Romans 4, Silver Bullets, Romans 16:17, William Albrecht, and Peter Lumpkins

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:09

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

00:15

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.

00:24

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

00:30

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

00:39

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

00:47

James White. Hey, good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line. I won't be taking phone calls until later in the program, if at all, depending on whether I start preaching in the process of covering what we need to cover today.

01:00

If you have your Bible nearby, you might want to take it and turn to the fourth chapter of the

01:09

Gospel to the Romans, Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, discussion of what it means to be made right before God, beginning in verse 3, for what do the scriptures say?

01:23

Abraham believed in God and it was credited to him. It was imputed to him, la

01:29

Gizamai, as righteousness, a citation of Genesis chapter 15, verse 6.

01:36

One of the key issues in the dispute with the Roman Catholic Church is the nature of justification in Roman Catholic historical theology anyway.

01:46

Who knows in modern theology, since no one can define what Rome teaches anymore, despite their continued claims of infallibility.

01:54

At least historically, Roman Catholicism has confused justification and sanctification, confounding the two together, with the result being the overthrow of the freedom of God and salvation, the perfection of the work of Christ, and the true grounds of one standing and having peace with God in this present life.

02:13

One of the arguments has been that while Abraham was justified many times, he was justified in Genesis 12 when he believed in God, he was justified in Genesis 15, he was justified again in Genesis 22 when he offers

02:27

Isaac upon the altar. All of these are arguments against one thing, not against Protestantism and not against sola fide.

02:35

These are arguments against the apostle Paul. When you overthrow the sufficiency of scripture, you will find yourself inevitably arguing against the writers of scripture themselves.

02:47

And that is what Rome does with regularity. Paul cites

02:53

Genesis chapter 15 verse 6 as the point of Abraham's justification.

03:00

He is going to emphasize that in the following text. When he finishes describing this, he's going to ask in verse 9 of chapter 4,

03:11

Is this blessing then on the circumcised or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, Faith is credited to Abraham as righteousness.

03:18

How then was it credited while he was circumcised or uncircumcised? Paul puts this in the context of the historical events of Abraham's life.

03:28

And he demonstrates from this that he was justified not while circumcised but while uncircumcised.

03:37

And he makes an entire point of this. He emphasizes this so that Abraham becomes the one who is the model of faith.

03:47

Isaac could not have been the model of faith. But Abraham is the model of faith because the faith that he has before circumcision is a saving faith.

03:58

It is a justifying faith. And he is justified at that point where the promises of God have been given to him.

04:05

The covenant is made and Abraham believes and it is reckoned to him as righteousness.

04:12

That is the apostolic interpretation of Genesis 15 -6. But again, since Rome is not teaching what the

04:20

Bible teaches, but Rome teaches its own theology and attempts to force the

04:25

Bible to substantiate this external belief, then the very words of Scripture have to be twisted.

04:34

The apostle then explains for us in verses 4 -5 why it is he's emphasizing the belief of Abraham prior to the actions of Abraham in obedience.

04:45

In verse 4 he says, Now to the one working, to the working one, the wage, the misthos, is not counted, reckoned, or imputed.

04:57

There it again is legitimized, legitimized in this form. According to grace, katakharin, according to grace or as a gift, but as what is due.

05:10

And so the contrast that is drawn in verse 4 is to the one who works.

05:16

The term here is the standard word for working, for being employed in labor. The one who works, the misthos, the wage, that which is paid for work, is not reckoned, imputed, very frequently legitimized, used as an accounting term, especially in extra -biblical usage.

05:40

Katakharin ala kata -aphilema. So you see the contrast that is being made here, not according to as a gift or as grace, but according to as what is owed.

05:54

When you engage in work for a wage, once you've completed the work, then the wage is due to you.

06:03

Common standard language that is used throughout the extra -biblical

06:10

Greek literature in just regular everyday life. We found hundreds of scraps of papyri that talk about financial transactions, and these terms are commonly used.

06:23

Paul is drawing from language that we all would understand. But then, and again,

06:31

I enjoy showing this using a digital projector so that people can see this.

06:37

You don't have to read Greek to see that what the apostle does here is he takes the very same beginning phrase from verse 4.

06:48

Now to the one working. To -de -er -ga -za -meno. And he takes that and he says,

06:54

To -de -me -er -ga -za -meno. To the one not working. So it's a complete 180 -degree contrast to the attitude expressed in verse 4.

07:06

The attitude expressed in verse 4 is that a person is doing something, and there is a result to what they do.

07:15

They act, and they receive something because of their act. But to the one not working.

07:26

But... Pistuante. Believing. And so, to the one not working, but believing.

07:35

Believing in whom? Specifically, believing in the one justifying tan -as -abe, the ungodly.

07:48

So the one who does not work, the one who does not engage in activities so as to think that his activities, her activities, are going to bring a result.

08:00

A misthos, a wage. To the one who doesn't think that what they do puts

08:06

God in a position of debt. To the one who recognizes that no matter what I do, my acts cannot put

08:14

God in a position of debt. But instead, believes in the one who justifies the ungodliness.

08:25

Listen to what that phrase means. God justifies the ungodliness.

08:32

I've had people say, that's a direct contradiction to the Old Testament. God does not justify the ungodly. In the sense of judge, that's correct.

08:40

As he judges, he judges righteously. But the work of Jesus Christ transcends the categories of justice and introduces us to the categories of mercy.

08:55

And so God is the one who justifies the ungodly. He doesn't justify the just, as if there was such a person.

09:03

Remember Jesus' own words. Who of the two men standing in prayer goes down to his house justified?

09:11

It is the publican who recognizes his own sin. The ungodly one who cries out for mercy.

09:22

And so here in verse 5 then, we are told the one who does not work, but rather the one who believes in the one who justifies the ungodly.

09:33

A phrase so shocking that Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, could not believe that this was the case.

09:41

He changed it. He put in the word not. Who does not justify the ungodly? See, he could not understand the gospel.

