June 2009 Resource of the Month with guest Dr. James White | "Drawn by the Father" by James White

[snowboyben1978]

Class!!

[payn3a91]

so are those glasses the reason why his youtube channel is called droakley?

[parakeethands]

LOL...."it's hard not to laugh!" good job acting! :)

[spoozster]

I think it's really awesome to finally see that desk from a different angle, though I've always thought that one of the big staples in a James White video is that lava lamp collection. :)

[GreekTrustsJesus]

Great! Thanks!

[seephas]

Great interview! Sadly I didn't know of reformed theology or James White when I lived in Peoria, AZ. Susan that was classic! Knew you could play ball but you dance too!?!?

[theocratickingdom30]

I just recetly heard a man inflicted with hyper, red letterism when asked about justification. It was so said.

[RobertHSengstacke]

@theocratickingdom30 sad

[Christianizers]

"Hyper Red Letter-ism vs. what is written in the black letters?" - J White

Response, Lane is being schooled to adjudicate 'the law' yet he and White seem to not be followers of 'the law' isn't this 'a dichotomy' of grace which is actually 'the favorability' of Yah' Will in Ones Life.

Therefore I am truly entertained by you guys all because you are given money, privilege and fame all in the name of your Doctorate Degrees that you all had to pay dearly for.

Yet Yeshua' paid NO MAN for His Time!

[curvalecce]

Luke 6:37

[FreedomofSpeech12]

Lane, you picked the wrong field to work in. You should go to seminary.

[jmhjmh5]

James White is a brilliant man.

To me it seems that he destroys most opposition in debates whatever its against catholics, mormons or armenians.

Though I suppose its not a fair fight.

All White has to do is stick firmly on God's Word while his opponents have all the hard work of twisting the Word. ^-^

[falcoismydog]

Hey Lane,

Nice video. I was also deeply affected by this book as well as Chosen By God by Sproul.

I'm sure that one of the things which will bother Dr. White's critics the most in this video is that he appears to be human. Yes anti monergists, James White can laugh and enjoy himself!

Thanks again.

[YHWHisElohim]

You broke into his office to insult him? Well done sir! :-)

[RationalEmotive]

Hey, tell DrOakley to open the comment sections on his videos.

I find it very annoying not to be able to respond to him and call him out on his bullshit, lies and sheer hypocrisy.

[LaneCh]

"Dr. Oakley" said to tell you that his radio show is open for dialogue. Would you like the number? I'd be happy to provide it for you.

[RationalEmotive]

I know his channel policy.

I would have to call overseas which is not worth the expenses for me.

But it is more than that. If he would allow, commenting and channel comments, the rationalist community soon would take over the place.

[LaneCh]

So you say.

Have you considered using Skype? It's quite cheap. For someone who professes to be able to call him out on errors and implies that it's such an important endeavor, it seems that a few dollars wouldn't be that much to spare.

[theocratickingdom30]

I would agree! :)

[FreedomofSpeech12]

No, you would flood his channel with hate and have no meaningful argument to support your veiw, or your idiotic Atheist/Agnostic veiw.

[fruitofspirit]

Yea, Lane - gotta make sure we clear up all the "bullshit" in the name of our LORD.

Oy vey.

[grant9120]

lane does james white have something on catholicism???!!!! why wont anyone speak out on it?!!! i cant find any good books. i go up against catholic apologists who are much better than me and i am just a mere 22 year old who doesnt know much but knows that 66 books not 73 or whatever and my God converted me from an oxycontin addict to a saint and they just are so demoralizing. cant find any good books. i just want som1 to talk about all their arguments and refute them. so many catholic friends

[LaneCh]

Roman Catholicism is one of James White's specialties. Three books he's written on this are "Answers to Catholic Claims", "The Fatal Flaw" and his most recent on the subject "The Roman Catholic Controversy." Also, David King and William Webster have written a wonderful 3 volume set called "Holy Scripture" that would help you trememndously. Go to aomin(.)org and click on articles to find articles Dr. White has written on RC, too. He also has many debates there to purchase.

[FreedomofSpeech12]

On Dr. Whites channel page, he has a whole video archive on the Roman Catholic apologetics.

