is no way. I remember John Sanders, when I challenged him on related issues.

Well, remember, you Calvinists have had hundreds of years to work out your theology. We're just starting on this. Well, I don't care how many hundreds of years you're given.

You're never going to make this work. You're not going to be able to hold together the idea of biblical authority, inspiration, inerrancy, and everything else.

You're not going to be able to hold that together with the concept that God is ignorant of the actions of free creatures.

It just, it doesn't work. It's not possible. It is not possible. But as I've said many times before, open theism is the only consistent

Arminianism, because if you accept that God has exhaustive, infallible knowledge of all future events, including the actions of free creatures, try as you might, you're not going to be able to hold that together.

You're going to have to just throw up your hands and appeal to mystery at some point, even if it's not mystery as the New Testament defines mystery.

You're going to have to do it. It's not possible to put it together. You're going to have to hold to some level of incoherence, inconsistency, contradiction.

Call it mystery all you want, but that's what it is. And Judas displays this very, very clearly.

I mean, if you want to hold to a libertarian perspective, Judas is a real fly in the ointment.

All of them are, because the whole thing could have fallen apart at any point. Judas decides not to go through with it.

Pilate decides to listen to his wife. Herod has a lucid moment. The centurion leads a mini rebellion.

I mean, there's just so many ways it could all fall apart that I remember.

It's interesting, I guess on the Wayback Machine right now, or not right now, but this morning or something, either the

Steve Gregg debate was playing or I was playing Steve Gregg stuff or something like that. And I remember at least he tried to be consistent in the sense of saying, well,

Paul, yeah, Paul could have said no. Paul could have resisted the call of God, even though he's knocked off his horse.

And then God would have had to go find somebody else. And, you know, at least you're being consistent there.

I don't, that's not the God of the Bible, but you're being consistent at that point. And so it's an excellent question.

And let's listen to Michael's response. Right. Very good question. And of course,

Acts, the fourth chapter, says explicitly that Herod and Pilate and the nation's Jewish leaders conspired together to do what

God had foreordained them to do. So the question is, did he then say, okay, high priest, you're going to do this regardless of your will and participation of our...

High priest, you're going to do this... Listen to it again.

You're going to do this regardless of your will and participation of... Regardless of your will and participation.

No. High priest, you're going to do this because it will be your will to do so.

In fact, in many instances, as I emphasize many times,

God is restraining the evil of man. I mean, for example, what would have happened if one of the soldiers, let's say one of the soldiers, let's say this was the temple guard, not

Roman guard, in a sudden flash of zeal for the ancestral traditions, had pulled his sword and run

Jesus through in the garden. No cross. No Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.

Kills Jesus in the garden right there. Ruins everything. Well, if he's free, he could do that, right?

I mean, if you really believe in the autonomy of mankind, you have to say that could have happened.

God's just lucky it didn't work that way, right? So it is not the

Reformed position that the high priest's will has any bent toward good.

The high priest, even the high priest, we certainly know the high priesthood was extremely corrupt at this time, yes?

That's an argument for anyone, I would hope. And so you have an unregenerate man, religious man, but just read

Matthew chapter 23, get an idea of what that's all about. So you've got an unregenerate man.

And the idea, I think, in the back of Michael's mind here is, well, but he could have chosen.

I got to affirm he could have chosen to do otherwise. And the Calvinist says he can only choose to do worse.

God's restraining him from doing the worst he could do. But the reality is, the text of Acts chapter 4 says, they did what

God's hand had for ordained would come to pass. There isn't a question about it.

There's no argument here about language or anything like that.

To do whatsoever, your hand and your plan, your boule, had praorisen, praorizo, predestined to take place.

And notice it's poiesai hasa, whatever. There's no limitation. Poiesai hasa he kairasu your hand, kai he boulesu, and your will predestined to take place.

I mean, it's really strong. Michael has said more than once, how could it be any clearer? And that was after listing all the all passages, and we went through every single all passages, said how it's not nearly as clear as he thought.

It's actually clear the other way. Well, I present this to you and say, how could this be any clearer?

To do whatever your hand and your will predestined to take place. It is just absolutely, there's outside of whether the second pronoun is found, su, it's pretty straightforward.

Very straightforward. Very, very clear. So it's not as it's being presented here, well, you know, was

God constrained by the will of the high priest? And again, if you say, well, but see,

God foresaw that these people would be this way, and so he just worked things out so they'd all be, but even man in his evil, does he not have different ways?

Is it not the case that we are sometimes shocked at the expression of man's evil?

For example, I saw one of the most amazing stories online a couple days ago.

These two thugs, just absolute thugs, lured this young girl up on top of the roof of a brownstone in,

I think it was, I think it was Philadelphia, raped her, and then when they got done raping her, they threw her off the roof to the pavement below.

Now, aside from that being an incredible argument for capital punishment, it also, how many times have there been people who rape someone and then they just leave them?

Well, these guys came up with the brilliant idea of tossing her off the roof. Man in his evil can act in many different ways.

So again, it's the specificity of the fulfillment of prophecy and God bringing about the crucifixion in the exact way he wants to.

You just, look, there can only be one autonomous will in this, and it's

God's. And why is it that Christians want it to be man's? I want it to be

God's, for crying out loud. I really do. So, we go back.

Then say, okay, high priest, you're going to do this regardless of your will of participation. I've ordained you to do this.

Pilate, I've ordained you to do this. Herod, I've ordained you to do this. Or, because God had a specific plan and because of God's infinite wisdom, he then worked things out in a certain way to accomplish his will by people.

