I don't see anything up there, but it ain't ain't working again, but I think we're started and Welcome to the program today 877-753-3341 is the phone number. We're gonna take some calls today But I wanted to start off With you know when you I started reading Dr. Eric Mason's Woke Church. It's not a part of my doctoral studies, I assure you. It is a distraction therefrom, but necessary in this day and time to keep up with such things. And I was reading it while writing. In other words, I was listening to it. I converted it to MP3 from my Kindle. So I'm listening along and I'm formulating some thoughts and trying to identify where there are things to be discussed and things like that and get into a section, it's not a long book, get into a section on things that we should lament. And, well, let me just read you this section. According to my Kindle reader here, which, that's the problem with Kindle, mine may say page 105 of 192, but that doesn't necessarily mean that yours is going to say page 105 of 192, which is somewhat of a problem. But anyway, Let me see where I want to start here. We in the West seem to have what I call selective justice syndrome. We select comfortable forms of justice to address, even then we don't view it as central to the mission of God. Solomon administered justice between the women fighting over the baby. In other words, he judged. Western Christianity must do so in the area of racial injustice. My grief comes from the battle fatigue of trying to convince people who have some of the greatest theological libraries and access to ancient manuscripts yet don't see justice as a central Bible doctrine. Now, I stopped there just for a moment. One of the things I certainly see in this book is there is an assumption of what justice is that includes all sorts of non-biblical categories, equality of economic outcome, and things like this. And it's just allowed to be vague enough to allow people to read that kind of stuff in, that way you don't have to actually defend that biblically. It runs throughout the narrative of what I've read so far. But then I encountered this. In a recent conversation on Twitter, three black Christian leaders and I were accused of dividing the Lord's table by talking about race and black dignity. We were called to ascribe to colorblindness. While that might be a comfortable position for some, colorblindness denies God's promise to Abraham that in you all the nations shall be blessed. It denies the Father's promise to the Son that I will make you a light for the nations. It denies the Spirit's promise to us that all the peoples will praise God. It denies Christ's great commission to disciple the nations. It denies the Spirit's work to prepare us for a multi-ethnic table. In Acts 10, the Lord prepares Peter with a vision not only to preach to Gentiles but also to accept them as clean equals in Christ. Colorblind theology denies one of the main tenets of the historic Christian faith as outlined in the Apostles' Creed, I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church. Catholicity means precisely the opposite of colorblindness. celebrating the inclusion of all ethnicities in Christ. Colorblind theology denies Christ's power to heal racial divisions, disparities, and injustices by ignoring their ongoing impact. Colorblind theology undermines unity in the church by refusing to acknowledge significant ethnic differences or address significant problems." Now, you all may recall what he's talking about. And what is stunning is how disconnected from reality this published version of it actually is. Some of us, of course, keep records. And what had actually taken place in the real world, there was discussion of white spaces and black spaces in the church on Twitter. Many of us are not accustomed to this terminology. Most of us do not hold the belief that we are trying to create, have created, seek to create, have inadvertently created, quote-unquote, white spaces. You have to have a certain lens on. You have to have a certain mindset already going to be able to create the terminology such as white spaces and black spaces. I have wonderful Hispanic friends. I've never heard them talking about white spaces and Chicano spaces. I have black friends, and that was not terminology that they would use either. I have Chinese friends. Nope, they don't use it either. There is a very specific American, it's an America-centric thing. That's why this, I travel globally, just got back from traveling globally, and this is not the kind of mindset that people have outside the United States. It's infiltrating Western culture thanks to our exporting it. But this idea of white spaces, black spaces, all the rest of this stuff, it requires a real strong lens for you to function and to see it in this way so i had put together a meme and i'm going to bring it up here because i think people need to need to see this oh yeah great Just for documentation purposes here, this is the meme that I posted and put on Facebook and linked to it on Twitter as well. And I had already said this on Twitter, but when the body gathers around the Lord's table, there is only one space. The savior space, the redeemer space, the mediator space, anyone who drags color or ethnicity into that space is completely missing the point and the blessing. One space, one body, were the hashtags I used. So, you've all heard me go deeply into a number of specific texts in scripture that address this subject. that specifically assert that there is no ethnicity in the renewal that we experience by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is no differentiation between ethnicities and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, there is no basis for the creation of colored spaces in the body of Christ. That is divisive. It is wrong. It is unbiblical. It's anti-biblical. It's a false teaching. It needs to be identified as a false teaching. It doesn't matter how popular it is. It doesn't matter how many people at T4G believe it. It doesn't matter how much the Gospel Coalition pushes it. It remains a horrifically false, divisive, dangerous teaching. So, I put this out, and the response, the initial response Evidently, Dr. Mason was referring to himself and maybe Kyle James Howard as the three, because I very easily, in just a few moments, pulled up a bunch of material that I had saved. One came from Anthony Bradley. Here's an example of some unhelpful, mainline, quote, colorblind, close quote, white privilege theology. Colorblind white privilege theology. And it's my tweet. When the body gathers around the Lord's table, there's only one space, the Savior's space, the Redeemer's space, the mediator's space. Anyone who drags color or ethnicity into that space is completely missing the point and the blessing. So this is colorblind white privilege theology. Thick, thick lenses here. Very thick lenses. The beauty of the Lord's table on this side of the eschaton is celebrating its multi-ethnic victory over death, sin, and the devil. Explicitly, multi-ethnic discourse should be encouraged, Revelation 7, 9. Well, how is recognizing that God saves men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation in any way relevant, in any way relevant to what my meme said? where is the biblical evidence? Revelation 7-9, we talked about this because we've had people bring this up before. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it because I do want to get to your phone calls. But, you know, when you find yourself being misrepresented horrifically in a newly published book that's being commended and promoted at conferences and has well-known people writing the forewords, even though this book contains a specific apologetic for segregational black churches, It defends it. It says it's good, it's right, it's proper to have simply black churches. Just get away from everybody else. Same people would say if you had white churches like that, it would be horrible, but hey, you know, when you got those lenses on, no, no equal scales. No, no, no, no. We just, it's, no. But anyway, um, Revelation 7, 9, After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, all tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands. And they cry out with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb. How is that in any way, shape, or form, on any exegetical grounds? supportive of the idea that we should have white and black spaces in the ordinances of the church, that we should have white and black experience in the Lord's Supper. Nothing. There's nothing there. And Dr. Bradley knows it. He well knows it. I mean, you just throw this stuff out there knowing you're never really gonna have to defend it. No one is denying, I mean, Revelation chapter 5, men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, yeah, brought together into one body. One body. Same righteousness, same spirit, one body, one body at the supper. No divisions. I'll stand by that, I'll defend that, and there isn't anybody who can possibly refute that assertion from the New Testament text. It's impossible. You cannot substantiate the idea that the apostles of the New Testament believed that it would be proper to have white and black spaces. It would have been the end of the early church. Completely. And I've never seen anybody even try to poke a hole in that statement. Not even try. We can't argue the facts on this one, so let's attack him on something else. That's the Brad Mason way of doing things and everybody else. So, Revelation 7-9 doesn't substantiate that. And then, a little bit lower in the same thread, and this is from the 12th of May, by the way. I posted that meme on the 11th of May. It's very easy, Dr. Bradley, again, it's very easy for white people to not drag color into the sacraments. Blacks in the American experience, see this is, These brothers don't see how absolutely Americocentric they are. Dr. Mason, Dr. Bradley, I mean, their experience in the United States gets to determine everything. Well, their experience in light of their ancestors in America. Blacks in the American experience to have that luxury or privilege. Colorblind theology denies the reality of what this sacrament means for people of color. We must drag color into the means of grace. It's survival. Wow. That is amazing. I mentioned this then. That is, if you don't see how massively, foundationally wrong that is. on the basic gospel level of how we are made right before God, the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, the simple, direct teaching of scripture as to how the unity of the body exists, I don't know what to say to you. I mean, that is dangerous. And then, right around that same time, Dr. Eric Mason, the author of The Woke Church, We need a modern-day ecumenical council on race and justice. We need canons and synods and creeds on this. Come to Philly and we can call the Council of Philadelphia, limited to 300 key men and women pastors and scholarly secretaries. I don't know what a scholarly secretary is either. Rebuke the heretics, that'd be me, and affirm the sound. There was the suggestion. So an ecumenical council. Well, good luck on that one. There haven't been any for a millennium, but hey, nor could there be. Ecumenical Council on Race and Justice at the Council of Philadelphia. called to identify as heretics those of us who say that there is no ethnicity in the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ. There is no place in the Lord's Supper for the insertion of ethnicity and colored spaces. But we're the heretics now. We're the heretics. So I guess that would be the three. It would be Anthony Bradley, Kylo J. Howard, and Eric Mason. And so now in his book, with foreword by Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, we have this gross misrepresentation. And then you have this wildly inaccurate description of what quote-unquote colorblind theology is. I don't even know While that might be a comfortable position for some, colorblindness. Colorblindness denies God's promise to Abraham that in you all the nations shall be blessed. That's a misrepresentation. That's a misrepresentation. Has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with it. How do you get away with this kind of stuff? Is it just simply the repetition of it enough times people just end up believing you? Remember, this is the same brother who stood at T4G and talked about black people who aren't a part of their movement as being Anglo on the inside. Everybody got exactly what he meant by that. Everybody understood it. That's the problem with me. That's not good. There is nothing in asserting that there is one body in Christ, and that there is one righteousness of Christ, and that there is one spirit that indwells the body, and that therefore there is no division based upon ethnicity at the Lord's Supper, has nothing to do with God's promise to Abraham. Nothing. Zero. Zero. Error number one, it denies the Father's promise to the Son that I will also make you a light for nations. Error number two, has nothing to do with it whatsoever, does it? No. There is nothing in recognizing the oneness of the body that has anything to do with the fact that God saves men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. That is complete disconnect. It denies the Spirit promise to us that all the peoples will praise God. No, it doesn't. That's three errors. It denies Christ, Great Commission, Disciple of the Nations. No, it doesn't. Four errors. It denies the Spirit's work to prepare us for a multi-ethnic table. No, it doesn't. Five errors. Acts 10, six errors. Colorblind theology denies one of the main tenets of the historic Christian faith as outlined in the Apostles' Creed. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. No, it doesn't. It's just the opposite. It's what you're doing that denies that. Yeah, I ran into this right at the end of my ride. And so I was like, well, I know how we're gonna be starting to program off today. Wow. Put into print. You know, it's one thing, I don't know about you, but from my perspective, something that is tweeted does not have the weight and gravity of something that is published as a book. And so, it's one thing for this, you know, 13 May 2018, Dr. Eric Mason, we need a modern-day ecumenical council on race and justice. We need canons and synods and creeds. By the way, canons and synods? I'm not sure what he was talking about on this. Come to Philly and we can call the Council of Philadelphia, limit to 300 key men and women pastors and scholarly secretaries, rebuke the heretics and affirm the sound. That's a tweet. And, you know, we do live in a day where the president tweets his policy. That's odd. But when you put it into print, when you actually publish it that changes everything and so that's why I felt I needed to address this particular issue and point out the fundamental error and misrepresentation is found there and now will I find more later on the book it's possible I hope to get to the rest of the book I don't know, maybe tomorrow, but definitely I've got a long ride planned on Saturday, and I have another book I want to get to, but it's a fairly short book, so hopefully get both of them done in that fashion, and we'll see if there's anything more. Do I read anything more on this? Yeah, this was all in Lament No. 6, if you want to look it up. I would say that Micah has a robust theology of justice being a weightier matter of scripture as well as central Bible doctrine. His theological eye was able to scope the scriptures and apply justice hermeneutics, not in competition with the Gospel of Regeneration, but as an outworking of it. We grieve because white Christian leaders who are able to see hendiades, dangling participles, niphil, stems in Hebrew, and eris passives, and can excavate archaeological finds of Hittite culture and frame the unknown alphabet, are unable to see racism and injustice. This is lament-worthy. Now, what that means is, we get to define what racism and injustice is. We get to define the categories. And if you don't agree with us, then you're just, you're part of the problem. That's what this is. That's what this is. And I lament that. I lament that. So there you go. I wanted to address that and hopefully, who knows, maybe there will be some more uh, in the rest of the book. I don't, I don't know. Uh, but we will, we will see. 877-753-3341. I guess I need to be able to hear folks, um, your phone calls for the rest of the time on the program today. And, uh, hmm. Okay. Let's, uh, talk with, uh, Brock. Hi Brock. Hey, Dr. White. Yes, sir. Hey, I've got a question about Romans 1. So just kind of thinking about pre-suppositionalism, and I know the claim is there's no such thing as atheist, because everyone knows God, but could you just talk a little bit about how we reconcile the idea that people truly seem to believe that there is no God, but with what the Scriptures say that they know God exists? Well, obviously, the point is, from Romans chapter 1, that they know that God exists, and they suppress that knowledge, and their atheism is their mechanism of suppression. So, I certainly have had enough experience with atheists to know that very, very few of them even try for some level of consistency in their rejection of God's existence. The biblical point is they have to borrow from God's creation to be able to even make the arguments that they do, and they cannot make a consistent argument. That is the point of verse 20 so that they are on apologetics. They do not have an apologetic. That is a consistent. They have an argument. They certainly make arguments, but it has been observed by many of us. Who was it that that made the observation? I think it was Douglas Wilson made the observation that there are two things that an atheist is certain of that God does not exist and that he hates him. And so it is that inconsistency that is, I think, something that is relevant to this particular point. Yeah, if what you're saying is there is no true atheist in the sense that God has made sure that anyone who bears the Imago Dei has sufficient testimony to know and that they therefore suppress, yes, that suppression can take the form of religion, that suppression can take the form of apathy, drugs, just simply living your life, or it can be full-on atheism. That's still a mechanism of suppression. Okay, thank you so much, Dr. White. I really appreciate your ministry. Alrighty, thank you very much, Brock. God bless. Alright, God bless. Bye-bye. 877-753-3341. Let's talk with John. Hi, John. Hey, Dr. White. What is, by the way, before you go, what is, what's going on on Twitter with these weird-looking faces? Do you know, do you know anything about John? Cause I, I just, just had somebody show up on my Twitter feed and I don't, this NPC, I don't even know what it is. It, I guess there's something going on. I guess Twitter has banned like 15,000 people or something like that. And now, now it's just, it's just appeared on, on my thing too. And, uh, this is, this is weird. Um, it's, I have no idea. Well, okay. All right. That's not, not what you called in about anyways, but, uh, go ahead. Sorry about that. Yeah, so this is my third time calling you. I'm the guy that his wife is Roman Catholic and has gone Roman Catholic. I don't know if you remember that. But it's funny, I was actually at that time a few months ago calling in. I was at Church of Christ here. but now I do not agree with that anymore, so I left the church, and I've found a Reformed Baptist church that I'm attending now, which is awesome. Except you're in California, so I'm not anybody in California we need to be praying for. My church looks pretty good where I'm at. But, um, so now, now I really get it on, uh, that, that I, I can't change my wife's mind, things like that. I think that's a God to do. So I think I'm not going to really argue with her anymore, uh, necessarily unless, you know, conversation leans that way, but right now it's a heated topic. But so right now we have a one year old daughter and, um, my wife takes her Saturday mass and then, uh, I, should be able to take her to my church, but my wife wants nothing to do with the Reformed Baptist Church. But, um... Well, now, I don't... Let me ask, I don't remember what her background was. Sure. She grew up Roman Catholic. When we got married, I baptized her into the Church of Christ, but after our baby came, her Catholic roots called her back. Oh, okay. And she wanted to get my daughter baptized. Okay, all right. Yeah. But right now, she wants to get her baptized again, and she doesn't want to come with me to my Reformed Baptist church. But I think if I don't let her, this huge tension is going to be in our marriage. But I think it might be unwise, and maybe like a spiritual leader blunder on my part, to allow her to baptize our daughter into the Roman Catholic Church. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on that. Well, I thought you had used the term re-baptize her, so the baby has not been baptized. No, the baby hasn't been baptized at all. Okay, all right. Well, yeah, you're obviously in a situation that is less than ideal as far as that is concerned, and the child is not going to be Eternally saved or damned by either action one way or the other. Obviously that kind of action of fatal baptism in roman catholicism and of course. Some of my Reformed brethren disagree with me on this, but I did a debate with Douglas Wilson a number of years ago on this very issue. There are some that would believe that even a Roman baptism places one in some relationship to the New Covenant, and hence, You evangelize them by grabbing them by their baptism. I obviously argued rather strenuously that a any action that calls itself Christian baptism that is done in the absence of the Christian gospel itself cannot be called Christian baptism. It is the gospel that defines the ordinances of the church, not the other way around. And therefore, any baptism, it can be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But if you don't know who the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, if you are rejecting the gospel that is in and of itself triune in its nature, um, that baptism, uh, is merely an external formality. It does not have any validity in and of itself because it is not Christian baptism because it is a part of, uh, something that's separate from the gospel itself. And, um, so yeah, you're obviously in a, in a, um, very difficult situation here. It sounds like fairly newly married and the difficulty for you, um, is that you're the one Well, you've both changed, but what's interesting here is on the key issue of the supremacy and sovereignty of grace, the deadness of man and sin, the power of God to be able to save in and of himself, she hasn't changed, you have. Because the Church of Christ and Rome absolutely in lockstep in regards to man's natural abilities. Neither one of them believes that grace, in and of itself, is sufficient. There has to be something else. That's where the problem lies. And so, from her perspective, you're the one that's changed, not her. And that obviously puts you in an even more difficult situation. Obviously, I do not want, you know, if it is at all possible to keep your marriage together and not have that happen, that is the best thing in the world. But my suggestion would be you're probably looking at this from We're coming at it backwards the real the real issues aren't about the baptism of the child the real issues are how do you in a proper way lead your family. in with a division that exists and do so in such a fashion that regularly communicates to your wife the beauty and supremacy of of grace so as to reveal to her The emptiness of the penitential system of Rome and the beauty of having true peace with God. That's the real issue. Once you get past even the baptism issue, then there's gonna be church attendance issue, and there's gonna be all sorts of other things that are always gonna be coming back to the very same thing. If you can exercise appropriate parental control in regards to your child's religious upbringing. That's great. We live in a day where, unfortunately, The breakup of marriage is so common that people consider it a easy and viable alternative. And that is... And then in that situation, then not only do you lose the opportunity of major positive influence, but there's all sorts of other negative things to go along with that. You know, my advice is don't baptize her, but my greater advice is you've got to be praying to find a way to establish some level of spiritual consistency within the home. And because of the developments that have taken place in both of your lives, that's a really complicated and difficult situation. And your connection is really weird, either that or the governmental authorities are making noise while they're listening in to our conversation. Yeah, I think my only game plan is to just love her and show her grace and love like Jesus has shown to me. Um, but yeah, it's tense and I know it's almost it's practically a deal breaker for her where she said to me quite a few times She kind of wants to leave me Oh, yeah. Well, let's uh, let's hope and pray that's not the case and let's hope and pray that uh There will be something that will reveal to her her need of true and lasting peace, first of all, with God herself, and that the sacraments of Rome will never ever be able to provide those things. So when you said you're not going to argue with her, I suppose there is a level of Unnecessary argumentation that becomes a regular thing, but then there also has to be a regular readiness to make application and to make sure that she understands what the real issues are because not a lot of Roman Catholics do and if if she left for the Church of Christ, she would be leaving for the wrong reasons fundamentally. So yeah, it's complicated situation very very complicated situation. Yeah. Thank you so much for your words, though. I think that lines up with what I kind of have been thinking and hearing. Don't baptize her. Continue grace and love. Well, there'd be a much better situation if local elders who could know you and know her and know the situation. You know, I'm just hearing one side over a phone line. So often, it's the look in the eye. It's the personal encounter that can make all the difference in the world. So, yeah, make sure that the folks at the Reformed Baptist Church you're attending know what's going on and maybe they can be of better assistance than I can. Yeah. Thank you so much for everything, Dr. White. All right. Thank you. God bless. Bye-bye. 877-753-3341. Let's talk with Tim. Hi, Tim. Hi, Dr. White. Long-time listener, first-time follower here. All righty. A couple subjects we could dive into, but the main one that I wanted to ask you about was in the Institute, from Calvin's Institute, section 253, he says, the perseverance itself is indeed also a gift of God, while he does not bestow on all indiscriminately, but imparts to whom he pleases." And then he kind of goes on a little bit. So one of the things that I've been trying to kind of wrestle through with the idea of, you know, the Reformed theology and a lot of your great teachings on Calvinism, is in a sense it almost seems like that God does not desire all to be saved, and the implication of that is then that God does not love all equally, or love all the same. So how would you answer that objection to see, like, can you appreciate the objection that God, what might be seen as monstrous or horrendous in some sense, if He does not desire all equally to be saved and thus provide an equal opportunity for each