Barnabas Piper

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

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

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

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

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

James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to the Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon.

A lot to get to, that's why I went ahead and started early. So actually I wouldn't have to talk so quickly. However, I do have six tabs open in ye olde internet browser.

Isn't that interesting? We wouldn't have had any idea. In fact, we were listening to the Wayback Machine. The Wayback Machine restarted again.

So it's back to 1998. I was just listening to myself going, I sound a little bit differently now than I did then.

But we wouldn't have had any idea at that time of tabs in a browser window as the primary sources of things we'd be talking about.

But things change, and they are changing way too quickly for my taste anyway.

I noticed, looking at the end of Abdullah Kunda's article, that he said he'd be back with some more after Ramadan.

And we're a little over halfway through, I think, through Ramadan.

So I wanted to actually just finish this up real quick and move on to other things today. But I didn't want to leave it hanging any longer.

On the Muslim Debate Initiative blog a couple of weeks ago now, Abdullah posted an article and I was responding to that.

I have responded to it on the air. We've been listening to the debate. And we've been talking especially about the use of Ego Aimi and Anahu in Deuteronomy and in other sections of the

Old Testament. We linked this. Again, this was, for those who would like to see it, the information is provided in the

November 29th, 2011 blog article, Reference Materials for the Dividing Line, which

I posted back then. And we've reposted it a number of times. And what we've been talking about is the use of Ego Aimi in John, the fact that the vast majority of Christian scholars recognize this utilization in John.

The phrase is actually found outside of John. It's found in Mark. I think it's an echo of the same tradition, though Mark does not expand upon it.

And I think there are reasons, discernible reasons, why that would be. But we've been looking at this use of the phrase,

I am. And we are specifically looking at the fact that, for example, in John 13, 19, you have

Jesus saying that, I am saying these things, from now on, I'm telling you, before these things come to pass, in order that when they take place, you might believe that I am.

And you have there the phrase, Hinnah Pestuseta, Hati Ego Aimi, that you might believe that I am.

And I point out in Isaiah 43 .10, in the Greek Septuagint, you likewise have this phrase, where the

Lord has chosen Israel to be his Martus, his witnesses.

You're my witnesses, says the Lord God. And my servant, Pais, these are words of close relationship, indicating

God's relationship to his people, whom I have chosen, in order that you might know, notae, and believe and understand.

So three different subjunctives used there, in order that you might know, you might believe, you might understand,

Hati Ego Aimi, before me, there is no God, and there shall be none after me, is what is said.

Now, this is a text that many of us have memorized. Those of you who've gone out witness to Mormons, Isaiah 43 .10 cuts the eternal law of progression right in half.

Before me, there is no God. For him, there shall be none after me. But you have this, the exact same language.

You have Hinnapis Juseta, and you have Hati Ego Aimi. Now it was interesting, because Abdullah objected to this, because he said, well, you know,

I talked about extraneous language. Well, what I meant by that is that in Isaiah, more is said than is quoted by Jesus.

And so you have the language reflecting that. But the verbs, in order that you might know, and what you might know,

Hati Ego Aimi, are identical to one another. And again, especially with the rise of intertextual studies, which

I'm sorry, but a Muslim is probably not going to know much about. Even someone as well -read as Abdullah probably has not done almost any reading intertextual studies, because the

Quran doesn't have any of that. In the sense that intertextual studies are specifically focused upon the relationship between Old and New Testament, and you just don't have anything in that realm within the

Quran. I mean, you could. I would imagine you could, for example, have worthwhile studies comparing the

Meccan surahs with the Medinan surahs, or things like that. But given Islamic orthodoxy, that none of the

Quran actually represents any of Muhammad's understanding, that would be sort of irrelevant from their perspective. I think it's quite relevant from ours, but it would be rather irrelevant from their perspective.

And so, as far as I could tell, and in fact I provided a lengthy quotation from Raymond Brown.

And believe me, Raymond Brown is almost never on my side. But even

Raymond Brown has a lengthy discussion of the recognition of the

Old Testament background and the utilization of Ego -Ami and Anahu from the Old Testament in these particular texts.

And I gave a number of them, and not just in Isaiah, but there are a number in Isaiah.

Isaiah 43 -25, where Ego -Ami is used twice. I Am, I Am, Isaiah 51 -12,

I Am, I Am the One. And then you've got Parakaleo, the Paraclete, the very same language that is so important in John's discussion of the

Holy Spirit, as the Paraclete, as the one who exhorts us, who comforts us, right there in the exact same context, which likewise is extremely important in Isaiah 51 -12,

Isaiah 47 -8, 47 -9, 47 -10. You have, again, the

Ego -Ami terminology. And even outside of that, in Zephaniah 2 -15, where, again, it's very similar.