No, no, no, no, Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael, what do those words mean?

By his infinite wisdom. Yeah, exactly. It's called his divine decree. It's called that decree that gives form to the very fabric of time, which includes the responsible actions of men in time.

That's the basis of it. That's the basis of it. The whole reason that we can be held accountable is that God in his decree has made a world in which that is possible.

We are not the slaves to cosmic forces that are beyond ourselves. We're not like the pagan

Greeks and Romans who had the gods and Mount Olympus, who controlled the destinies and the fates of men and all the rest of this kind of stuff.

No, what gives the very fabric and form to time itself is

God's sovereign decree. And that decree included the wills of men like Herod and Pilate and everything else, to every single soldier, the whole nine yards.

It is all a part. He predestines everything that comes to pass.

Ephesians 1 .11, the one who works all things out of the counsel of his will. That's God. He's the one who accomplishes his will in heaven, the earth, and deeps and all places.

I mean, that's been the confession of scripture all along, has it not? It has.

It has. So to say, but he has a purpose, and so by his wisdom—what does that mean?

Whose wisdom gets the credit? Because could God's wisdom have failed?

Could it have been other than it was? The consistent proponent of the autonomy of man's will will have to admit, well, if man's autonomous, then it could have been other than it was.

But you see, the problem here is God is so clearly, actively involved, actively involved in the bringing together of these tremendously—I mean, think of the vast difference between the intentions and wills and nature of the

Jewish leadership over against Herod, over against Pilate, over against the Roman soldiers.

And yet the prayer of the early church brings them all together, both

Herod, Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles, the people of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan and predestine to take place.

Massively different intentions, and yet it's God's intention that is accomplished.

Who would be given to that? So how do we determine? Really, it's very simple, because all of the

Bible from beginning to end makes clear that we make choices. Of course we make choices, but as R .C.

Sproul puts it, I am free. God is free. When my freedom runs into God's freedom, I lose.

No one is saying that Herod did not make choices. It is a simplistic presentation of what we're saying, to say that Herod was just this puppet on a string and God said,

Herod, be bad. Okay, God, I'll be bad. That's not what we're saying.

But it's also wrong to say that, well, God had looked down the course of time and, oh, there's an opportunity at that time.

These kind of people are going to be around, and they're going to be given to this kind of stuff, and so I'll be able to use them. Again, that sounds, and Michael says he's not a

Molinist, but that's Molinistic language. That's Molinistic language to where what

God's trying to accomplish, He's dependent upon the actual characteristics of the individuals involved.

That's Molinistic language. What, did He actualize the particular world where Herod had this kind of characteristics, and Pontius Pilate had this kind of characteristics, and so given these circumstances, they do these things?

That's the road to Molinism, and many there be who go in there at these days, that's for sure.

All the Bible makes clear that God's saying, you can repent, you can choose life, you can choose death, and that's why to some

He says, well done, good and faithful servant, and for others He said, over and over, I gave you opportunity, over and over and over and over and over, and you refused.

Now notice, he's going back to the default argument that as long as there is an admonition to make choices, then we must be autonomous.

So if the choice is to be perfect or not be perfect, we must have the capacity to be perfect. Well, that doesn't follow.

We've already pointed out that that is a fundamental category error. But it's also not answering the question, because, well,

I guess in a sense it is. It's saying, well, yeah, it does sound like Judas was predestined to do a specific thing at a specific time in a specific way, and it was personal and everything else, but we really can't go there because we have this general overarching concept that, but when you look at all of Scripture, it says this.

And I just simply say, that's not how we do theology. That is ignoring one part of the

Revelation so as to hold another part of the Revelation without harmonizing the two together. And that's a bad thing.

So when God was going to accomplish His will with the Exodus, He raised up a particular Pharaoh that He knew in advance, this man will not let you go.

No, He said He would harden his heart long before Pharaoh did anything. God said,

I will harden his heart because he had a purpose, and the purpose was to demonstrate His power against the gods of Egypt.

And so the question is, does God have the right to use

His creatures to proclaim His own glory? That really, you know, when you get down to it, that's really the overarching question.

Does God have the right to use His own creation to demonstrate His own glory, or does

He not? And one side seems to say, no, because it's more important that God treat everybody the same.

Now, that sounds great in Western culture, it's sort of a little tough when you read the Old Testament, because that's not how

God ever did anything in the Old Testament. He did not treat the Egyptians the same way He treated the Israelites. He didn't.

Did He treat the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the same way

He treated the Jebusites? I mean, we can do a lot of ites here, and the answer is going to be clear and obvious all the way across.

He was accomplishing a purpose, and by grace He used a particular people who were not foreseen to be better than somebody else.

He didn't look into the future and go, wow, those Israelites, they're more pliable than other people. No, it's just the opposite.

They're stiff -necked, hard -hearted. I mean, how many times did the prophets say that?

It's clear. It's right there. And Pharaoh hardens his heart over and over before God then, in Hebrew, strengthens his heart.

That's the first thing that happens, strengthens his resolve. So when it was a purpose of specific...

Let's see this again. This is ignoring Exodus 4. I mean, before Moses says word one to Pharaoh, God says, this is what

I'm going to do. This is what I'm going to do. It's right there. Specific purpose to accomplish something from the

Lord. He raises up a specific person to do it, as opposed to take someone who's a God -fearer, who's humbled himself.

Who's that? Who's that? There is no God -fearer.