person to be saved, or that Jesus' sacrifice was not for all, it was just for the elect, Well, those are standard objections, but they are standard objections based upon some, I think, pretty obvious misconceptions and misunderstandings of both what's being said as well as what true justice would involve. The assumption being made, first of all, is that if God loves anyone, that he has to love everyone in the exact same way. What's interesting is that we as human beings are able to love in many different ways. We are able to, when I obey traffic laws and don't run red lights, I'm actually showing love for other people because I'm not endangering their lives just simply so that I can get to the restaurant faster. Uh, but that's not the same kind of love that I have, uh, for my wife or my children, uh, or my grandchildren. Uh, I have a different kind of love for my pets. Um, I, I love my pets, but, uh, I, both of both our current pets are getting older and it has, uh, historically always been my job when that day comes. I'm the one that's got to go take them to the vet and have them put down. Um, I'm not going to do that with my wife. So there's a different kind of love that is there. And I appreciate it. Yeah, very much so. So, we obviously, as human beings, have the capacity to engage in differentiation in our love. I am to love my wife, and I am not to love anybody else's wife. And so even the command to love all obviously has restrictions and understandings that are a part of that. But what's fascinating is mankind, for some reason, and many people even in the Christian church, have the idea that by saying God is love, we as creatures have a capacity and ability that God himself does not have. That God cannot have the special love he showed, for example, for the people of Israel. And part of this comes from the fact that we live in a day when when the Tanakh the Old Testament scriptures are Secondary for most people there. They're not a primary reading source for most people today. And so the the very clear reality of The special love that God has for his elect people Israel in the Old Testament and then that elect people being made up of every tribe, tongue, people, and nation as the New Covenant is preached throughout the world. That redemptive love is different than the love that God shows in the fact that, for example, God showed love in the Book of Jonah when he withheld the imminent judgment upon the city of Nineveh. Now, that judgment eventually did come, But there is a aspect of love that shows itself as mercy, that shows itself as patience. In that situation, God shows love toward the entirety of his creation by having his sun to shine and the rain to fall and upholding all of creation. So, there are different kinds of divine love. And so, if what you're saying is, well, but God only gives redemptive love to certain people, well, yes, that's exactly what Ephesians 1 says, that's exactly what the concept of election is. That's exactly what Jesus said. He's in the synagogue in Capernaum. I'm now going to say Capernaum properly now that I've been there. But they're in the synagogue in Capernaum, not very far from the Sea of Galilee. He's teaching the people and what does he do? He has people who rode across the lake uh... to see him and he says you're seeking me not because you saw the signs understood them but because your bellies were filled you are unbelievers you've seen me but you you don't believe and it is uh... it is only the ones of the father draws to me who receive eternal life that that was his teaching this was right this this is this is straightforward teaching it's it's right there and and people don't like it because they've embraced the idea that salvation has to be doled out on a basis of equality. Everybody has to have an equal chance, as if anyone is owed a chance in the first place. And that's the problem. Illustration I've used for many years is that if the governor of a state who has the authority to do so, pardons a person on death row. Other people will always come along and say, we need to pardon everybody else. But no, he doesn't. Because the governor is under no compulsion to pardon anyone. He has that sovereign freedom to do so, and he can pardon one person, or he can pardon the whole lot, or he can pardon 10 out of 100, or 50 out of 100, it's totally up to the governor. And so, what mankind is saying is, if you save one, you have to save all. And God says, no, I will save for my own purposes and my own glory, and I'm not under obligation to save any at all, but I will do so. In fact, as I promised to Abram, your descendants shall be as the sand of the sea." And so, there is going to be a great multitude, as described in the Book of Revelation, who will receive salvation. But they do so by God's choice and not by man's choice. And anyone who does not receive that salvation will not receive injustice, they will receive justice. There is a difference. People don't understand this, but there is a difference between justice and mercy. and everyone will receive either justice or mercy. No one gets injustice. That's vitally important to keep in mind in the biblical scheme of things. And so, Yes, I understand the objections that people have and they're based upon ignoring major elements of biblical revelation. They make mincemeat out of the Old Testament. They make mincemeat out of God's relationship to Israel. They are based upon insertion of external concepts. regarding autonomous free will and all sorts of other categories like this, and a denial to God of the ability to have redemptive love over against common grace. All of that plays into it and is something we need to respond to very regularly and have done so yet once again today. Well, I appreciate it. If I may make one comment, which may open a can of worms, and you can say, we're not going back to that. I'm not doing it. But I've been wanting to get your insight on this. Going back to the Yasir Qadhi debacle, not your conversation, but the stuff that followed for what, eight months after that? Were you doing shows for about eight months? Responding to brandon house and a number of other people that were going on brandon house is still Doing his thing about that, but i'm okay i am i am also the same people ignore him so Right right right i think one thing that was missed in that uh and a lot of your uh talking back and forth and a lot of his Uh talking back and forth was uh and i think this question will hopefully clear it up so i'll ask it and then Then i can get off and we can move on if yasser khadi got a chance to um influence all of our government, somehow. And they agreed to be under his teaching, because in Islam, as I understand it, it's not a presentation of a gospel where someone kind of accepts it. It's more of, okay, you're doing this, and now we kind of teach. It's submission. That's what Islam means, submission. So