09:47

He had no concept of grace. And the religion he founded continues to this day to lack that gospel and that concept of grace.

09:57

So to the one who does not engage in activities so as to think, to gain something from God, but rather than that, the opposite of that, believes in the one who justifies the ungodly.

10:12

That includes, obviously, the recognition, I'm the ungodly one. There is nothing here about a non -repentant faith.

10:24

Everyone who preaches that, well, repentance is an optional thing, is a false teacher, a heretic.

10:30

That's not the gospel. His faith, the faith of him, hapistus autu, that faith,

10:42

I think that's why you have the article used here, the emphasis, his faith.

10:48

It's that kind of faith, no other kind of faith that is reckoned as righteousness.

10:58

It is, again, the same term, it is considered, it is imputed for righteousness.

11:07

Now those who attempt to say, oh, see, it's that faith that is actually imputed to them as righteousness, missed,

11:16

I don't know how they missed the entire point the apostle just made. There is nothing we do, including faith, that puts

11:24

God in a position of debtor to us. There is nothing in my faith that has some kind of merit before God.

11:34

It is the fact that this faith eschews the idea of receiving something because of some power, some worthiness, and rather than that, it's the empty hand of faith, that's the kind of faith that brings about the divine verdict of righteous.

11:59

And that's exactly what the apostle then goes on to explain in the next few verses.

12:08

In verses 6, 7, and 8, the apostle says,

12:14

Just as also David spoke of the blessedness of the man to whom

12:19

God reckons righteousness, Chorus ergon, without, apart from, separate from, works.

12:30

So he says this is nothing new. God has imputed righteousness separately from acts of human accomplishment all along, going all the way back to the 32nd

12:42

Psalm. And there we have those beautiful words,

12:48

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, whose sins have been covered over.

13:02

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, or whose sins the

13:10

Lord will not take into account. There's a textual variant there. And as you know,

13:17

I have made it a practice for years when speaking to Roman Catholics when they call the program,

13:23

I ask them, Who is the blessed man of Romans 4a? Who is the blessed man to whom the Lord does not impute sin?

13:30

And as you know, they have no answer because Rome has no gospel. Every Roman Catholic knows, if they know their theology at all, and if they have any semblance of orthodoxy, unless they're a wild -eyed

13:45

Unitarian Universalist Catholic, and they're out there too, they all know that if they commit a venial sin, to whom is it imputed?

14:01

They bear the punishment. If they commit a mortal sin, to whom is it imputed? To them.

14:08

There is no non -imputation of sin in historic orthodox

14:14

Roman Catholic theology. Its sacramentalism is firmly rooted in man.

14:22

It is the means by which man controls the very grace of God.

14:29

And that's why it will always be a stench in the nostrils of the holy yet gracious God.

14:38

No matter how many people sign documents that seem to say, Cease fire! As long as you can preach these words, you can never have friendship with Rome.

14:54

They're mutually exclusive. Now, why did

15:01

I take the time to start by looking at a text of Scripture like that? Well, because earlier this week,

15:09

I was directed to a comment over on James Swan's blog.

15:17

And I, again, most of you know, I don't have time to keep up with comments very often. It's just not really a possible thing to do.

15:26

And unless people direct me to them, I don't see them. I barely keep up with RSS feeds and stuff like that in preparations for debates and all that type of stuff.

15:39

But I was directed to a fellow, a Roman Catholic by the name of Nick, N -I -C -K,

15:45

Nick. And in a comment thread, right before a comment by Skyman, in fact,

15:53

Nick said, It seems nobody who said they would check out my new article, which

15:58

I consider a silver bullet against Sola Fide, has actually done so. Then he gives the reference. And then he made this comment.

16:06

I believe this article will play a leading role in the conversion of James White. Wow. There's all sorts of bright -eyed, bushy -tailed

16:18

Roman Catholics out there. So I followed the link. To Nick's Catholic blog,

16:25

April 8, 2010. The death knell of Protestantism.

16:36

The triumphalism of many young Roman Catholic apologists has seemed to only grow.

16:42

And you know why I think it's grown of late? Because their leaders won't debate anymore. I think there was really a time when they were, they recognized they were in full -scale retreat.

16:54

But now these young guys, you know, Hey, the 90s were a while ago. You know, a decade's gone by pretty much.

17:00

And it's like, well, you know, we've got the Tim Staples and the Jimmy Akins and the Patrick Madrids, and they don't realize those folks won't come out and debate.

17:09

And in fact, the last time we got Tim Staples to do anything was right here on the dividing line just a few months ago. I've sent him three emails since then, trying to find out, are you all going to make it available?

17:17

You know, won't even respond to me now. Won't even respond to me now. So this triumphalism is very interesting.

17:26

But the death knell of Protestantism. Now, if I were to talk about the conversion of, the reconversion of Scott Hahn, and I were to post something that said,

17:44

I think this is going to demonstrate that Scott Hahn's going to have to convert back to the truth, if he had ever actually held the truth.

17:54

Don't you think, I mean, don't you think there'd be some necessity to maybe, on my part, have seriously interacted with the things that Scott Hahn has written that are relevant?

18:08

I think so. I think so. But as I read

18:14

Nick's article, it's not a long article. In fact, if you want to find it, you know how

18:20

I re -found it this morning, it's real easy. I googled, quote, silver bullet, end quote, plus, quote, conversion of James White, end quote.

18:29

Immediately took me to the, only one hit came up. And that was James Swan's blog, which then had the link directly to Nick's Catholic blog, which is catholicnick .blogspot

18:41

.com, if you're interested. See, I don't, unlike certain people like Envoy Magazine, I'm not afraid for people to go look at this stuff, because I figure, you know, there you go.