Isn't that what Paul said? I mean, I think... Let me look here real quick.

Let me look. Well, it certainly says there is none who seeks after God.

And verse 18 of Romans 3 says, there is no fear of God before their eyes.

Who's the God -fearer? The only God -fearers that ever existed are those who've been the recipients of God's grace.

That's why Noah was a God -fearer, or Job was a God -fearer, or anybody else. Any of the fallen children of Adam are recipients of God's grace.

But that grace has to be free. And so where does the freedom come from? It comes from God. God is free.

And that then results in man. I guess it would help if I re -clicked on the right program again.

And who's pleading with God for help and mercy and responding to the voice of the Lord and says, no, I'm going to harden you. So what's the overall testimony of Scripture?

Now, did you catch that? Listen to that again. Who's a God -fearer, who's humbled himself, and who's pleading with God for help and mercy and responding to the voice of the

Lord and says, no, I'm going to harden you. So what's the overall testimony of Scripture? So I'm going to harden you?

Who would ever say that? But again, this is where theology matters.

Michael believes that there are people who could do that. And I say there are no people who could do that outside of God's grace.

And this is why the assumption of prevenient grace on the part of Michael and others,

I have to challenge it. Where'd you get that? I know where it comes from. I know where it comes from.

I don't have the book in here. Maybe we can take a break here and I can grab it.

Let's take a break at 45 since we're going for jumbo today. So it'll be halfway through. I know where it comes from.

We'll talk about it. But okay, just a couple more here. Honestly, maybe a minute left.

Maybe a minute left. With Cain and Abel, that Abel humbled himself in a certain way that Cain didn't. And one thing that one did was pleasing, the other was not.

I see that God finds Noah. There's something in Noah that's pleasing in his sight. So people are responding to God throughout

Scripture. It really sounds to me like Michael is saying that men, apart from specific grace, are able to be pleasing to God.

I can't understand it in any other way, because I have not heard him say that there is a saving grace over against prevenient grace.

So it sounds like what he's saying is God sees goodness in certain people and rewards that, and that that goodness is an inherent thing.

And that is a fundamental anthropological difference, and I cannot begin to understand the exegetical foundation of any idea that God would look at someone and go, wow, there's

Noah. He's great. Well, why was Noah great? What's the difference?

I mean, I would say to you that the overarching discussions of all of human anthropology found in giving the foundation of the gospel in Romans 1 -3,

Romans 1 -5, trumps everything else. Now, if you don't believe in biblical theology or systematic theology, the idea that there is a theology taught by the

Bible as a whole, very, very, very few people in seminaries do anymore, you know, Paul's got his theology, and might be different strains of that, and John's got his, and Peter's got his, and they're all different from one another, and all the rest of that kind of stuff, then

I, you know, we've got to deal with that on a different level. But I don't think that's where Michael and I are.

I see that Abram responds, and God chooses him and calls him. I see that then in Genesis 20, with Abimelech, a passage, a message, that God withholds him from sinning, so God stops him from sinning.

Why is this? Because he saw he was doing things with a clear conscience. He saw that Abimelech was actually a God -fearing person.

So why was Abimelech a God -fearing person? Again, this is the only,

I suppose, the only way to substantiate the idea that, well, you know, the elect are chosen because they're better than other people.

But see, that goes back to the very thing where Michael was so upset with Brian and didn't really understand his point, is that if you're going to say, well, it is really dependent upon, you know, the better people, the people that are more pliable, the people that have more spiritual, they're the ones that will be chosen by God.

And I say, no. It's all of grace. It's always been all of grace from the beginning.

This is a good argument for the covenant of grace, for covenant theologians, it's a good argument for it.

If you don't have that concept of a covenant of grace from the start, then it could cause you some issues.

Did what he did with a certain ignorance. Paul says God had mercy on him because he acted ignorantly and in unbelief.

God looks at... No, no, no. God had mercy in calling him to service, not in why he was chosen to be a

Christian, why he was chosen to be saved. That would never fit with Paul's, not only

Paul's personal testimony, but Paul's theology. He was shown mercy in being called into a position, a tremendous position of authority, because he acted out of ignorance, but not his calling to salvation.

No, no, no. At these things. He does not just look at us as all given over to sin and never responding.

By his grace, we can respond. By his grace. Okay, so again, we go back to the exact same point that I made last time.

By his grace, we can respond. Grace, what kind of grace? Prevenient grace?

Does everybody gain the same kind of grace? If everybody gets the same kind of grace and some people respond, some people don't, that means they're better. Again, unless you allow grace to have purpose, unless God's grace matches

God's character and will, it doesn't make any sense. It becomes peanut butter.

It's just spread around and sometimes it ends up on a piece of bread so you can eat it, and sometimes it ends up on a transmission so you can't.

I mean, really, that's what you got. One thing that we'll take, hold on. So Judas was chosen for a specific mission, not because God created him for that, but because based on choices he made and who he was, he was given over to that tendency.

He was given over to those things. He was not going to respond, not going to repent. That's why he was chosen. There's no way you can show me a scripture where God chose him and said, okay, even though I know that given the opportunity you would humble yourself or given the opportunity you would turn or given the opportunity you'd receive my love,

I know you would, I'm going to harden you and use you in judgment. No such concept exists in scripture.

And of course, no such concept exists in Reformed theology because we don't believe that there's anyone like that, given the opportunity.

Given the opportunity, every single rebel sinner will spit in God's eye, read

Romans 3, 10 through 18 multiple times if necessary until the point sinks in.