You have Ego -Ami, and there is no one besides me. I mean, this is why many people see that Ego -Ami is functioning as a title of deity, and that explains the response of the

Jews in John 8 -58 and John 18 -5 -6. And that's why, when

I looked at Abdullah's response, and basically he says, well,

I'm just not convinced. And I'm like, well, what would convince you? What would convince you?

How else, how much clearer could it get when you have this repetitive use of this phraseology, and you have scholars from a wide variety of perspectives recognizing that utilization?

I don't know how much clearer it could be. And the point is that in the debate that we've been reviewing,

Abdullah was saying, well, there's just no reason to do this. He didn't look at the Isaiah text. He didn't look at the

Zephaniah text. He didn't look at the doubled uses. He didn't look at a similar context and said, well,

I just don't know why you Christians are doing this. Well, I think now he knows why Christians are doing that.

And hopefully we've been able to explain that. Shifting gears.

We've got a lot of things to shift gears on today. Might be able, I doubt it.

I'll see how I'm doing time -wise as we get a little bit farther into the program. And if it looks like I'm going a lot faster than I expected to, then

I'll open up the phone lines and we'll see what we can do from there. But chances aren't overly good that that's going to happen.

Someone tweeted me a link to some of the links I have to click on today, these days in light of the discussion of homosexuality and things like that are somewhat offensive.

But I was reading yet another extremely emotionally laden appeal from a homosexual about, you know, if you eat a

Chick -fil -A, then you are oppressing me. Why? Because Chick -fil -A gives money to organizations that oppose the expansion of civil rights based upon how you have sex.

And I have said many times, homosexuals are so absolutely defined by their rejection of their created state that it consumes their life.

The rest of us just don't go around defining our lives on the basis of these things.

I mean, look at look at what people are talking about tomorrow. Barry was telling me about who was it that was saying what was this person that was saying that, you know, get get jobs in Chick -fil -A and take over Chick -fil -A and destroy it from the inside.

And oh, it's the blogger from The Washington Post. OK, I don't Sandy Quinn, I think.

OK, all right. See, I mean. I it's difficult for me to even begin to understand this because I constantly see.

The president of Amazon giving two point five million dollars to try to redefine marriage in Washington state,

Apple does it, Microsoft does it, Target does it, U .S. Airways does it, Starbucks does it.

All these mega corporations. Pouring money into the redefinition of morality in the things that I find to be absolutely disgusting, blasphemous, destroying of life, they are supporting the culture of death.

And you got a couple much smaller organizations that dare to give some money to the other side.

Oh, this is terrible. Can you imagine if Christians are running around? We need to start applying for jobs at Target and take over Target and kick all the people that are supporting the gays out.

I mean, ABC would be there and NBC would be they'd go nuts, but they don't see the double standard.

They did not see that there. I see it so clearly because of Romans 132.

I mean, the Bible tells us that this is exactly what is going to happen, describes this exact attitude.

It's amazing. You know, I think of all the silliness that parades under the concepts of psychology and everything else in our in our world today.

And yet you look at what Paul wrote in the introduction to an epistle.

Two thousand years ago and you have so much more light shed into the behavior and activity of man than you can get out of every bit of humanistically derived philosophies of men and treatments of men.

What after listing all these sinful attitudes and actions, what does

Paul say? Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them, but they give approval to those who practice them.

In other words, sin loves company. Sin loves company. They love to have people join with them.

I think it's fair to say that Paul does not share Chicago values. That's for sure.

That is very, very, very sure. They know the ordinance of God. They are created in God's image.

This is why people ask, why are these people so consumed? It's amazing.

Remember the poor little old lady during the Proposition 8 stuff back in 2008? The gays are beating her up.

They're knocking the cross out of her hand, knocking her around, yelling and screaming. What are they chanting? Shame, shame, shame.

Why? Because that's what they feel. And when anybody talks about it, they just become so angry.

People go, why are these people so consumed? It's a jihad for these people.

It's a crusade for these people. Yeah, it is. And here's why. They know the ordinance of God, and they have to spend so much energy suppressing that knowledge that when anyone else comes along and repeats what they're suppressing outside, they must silence that person.

They must silence that. I cannot allow you to have the freedom to express what

I am working so hard to suppress in my own mind and in my own experience.

They know the ordinance of God. They know that those who practice such things are worthy of death. Not at some man's hand, but at God's hand.

They not only do the same, they know the appropriate penalty for their behavior, but they do it, and sin loves company.

They then give hearty approval to those who practice these very same things. The Bible's been talking about this for a long, long, long, long time.

And we are seeing it. Normally, by God's grace, he restrains the wildest exhibitions of these things.

But actually, sometimes in judgment, he lifts that restraint.