[APSOC38]

From what I heard, Dan Barker tried that and failed miserably in his debate with James White recently. Doug Wilson also thoroughly trounced Barker back around 96 or 97 (I think it was).

[kylemorne100]

Oh oops, this isn't Lane's house, it's James white.

[kylemorne100]

What's that wrench over at the right bottom side corner of the video for?

[LOLFunny687]

Arminianism is heresy because they believe you can lose your salvation(thus invoking a works+faith gospel)

The god of Calvinism is no better then a devil. The god of Calvinism is glorified by the death and damnation of his creation.

"...individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction." -John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

(Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

[DedicatedToHisGlory]

OK, y'all had way too much caffiene, Lane.

From your friends on Facebook, WMP.

[pungadoo]

lol

[1saintpete]

I have heard Dr White present this material several times on the Dividing Line and find his logic wanting. what he presents is isegetic contortion of scripture based on Calvinistic presupposition. The free will of man with respect to salvation sovereignly decreed by God is readily seen throughout scripture, eg Gen 4:6-7 & Josh 24:15.

[LaneCh]

Can you share with us one indicative verse in Scripture that says man's will is free from sin?

[1saintpete]

I already gave you 2 verses. Did you read them? The matter is clearly presented to us by God himself in the book of Ezekiel chp 18; please review this carefully. Sin is always a choice; we are never compelled to sin.

[LaneCh]

Yes. i did look at those two verses, but I asked you for *indicative* verses. Do you know what *indicative* means?

[1saintpete]

To indicate usually means to point out or show; but you may have some other meaning in mind, if so please define. Gen 4:6-7 & Josh 24:15 & esp the entire 18th chapter of Ezekiel clearly indicate that man is always free to turn from sin to righteousness (or the reverse). This is by the sovereign decree of God. Can you please give me 2 or 3 indicative verses which say that man's will is NOT free from sin?

[LaneCh]

Indicative means a statement of fact. An imperative statement is a command. Can you provide any Scriptures that say that man's will is free as a statement of fact (indicative statement)?

[LaneCh]

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

(Rom 8:7-8)

Your theology holds that those who are in the flesh can please God because if they're in the flesh or out of the flesh, it's still irrelevant since man has a will that isn't affected by sin.

[LaneCh]

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

(Eph 2:1)

Is the will considered to be part of the man? If so, how can a man be dead in sin and not have his will affected?

[1saintpete]

Once again this verse is not indicative that man's free will is not operative when he sins. To be dead in one's trespass is to be spiritually separated from God or spiritually dead. When Cain offered his sacrifice to God he was carnally mined & dead in his trespass yet God was able to say to him "if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?"  Clearly his will was fully operable, otherwise the statement of God makes no sense.

[1saintpete]

This verse is not indicative that man's will with regard to choosing salvation is inoperable when he is carnally minded. Paul is telling us that the carnally minded man(that is, the man who has rejected God's plan of salvation) has made a free will choice to not follow God's commands & thus is not subject to the law of God, that is, he does not subject himself to the law of God. This is not pleasing to God since he desires to save all men(1Tim2:3-6 & others).

[LaneCh]

So I've shared a few that I believe are *indicative* of man's state in sin. Do you have any *indicative* verses that say man's will is free from him and sin or only imperative commands that you have to eisegete?

[1saintpete]

You'll get no argument from me that man is in a state of sin. The verses you shared are clearly NOT indicative that man's sinful state makes his will to choose inoperative. The will of man is not even mentioned in these verses. I have presented to you several scriptures & brief arguments that man's will CLEARLY remains free & fully operative even when he is in a state of sin. You have functionally ignored what I have been saying.

[LaneCh]

So you agree that man is in sin, but you also hold that his will is not effected. Do you hold that man's will is separated from the man?

[1saintpete]

The will of man is inseparable from the man & is always fully operational, whether in mortal life or after death. Where the intellect of man, is there also is the will. Life is all about choice; when we do well we are accepted of God, when we do evil we are rejected of God. God is gracious & has provided for the salvation of ALL men (John 3:16) if we are willing to follow Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.

[LaneCh]

So if the will is connected to the man, and the man is in a state of sin, how you can hold that will isn't affected as well?