But it all goes back to, well, what does grace accomplish, et cetera, et cetera. So there you go.

There's the end of my comments on the Calvinist Call -In Show, believe it or not. It took that long.

And if there's ever a second Calvinist Call -In Show, I would like more Calvinists to call in. That would be much more useful, obviously.

But I think that there are some things that we need to discuss and maybe we can find a time.

Obviously, this issue of what does deadness and sin mean? What is the nature of man in sin?

What is this idea that, well, God sees certain people and he chooses them because they're better or they're more sensitive, et cetera, et cetera.

And what is the nature of grace? Is God trying to save every single person equally? Can you prove prevenient grace?

Let's see it exegetically. These are all some of the issues that we need to look at.

So we're going to be coming back with Peter, and then more here on The Divine Line.

We'll be right back. Yet they have never been confronted with their sin.

Alpha and Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner, making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior, and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior.

We are to come before the holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well.

Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you. Breaking news from the

White House and the issue, gay marriage. For a lot of people, you know, the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs.

I think same -sex couples should be able to get married. The NAACP has passed a resolution endorsing gay marriage as a civil right.

This comes two weeks after the president announced his support for same -sex marriage. Under the guise of tolerance, our culture today grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Anyone opposing or questioning this today is quickly shouted down, called a bigot, a homophobe, a hate monger, threatened and accused of discrimination.

It's become commonplace to see people who take a biblical stand against homosexuality ostracized to the point of losing their job.

How soon will it be before we will also see people losing their freedom? Now, more than ever, Christians need to be equipped to be an approved workman of God, correctly dividing the word of truth, as we are told in 2

Timothy 2 .15. Dr. James White and Pastor Jeffrey Neal have partnered to bring you their book, The Same -Sex

Controversy. If you are a Christian, this book is just one of the tools you'll need to be prepared to give a proper defense of the faith in the face of the unrighteous onslaught we face today.

The authors write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on this subject, explaining and defending the foundational biblical passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus and Romans. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and return to God's plan for His people.

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

and don't forget to search for other resources like Debates and Past Dividing Lines dealing with this very provocative issue.

And remember, Theology Matters! A few things here.

So, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving an inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in his sight.

Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings, Turn ye to me and I will turn to you, we are reminded of our liberty, and when we said,

Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we need the grace of God.

Now, that sounds pretty much like what we've been being told, that there is this necessity of this predisposing or prevenient grace that is necessary, that has to be cooperated with, that it can—grace comes first, but then there has to be the human response.

Grace is not enough in and of itself. Of course, what I was reading at that point, the very words that I read, is

Chapter 5 of the Sixth Session on Justification from the

Council of Trent, and that is where you will find the language of prevenient grace.

And again, that was one of the major dividing lines between Rome and the

Reformation, and it remains one of the dividing lines to this day as well.

I challenge that assertion that you will find in the teaching of Scripture, in regards to the bringing about of the salvation of God's people, that there is a kind of grace that tries but fails.

That tries but fails. So, there you go. We've got one phone call, and then

I'm going to transition right into the last half hour. We're going to be trying to finish up as much of the

Yusuf Ismail. We need to get to Bashir Vania. I heard from Bashir just this morning, and so I'm in contact.

Stuff coming together. Debates coming together. Like I said, not as many as folks down there would like me to be there for a long time, debating every day.

Just every day. And I'm just not capable of those things. I've got about two weeks away before the wheels fall off, so we want to have good debates, not just simply for the number, but obviously we should have opportunity in the future to revisit these things.

And if the Lord blesses this first trip, then there will be more to come in the future. But let's talk quickly to Peter.

Hi, Peter. Hey, Dr. White. Thanks for taking my call. Yes, sir. Hey, my pastor asked me to give a message this

Friday to our college group, and I'm going to be talking about the problem of evil. I don't go to a

Reformed church, but I would like to give a message that doesn't shy away from the sovereignty of God.

I have about 20 minutes, and I was wondering if you'd give me some, you know, what things should I emphasize in a time period?

What should I focus on? What should I focus on? Well, not really fair to call the program to get sermon prep, but obviously, you know, 20 minutes isn't a lot.

You can barely touch upon things, and me personally, I'm unlike a lot of folks.

A lot of folks would give a very philosophically -oriented answer to that question.

I, especially when speaking in the church, think that the sheep respond best to the

Word of God. So if I were to have 20 minutes, personally,

I would take about six minutes and 20 seconds on probably three key texts to be able to trace the line through to its conclusion.

And obviously, what I would do, as I did in The Potter's Freedom, I'd probably start off with Joseph, and I would, you know, you don't have time to be reading all of it, but you summarize the story, and the fact that Joseph, at the end of his life, certainly saw things with much more clarity than he did at the beginning, and you go to Genesis chapter 50, and you go to his statement that, in light of his brothers who are now cowering before him after the death of their father, he says to them, you meant this for evil, but God meant it for good, and to save many lives to this day.

And so Joseph had come to understand that God's purpose is behind everything, but he did not come to understand that his brothers were not accountable.

He did not come to understand that their actions were automatic or robotish.

Instead, just as they had an intention in their actions that was evil, God had an intention in their actions that was good.