And I think that's what we are seeing. So I was sent this link to this person who, again, is just completely emotionally laden.

I am such a victim. I am victim. You are the mean people.

I am the victim link. And most of it, it's just so irrational, it's not even worth responding to.

But here's the third point in this article. This isn't about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends.

Most of them are of the liberal variety. It's true, but even this concept seems lost in some of you. Most of them are pro -LGBT rights, pro -gay, and pro -Christ, or not mutually exclusive.

Well, you know, there you go. They never have been in the history of Christianity, though it's been difficult at times.

It's not impossible to be both. Well, obviously, I would say that if you want to say you're pro -Christ, but you don't believe what he taught, then you're a hypocrite.

And every Christian domination that calls itself a Christian domination that doesn't obey and follow Christ isn't a

Christian domination. You can use the name all you want. But let me just, you know, if you call yourself a

Red Sox fan and you run around with a Yankees hat on all the time, dreaming about Derek Jeter, I don't think you're a

Red Sox fan. I really don't. You know, there's something mutually... Who's Ohio State's worst enemy?

Is it Michigan? We don't say the name, but it's similar to that channel between 20 and 22.

Right. University of Michigan. Yeah, I was going to say Michigan. That's what I thought. It was Michigan. Okay, you're an

Ohio State fan, right? Okay, so if you show up here on game day, when

Ohio State's playing Michigan on game day with your face painted yellow and blue and stripes,

I'm going to question the reality of your dedication to being an actual

Ohio State fan. Now, I'm using a sports illustration. Yes, I am.

Because for some reason, people don't get this simple message. If Jesus teaches

X and you teach the opposite of X, you're probably not a

Christian. Just saying. It seems fairly clear. But that's sort of the way that it is.

And now everybody in the channel is talking about Derek Jeter. I'm not really sure how that happened, but I guess they're really not following what

I'm saying there. So if someone is telling you it is, that it is impossible to both, then maybe you should wonder why they do that.

I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug -addicted Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it.

I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the church and the church does very little to combat them.

Sometimes it seems like being gay is the only thing modern Christian movements won't allow. Why is that,

I wonder? Now, I'm hearing this more and more and more. And I hear a lot of good

Bible -believing people saying it's all the church's fault. Now, am I saying, when I say the church here,

I am purposefully dismissing every religious organization that does not purposefully take as its ultimate authority the infallible, inspired

Word of God. All right? I just got rid of a vast majority of what calls itself Christianity in the

United States, and I've put that off to the side. Are there hypocrites in the professing church, in the sense of people who do not share the same biblical perspective on sin that the

Bible does, of course? I really doubt that there are true Christians bumping and grinding on TV wearing

WWJD bracelets any more than just because somebody has a cross around their neck means they're a Christian. So, obviously, the pro -homosexual lobby wants to expand the name

Christian out to such a wide variety that they can make this type of argumentation. But people are saying, well, look, and I've seen this on Twitter, how come you're not talking about this about marriage?

How come you're not talking about that about marriage? That's like faulting

Luther for being too concerned about Roman Catholic errors at the

Reformation. He should have been worried about something else that wasn't even relevant at his time.

You have to fight the battle where the other army is. And what we're really fighting here is the conflict between the culture of life and the culture of death.

Isn't it interesting? Have you noticed that what does homosexuality go hand in hand with in the culture wars right now?

Abortion. They go hand in hand. And they're both an example of the culture of death.

Homosexuality does not create life. It creates death. It uses life. And it creates death.

It creates all sorts of diseases. It lowers life expectancy. And it cannot create life.

And abortion, of course, is the murder of unborn children. And I do not and will never apologize for speaking the truth on that subject.

That's what it is. It's murder. You know, just today, I don't get to tell you,

I'm sorry. Even Barry's mad at me about this. But I found out whether I'm going to be the grandpa of a baby boy or a baby girl today.

I found out. I know. I know what the name's going to be. And I'm really excited. But I can't tell anybody because my daughter said

I can't. So when mama says you can't do it, mama says you can't do it. And if you want to take it up with mama, you can take it up with mama.

But granddad obeys when told not to reveal this particular piece of information.

But let me tell you something. If somebody, if some drunk were to hit my daughter and end her life today in a car,

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt there would be two victims to that, not one. There is a little human who's going to be arriving in this world later this year.

And I will never, ever apologize for calling that the murder of an unborn child.

That's exactly what it is. And that's the culture of death.

It's the culture of life versus the culture of death. And that's where the battle is right now.

And I have Christians. And they call themselves Christians. I can't question that they are or not.

But I just wonder why they do not think clearly. Writing to me, how come you're talking so much about homosexuality?

Why don't you talk about marriage and divorce? Well, I don't know of any movement of people who are running around doing what

Matthew Vines did. Who are trying to take something that is clearly defined as sin in scripture and say it isn't sin.