18:53

Anyways, the death knell of Protestantism. As I read this entire thing, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that Nick has ever picked up this little book right here called

19:04

The God Who Justifies by me. And it's not a small book, about 400 pages long, directly addresses the issues at hand, but I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that Nick has ever attempted to interact with it, or read it, or anything else, which

19:24

I find odd. I don't find it odd in the sense that most Catholics actually take the time to do that.

19:30

I just find it odd that people wouldn't recognize that might be something you want to do if you want to be taken seriously and you want to actually speak the truth.

19:37

I don't get it. Maybe it's just the next generation or something like that.

19:42

I don't know. I've often complained. People come into the chat channel all the time. Hey, could somebody tell me this?

19:48

You know, and it's just, it would just take a little bit of research on their part to find out, but it's just so much easier just to have somebody else do it now.

19:55

I'm obviously speaking now as a person much closer to 50 than any other age, and remember, when

20:01

I was young, I actually had to go to libraries and use card catalogs, which had in them cards made of paper prior to the computer.

20:14

Yes, but anyway, I digress. Most readers, with even a passing interest in apologetics, are familiar with St.

20:22

Paul's words from Romans 4, 3 through 5. Then he quotes the text. This passage is critical to the

20:27

Doctrine of Sola Fide because it is where Protestants claim St. Paul expressly lays down the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer at the one and only moment of justification and that this righteousness is received by faith.

20:40

Well, it does speak of that, but it goes on to speak of that in verses 7 through 8 and expand on it in the rest of the chapter, and it's not the only place, but it is important.

20:49

It is central. The standard and historic Protestant interpretation of faith, faith is counted as righteous, clear state in the

20:57

Westminster Confession, and I'm very glad that Nick quoted from the Westminster Confession, which includes the phraseology, nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God, which was not emphasized in the color that he added to the text, but I think that's vitally important, too.

21:26

It's pretty hard to defend Sola Fide when you don't have faith as the gift of God, but I continue.

21:33

Nick writes, what this passage is saying is that the phrase faith counted as righteousness is not to be understood as faith itself is counted as righteousness, but rather faith receives

21:41

Christ's righteousness. What this article demonstrates is effectively a silver bullet right to the heart of this heresy.

21:48

Then we have the following statement, I love this. Now to my knowledge, nobody has made the argument

21:53

I'm about to make. How can a Roman Catholic get away with that? I just sort of have to wonder, how can a

22:00

Roman Catholic get away with this? Doesn't a Roman Catholic go, hey, you know, that's this main danger, red lights, no one's made this argument, but I've come up with something new.

22:11

The consistency is great. Anyway, but before I do so,

22:17

I will lay out in no particular order some classical and very solid Catholic arguments against the Protestant interpretation.

22:24

Number one, Abraham was not converting in Genesis 15, 6, and in fact, walked with God years prior to this moment in his life.

22:31

Genesis 12, 1 through 4 compare Hebrews 11, 8. Thus, he could not have been undergoing what Protestants consider justification.

22:38

Now, they might object that Paul wasn't concerned about timing, even though he clearly was, 4, 9, and 18 following, but that doesn't help their buying for Genesis 15, 6, a historical event and something relating to salvation clearly took place.

22:49

Well, of course, but once again, who is this argument against? It's against Paul. It's not against Protestants.

22:56

Paul is the one who says that he was justified here. What do you mean this isn't justification?

23:02

What other word could you use here? It's the kaiosunein. It's the

23:08

God who justifies. This isn't justification. Don't notice the word there.

23:13

Just avoid that. Amazing. Absolutely amazing that you can make that argument, but there are people who do very frequently.

23:22

It's right there in the text. To say that, well, but see, Abraham did things by faith before that, and that must mean he was saved ignores the fact that faith has to have an object in which it is being placed, and the promises of God are given to Abraham.

23:41

He believes the covenant is made in Genesis 15, not Genesis 12.

23:49

Abraham obeys God there, but there's a lot of people who obey general things in this life.

23:55

That does not mean they've entered into a relationship with God and accepted God's promises.

24:03

Next, we have the old Phineas argument. Psalm 106 .30 and following states, Phineas' good work was counted as righteousness, not as faith, though he certainly was already a believer.

24:11

This phrase is identical in Hebrew and Greek to what is said in Genesis 15 .6. The Protestant cannot have this. Oh, we can't have that, right.

24:19

For good works don't receive Christ's righteousness, thus they seek to interpret this verse differently. The problem here is that one should assume, one should generally assume identical phrases are interpreted the same unless a reasonable case can be shown otherwise, and Catholics do have such interpretation harmonized into two, but the

24:35

Protestant misses this point because they're busy trying to salvage sola fide. Now, I'm sorry, but Nick sounds rather young at this point, just by the way he writes and by throwing stuff out here that's not overly relevant.

24:48

But the issue, again, if he thinks this is, you know, Nick, I'm going to leave a message,

24:55

I'm going to try to remember to make a comment here on your blog, so maybe you'll listen to this section of the program, but if,

25:01

Nick, if you want this to convert me, then, Nick, you might want to take the time to then respond to the two and a half pages or so on Psalm 106

25:11

I included in The God Who Justified. Maybe. I mean,

25:17

I would never think about contacting a Carl Keating or these people and say, you should convert because of this, and they say, did you read my book about that?

25:24

Well, no. It just never crossed my mind. But people do that all the time now.

25:31

I did address this subject and just very briefly, because we're taking a little bit longer than I thought on this,

25:36

I still want to get to some other things during the program today and don't want to go too long if we do go over time anyways. But most people are not familiar with the story in Numbers 25 of what actually took place here, where Phineas, the plague is coming upon the people for the sin of the people.

25:57

The people are praying. They are asking God for mercy. And yet, in the midst of this particular situation, one of the congregation brings a foreign woman into the camp and he brings a

26:15

Midianite woman to his family on the side of Moses and the side of the whole congregation of the people of Israel while they're weeping in the entrance of the tent meeting.

26:25

And when Phineas, the son of Eliezer, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her belly.