And you can then trace that directly into Isaiah chapter 10. This might be a little bit difficult in six minutes, because the vast majority of people do not have a historical background to any of the prophets,

Isaiah, any of the rest of them, so it might not work. So you might want to just divide into ten, ten, and go

Genesis and Acts, but Isaiah chapter 10, God's utilization of the Assyrians as literally the axe in his hand to bring judgment upon the people of Israel, to fulfill the curses and blessings of the book of Deuteronomy, but then his turning around and judging the

Assyrians based upon the intentions of the heart of the Assyrian leadership. And again, the clear example of this is my intention, this was man's intention, the two are compatible with one another.

And then you want to—the danger in having too much material and then rushing at the end is you get to the most important text and you have the least amount of time to actually deal with it.

And that would be the one we were just talking about in Acts chapter four. And just the crushing clarity of the prayer of the early church, that they recognized that in the greatest act of evil that man has ever contemplated, the murder of the sinless son of God, there has never been the murder of an innocent person on this world until the crucifixion of Christ.

That in that incredible action, you have the absolute predestined hand of God to accomplish what his hand and his will, his desire, is expressed in his boule, his will, his plan, is clearly indicated there.

And so I've found most Christians, especially when you start talking about the cross, you start talking about the crucifixion of Jesus, they listen very well at that point.

And so that, to me anyways, would be a biblical way of approaching it and letting the words speak.

But for many others, they'd want to have a nice, you know, maybe in only 20 minutes, two points, philosophical points in regards to compatibilism and so on and so forth, but that's just me.

So those would be some of my suggestions. All right, thank you, that helps a lot. Okay, good. Well, I hope it goes well and you have a church to go to in a few weeks,

Peter. Be careful. Thank you, sir. All right,

I guess I can close the phones there and get back to here at the end.

I want to try as best I can to finish off as much of the

Yusuf Ismail debate you may recall, because I want to get to Bashir Vania, because I think I'm going to be encountering

Bashir just about as much as Yusuf. My concern is, what

I'm hearing is that, you know, I started hearing things toward the end there about other people coming down to South Africa in that later time period and doing more debates all the way into the weekend.

And I'm just like, whoa, folks, folks, folks. As it is,

I'm going to be coveting everyone's prayers to stay healthy through that.

That's the issue. So we'll have to have to plan some of those for the future. But you may recall at the last of the

Yusuf Ismail debate, what we heard was the presentation of the

Avatar Christology by William Lane Crick. And we had

Avatar, of course, being much more influenced by Hindu thought than Christian thought.

But we had that presentation as a model, and as I said,

I would have rejected immediately the call by Bashir Vania to present a model from the created order that would parallel the unique nature of the

Incarnation of Christ. Because to even attempt to do so is to say it's not unique. It would be like saying, give me a model from creation of Allah's immutability.

A thinking Muslim is going to go, well, I can't because all of creation is mutable.

Only Allah is immutable. And I'd go, exactly. Bingo. There you go. So why are you asking me for a model from creation for something that I say is absolutely unique?

That's what I would have said. That's what I will say if called upon to do so. But anyways, let's go back with Yusuf's response to the section where Craig presented the

Avatar example. Thank you for that, Dr. Craig, and thank you for that, highlighting the movie

Avatar. It's quite interesting that in Avatar, Jake Scully basically has two bodies.

Yet the belief in Christian theology is that you have three persons manifest in one divine being. In the case of Jake Scully, he had his

Avatar body and he had his personal body, and in the end... Now, while I actually happen to agree with Yusuf's criticism here, he just confused the categories because Craig did not use

Avatar in regards to the Trinity. He used Avatar in regards to incarnation. Two different things.

I'm not talking about three persons sharing the one being of God or anything like that in regards to the...

If you want to criticize Craig on that, you got to go for his Kerberos stuff, okay? The threaded dog stuff. But he didn't use that here, so there's a confusion of categories here.

These actual bodies existed when they ended up bearing the real body of Jake Scully when he gave it up, so that's not the same in terms of Christian theology.

It's interesting that Avatar, according to James Cameron, he said he found his inspiration from Hinduism. He found his inspiration from Hinduism.

I find that quite remarkable. Coming to the point about Jesus making himself or making the claim that he was a divine son, but before I deal with that, it's quite interesting to note that Dr.

Craig has not given us a model yet in terms of which he can illustrate that it's basically

Jesus has two particular models. He hasn't even answered the two particular natures, I think is what he meant to say there.

And again, like I just said, nor will I, nor should anyone attempt to do so because that is asking us to contradict our own belief.

You're asking us to contradict our own statement that this is an absolutely unique event, that this has never happened before, and it will never happen again, and it is not something that happens in nature on a regular basis.

There are not incarnations or anything else. You're asking us to give an illustration that would contradict our and we shouldn't be doing that.

The question that when he died, if he believed in human faith, in God's power to raise himself, or on the other hand, did he face death with the infallible divine knowledge that he would be resurrected?

Which was it? Because if the divine nature knew something that he did not, then we are back to two persons.

Muslims would say that Jesus never committed blasphemy. And I do not have to be proof to a skeptic that Jesus of the

Quran is true. It's quite interesting that even though Dr. Craig has raised the issue of the 600 years later, he says, look, it's a bland type of Jesus that is presented, but you can find no particular exception.

I'm not sure he means find no particular exception. I mean, I certainly do find the

Jesus of the Quran to be utterly unlike the Jesus of the New Testament, utterly unlike the

Jesus that is presented in the first century documents. And again,

I just point out that the one time that the

Jesus of the Quran speaks from identifiable location is from his cradle, and that that is from an outside source.

It shows the Quran depending upon non -inspired sources for its information.