[1saintpete]

Are you trying to tell me that because a man is in a state of sin he no longer has a will as pertaining to salvation? - no longer is able to choose between good & evil?

[LaneCh]

I'm trying to say that since you hold that man's will is not separated from him, and man is in a state of sin, you'll have to account for why man's will is not affected by sin. You can't hold to all three points and be consistent is what I'm trying to tell you.

[1saintpete]

My position is very consistent. Sin is the result of free will choice to disobey God. It very clear from the scriptures I have cited & dozens more that we have the free will capacity to turn our sinful lives around(Isa 1:16-20). You have yet to demonstrate to me that this is not so. Your position is irrational & unscriptural.

[WarrantedFaith]

Favorited :)

[theologymatters]

This was totaly awesome...I had a similar experiance, and it was his romans 9 mp3 that was the clincher. It was hard to come to terms with something so contrary to what I believed. I liken it to being in a cult and having to come to terms with what you believe is wrong. But if you take GOD at his word and kill all your pre-concieved ideas God will reveal himself .all the confusing pieces come together there is peace and understanding and for me that is where the eternal security finaly came from

[ChristianTULIP]

good video

[hugiaino]

Jn Ch 6: Judaizing of Christianity started before the Crucifixion. Many of Jesus' disciples were Jews who wanted to continue their sacramental attendance to Circumcision and Moses' Law to get to heaven. In Jn 6, Jesus practically crams grace down their throats v.37; v.44; and v. 65., but look at 666: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." 20 years later Paul protests this very thing, Gal 2; Acs15 It is still with us My Will Christians! JesusSavesAlone

[pungadoo]

Watch out James looks like he means business look out lol

[BrownCalvinist]

awesome:)

[rpavich]

that is ONE GREAT VIDEO...

Wow...you follow James White instead of Christ! Now there's proof... :)

[prhil001]

brilliant Lane ... lol

[LoveCryReason]

I do not understand how Dr.James White was able to keep a straight face behind you Lane. It was a Great Video and God bless you and your Dr. White

[dkshotwell]

Lol!!

[headachehealer]

Come to my channel. I have a great message for everyone. I have invited Lane to come and see it too. God bless all children.

[kylemorne100]

That was funny. XD

[RPM11111]

I tried to make these points to James White privately through his channel, but I had to be his 'friend' first to enable contact. However, he hasn't permitted that luxury, so I used this medium instead.

Didn't intend to upset so many.

Apologies.

[LaneCh]

"These points" are all ad hom. Give us some meat.

[RPM11111]

I did admit this.

[klockheed]

One CAN enter the chat channel and discuss these things, if one does it with respect. Dr White, however is a busy fellow and doesn't generally respond to private conversations with people he doesn't know, in the channel, as he is usually on the road, preparing for a conference, doing bible study prep, or working on a book.

[Brutangel22]

He also makes it clear on his channel that someone can call in to the Dviding Line. I'd suggest that, RPM.

If not, some of us would probably be glad to argue his points for you. God bless.

[RPM11111]

Wow! You guys are quick to pile on the 'thumbs down' to anybody who presents opposition to you =). How concurrent?

[LaneCh]

Again, do you have any actual arguments you'd like to present or do you primarily keep strictly to ad hominem?

[RPM11111]

Okay- I guess you're going to bash me about a bit with your superior Bible and Greek knowledge. I don't know too much about this just now, but I will give you a few points that make it difficult for me to jump head-long into calvinism at this point.

1. Rev 3:5

The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

It appears one can be blotted out of the Book of Life!

[RPM11111]

Similar verse -

2. Rev 22:19

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. ESV

In the KJV it actually says "...God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

What are your thoughts on these verses considering the 5 points of 'calvinism' - in particular, 'irresistable grace'?

[LaneCh]

To help clarify: Is irresistible grace given to everyone in Calvinistic theology?

[RPM11111]

Is this more satire? =)

1 Cor 1:11-13

For it has been reported to me by Chloes people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Replace Apollos with Calvin - is this not you and your friends?

If what Calvin taught is true, then surely it's just the teachings of Christ?