26:39

Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped. Nevertheless, those who died by the plague were 24 ,000. And the

26:44

Lord said to Moses, Phineas, the son of Eliezer, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath on the people of Israel in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy.

26:57

Therefore say, Behold, I give him my covenant of peace and it shall be to him and his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood because he was jealous for his

27:08

God and made a tome of the people of Israel. So here is the context to Psalm 106.

27:14

Psalm 106 does use the exact same Greek in the Greek Septuagint as Genesis 15 6, but just as Paul would expect his readers to know the context of Genesis 15 6 in the covenant, likewise he would expect his readers to know the context of Psalm 106.

27:33

The writer of Psalm 106 would expect them to know the context of Numbers 25. And they are not in any way, shape, or form the same context.

27:44

And the people who would hear Psalm 106 and it was reckoned to him for righteousness to all generations forever would connect that with Numbers 25.

27:56

Therefore say, Behold, I give him my covenant of peace and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood because he was jealous for his

28:08

God and made a tome of the people of Israel. And so basically the idea again is who would make this argument?

28:17

Roman Catholics and Jewish opponents of the Apostle. Who are they arguing against?

28:27

They're arguing against Paul. We're not arguing against Protestants, we're just following Paul. They're arguing against the

28:33

Apostle. Now if you're arguing against the Apostle, what does that tell you about your own religion? The Apostle is the one who is emphasizing that Abraham did not do acts that resulted in his righteousness.

28:53

Paul doesn't raise Phineas and if you're raising Phineas then you're arguing against Paul.

28:59

You're arguing against the Book of Romans. Don't dodge it, admit it. And you do so because of your tradition.

29:09

You do so because of your external religion. Next we read, the text plainly says,

29:16

Faith is what God has reckoned as righteousness in Romans 4 18 -22 is devoted to unpacking Genesis 15 -6 stating,

29:22

He had not wavered through unbelief regarding the promise of God but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

29:29

This is why it was credited to him as righteousness. This likewise fits how the Bible defines faith in Hebrews 11. And thus not some notion of faith that faith is of no inherent value but merely acts as an instrument which transfers an alien righteousness.

29:43

Now if he is actually arguing that faith has an inherent value that results in God doing something, he just fell into Romans 4 -4.

30:01

O philema, what is due? That's the whole point of the text.

30:08

Is to say, he does not work but believes in the one who justifies the ungodly not the godly.

30:20

And the rest of Romans 4 does not substantiate that. The whole point of the rest of Romans 4 is that faith, since it is an empty hand, is consistent with grace.

30:32

The promise precedes the law which allows for acts of obedience. That's what

30:38

Romans chapter 4 is all about.

30:44

Then, we are told when scriptures, especially the Greek -Hebrew term counted, it quite frequently means consider something as it really is while rarely meaning consider something to be other than what it really is.

30:58

Now, this is the worst part of this argumentation, in my opinion. Because we are in no way, shape, or form attempting to cram a certain meaning into legitimi.

31:09

Legitimi means to impute. Legitimi is being used in different ways in this context for the obvious reason that while the accounting element is always there imputation, reckoning, etc.,

31:22

etc. When legitimi is used with misthos and ergadzo, those are clearly secular uses.

31:31

But once you bring pistuo into it, belief, you clearly have to start transcending mere accounting terminology.

31:41

And certainly I don't think Nick would want to try to argue that the terminology is being used in the identical same way one in accounting about a person working and receiving a misthos, a wage, and any whatever his

31:56

Roman Catholic view of imputation might be from that point. He goes on to say in Romans 4, this would indicate an internal infused righteousness rather than an external alien righteousness.

32:07

Doesn't even try to substantiate that and that's just blowing smoke at that point.

32:13

Thus the Protestant must approach Romans 4 with a bias and without establishing a sufficient case or decision they're begging the question.

32:19

Again, rhetoric that has no foundation in the text itself. Now, since time is passing by very quickly, now comes the moment where a new and yet no less decisive point is introduced.

32:31

How counted is used in Romans 4 forward. The one who works his wages are not counted, legitimi, as a gift but as what is due, but as his due.

32:42

Aside from what precisely Paul means by works, there should be little dispute on the meaning of this verse.

32:48

Well, there's little dispute on what Paul means by works here either given that it results in a misthos, a wage.

32:58

Wages given for work are counted as debt. They are not counted as a gift.

33:04

That's exactly right. When they are legitimized, they are imputed to someone's account.

33:10

You don't say here is a gift because it is due. So it's not according to caris, grace, but according to aphilema, debt.

33:22

In other words, a man who works receives a payment in the form of debt. The boss is not giving him a paycheck gratuitously, something

33:28

I have said many times. Then in bold text, here we see counted means to consider the working wages themselves as they truly are debt because they're owed for work and thus not a gift because they truly are not.

33:44

And this is where Nick has completely left the realm of meaningful ex -Jesus because his whole idea is well, it means to consider something what it really, really is rather than something else.

34:00

And that's not even slightly remotely connected to Paul's point. That's why

34:07

I gave you the ex -Jesus, the text at the start rather than starting with Nick is we just went through the text and allowed it to define its own terms.

34:16

And he wants to say well, you're saying that imputed means to treat somebody in a way that they're not really...

34:22

And if you want to talk about whether we're treated for what we are or how we're treated for what we are in Christ Jesus, go to a text specifically addressing that the great exchange in 2

34:33

Corinthians chapter 5. Or do what you should have done if you had done your homework,

34:39

Nick and go to the rest of Romans 4, especially verse 8, and tell us how it fits anywhere into your religious system.

34:49

He says, if the Protestant interpretation of counted were correct, and remember in his mind, what that means is counted means something not the way it really is, which is not what we're talking about at all.

35:00

This passage would be either nonsensical or downright wrong. With this in mind, we now note this verse is located in a critical context sandwiched between credited as righteousness in verse 3 and verse 5.