The author of the Quran did not seem to realize that the story that he had heard of Jesus speaking from a cradle is half a millennium removed from the actual events of Jesus' life.

There's no, again, if Allah is the author of the

Quran, then Allah would know these things and would not make these kinds of errors.

But if it is a man living in Saudi Arabia in the beginning of the, well, obviously, what's now

Saudi Arabia, in the peninsula, in the beginning of the seventh century of this era, then it would be very easy to understand why a man living in that context would be confused about these particular issues.

The Bible, on the other hand, the apologetic of Dr. Craig, and that offered by many apologists, is that the resurrection is presented as a solution to a particular problem.

Now, following what Dr. Craig said, if Jesus made these particular radical claims that he was the son of God in the divine sense, such that C .S.

Lewis would say that you would have to choose between declaring him as a son of God or declaring him as a liar.

Now, you know, I mentioned this, it's not really directly relevant to what you just said, but it is illustrative.

Sunday morning, I was speaking on John chapter 14. I was trying to actually accelerate my

Sunday school lessons, and I, again, only got through one verse. It's just, it's a

Reformed Baptist curse, it really is. But I was struck, and I am going to incorporate this in the future into all my debates on the claim that I would imagine

Yusuf Ismail, and both Yusuf Ismail and Bashir Vania, would probably make. I don't know. It would be a very interesting topic to debate at some point.

But whether Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible, of course, they have to believe that, but there are different understandings of how that works out.

And John chapter 14 is one of the key texts, and I think

Yusuf takes a little bit different viewpoint here, but in listening more recently to Bashir Vania, quotes a lot from the

Gospel of John, and never says, well, you know, we know this isn't really what it originally said.

He quotes from it a lot. In John 14 .26, the very text that is cited as foundation for Muhammad being in the

New Testament, because the parakletos of John 14 .26,

the paraklete, the helper, is supposed to be Muhammad. But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the

Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. And all of a sudden it struck me.

Whom the Father will send in my name. Now, how could a

Muslim understand that? Because see, what caught my attention was what he was just saying right now in regards to Jesus as the

Son of God. Well, listen to what Jesus says here. The Holy Spirit, now if that, if the parakletos is

Muhammad, then he was sent by Allah in the name of Jesus.

Allah acts in the name of a human prophet? It's a given thing in Islamic theology that Allah sends the prophets.

He doesn't do it in the name of somebody else. Allah does not act in anyone's name but his own, for crying out loud.

I mean, think about the level of blasphemy that would be involved in John 14 .26

if we didn't already recognize who Jesus is. If Jesus is just a virgin -born, miracle -working prophet, but he's just a prophet, these words are blasphemous.

But the parakletos, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring your remembrance, all that I said to you.

Which of course is not what Muhammad did, by the way, for the disciples or anybody else. So that doesn't fit there either.

But as I mentioned that, because it struck me as I was teaching through that text.

If Jesus made those blasphemous claims and following that, Jesus was crucified as a blasphemer. And so it stands to reason that without assuming the resurrection, all we have until we experience the resurrection or proofs of the resurrection, is that Jesus died as a blasphemer.

Because Dr. Craig admits it. He can't come now and say, well look, he never made these blasphemous claims, because then he would be going against what

Galatians 3 .13 states, that Jesus died as a curse. So in other words, if he died as a blasphemer, then there would be no reason for the disciples of Jesus to believe him at that particular point he was crucified for blasphemy.

Okay, let's identify the category error that is committing here, because it's pretty blatant.

The utilization of Galatians chapter 3 and Jesus dying as a curse is derived from the method of execution.

He who hangs upon a tree is cursed. So the idea is, curse is everyone who has not done all the things that are written in the law, we've all done that, therefore how can that curse be taken except that it be transferred to someone else who did everything in the law, and that's what

Jesus did, and so he bears that curse in our place. That's different than Jesus dying as a blasphemer.

The blasphemy, according to John chapter 19, as the Jews says, he called himself the

Son of God, and for this he must die. They recognize that to claim to be the

Son of God, unlike Achaemenid Didot and God has sons by the sons, it is very clear to any honest reading of the

New Testament that the type of sonship, the unique sonship, that Jesus claims for himself, which is not physical, despite the ignorance of the author of the

Quran on this matter, who clearly thought that it was, it is not a physical relationship.

It is an eternal relationship, and it communicated to the Jews the fact that the one who makes this claim was claiming to be divine, and so that's a completely different category.

The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, John chapter 10 and all through it, by claiming because he claimed to be the

Son of God, all right? That is not why Jesus died. The Jews were wrong in the accusation of blasphemy against Jesus because Jesus was who he claimed to be.

That is not relevant to the fact that Jesus voluntarily takes the curse and is hung upon the tree in behalf of his people because that's the purpose for which he came.

I mean, that would be like saying, well, the intentions and beliefs of the people who crucified

Jesus determines the categories of what he can accomplish upon the cross. So if the

Romans have one idea and the Jews have another, we have to limit it to what the Romans and Jews would have understood. And obviously the

Romans and Jews had completely different understandings of why Jesus was being crucified anyways. That wouldn't make a lick of sense.

So there's a category error here, and it's mixing the two different areas. Why should the disciples believe in Jesus?

Because he was who he claimed to be, as he's going to prove to John, put forth your finger, you know, see and believe.

And Thomas is, it's in the book of John, but it's spoken to Thomas, and Thomas' response to that is, my

Lord and my God. Jesus accepts that worship and commends that worship as an act of faith in John chapter 20.