And in fact, we should embrace it. Divorce is sin.

It is a part of the fallen world. And if you've been involved with it, then you need to recognize that it's sin.

And you need to recognize that that particular activity, in that particular act, you've broken a foundational covenant.

God says he hates divorce. And the fact that society as a whole has lost all view of the importance of keeping covenants and keeping promises and things like that is one of the reasons we're in the mess that we're in right now.

There's no question about that. But you have an entire movement right now of people who want to try to call themselves

Christians while completely overturning Christian teaching on the nature of marriage and on the nature of human sexuality.

And now they're getting governmental assistance. And the society, the government, is pouring millions and millions of dollars into their efforts and may well in the future be using the very force of law, an immoral law, a law that we would not be under any obligation to obey,

I might point out. That's exactly where the apostles were. Whether it's better to obey

God or men, we leave to you decide. Um, when the government says you can't repeat what

Jesus said, you can't teach Matthew 19. You can't teach Leviticus 18. You can't teach

Leviticus 19 and 20. You can't teach Romans 1. You can't teach 1 Corinthians 6. You can't teach 1

Timothy 1. You can't teach those things. Well, we have to say we have to obey

God rather than men. And so that's where the battle is.

That's why we respond to these things. And so when it says sometimes it seems like being gay is the only thing certain modern

Christian movements won't allow, that's ridiculous. Actually, ironically, it's the liberals that would fit that description.

That is not the case, any way, shape, or form, in regards to consistent biblical

Christianity. But this is what I want to get to. He says, whoever it is, said, Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind.

That is a lie. That's not true. That's not true.

Have you read Matthew chapter 19? Have you read Jesus' teaching on the law? Have you read where he says that if you teach anyone to break the least of his commandments, you're the least in the kingdom of heaven?

That he, in fact, is the fulfillment of these things? That's just absurd. It says,

Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings.

Really? Is that what was at the heart of his teachings? I mean, obviously, this person is not a

Bible scholar. But I just sort of wonder why you even try. Why are you even pretending here?

You don't know what Jesus' teachings were. You're not taking the Bible seriously. It's amazing.

But these things are out there. This is the kind of stuff that is being said all the time.

And it's bothersome. But what was also bothersome, I'm going to stay on the same topic here.

So at least when I change subjects, I'm somewhat close to the other subject where I was.

Dr. Kruger from RTS in Charlotte beat me to making a response to this.

But I was very early linked. I forget whether it was on Twitter or channel or what.

I was very early linked to a commentary on World Magazine yesterday, two days ago,

July 31st, by Barnabas Piper. And when I saw the name, the thought crossed my mind.

I wonder if there's a relationship. Well, this is John Piper's son. I don't know

John Piper well enough to know his family or anything like that. I've never even met the man. So I was unaware.

And so Barnabas Piper has weighed in. Article, Chick -fil -A

Appreciation Day, a bold mistake. Now, I didn't go to Chick -fil -A yesterday. I went to Chick -fil -A on Tuesday.

And I told them on Tuesday, I'm going to try to help y 'all sort of spread the spike, you know, spread it out just a little bit.

So I'm going to come Tuesday. I'm going to come Thursday. And that's what I did. I had lunch at Chick -fil -A today.

And I did it purposefully because I am angry at politicians like Rahm Emanuel and Tom Menino and Kenny from Philadelphia and the mayor of D .C.

who acted like fascist thugs. And that's what they did.

They act like fascist thugs in basically pretending to be thought police.

How dare you believe differently than what we have defined to be cultural orthodoxy.

We will not allow you to do business here. And that's how it's become.

Why do you think these major corporations give so much money to the homosexuals? It's because they don't want boycotts.

And they don't want people in drag running around outside their stores with signs. It's easier to pay corporate bribery, hush money, than to put up with that kind of stuff.

That's just all there is to it. It is just it's just I don't know how to how to put it.

So anyway, I'm angry about that. And Brother Kathy, who is a fellow

Baptist, said he actually dared to say that God will judge a nation that turns its back upon him.

Well, I think I've said that a few times too, you know. And if I was the head of a major corporation, they'd probably be protesting too.

But they don't care about little people like us yet. They certainly would like to shut us up, but that will come in time.

Anyway, so I went to Chick -fil -A. I didn't think going to Chick -fil -A was somehow a religious duty.

I felt that going to Chick -fil -A was one way that A, I could get some really good food. B, I could drive

Squirrel crazy because I can go to Chick -fil -A easily. And he has to drive 550 .8 miles to go to Chick -fil -A.

And thirdly, then I could show my support for one of the few businesses that actually continues to seek to support my worldview over against those who would negate my worldview.