35:10

Barring any desperate attempt to say Paul shifted the meaning of counted from verse 3 to 4, then back again in verse 5, suggesting

35:16

Paul engaged in equivocation, the Protestant position is indefensible. Well, what's indefensible is

35:21

Nick's ignorance of the Protestant position and of exegesis. What is most astonishing about all these points is that, and listen to this, this was also attractive to my attention, what is most astonishing about all these points is that Catholics are simply letting

35:35

Scripture speak, which fully support the Catholic position, while the Protestant position, ironically, from a solo scriptura point of view, has to read into text all sorts of preconceived notions and dances around the glaring difficulties.

35:47

I would love, I would love to have Nick call in! If Nick would call in, I'd put him on the air.

35:54

Just tell us who the blessed man from Romans 4 -8 is. And explain to the rest of us how

36:02

Paul can talk about the blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works, verse 6, which follows, that's, you went through 5 and verse 6 is the next verse.

36:18

How he can define that in the way he does in verses 7 -8. He doesn't do it in some sacramental thing, he doesn't do it in some way of propitiatory sacrifices of the mass, penances, and crawling up stairs on your knees.

36:36

No, there's none of that there, because none of that had ever even entered into the

36:41

Apostle's mind. So that was my response to Nick's Catholic blog. Nick, if you want to see me convert,

36:51

Nick, you have to give me a gospel that answers my need. And if you are a

36:59

Roman Catholic, you don't have a gospel that answers my need.

37:07

That's the whole problem. Now, continuing on the theme of Roman Catholicism, Turretinfan had a debate over the weekend with good old

37:23

William Albrecht, and evidently William Albrecht came up with a topic on the suggestion of Steve Wray, and I find that amazing.

37:35

Steve Wray will suggest debate topics, Steve Wray just won't debate debate topics. So evidently,

37:44

Steve Wray wants to talk about these things, have other people talk about these things, but he won't do it himself, which

37:51

I find interesting. The question was, does belief in sola scriptura result in division and disunity in the body of Christ?

38:04

Now, I told Turretinfan yesterday, I think one thing that would have helped at points in this debate, and if you listen to it, and I'll ask him to put up the link to it if he hasn't put it on our blog yet, if you listen to the debate, what would have helped,

38:20

I think, would have been to differentiate between unity and uniformity. I have unity on the central doctrines of the faith and the gospel with men with whom

38:34

I do not have uniformity on other issues. I have demonstrated this by standing in the pulpit of the

38:43

Franklin Square Orthodox Presbyterian Church in New York, on Long Island, and having

38:50

Pastor Bill Shishko on this program, and I've been on the program on Iron Sharpens Iron with him as well, defending the gospel.

39:00

And he and I would stand shoulder to shoulder in the defense of the gospel, the defense of the deity of Christ, the trinity, the resurrection, the things that define the

39:08

Christian faith. But then he and I debated the issue of infant baptism. That's having unity without uniformity.

39:16

If you want uniformity, look at Scientology. If you want uniformity, look at Jehovah's Witnesses, where no difference of opinion on anything is to be brooked.

39:31

You have an overarching authority that says, you believe this, right down the line to the very dot at the end of the sentence.

39:40

That is why when you go to a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and they're doing their

39:46

Watchtower study, the questions that they are answering on any given

39:52

Sunday, in any given congregation are identical all across the world, wherever you are, whatever language you're speaking, it's all the same thing.

40:08

Uniformity. Walk the same way, talk the same way. That's not unity.

40:15

The Scriptures provide for the first form of unity. They do not provide for cultic uniformity.

40:25

With that in mind, I want to play a section regarding the cross -examination.

40:35

I want you to listen as Turretinfan attempts to get Mr. Albrecht to consider a particular text of Scripture.

40:46

A particular text of Scripture that, honestly, as more and more of the discussion went on,

40:52

I wasn't really certain that Mr. Albrecht was really familiar with this text of Scripture.

41:01

Romans 16, 17 says, Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned and turn away from them.

41:13

Here, Paul writes to the church at Rome. Interestingly enough, I guess

41:18

Peter wasn't there yet to become Pope. Paul writes to the church at Rome and he says,

41:25

Watch out for, keep your eye on those who cause divisions, those who create obstacles contrary to what?

41:36

Well, to the teaching of the church. No, to the teaching which you learned. There is a standard and you are to mark them off.

41:46

You are to turn away. You're to avoid them. When people teach false doctrine, you don't want them in the church.

41:59

That's what Romans 16 is talking about. That's where your divisions come from.

42:05

At least, the proper divisions. I'm not saying every division does. There are divisions that exist that are improper.

42:10

They're due to our lusts, as James 4 says, and things like that. But there's also an appropriate division.

42:17

I don't want Jehovah's Witnesses in my church. I don't want a Jehovah's Witness elder teaching my children because they teach contrary to the teaching which

42:27

I've received. So, let's listen to a section of this debate between Turrington Pham, I gotta love that guy, and William Halbrecht.

42:39

The Christian body. But the kind of disunion, in other words, it's not the fact that you would imagine that Presbyterians hate

42:51

Baptists or something like that. Not at all. My argument is not that one denomination hates the other.

42:59

As such, as I even pointed out in my opening statement, I don't even think pointing out that Miguel Cervedes was burned as a heretic would be proof enough that Sola Scriptura is false.

43:11

I think that simply the fact that he took an opposing view, and the fact that he held

43:18

Sola Scriptura as well as the people that opposed him held the same view, I think that is enough to show that that, as well as much more evidence that I put forth, is enough to show that Sola Scriptura causes disunity.