[LaneCh]

Do you follow Christ, RPM11111? Valid question.

[RPM11111]

Christ is my only hope. I follow Him. May GOD give me the grace to become more like Him.

Do you?

[LaneCh]

So you say that you follow Christ...

Then why does the verse mention Jesus as well in the list of names? (ie. "...or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided?")

[RPM11111]

Matthew 10:38

And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

That next verse gives clarification:

1 Cor 1:13

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Christ died for our sins, did He not? Paul or Apollos didn't. We are baptised in Jesus' name. Not Pauls' or Apollos'.

Ps - It's getting very late here. Do you mind if we resume this later?

Blessings

[LaneCh]

Sure, maybe you can answer the question later. :)

Why is Christ included in that list? There is no distinction in the three names given (Paul, Apollos, Christ). Could it be because it's for a different reason than what you imply with "replace Calvin with Paul". We could just as easily say, "replace Calvin with Jesus." Your argument along with the fact that you say, "I follow Christ" still wouldn't make sense, though.

[RPM11111]

Sorry, I couldn't let this one go.

I did answer.

You say there's no distinction between the 3 names Paul, Apollos and Christ???

Apart from the fact that only One was crucified for our sins and the others were not - as laid out in verse 13. Paul has made the distinction - don't let the 'period' trip you.

You seem able to add and take away meaning when it suits you (as with 'perseverance'), but you can't take the text at face value when that's all that's needed.

Good night, Lane.

Blessings

[LaneCh]

Paul lists three names. Paul makes no distinctions. Paul is following through on the same argument. Address why he does that. If it's ok to say, "I follow Christ" in the sense you're saying, why does he include Him in that list? He's presenting on argument with 3 examples of what not to do. Why not leave Christ out here if you're right?

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

Quoting you: "You seem able to add and take away meaning when it suits you..., but you can't take the text at face value when that's all that's needed." Like Dennington, you fail to recognize that the sword you're using cuts both ways.

[RPM11111]

Did you read Matthew 10:38

And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Your making the assumption that because Paul mentions the 3 names, he means we shouldn't follow either. Are you saying we shouldn't follow Christ. Even though Christ says, "follow me"?

Why are you ignoring verse 13 of 1 Cor 1:

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? It's the very next verse! It's the dinstinction.

Stop ignoring the obvious.

[RPM11111]

Why are those verses there in 1 Cor 1? If you follow someone other than Christ, you divide the body of Christ. Let's just let it be. You follow Calvin- I'll follow Christ.

If the 5 points of calvinism are correct, I'll still follow Christ and bring praise to Him, it's His Word. You can bring praise to Calvin by adopting his name as the title of your beliefs.

I'll leave you once again to come to terms with Rev 22:18-19 which says GOD can remove one from the Book of Life.

Blessings

[rpavich]

RPM,

Did you even READ the context?

These verses do not say what you want them to say...

Is this really Monica D in disguise? :)

[rpavich]

Actually RPM....it's not book of life... :)

It's tree of life...ironic since James White the Uber Textual Critic is on this video... :)

[frangipani1974]

RPM11111 Hello, most, if not all "Calvinists" do not refer to themselves by his name but as "Christian". Only when discussing doctrine will someone usually mention that they are a Calvinist but that is not to say Calvin is worshiped! Stop listening to Monica, a hypocrite who seems to brand many Christians as unbelievers. BTW what doctrine does she agree with anyway? Since we're pigeon holing each other it's only fair we ask. NONE, she makes up her OWN mind - so let's call her a Monicaist.

[LaneCh]

The contention is not that we should not follow Christ. I agree that we should follow Christ. Your whole argument is that we can substitute any name in where it says, "I follow Paul". I have pointed out to you that it even says, "I follow Christ" just as you have said. You have failed to give a coherent reason why it says this. I have wasted enough time with you honestly.

[LaneCh]

There are kids who talk big when they go on the court to play basketball. They will talk a big game then when it comes time to play they have excuses, but they'll still claim that they won. It's pathetic really. It seems that the same happens in theological discussions, too. So take your ball and go home if that's what you'd like. We've seen enough.

[rpavich]

RPM,

You completely miss Paul's argument/point.