Same chapter where he has differentiated himself from the Father, I would point out, which again is why we believe in the doctrine of the

Trinity and are not modalists or oneness advocates. Very, very important to keep in mind.

The only reason they could turn around is that Jesus apparently reappeared from the dead. So from where I stand in, it seems that I would be in the same position as the disciples of Jesus.

Unless he reappears to me, I would have every particular reason to think that he's a blasphemer. But I don't think so, because the

Quran of course testifies that he's true. I believe in Quran and I believe in Jesus. But if I put away the Quran and I turn to the

Bible, I would come to the crucifixion, which would prove to me that Jesus was a false pretender. No, it would prove to you that the very same thing, ironically, that would be the accusation of the

Quran that the Jews unjustly condemned Jesus. It would not prove the accusation of blasphemy, because he's failed to make the connection between the

Galatians passage, again, the category error that I was just talking about. Not unless we have good reasons for thinking that Jesus would want to resurrect from the dead, or God would want to raise

Jesus from the dead. You mean, aside from his having prophesied that a number of times during his life, and if you believe he's a true prophet and he prophesied these things, then if he doesn't rise from the dead, then he's a false prophet, and so which is it?

You have to throw out the prophecies in Jesus' own words of his death, burial, and resurrection, like in the

Jonah prophecy, and so on and so forth. You have to throw that out to save the

Quran. Because if you accept

Jesus as a prophet, then his prophecies must come true. He prophesied his own death, burial, and resurrection, but the Quran says he didn't die, therefore he couldn't be resurrected, and so you really have a contradiction.

But it's only created by following a document that comes 600 years later, and is not connected to the life of Jesus.

Any good reasons for thinking that God would want to raise Jesus from the dead? Firstly, why would God want to raise a blasphemer from the dead?

Because he wasn't a blasphemer, he was truly the son of God. And in order to maintain that God raised him from the dead, you can only assume it, you cannot prove it.

Well, prove it on what basis? Can you prove that the moon split over the mountain, according to the

Quran? Can you prove that Muhammad rode a winged donkey to Jerusalem, and then goes up to heaven, and visits all the seven levels of heaven?

Can you prove that? I mean, there's all sorts of stories, and if we want to expand out to the Hadith, there's all sorts of stories.

Can you prove that? Let's talk about standards of proof here. And saying a circular bit of reasoning, we can only know that Jesus was true if God were to raise him from the dead.

And God can only raise him from the dead if he were true. But you, Dr. Craig, would say that he died as a blasphemer, so in that case, why would

God want to raise him from the dead? Because those who condemned him were unjust and unrighteous, and he wasn't a blasphemer.

In order to vindicate the claims of a blasphemer, that would be theologically impossible, according to all kinds of Christian theology.

Regarding the parable of the wicked tenants, which Dr. Craig had referred to, it's interesting to note that in this parable, when you analyze the particular story, you will notice how foolish was the behavior of the owner of the vineyard.

He sent his servants one after another, and knowing that they were beaten and killed, nevertheless he sent his beloved son to the same danger.

Yeah, well, it's a parable, my friend. Parables are not meant to be made to walk on all fours.

The whole point of the parable—and it's interesting. In a debate

I listened to yesterday involving

Bashir Vania, one of the statements that was made was that there was no reference in Jesus' parables to his sacrificial death, and someone brought this one up, because clearly the son that is sent by the

Father is Jesus. The point of this parable is that the unrighteous servants are the

Jews. The vineyard is Israel, and so it's similar to Matthew chapter 23 and the condemnation of the

Jewish leaders. And so God has sent prophets, they've mistreated the prophets, so then he sends his son.

So the point is the identification of who Jesus is and who's responsible for rejecting his ministry.

That's what it's about. To try to make it about anything else is to miss the point.

Although he had full power to act, he did nothing until his son is definitely killed. He's also ignorant of the future, because in this parable he maybe assumes that the wicked servants will respect his son.

So can one now compare that foolish man to God? But that is what the entire story does. That's why it's admitted in the

Pelican New Testament commentaries of St. Mark, page 309, that it is unlikely that Jesus told this particular parable.

Secondly... Now I love that. The Pelican New Testament commentaries. Let's pick and choose.

Let's grab ourselves a nice liberal commentary. And again, if you were to be consistent, then you go to the text of the

Quran, you find, you know, you get a nice liberal commentator who likes the earlier surahs and will say, well, it's obviously unlikely that surah 9 was actually...

Again, I mean, this is so easy. Liberal theology is simplistic.

It's easy to do. You don't have to harmonize anything. All you got to do... See, what liberal theology does is it takes a 10 ,000 -piece jigsaw puzzle and says,

I'm only going to put together sections of 10 pieces at a time, and I'm never going to put them all together at once.

Well, that's pretty easy to do. That's not difficult to do. So you just break it all apart into pieces and go, well, here,

I'll show you how it's done. You know, I think Muhammad sort of looked like a 21st century liberal, which is what everyone's always done with the historical

Jesus. It's often been said that everyone who engages in the historical Jesus stuff, it's shocking that the

Jesus they end up with looks strangely like them, which is quite true when you boil it all down.

So I want to present a Muhammad who is so very attractive to the modern intellectual age.

And so I'm going to emphasize his sufferings and his kindness and his openness in the earlier surahs of the

Qur 'an. Obviously, I mean earlier in the sense of chronologically speaking, I'm not talking about surah 2 or especially surah 4, 5, or 6.