43:30

Well, that's actually a good starting point for my next question, which is, you mentioned

43:36

Miguel Cervedes, but he's not a Trinitarian. Do you still consider him a Christian, even though he's not

43:42

Trinitarian? Do I consider him a Christian? I don't understand. Do you mean do

43:48

I consider him a Christian at the moment? One of the saints in heaven? Is that what you mean? As a non -Trinitarian, do you consider non -Trinitarians

43:56

Christians? No, I do not consider them Christians. It would be akin to asking me if I consider a

44:04

Jehovah's Witness to be a Christian. I do not consider them Christians. Very well, but I guess my point is then,

44:10

Miguel Cervedes is not an example of a division in the body, since he's not in the body. I think

44:16

Miguel Cervedes would be a fantastic example, because who is in the body then? Well, I know I can't ask questions, but in my opinion, it would bring up the question of who is in the body according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

44:28

It's pretty much a free -for -all. Now, let me stop there just for a moment. Notice that William is struggling here.

44:37

One of his primary examples of disunity provided by Sola Scriptura, he just demonstrated, isn't disunity in the body of Christ, because Miguel Cervedes, from his perspective, wouldn't be in the body of Christ, so his only answer is, well, we don't really know who is from the

44:53

Sola Scriptura viewpoint. Excuse me, I practice Sola Scriptura, and a large portion of the bishops of the

45:01

Catholic Church would not be in the body of Christ, given their beliefs on all sorts of things, the supernatural and all sorts of things.

45:09

I think that if you simply look at those who practice Sola Scriptura and compare them with those who do not practice

45:16

Sola Scriptura, there is a far greater consistency, far greater clarity as to who is and who is not a

45:24

Christian on the part of those who practice Sola Scriptura than those who do not. You can interpret the

45:29

Scripture whichever way you want within Sola Scriptura, so that is what brings about the disunity. I see the same problem within Jehovah's Witnesses.

45:38

I see the same problem there, because a majority of the ones that I know hold the Sola Scriptura. I'm not saying that I would consider them on the same level as Christians.

45:46

I would, let's say, consider Hugh or Lane, for example, but nevertheless they hold the same teaching, and there's another example of disunity.

45:55

It leads them directly to deny the divinity of Christ and many other Orthodox doctrines. You're certainly not saying that the

46:04

Scriptures lead them to deny Orthodoxy. Their interpretation of the

46:09

Scriptures do. I think their adoption of Sola Scriptura is a good example of the disunity that it brings about.

46:17

I'm not saying that I believe that they're interpreting it correctly. I completely disagree. When you are affirming the idea that this disunity and division is in the body of Christ, are you referring to people who are united to Christ when you talk about the body?

46:37

Are you referring to the fact that people that I believe are, I suppose, part of the saints?

46:44

Is that what you're asking? Well, I mean, the resolution which, you know,

46:50

Mr. Ray has kindly provided to us. I did want to make a comment here, just very quickly.

46:57

The very idea that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Sola Scriptura is absolutely positively absurd.

47:03

While they may say that, anybody, anybody knows that in reality they hold

47:09

Rome's view. They have a tradition. They have an authority. They have an infallible magisterium called the

47:16

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't believe in Sola Scriptura. The very idea that people like Steve Ray have been defending for a long time now, these 33 ,000 denomination lies, which includes including

47:29

Jehovah's Witnesses as practicing Sola Scriptura, including the Mormons as practicing Sola Scriptura, if you can believe that, just demonstrates how far removed from the truth.

47:38

And Mr. Albrecht, unfortunately, had said he thinks there's much more than that number.

47:44

That that number is actually small. Just amazing twisting of the truth at that point.

47:52

...suggests that it fosters disunity and division in the body. And I'm trying to get at the meaning of the body to you. Well, quite simply, well, not so simple, but the way that I would view it would be quite simple.

48:03

If we examine the usage of the term body in this sense within Catholicism at least and within certain branches of Eastern Orthodoxy as well,

48:13

I can consider a Protestant a fellow brethren, a separated brethren, but nevertheless, they have the option, they have the ability to be saved.

48:21

So yes, I do believe that there are Protestants out there that are in the body of Christ that do have the ability to be saved and do have the ability to get to heaven.

48:29

So in that case, I think it would be appropriate to say that Sola Scriptura causes and fosters and brings about disunity within the body.

48:37

But how about the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny Christ? Are they separated brethren also? Jehovah's Witnesses?

48:44

I do not believe that they are Christians. I think whenever you bring up the term separated brethren, it's obviously a phrase that comes out of Vatican II.

48:52

We're referring to individuals that, although they are separated, they hold views that are similar to us, such as the

48:59

Trinity, the Divinity of Christ. Those individuals would be considered Christians. I do not consider the Jehovah's Witnesses to be

49:04

Christians. I don't think they would be in the body. Would Miguel Cervedes be one of the separated brethren?

49:14

I mean, obviously, he's not around now after Vatican II. Right. So let's say if we were to take the position back then that that term was around, are you asking if he would be considered a separated brethren?

49:24

I do not think so. I think Miguel Cervedes, as I said before, is a prime example of taking the scriptures and interpreting them to his own peril, pretty much.

49:35

I think Miguel Cervedes... Very good. I don't want to belabor that point too long. There was a next guy that you brought up who asserted that the scriptures are obscure in many places, or almost entirely obscure, and denied the perspicuity of scripture.

49:50

Is that... I can't recall the fellow's name. Do you remember his name? Could you rephrase that question one more time?

49:58

In your speech, after discussing Cervedes, you mentioned another man. Oh, okay.

50:03

Castillo. Yes, absolutely. Now, when you think about Sola Scriptura, do you include perspicuity as one of the doctrines of Sola Scriptura?

50:14

The perspicuity of the scriptures? Yes. It would depend.

50:19

In my opinion at least, and I know there are a number of individuals that would disagree with me, I think even within holding the teachings of Sola Scriptura, we have splinters in how you view

50:29

Sola Scriptura. I have got a couple of friends that don't hold to that. As such, I think your question is fantastic.

50:35

Castillo held to this doctrine and he indeed thought the scriptures were truly obscure. The majority of the people that I know and speak to,

50:44

I think that they do believe that the scriptures are clear. All right. Now, when

50:52

James, the apostle, excuse me, not the apostle, the Lord's brother, James, says, whence come wars and fightings among you?