And look, you can't do business in this world anymore without doing business with people who are going to be using some of the proceeds from doing business with you to promote evil.

You can't do it. I challenge you to figure out how you can do it. It's not possible. When you start, you know, look at Michael Brown's book,

Queer Thing Happened in America. Look at the list. Look at his correspondence. Well, look at his course. Two of the corporations that he had the most correspondence with about Gay Pride Charlotte was

U .S. Airways and Starbucks. Now, I'm not going to go into any details, but I know a little something about those two companies.

I've got close relatives who work for both. All right. So what, you know,

I mean, when I fly, I fly U .S. Airways. That's just, that's my airline.

That's hometown airline, Phoenix, Arizona, main hub, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's how it works.

And I don't know of a Chick -fil -A airlines, you know, that could get me to London. You know, I don't, I don't know of anything like that.

So I would like to, when I can, send some of that money to someone who actually supports my worldview rather than the people who are constantly, without my approval, taking my money and fighting against what is good, what is honest, what is just, fighting against life and fighting for death.

Because that's what they're doing. That's what Target's doing. I don't know if any of you saw the absolutely disgusting wedding registry ad that they posted recently.

Just, oh, you know, in your face, we are going to, you know, and I just, anyways.

Yeah. People on channel are saying, fly more chickens, Chick -fil -A airlines. Maybe they'll expand out.

Maybe that's, you know. Anyway, I go back to Barnabas Piper here. When I read this, and again,

I didn't realize at the time, this is John Piper's son, but that doesn't matter. You know, I'm sorry.

I don't think genealogy means anything. You know, you, you earn your position by what you say and do not by who you're related to.

And, you know, he starts off by talking about, he, you know, he agrees with what Dan Cathy said. And he, he confesses to being a borderline addict of Chick -fil -A.

Okay. I got to admit, in the past, I haven't been a big fan of Chick -fil -A. Mainly because every time

I would go there, it wasn't one of the regular restaurants. It was normally like a, well, like the Philadelphia airport has a

Chick -fil -A. Well, don't know if it will for much longer, but it does. And there've been times

I thought I was going to stop there. And then I realized I was flying through on Sunday and they were not open. You know, hey, I respect that.

But there have been a few times I've stopped at Chick -fil -A and I just wasn't overly impressed. I just wasn't. This week, both two times

I've gone into a restaurant rather than just like a place in a mall or something like that. It's been great.

It's been great. And so that's why I did it. So he admits that he's, he's a borderline

Chick -fil -A addict. Then he started into his, why he, he says, but I will not be attending

Chick -fil -A Appreciation Day on Wednesday and here's why. So here's, here's the argumentation. Now, I have disagreed with John Piper a number of times in the past.

I have especially disagreed with John Piper on the issue of self -defense. He has said that he would not defend his wife or his family against an invader because they may not be ready to go to heaven, but his family is.

I do not find that to be biblical by any stretch of the imagination. Jesus talked about, you know, the, you don't break into the strongman's house without binding the strongman.

Why? Because it is the responsibility of the strongman to defend his family. I believe that you can make a very strong argument that we have a, not only the right, but the duty to stand up against that which is wrong.

And if you think that what Jesus was saying is, oh, just, you know, just let people walk all over you. I think that is a, a complete misunderstanding of what

Jesus was actually saying in those texts. So I have, on the blog, in the past, directly disagreed with some of the things that Brother Piper has to say.

So it's not overly difficult for me to disagree with what the younger Piper has to say either.

He says, homosexuality is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church.

Now I find those three adjectives to be interesting.

Defining. Okay, I will agree that our understanding of the

Lordship of Christ and the Creatorship of God and the relationship of God's moral law to the function of the church and the proclamation of the church, and especially the proclamation of God's law, very much defined by how we deal with this.

And very clearly, entire denominations, P .C. U .S .A., most of P .C. U .S

.A., not all of it, there are a few diehards left, but the liberal Presbyterians, the liberal Methodists, the

Episcopalians, almost all of them to a man, unfortunately, have all demonstrated they don't believe what the

Bible says. They don't believe in God's law. They don't believe that God's revealed what's right and wrong, and they get to make that up as they go along.

There's no question about that. So it is defining. Contentious. If you mean contentious in the sense that homosexuals will get up in the morning and live the entirety of their life with the promotion of their lifestyle till the time they go to bed and get up the next morning and do it, and heterosexuals just don't do that.

We just don't even want to think about that in that way. A .S. is contentious. Contentious within the church?

I don't think so. Contentious within denominations who long ago abandoned the proper foundation for truth?

Yeah. Okay. Complex? Well, it shouldn't be seen as simplistic, but I don't see that it's overly complex.