yeah. Right. And so now there's principles, and Yazdekhari would be here. So if Yazdekhari influenced our government in that way, would that be a good thing or a bad thing for the United States? I'm not sure what you mean that this didn't come up because there wasn't a part of the discussion, so I don't know why it would have come up, but obviously I do not believe that the promotion of any concept of Islamic supremacy is going to be Good for the church, and if it's not good for the church, it's not going to be good for the nation now What we're facing today? really that that muddies the waters just a little bit is the fact that we have a Governmental entity that is secularizing and So you could Depersonalize that and step back a moment and say, well, what's better for a government to be influenced by someone who believes that there is a God who has revealed himself and that there are our norms or by an entire system that says that we're just all a cosmic accident and you end up with. transgendered athletes winning all the women's competitions. I mean, you could argue that at least at the height of Islamic society in the past, you didn't have the kind of abject absurdity that we're experiencing today. So if you took that part out and just simply said, well, what's better? General theistic influences on government? or evolutionary, secular influences upon government, obviously any general theistic system is going to be better than none. So you could put together a list, I suppose, in light of that. And from my perspective, at least in a theistic system where God has spoken, there is now a basis for a revelation from God that is called law, and that that law would then help to hold a society together. One of my great concerns is we're heading for anarchy. Because there's no basis for law or common, even a definition of common good in society when you really think through where secularism takes you. Because we live in a random universe that has no purpose. So everything just simply becomes an exercise of power. You don't have, and you can't check power. In historic, not in current Wahhabi, but in historic Sunni jurisprudence, there were, there developed over time checks and balances. There had to, you couldn't have a government that didn't. Even the jihadi spirit was constrained by rules. And, obviously, I don't think that the Islamic system represents God, and therefore it's not consistent, and therefore it can't hold up, and that's why it fell apart. But the point is, just generally, you certainly can make an argument that a general theistic influence is going to at least be, in a sense, better than the absolute degradation that we're seeing today coming from secularism. Secularism is a faster-working poison than a false theism. We want the true God to be proclaimed. We want his truth to be proclaimed. But you were sort of putting it in a nebulous what-if situation that at least requires that kind of response. I thought you did a fantastic job of working through the different biblical texts, you know, kind of dismantling the idea that it was some sort of liberal interfaith dialogue. I mean, that was just complete, 100% misunderstanding. on their part, and I didn't think they addressed it, and when I say they, I just mean the collective, you know, your opposition in that. But I, you know, since I'm speaking to you, and, you know, I've communicated a little bit with them, that I thought the one point that was missed, and you covered it, but I didn't think you covered it in a way that was as thorough as you just did in those few minutes. And so, again, you could disagree with me there, but from my following, was the ideology went with somebody like Yasir Qadhi and how it might be seen as influential or you promoting some of his ideas. And so they were making a very broad connection between Dr. White is giving Yasir Qadhi a platform Everything associated with that with the otter Coddy is terrible. And so therefore dr. White shouldn't do this Yeah, okay partly theology and partly ideology political ideology. All right, that was that so your distinction was great Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you so much. All right. Thanks Tim. Thanks for your call Hey, let's stick with these. How's that sound? Okay, and let's talk with Jonathan. Hi Jonathan Hi! So I got... Don't drop that phone while you're grabbing it real quick. Yeah, so I have a question regarding Ephesians chapter 3 verses 4 through 6, and this is what it says, when you read this, you can perceive in my insight into the mystery of Christ which was not made known to the sons of men and other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel." So, upon reading that, wouldn't that mean that there has only been, is, and will be only one group, or God's elect, or you could say Israel, or would I be reading that wrong? Well, okay, if the question is to be specific, that the Ta'ethne Gentiles are simply the nations. So, specifically, the nations are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise the Epangelia, which is in Christ Jesus by the Gospel, if what you're understanding there is that they are engrafted into that promise that goes all the way back to, well, to the Garden, but especially to Abraham, definitely. And that is why Paul can say in Philippians, we are the true circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit. And so, I realize my dispensational friends, who are truly dispensational, not leaky dispensationalists, but my dispensational friends and a number of other groups struggle with this idea. But I think it is unquestionable in the New Testament teaching that the church is not the replacement. That's why I cringe every time I see my friend Michael Brown posting stuff against quote-unquote replacement theology. The church is the continuation of and fulfillment of all of the promises that are given to Israel and that the true Israel was always made up of those who were changed by the Spirit of God and were truly regenerate and partake of that one means of salvation. So, I think My answer to your question is yes. I think... Okay. Because I was also looking in light of Romans 11, where Paul is talking about that God has elected many, like these Jews are partially hardened until, right, the Gentiles are all in or have been chosen to obtain it. And then the rest, or what am I reading? Yeah, that's a... Romans 11, 25, where it says, like, "...for I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of the mysteries, so that you will not be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Yeah, but I think you need to start earlier in Chapter 11 to get the proper parameters. Exactly, yeah. In verse 5, in the same way, then, there has also come to be at the present time the lima, the remnant, according to God's gracious choice, according to His gracious election, And the argument that he then develops from Old Testament texts is