Where in this text does it say that "If you follow someone other than Christ you divide the body of Christ?"

And what possible importance could a period have since there are no periods in the original text??

[LaneCh]

Your presup: You're reading in that Jesus blots out believer's names from the book of life. The text says nothing of the sort. It merely says that Jesus will never blot out the name from the Book of Life who conquers. It doesn't say if one conquers then there's a chance they can be blotted out the Book of Life.

[RPM11111]

No, you're glossing over the obvious.

1. Rev 3:5

The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

What does it mean by 'conquer'? And, what happens to the one who doesn't 'conquer'. Is 'conquering' some pre-requisite to being in 'white garments' and the 'Book of Life'?

Remember not to 'add' or 'take away'!

2nd time I tried to post this?

[LaneCh]

The one who conquers (perseverance of the saints) will be clothed thus in white garments (part of glorification). Then Jesus makes an indicative statement saying that He'll never blot this person out. It doesn't say anywhere that the person had a chance of being blotted out if he persevered.

[RPM11111]

It doesn't say "perseverance of the saints" either, Lane. Presup?

If it's 'irresistable grace' then why do we need 'perseverance'?

Why does it say in Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."?

Remember not to add or take away, please.

[klockheed]

Conquer = "persevere" hence, perseverance of the saints, cause saints persevere, that's what those filled with the Spirit do.

"If it's 'irresistable grace' then why do we need 'perseverance'?" <-- this shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Please explain what "irresistible grace" actually means to prove otherwise.

Try to understand what your opponents actually believe before commenting.

[RPM11111]

Peace.

[Brutangel22]

Short Answer: Because irresistable grace brings about a persevering salvation. God doesn't do things halfway. "I am sure of this, that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Phillipians 1:6 HCSB

In this we have both the irresistable grave (began a good work in you, not tried) and perseverance (will carry it on to completion, not sort of tug it along and try to get it to come along.)

[RPM11111]

Debate:

To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

James on the side of calvinism and Dave opposing = debate.

Radio programme or not, a debate is a debate.

I felt that James could have afforded a little more fairness and openess during the discussion with Dave in that debate.

Blessings...

[LaneCh]

Formal debate = moderated.

[RPM11111]

A debate is debate. Does he have to moderated to behave fairly?

[klockheed]

ROFL!!!!

[118min]

Enjoy seeing this side of Dr.White, I know this comes out often in his other vids, but for some reason this really helps me see he is a regular guy, not just a brilliant apologist.

[RPM11111]

In prayerful consideration of the suppositions many call 'calvinism', I listened to this very debate between James White and Dave Hunt. I must say, it appeared James was afraid, reluctant to let Mr Hunt speak, interrupted when he did, and put words in his mouth. He refused to let Dave use related Scriptures which helped to shed light on the passage in focus. However, he afforded himself this luxury. He also made silly caricatures of valid points that Mr Hunt made in a bid to diminish them.

[LaneCh]

Dave Hunt and James White have never debated in person. They debated in book format.

[RPM11111]

Hi -

Sorry, but you're wrong - they debated on radio. I have it on CD.

[RPM11111]

Ask James.

[LaneCh]

That wasn't a debate. Dr. White had him as a guest on radio program. I have it on MP3 as well. :)

[rlindberry]

Do you have the link to the program or anything, so I can listen?

[LaneCh]

It's available at AOMin.  It's under 3 bucks.

tinyurl(.)com/qkxwo6

[RPM11111]

This behaviour was very unbecoming between brothers, and only served to distract me from any valid points that James may have made.

I was left wondering why he conducted himself in this manner and could only conclude that James White was afraid and ill-equipped to deal with Mr Hunt fairly and openly.

This may come across as an ad hominem swipe at James, but that is not my intention. I hope he prayerfully considers these points for future debates if he desires to be taken seriously.

In Christ

[LaneCh]

Dave Hunt and James White have never debated in person. They debated in book format.

[klockheed]

"James White was afraid and ill-equipped to deal with Mr Hunt fairly and openly..."

This has to be a joke, no one could listen to the radio discussion or read Debating Calvinism and state anything such as this!

[RPM11111]

"no one"?