I mean, obviously, when you start getting into the wild defenses that have been created by homosexual advocates, then

I guess you can get into some fairly complex issues regarding certain terminologies and words and things like that,

I suppose. But anyway, we cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions, okay?

But neither can we sacrifice the church's ability to italics serve italics clothes.

People of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles. Now, let me just stop right there and ask a simple question.

What does that mean? How does the church serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles?

The church is the body of Christ. The church is the place where God's truth is proclaimed. The church is a place of holiness and worship, and it's made up of repentant believers in Jesus Christ.

So, what do you mean by serve? Do you mean that the church is to seek to meet the needs of unrepentant people?

I don't see Jesus ever meeting the needs of unrepentant people.

Even when Jesus ate and fellowshiped with winebibbers and tax collectors, what was the result?

Repentance on their part. Zacchaeus could give a third, you know, the whole nine yards.

He never put himself in a position that by his quote -unquote service, he was giving a cover to their lack of repentance.

The church is not a place for unrepentant people. In fact, the holiness and focus upon God that should be the mark, the reverence of the church, that should be the mark of the church, should bring conviction to those who refuse to repent.

If unrepentant people are comfortable in your church, that's a bad thing.

That's a bad thing, not a good thing. Today, the idea is, well, we should make sure everyone's really comfortable in our church.

Really? Even Paul, in discussing the abuse of tongues in 1

Corinthians, says, I'd rather you speak five words than no language. Why? To bring conviction to the unbeliever.

So if they can say amen, they have some idea what in the world you're talking about. If you're just sitting there speaking in a tongue they can't understand, it's not going to do them any good.

So I just wonder what it means to set up a dichotomy between our biblical convictions and sacrificing the church's ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles.

It continues. The 452 ,000 people supporting Chick -fil -A, and I didn't even go online to sign up for that,

I can guarantee you there's a whole lot more than that, are delivering more than one message. And the message the homosexual community and its supporters see is us versus you.

Now let me stop right now. I refuse to capitulate to the pressure to recognize as a community the homosexual community.

I will not kowtow to or in any way, shape, or form recognize the incest community, the polygamy community or polyamory community, the pedophile community, the bestiality community, because there is no such thing.

You shouldn't use the term community there. All that means is there's a bunch of people who engage in certain sinful and self -destructive activities.

That's, again, I refuse to recognize as a valid community requiring the respect of my society people who get together or identify based upon sinful behaviors.

I mean, is there the pothead community? The cocaine community? Just because you put community at the end, does that somehow provide some kind of meaningful moral capacity or weight?

I don't, I don't, ain't going there. Us versus you. Yes, Mr.

Piper, there is a sense in which it's us versus you.

I think Jesus said something along the lines of, do not be surprised, the world hates you, hated me first.

That sounds like us versus you. That could be very easily understood as us versus you.

Paul says, we don't have any business judging those who are outside. We'd only be judging those who are inside the church.

That sounds like us versus you. There is a good and an evil in this world, and it's the fact that we won't use these words anymore that frightens me.

You can't call anything evil anymore. A man walks into a movie theater, starts shooting people up, kills a dozen people.

He's sick. No, he's not. He's evil. Oh, we can't say that. So, yeah, by the way, they even refer to that as a tragedy, not an act of evil.

Oh, yeah, tragedy. Yeah, not, not an act of evil. The event also sends a message of separatism and territorialism in the reclaiming of those restaurants that are being boycotted, a collective action easily seen as shaking the fist or a wagging of the finger.

Well, you know what? The whole problem here, Mr. Piper, is a man, a

Christian man, talking to other Christians, both contexts, the radio program and the

Baptist Press article, was a Christian talking to other Christians about his convictions about marriage. That's all he was doing.

And guess what? The quote -unquote homosexual community saw it just like that.

So it, look what's happening to the Southern Baptist Church down in Tampa. The school system wants to kick them out from renting a high school because of what they're saying.

So I cannot and have no reason to be concerned about what people who are rebels against God, who are suppressing the knowledge of God, how they are going to interpret the proclamation of the gospel.

They are going to see it as a wagging of the finger, and they hate it. It doesn't matter whether you say it to them or not.

It doesn't matter whether you go to Chick -fil -A or not. Message of separatism?

Yes, I am separate from those who will blaspheme the divine institution of marriage.

I am separate from them. I call them to repentance. I pray that they will be convicted for their sin, but I will separate from them.

I will not just join along and say, we're all just one big happy community. Now, I'm not trying to reclaim anybody who's being boycotted.

I'm showing support primarily for the freedom of speech and a rejection of the kind of fascist totalitarianism and thought police represented by Rahm Emanuel and people like him on the radical left of the

American spectrum. Convictions, especially biblical ones, will divide people.

I agree. That is inevitable, but not desirable. I think it's actually both.