51:01

Come they not hence, even of your own lusts, that war in your members? In James 4 .1.

51:08

Is that providing us with an inspired answer to the question of why we have divisions?

51:15

I think that provides us a fantastic example of sin, of God not answering what we ask for because our motives are wrong.

51:25

I don't think that the verse at all pertains to this topic because we read the reason people have not gotten what they ask for is because their motives are wrong.

51:32

I don't think that this is answered by this question. I definitely,

51:38

I think it brings up many more problems. If we're going to adopt James 4 .1 and say, we've got so many other denominations because, you know what, they're all, all of them are wrong, they're all,

51:50

I don't know they're not asking for God's guidance correctly and we're asking, I think it brings up even more problems. So who's right then?

51:56

Who's got the right view of the soul of Scripture? It brings up even more confusion and even more disunity, I believe.

52:03

Let me ask you another question. Romans 16 .7 In that verse,

52:08

Paul tells the Romans, Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.

52:18

In that verse, is Paul the Apostle giving us, identifying for us that people are the cause of divisions.

52:25

Could you give me that verse one more time? Romans 16 .17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.

52:38

Now, does that verse provide us with an inspired answer to the question what causes divisions, with the answer being that men cause the divisions?

52:48

I don't think there's any doubt that men cause the divisions. That is not what I'm arguing. I think that no matter what we hearken to in the

52:55

Scriptures, even this verse, I think that we're going to get right back to the beginning that, okay, well, who's soul of Scripture is correct then?

53:02

There's no doubt that men cause divisions. That is what I'm arguing for. I believe soul of Scripture is a man -made doctrine. Even though we're not debating that,

53:08

I think it's a man -made doctrine. And that is the reason why we have so many divisions and obstacles in the way. Well, I'm sorry, we weren't going to debate whether or not soul of Scripture is a man -made doctrine, but the people who hold to any doctrine that says that there is some standard of the truth, and they're trying to obey

53:31

Romans 16, 17, how are they able to avoid the people who cause divisions and offenses while maintaining denominational unity with those people?

53:42

Well, I think it brings about another problem. It goes right back to the point that I've been trying to hammer from the beginning.

53:50

What position is going to be taken? I think that if you look at Romans 16, you move on to verse 18, we see, for such people are not serving our

53:56

Lord Jesus Christ. I think the problem goes right back to the point. If we're going to say that soul of Scripture does not cause division and disunity, what are we going to say?

54:07

That these people are not serving Christ, but their own appetites, as this verse says, because they've got a different view. One person believes in infant baptism, the other doesn't.

54:14

So are you going to say that this other person is not serving Christ correctly? Again, it goes back to the heart of the problem.

54:21

Soul of Scripture. Each person is his own authority, basically. I'm sorry, maybe my question wasn't clear.

54:28

I was trying to ask you, how do you obey Romans 16, 17, while maintaining denominational unity with people who cause division and offenses?

54:37

How can you do that? I think it would be very difficult to do it if you hold to the doctrine of soul of Scripture.

54:44

Without holding to the doctrine, how could someone do it? So you're asking pretty much a question that is not in regards to the debate topic, then.

54:52

I'm just asking how anyone could obey this while following Scripture.

54:59

How do you obey the Scripture and maintain denominational unity with someone who is falling under this verse, who is causing division and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned?

55:11

I do not think it is possible to. Okay, so if the Reformers are right that the bishop of Rome is a man who is causing divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which they have learned, they have a duty not to maintain denominational unity with him, correct?

55:29

I think in their viewpoint of soul of Scripture and whichever one they adopt, if they think anybody is causing division and disunity, obviously following the logic of that doctrine, they would have to separate themselves.

55:41

I'm sorry, but not the logic of that doctrine, but Romans 16, 17. How would they follow that?

55:47

I think the simple fact that a person would view this person, and then

55:53

I think the fact, let me get back to what I was saying, I think just the fact that we have so many divisions and obstacles.

56:00

Okay, that almost gets painful at that point, because the text is clear, the text is plain, and his epistemology doesn't really allow for that text to function in a meaningful fashion.

56:18

So once again, we thank Turjan Fan who has, since we started playing that clip, posted the clip on the blog for those who would like to listen to the entire debate, which is a neat way of doing things, that is available to you.

56:33

We're going to go a little bit long today because I want to get one phone call in, and then I still have something after that, so don't start the music immediately.

56:39

I need to get all this stuff in. Since it's relevant, let's talk with Daniel in Denton, Texas.

56:46

Hi, Daniel. How's it going? Doing good. Hey, thanks for taking my call. I just have a quick question about James Chapter 2.

56:53

I mean, obviously this is a well -known verse for anyone who's talked with Roman Catholics. I mean, my question is, in your experience,

57:02

I mean, obviously Roman Catholics are aware of our response to their interpretation.

57:08

How do Roman Catholics usually respond when you say, you know, well, this is actually what

57:13

James is saying? Well, unfortunately the vast majority of Roman Catholics with whom I speak have never, and especially those who criticize me by name, have never attempted to interact with the 24 -page chapter that I included in The God Who Justifies on James Chapter 2.

57:31

I've never seen anybody try, and I would invite them to. You don't like the scholarly level? No, no,

57:36

I haven't. Well, especially since one of the primary people I'm citing in the text is a

57:42

Roman Catholic scholar, so yeah, no, I would have expected if what is in that lengthy chapter in The God Who Justifies is so easily refuted that there would have been stuff published.

57:58

When did, let's see, I'm looking, I'm trying to remember the date here. I think it was 2004, wasn't it?

58:04

2001. So, nine years this material has been out and nothing in Envoy magazine or This Rock or anything like that.

58:17

They much, much prefer, I mean, especially look at Patrick Madrid. His stuff is all aimed at the jack -chick level type anti -Catholicism.