I'm talking about the earlier Meccan surahs and the earliest of the

Medinan surahs, which would include Surah al -Baqarah. But anyways, so I'm going to present,

I'm going to put this together, and here's what Muhammad was like. And Muhammad was just concerned about, you know, he was a social reformer.

He was concerned about the stratification of the rich people and the poor people in Mecca.

And so I'm going to create this view of Muhammad, all right? Then on the basis of that, then

I'm going to go to the Qur 'an and I'm going to run into some of those nasty surahs and surah 3 and surah 9 and, you know, this stuff about jihad and this stuff about striking at the necks and clearly, clearly that's not

Muhammad. That came later. That came once that, you know, just as in the

Jesus movement, Jesus was one thing and then this hard -nosed ecclesiastical organization developed over the centuries and just completely hijacked the message of Jesus.

And so all that stuff about a divine Jesus comes from other people later on.

Well, clearly then surah 9 isn't from Muhammad. That comes from the time after Muhammad when you've got his successors and now you've got military stuff going on.

And so it's necessary to follow the successors of the prophet and so we have to present this militaristic perspective.

And oh, clearly, I mean, it's just obvious and, you know, all I've got to do is put it into some liberal commentary, some journal someplace, and then you can quote it and say, oh, see?

There you go. So again, I just,

I continue what may be a fruitless quest, looking for the first Muslim who will actually provide a consistently

Islamic criticism of my faith, because I've never met one.

I know one who has tried. I know a couple others who have at least made an effort that direction, a little, but I've never met one that succeeded.

Never one that succeeded. Because when you start hearing people quoting from our liberals without applying their worldview to the

Islamic worldview, and hence saying, now, of course, I recognize if I'm going to make this kind of criticism that I need to let my

Muslim friends know that I no longer believe that the moon was split and I don't believe in the mirage,

I don't believe in going up to heaven, and I don't believe in any of that stuff.

I can't if I'm going to be consistent. I've not heard that happen. Now, are there liberal

Muslims out there someplace that probably take those perspectives?

Maybe, but they don't tend to do debates either. And if they did, they'd probably be debating a lot of the same

Muslims that I'm actually debating. And in fact, they'd probably be arguing that those people are not actually

Muslims, would probably be how that would work. But anyways, I just point that out.

If you look at Jesus mentioned clearly being the heir of the vineyard, that's the thoughts and the very words of the tenant, not the owner,

God. And therefore, Dr. Craig's beliefs are basically accurately measuring their beliefs, not

God's words. Because besides that, a man can say his son because he's expecting that the tenant will respect him, but not necessarily that he's his only son.

And exactly what the owner did not mention, but he did not say, my only son. Regarding the issue that Dr.

Craig raised about the facts pertain to Jesus being close to God, it's interesting to note that in Islam, a believer is higher than angels, and a non -believer is lower than animals, simply because angels have no desires pushing them to sin.

And it's in their nature to always be obedient. And so an obedient human is better than the angels. At the same time, animals have no intellect to utilize like humans.

So it's normal to be uncontrollable on their particular desires. I see no particular problem in respect of that.

Dr. Craig made mention quite significantly of the resurrection. It's interesting to note that you can point out no less than 41 contradictions in the resurrection accounts alone.

And again, I know exactly what he's referring to here, of course.

And we are going to be, I'm going to be spending a fair amount of time working through the resurrection accounts at PRBC.

If you find this program to be useful, you might want to sort of keep an eye on the

Phoenix Performed Baptist Church website in regards to the sermon audio page, because we're going to be getting back into, as soon as I can, the crucifixion narratives.

Well, firstly, obviously, the betrayals, stuff like that. But in the synoptic study that I'm doing, no one is going to suggest that the harmonization of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or John for that matter, is an easy thing.

But I would point out to you that I find this type of argumentation, again, aside from the inconsistency of a supernaturalist using naturalistic argumentation.

Leaving that aside, I think we've established that rather clearly. I find it rather disingenuous, and to be somewhat of a less than compelling argument, when

Muslims who have, from their perspective, a document that has one author written over a very brief period of time, in a very narrow geographical location, that is just over half the length of our

New Testament, and hence is only, what, about things? I'm going to figure out the exact number.

I'm going to get the exact number. I wanted to do it earlier today, and I forgot. I think, I'm going to guess, but the

Quran is between an eighth and a tenth. No.

I'm going to say it's somewhere between, actually, a sixth and an eighth of the length of the Bible. It may be actually smaller than that.

I'm going to get the numbers out, and I'm going to run them to figure this out. You're talking about a much smaller document.

It's comparing apples and oranges to deal with a much younger, smaller, single -author document than it is to deal with, for example, the

Gospels of Jesus Christ that tell his story from four different perspectives.

Now, you still have to deal with other issues that I will raise to Yusuf Ismail should it come up in regards to the parallels in the

Quran that contradict each other, but there's still a major difference in comparing these documents that I really think we need to take a closer look at.

I still think that my Muslim friends are overly fair in trying to make that comparison, but we will pick up at that very point next time around here on The Dividing Line.

Thanks for listening. Like I said, my intention is to try to do at least half an hour at the end of each program, lengthen them out until we can get all these done, because as I've told the folks in South Africa, I'm doing it, so I want them to listen, make them better debates, support us, look at that link in helping us to get to South Africa, if you would.

We'll see you next time on The Dividing Line. God bless. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to 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 .org, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.