Why is that not desirable? Is there not a tremendous amount in the

New Testament about the division? Didn't the

Son of Man comes and what does he do? He divides the sheep from the goats.

Jesus does that. And what does he say the gospel does? What will it do to families? Divide.

So, it goes on, the separation of believers and unbelievers, when it happens, must be a last resort or an unavoidable result.

I disagree. The division comes from the worldviews upon which we're operating.

And I will not compromise mine and I will not apologize for operating in the

Christian worldview. And when we do apologize for it,

I think we're compromising. I think we're giving in. Actions to the contrary, those that clearly promote an us versus them mentality, are most often unhelpful.

Unhelpful. What do you mean unhelpful? Helpful in doing what? Helpful in making things clear?

Helpful in calling people to repentance? How is it helpful to try to minimize the divisions between the culture of life and the culture of death?

It doesn't make any sense to me. There is a time for Christians to engage in boycotting, such as when a business deals in obviously immoral areas or is clearly unethical in its methods.

But for a mass of Christians to descend upon Chick -fil -A restaurants across the country tomorrow to support the leadership's view on this issue is,

I believe, a bold mistake. Well, I haven't been told why. Because that's not a boycott. That is a boycott.

That is a demonstration that there are still a lot of us out here.

We don't spend our lives parading around outside of businesses. We don't engage in heterosexual pride marches.

We live our lives. We're the people actually that are still producing stuff in this country.

We're not part of Occupy Wall Street. And to do what

I've done the past, well, two of the three past days, and eat at Chick -fil -A when

I had not, it's an 18 -mile round trip from my house to Chick -fil -A. I normally don't do that.

I am going to be doing in the future. First of all, it was good. The folks there were really nice. The restaurant was clean. The food was good.

And if I can help support, you know what? In and out. They're even closer than Chick -fil -A is. That's not normally the kind of food

I eat, however. I normally don't do the fried stuff, but I can survive that.

But this isn't some boycott. It is a positive demonstration that what

Brother Kathy said, we need to have the freedom to say those things in our society.

And I will stand up for those people who say those things. And I haven't been told yet why it's a bold mistake, unless the whole idea is, well, you're sending the wrong message.

Really? What message am I sending? Free speech? Christian worldview?

Well, you don't want to send a message of division. Really? Is that why homosexuals are going to show up at Chick -fil -A tomorrow to have a kiss -in to do things disgusting in public?

So I stand with Dan Kathy and his biblical affirmation of family, but I cannot stand with those making a movement out of his beliefs.

What? What? A movement out of his beliefs? I thought that was the

Christian worldview. What do you mean?

I do not question the motives of Mike Huckabee or those thousands joining him. But what about the wider effects?

So what, we just supposed to sit back? Yeah, you go ahead and boycott. Yeah, Brother Kathy, you shouldn't have said that.

You shouldn't say that to other Christians. We just need to bow our heads and just meekly go into the mists of time.

How is the kingdom of God served by this? Well, people certainly are talking about it, aren't they? I was talking, the woman standing in front of me in line today.

It was a long line, so we had time to talk. She heard me talking to the other woman standing in front of me. She turns around and says,

I just wanted some chicken. I voted for Obama. Is that okay? Still ate at Chick -fil -A.

I guess that's a good thing. Kids weren't well behaved, but other than that.

How is the kingdom of God served by this? Well, Mr. Piper, how is the kingdom of God served by us not supporting a fellow

Christian who comes under the attack of fascist leftists for having expressed what has clearly been the moral consensus of this nation from its founding?

How is the kingdom of God served by that? Is Jesus represented well to the gay community?

How about the at least homosexual? And the politicians pandering to them?

Is Jesus represented well to the gay community and the politicians pandering to them?

You know the things I really appreciate about all the coverage yesterday? It almost all happened on social media. The mainstream media doesn't want to cover what was going on because they're embarrassed by it.

But you remember what people were saying all the time? People were patient. People were kind.

People were smiling. Nobody was angry. Yeah, you know what?

I'm proud of that. And I was waiting for my food and I hear someone across just today.

This is this afternoon. Somebody go, Dr. White. And it was a member of the church here.

And recognized me, you know, and hey, how you doing? You know, and there was a feeling of camaraderie.

And yet there was, the people were moral. They, nobody was, nobody was engaging in lewd behavior.

Nobody had to stand outside with signs filled with profanity. No one showed up in drag. Yeah, you know what?

I think Jesus was well represented. It's not that I was trying to, quote unquote, represent Jesus in some special religious way.

I'm representing Jesus because I'm a Christian and I'm going to continue speaking the truth in my society.

You know, it's funny how all of this was questioned even by many Christians in some of the commentaries on Piper's blog and other people who linked to it.