58:29

They just want to try to avoid recognizing that the rest of us exist, and they know that if our numbers stay small enough that, sure, they'll have certain losses, but in the numbers game, they're going to do better that way.

58:46

So, generally, when you look at James 2, and if you present it right, if you don't just give a shallow answer, but you start, you know, back in 214, and you talk about what you need to talk about, the demonstration of what saving faith is, the connectedness between the fact that living faith has an effect, it can demonstrate that it exists, when the question is asked in 214, can that faith save him?

59:23

Introducing the fact that we're talking about a workless faith, a faith that can only speak, it cannot show its reality, follow it through, talk about what demonstration means,

59:35

I mean, really sit down, and it's not just, oh, I just think it means this, because look, when you give that kind of response, the only expectation you can have is that the person on the other side is going to go, well, you know, you got your verses,

59:48

I got my verses. I don't want to encourage anybody to think it's a matter of you've got your verses,

59:54

I've got my verses, because that's not the case. Which is exactly what Albrecht is talking about. Exactly, that's exactly what he was just saying, and that's why

01:00:01

I think, especially with texts like that, I know sometimes you're on a bus someplace, and, you know,

01:00:07

I would almost think that in some of those situations, it's better to say, here's my email address, or here's my number, something, let's get together and talk about this, and walk through it, because for so many people who've come out of these systems, it was someone who took the time to really demonstrate a knowledge of what the

01:00:24

Bible was saying, and people can tell whether you're just repeating something that you scribbled in the back of your

01:00:31

Bible once during a sermon, or whether you've really worked with the text. And when you have that opportunity,

01:00:37

I'd love to be able to give you what the standard responses are, but like I said, they haven't bothered. You know,

01:00:43

I mean, it's still the same surface level, Steve Ray, Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akin type stuff, that just simply they don't get into that level of the text.

01:00:56

So I can't tell you what their response would be, and maybe this will make somebody mad enough to try, but it does seem the only ones who even take shots at it are like Catholic Nick that I was talking about, and clearly he's not even dealing with the original languages.

01:01:10

So, you know, that's where you go. So, I don't know. All right.

01:01:16

Oh, thank you. Okay, thanks for calling, Daniel. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. All right, well, real quickly before we head off to other realms here, right before the program started,

01:01:30

I saw a Twitter message, and also got an email message about it, and I did want to mention this.

01:01:37

It's sort of breaking our topic, but I think we gave a whole hour to the topic, and so let's go just a couple minutes long here.

01:01:44

I was unaware of it because I do not have him on my RSS feeds, but Mr. Lumpkins has attempted to come up with an excuse for the deceptive and deceitful misuse and twisting of my words that he has produced in video format, which

01:02:01

I documented last week. And there is a sister in the

01:02:07

Lord who had written to him in the comm boxes named Catherine, and he wrote a response recently to Catherine, and it was a classic example of how to try to avoid dealing with, you've been caught, you're red -handed, how do you get around that?

01:02:29

It's just like you see in politics. Politicians will be caught red -handed, lying through their teeth, and then they can stand there for 20 minutes and talk about everything but that as if they have just vindicated themselves.

01:02:41

And it's extremely frustrating to those of us who think logically and who analyze arguments.

01:02:47

And I loved Catherine's response. It's still posted there. I'm not sure how long it will be, but it's still posted in the comments at Peter Lumpkins' blog.

01:02:57

And this is what she said. Whatever my level of education or exposure to the doctrines of grace may be, my objection to your video was simple.

01:03:06

This is Catherine speaking to Mr. Lumpkins. You did what the press does on a regular basis. You took one sentence uttered by Dr.

01:03:13

White and completely misrepresented what the rest of the video actually said. We can label this in many ways, but it's clear to me that you knew in advance of preparing your video exactly what

01:03:24

Dr. White meant in his video. You chopped it up, turned it into something it never was intended to be, and then used it against him.

01:03:33

I call that dishonesty, and yes, I think you did this deliberately. You had all the information you needed, but you chose to use deceit.

01:03:42

Now you make your actions worse by choosing the weakest link in the parade of arguments against you to continue trying with all your might to excuse your actions.

01:03:53

You make the same mistake politicians do. They have a general disdain for the public, and yet they use them to sell their latest bag of tricks to the uninformed.

01:04:01

It's just politics as usual to manipulate people. I am not the least bit concerned about the entire history of this argument.

01:04:08

I don't discount your thoughts on it, but it really has nothing whatsoever to do with your actions in this matter. I accept that there is a long -reigning dispute among you and Dr.

01:04:16

White. I also accept that it will continue into the future. Think of me as an outsider who at face value watched both videos side -by -side with only a limited understanding of the foundations of the argument.

01:04:27

Do you honestly think that most people in that example would come away from the two videos without thinking that you purposely twisted the words of Dr.

01:04:36

White? If you do, then I have to suggest that your view is myopic.

01:04:42

Well, Catherine, you are exactly right. And maybe if enough people keep saying the same things,

01:04:50

Peter Lumpkins will get the message. But until now, it just seems that he is intent upon defending himself just like many other people out there that once the documentation is provided that they have been dishonest, what is their response?

01:05:06

Build the walls. Hide. Lob. Smoke bombs. Evade. Retreat.

01:05:13

Whatever it might be. And I will let you figure out to whom I make reference. But I appreciate

01:05:19

Catherine's response, those comments, and I wanted to mention that as we wrap up the program today.

01:05:25

We went about five minutes long. Actually, seven minutes long, because I normally wrap up right at 58.

01:05:32

But that's okay. We wanted to get that call in, and hopefully the entire discussion of justification, the nature of faith, imputation has been useful to you.

01:05:42

No program on Thursday. I am traveling to Rochester, New York, where I will be speaking there over the weekend, so see those of you in that area this weekend.

01:05:52

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

01:06:51

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

01:06:57

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's a -o -m -i -n -dot -o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.