the fact that this has been, in fact, this was the point of Romans 9. Romans 9 likewise bears out that God has always Functioned on this basis of a sovereign free election in the application of the promises that he has that he has made and So I think if you keep that in mind then when you get to the end of chapter 11 the point there is not the idea of And nor could it be given because people sometimes forget the reality that maybe in the days of Paul, writing prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, you could have possibly come up with the idea that, well, yeah, all the Jews will be saved after the Gentiles come in. That wouldn't make a lick of sense today. There's been a massive, huge time period that has passed, during which many, many, many, many, many ethnic Jews have passed away outside of Christ. So, you have to, I think, try to read, you know, if there are multiple ways of dealing with Romans 11, and there are, and it's a difficult passage for anybody, The way you read it is the way that it's going to allow it to be consistently understood down through the ages, not one that would make sense back then, but no longer make sense anymore. So that's where I would start with that, and hence what's being said at the end is bringing in all of the elect, whether Jew or Gentile, and when it says all Israel will be saved, I would see that as the Israel of God, not just simply the ethnic followers of Israel, because they haven't been. I mean, it's been 2,000 years, so it's sort of hard to try to Uh, cram that in there, even though one of the readings that people have is all the Jews living at that time will be saved. Well, okay, I guess, but I, you know, that... That seems like a major stretch. If God wants to save all the Jews alive today, guess what? Not only can he, but I'm not going to stand in his way. I would like to be used of that. That'd be wonderful. I was just in Israel, and seeing all the Jewish people there, that'd be great. That'd be awesome. And God can do it, and that'd be wonderful he did that. I just don't think that's Paul's point there. I think his point is the remnant, remains consistently all the way through there. Okay? Okay. Alrighty. Because I was also thinking about Romans 2 as well, you know, how a Jew is not outwardly, but a Jew is inwardly, by the precision of the heart. So, yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think that would fit together. Alright, thank you. Alright, thank you. Alright, God bless. God bless. Alright. Well, I have one there that just simply has a question mark. I don't even know what I'm supposed to do with that. Line 3, I don't even know what it is, but I'll go to Colin. Hi, Colin. Hello, Colin. Just barely. Okay, hold on one second. It sounds like you're in the middle of a rushing river. Some winds there. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes, uh-huh. Hey, thanks for taking my call. I appreciate it. I just have a question about what does it mean that Jesus is called the Word? And John's prologue? Uh-huh. Well, the term that is used there, logos, has has a background in the Old Testament and in the material of what's called the intertestamental period, that is, the writings of the Jews between Malachi and Matthew, that 400-year period there. And the Logos is the one that reveals the Father that, according to that very prologue, We are told the Logos has eternally existed as God, has eternally been in relationship with the Father, is close to the Father's side, has that intimate relationship with Him, and therefore is the one that explains the Father to us. And because He's not merely a creature, but He does take on flesh, uh... then because of his eternal nature he can accurately explain to us who the father is while at the same time uh... he while at the same time uh... uh... since he has taken on flesh then we can have an understandable uh... revelation of who the father is we can't approach uh... the father he dwells in unapproachable light and and and so we need to have a very accurate and clear revelation of who he is And that's what we have in in the log us and so that that use the term word. Memra, devar, are some of the terms from the Old Testament that in Psalm 89, Psalm 119, these are passages where there's a very high reference to God's word and God's revelation. Some people try to connect this to Greek philosophical concepts, the logos was God's reason and ordering principle and stuff, but I think the much safer and better origin For the utilization of the term is is to be found in the Old Testament text rather than you know, some people try to connect it to the applying it to The Alexandrian Jewish writers names escaping me at the moment To other sources that I think lead to some real some real issues. So okay. How did you just for a moment? I just tell me again those passages, that way I can... I know Psalm 19 is, you know, the writer is reveling and glorifying God for His Word, and showing his appreciation for the law of God and stuff like that. And so I'll study that, but what was the other passage? I had, off the top of my head, there was a reference to Psalm 89. Looking at it right now, and since I'm looking at it very quickly, I might skip over it, but I don't have a list in front of me of key references. It's interesting, like when I read, in the beginning was the word, it's a, John specifically uses that language for him, and so me being a Westerner, you know, I have no idea how a first century Jew or Jewish Christian or Gentile Christian would have understood his use of that word. Well, yeah, well, like I was saying, I think that the best background for that is found in not only the Old Testament utilization of terms like devar, but also in the intertestamental period there's more discussions of that the fellow i was his name escaped me for a second and some people will try to say that philo don alexandria who wrote before the end of john's life uh would be one of the sources i i sort of struggle with that i don't i'm not sure that's the best way to go so but you if if you read If you read commentaries, you will end up dealing with that kind of stuff that'll be thrown at you about phylo and stuff like that. So just be aware of that when you run into it. Sounds good. Thank you so much for your help. Okay. Thanks a lot. No problem. Bye. Well, all right. Let's finish up by talking to Hassan. Hi, Hassan. Hi, Dr. White. Thank you for allowing me to call you. I just want to say, I come from a Muslim background, and I just want to thank you for your ministry. You have helped me so much with all your debates and your discussions with different Muslim scholars, so I really appreciate that. But in those debates, I've covered Mark 1332 at least 20 different times, so... Right, right. But I had a question. I was watching another video on YouTube about this, And the speaker was saying that that word, no, it also could be