Is that 'no one' in a general sense or 'no one' who agrees with everything you say?

[klockheed]

Ok, no one who can think rationally. :)

[LaneCh]

You've presented a lot of critique regarding his person. Would you like to critique any of his arguments as well, or is this just the standard, daily paint job?

[RPM11111]

Fair point. I did say it would appear ad hominem.

I will take that on board. I was just slightly frustrated with James's approach - which, as I said, made it difficult to absorb any valid points he made.

And, come on - at the start of this video you're making light of the very characteristics of James to which I'm referring to with my comments - arrogance.

As I said, I am prayerfully considering the suppositions called calvinism. As yet, the boat is still out.

[LaneCh]

I'm making light of it because it's not true. Many of his detractors like to claim that without offering any substance and think they've actually presented something substantial. The opening was a satire of his detractors not a satire of him.

[RPM11111]

So others think such things of James?

They must all be 'meatless daily painters', right?

I'm sure James is a relatively nice guy, I just questioned his apporach. Is this not allowed any more? You are questioning my approach, right now? It's fair cop, right?

[LaneCh]

I'm questioning your approach to trying to discredit the other side by using logical fallacies. You're questioning the approach by using logical fallacies. Big difference.

[RPM11111]

So you can't comment on someone's approach, now?

If anybody were to challenge anybodies approach to a discussion - there's a problem with that?

If I debated James under my video and I blocked his comments and left mine, would you not be fair in expressing your frustration at my unfair approach.

See, you can disagree with me about the events of the debate, but others may agree with me. You would say 'logical fallacy' and others might say, 'no, fair point'.

[LaneCh]

Some might say Jesus is Lord.  Some might say Jesus is Satan. So...?

The issue here is that using ad hominem argumentation isn't the same as pointing it out. Pointing out a logical fallacy is not the same as making one.

[RPM11111]

No. The issue is much greater than that.

Interesting analogy.

[BrownCalvinist]

Awesome brother:-)

[prchdaword]

This is so hilarious!!!

[kamaujackson811]

Awesome Lane and Dr. White.....God Bless

[oldschoolstinger]

This was awesome! Who says Calvinists aren't funny. I have the book. Great resource.

[October31st1517]

Dude. Too funny!

[APSOC38]

"I tried so hard not to laugh"

XD

[58lespaulsam]

This was top notch. Kudos buddy.

[multiwebinc]

I'm only like 65 pages into May's resource of the month and now you come out with a new one? :P

[Reformchick]

LOL! This is great. I love how he nods in the background.

[GMCCLAIN20]

Keep up the great work Lane. Your channel is a blessing to many people!

[ProclaimHisWord]

Best opening ever!

[lovejesusplz]

WOW~! you actually met Dr. James White?

This is really cool! :)

[S1nApS3]

super :) I am really happy you exist.

[aarancel]

LOL! good video

[Blaze25z]

An excellent book... Great video Lane  :-)

[marthale7]

Yes, Hyper RED LETTERISM... seen that.....

Love the humour.

[zkueker88]

loved the ending. LOL

[zkueker88]

rofl I was shocked when I saw him appear behind you. How did you do it? lol

[setfree2day]

Ahh Brother Lane this was GREAT!!

[KnowledgeAddicted]

Can J. white do some lecture on comparition samuel2, 24 and chronicles1, 21?

i totally dont get it, at one theres god who makes david count people, in other, the same story, but satan instead of God. and also number of israelites doesnt match.

[klockheed]

God moved David, by Satan, to count the people. Similarly God tested Job, but did so through the agency of Satan. Likewise, God gave Paul a thorn, by demonic agency. (As it was God who intended to "to keep Paul from becoming conceited".)

[YoungCalvinist08]

You outdid yourself on this one, Bro. Lane. The opening sketch was hilaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarious...

[GPLeague]

Hilarious! Dr. White is a good sport.

[valambiguous]

LOL!!!

[bandobraeschen]

That was cool :D You should visit every author of your recommended books...if they aren't dead, yet.

I especially liked the song at the end...what was that?

[denyyourself20]

well this visit cost us a flat tire in the middle of the death valley desert....but i suppose this made it worth it all :) lol