translated as reveal. And so no one revealed the last hour except the father. Is that a true explanation or what do you think? Well, you got it. I am automatically suspicious of any translation of a very difficult text. where you take a word and you don't translate it by its normative meaning. In this text, what you have is the term oida. Now, oida is just simply the aorist form of gnosko, which is the present tense. It's one of those terms where the stem changes rapidly, wildly between the arist and the present. And so gnosis is the substantival form. The noun form would be gnosis. And so you've heard of the Gnostics and people like that. So it is the standard word for to know. Now, can there be places Where knowledge is revealed, yes, but generally the terminology that will be used there will be something like apocalypsis, or some of the related terms like that. I think I have heard probably what you've heard. I think I ran into a video not long ago myself where I heard one saying that their understanding of this was that basically it is not the sun's role to reveal The day or the hour the the problem is that a that's a stretch and be but of that day or hour no one. can reveal not even the angels in heaven or the sun, but the father alone. Well, um, okay. Um, I don't know that I could defend that narrowing of what's called the semantic domain of Gnoska Oida down that tightly, because I don't see anything in the context. of that. I obviously think that what you have here is that to fulfill the role that the son voluntarily takes to be the messiah and savior of the world, it is necessary that he lay aside certain aspects um, in the incarnation, such as His glory, uh, that would allow Him to do what He and the Father and the Spirit in eternity past chose to do. Um, could I see a connection, maybe, between that interpretation of Revelation, um, and just simply saying it is only the Father's Prerogative to reveal this. Okay. I'm not gonna say it's wrong. I'm just gonna say that. I don't know that I could that I could defend that in a and for me, you know, for most people. Not being able to defend it in debate is not necessarily a high priority. But for me, it's sort of determinative. And so some people have more freedom to adopt interpretations than I do. But if I'm going to, especially on a topic like this, I think that it's much more defensible and I think more textual. To point out to the Muslim, first of all, that a Muslim can't believe that Jesus ever spoke these words in the first place, because he calls himself the Son. He specifically differentiates himself between the angels in heaven and humanity. and places himself between the Father and all of creation, which is similar to what the Logos does in John 1. So, no Muslim person can actually believe Jesus ever said these words. uh... because they should do they bring it up all the time all i know i don't believe me i don't know but it's but it's an inconsistent thing to do you either have to admit well i don't think jesus ever said this i really can't push it beyond that or simply say well i just want to show contradiction in your scriptures uh... and so we can discuss it on that level but then they have to admit uh... that uh... the jesus of mark thirteen thirty two is speaking himself in a way that the muslim jesus could never have spoken So, I think that needs to be emphasized in giving a proper response. But the key thing is, I think this has to do with what you see in Philippians chapter 2, and that being made in the likeness of men. that included, uh, veiling his glory, uh, and veiling his, uh, knowledge of that particular event, which is, uh, specifically ascribed to the father alone. But at the same time, emphasizing, he, the son, is above the angels. He's above all of humanity and above the angels. Sorry, that's not how Muhammad presented Jesus. Uh, no matter, no matter how you go, how you, how you go. Even though it's interesting, there's one other thing to add in there. Muhammad obviously didn't know about Mark 13, 32 either. Because I guarantee you, especially at the end of his life, because traditionally, the background for Surah 3, or at least the portion of Surah 3 that goes to the meeting with the Christians from Najran, um, the topics that seemingly are raised there, if he had known of Mark 13, 32, and the parallel in Matthew, it would've been central to the comments that are made. Nothing's ever said. There's no recognition. These texts do not enter into Islamic thought until much later, because the early Muslims knew nothing about the New Testament. So, I think that's significant as well. Hadn't thought about that, huh? No, I didn't. I'm listening to the Quran these days, one chapter a day, just to learn and see what it says. Yeah, I did that while writing. I listened to four or five different translations of the Qur'an a number of years ago and still review it once in a while. That was before I started Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which took a lot longer than the Qur'an, believe me. So, yeah. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. As I said, you've been a great, great help. Hopefully you can come to my country of Kosovo sometime. Well, that's, yeah, you know, I'll actually, I'll be in Russia in February teaching at a school there, Lord willing. And I was in, I had to turn down an invitation, I'd love to accept it eventually, but I had to turn down an invitation to go to Albania on that trip as well. So I've been to the Czech Republic. The folks in Albania want me to get there. So yeah, who knows? Maybe it could happen. I wish that would happen. I hope so. I'll pray about it. All right. Thanks, Hasan. Thank you so much. God bless you. All right. Well, you know, You never know when you open up the phone lines, what you're gonna get. What you normally do get is people who are listening to the response, summary, we must have the busiest audience in the world. because they can't stop doing whatever it is they're doing on the phone while talking to me. So there's all this noise in the background and opening packages and stuff like that. It's like, um, you know, that makes it a little bit hard for other folks to listen. So, you know, you, you might have to start, cause I know on the big stations, there are, they, the, the call screener has a certain little routine little speech they go through uh... you know don't don't do this on a speakerphone and uh... you know keep listening to the money might come to you quickly and try to minimize the background noise you know if the dog starts barking there's nothing much you can do about that but you know you know opening packages and stuff might not be the most helpful thing for everybody else who wants to listen that's all because you have to turn you down so that uh... anyway All right, thanks for listening to the program today. Lord willing, we'll see you next week. God bless.