And yet they're saying, well, how was Jesus's love represented in this, you know, Chick -fil -A

Appreciation Day? And yet everything you just mentioned there was fruits of the spirit. Right. Right. And not only that, but I mean, how many of these folks who are just so sensitive will actually say to the homosexuals, what you're engaging is in his abomination before God.

It will bring his judgment upon you. It destroys life and you need to repent of your sin. Oh, no, that's not the way to do it.

That's how Jesus would have done it. I mean, when he healed somebody, what do you say?

Go and what? Sin all you want. No, that's not what he said. He said sin no more. Marching on Chick -fil -A tomorrow like an army will produce nothing more than defined battle lines and result will be greater contention and fewer softened hearts on both sides.

I say that is not true. I see no basis for it.

I don't understand where this is coming from. And looking at it in hindsight now, that's not what happened.

That's not what happened. So I was I was very disappointed. And I wanted to comment on it, but like I said,

Dr. Kruger at RTS got to it before I did, and I was going to link to his article, but go ahead.

His blog is called Cannon Fodder. So you can look it up that way. C -A -N -N -O -N, not

C -A -N -N. C -A -N -N -O -N is a list of books. C -A -N -N goes boom. Look up Cannon Fodder and you can see what he had to say.

I'm sorry, one last comment about that. Something no one is talking about is what kind of a witness was there?

Forget the gay community for a second. Last time I checked, I don't think probably all the employees of Chick -fil -A are

Christians. Oh, probably not. And the witness that was presented to employees of Chick -fil -A across this country yesterday with the behavior of the people who showed up to appreciate

Chick -fil -A must have been very revealing. Yep. Very much so. Very much so. Yep.

It's michaeljkruger .com is the article Monty just listed in the channel.

All right. Shifting gears yet again in the last... I'm doing right at about one -third here.

So one -third on each subject. That's good. I'm glad that's working out. So I was looking at an article that was posted at the

Call to Confusion website by David Anders, where he gives a listing of various articles that they have put up titled,

Papacy Roundup. And I was looking at some of the articles and the arguments that they're putting forward.

Christ founded a visible church. Christ founded holy orders and established a sacrificial priesthood. Christ established a magisterium in the church.

And then Saint Ignatius and John Chrysostom on these subjects. Then the papacy and scripture and history.

Peter is the rock of Matthew 16, 18. By the way, I spoke on the subject of Matthew 16 last evening at PRBC.

That's why I posted the devotional on the website. And my argument there was the focus never shifts from who

Jesus is to who Peter is in Matthew chapter 16. And that the unity that we have as Christians is actually found in the common confession that Jesus is the

Messiah, the Son of the living God, has nothing to do with the Apostle Peter. He is simply one representative of all of us who, like him, are the passive recipients of the gracious revelation of God as to the identity of Jesus Christ.

And that's what brings true Christian unity. That's why the Roman system can never bring unity. It has never brought unity.

And in fact, has had to only have a unity that was enforced by law and by the murder of countless thousands of people who dared to go against that unity during the medieval period of time.

And someone on Twitter just said, Hey, I thought you might be interested in this because you tweeted on Chick -fil -A.

And the article is the one I started off the program with. So I'm just a little bit behind on things.

So Sojourner Tim, you need to listen to The Dividing Line a little more often. I just dealt with that.

Anyway, The Witness of History and Petrine Roman Primacy, St. Vincent Laurin, St.

Optitus on Schism, and St. Cyprian on Unity of the Church. I was just looking at these articles, and I popped to the one that I've done one debate on this.

I would love to debate some of the other leading apologists on the subject. Holy Orders and the

Sacrificial Priesthood. I think this is this along with the papacy and the Marian dogmas is an absolute slam dunk for our side.

It is just the Achilles heel for Roman Catholicism. The hoops that they have to jump through, the loops they have to create, the smoke that must be blown, the dust that must be thrown to get around the historical and biblical realities here is truly an amazing thing.

But I started looking at this. It's a huge article, and I'm just sitting here, okay, where's the biblical argument?

Because we're talking, it's so obvious that the

Apostle Paul provided to us, provides clear evidence in the pastoral epistles, and I would argue in a couple texts in the

Acts, that there was a concern on the part of the apostles themselves to order the church properly while the apostles were still living, recognizing that the next generation would need to then start functioning without the living apostles in their presence.

And as a result, he provides a clear discussion in 1

Timothy and Titus relating to the offices of the church and the qualifications of the officers who would take those positions.

And what are those offices? Well, there are only two. Now, you look at the number of offices in the

Roman Catholic Church, and it's, I don't think anyone can count them all up. There may be 36 ,000.

Yeah, let's go ahead and use that type of, see, or at least thousands of thousands or something. You know, we can play that game, too, if you want.

But Rome has greatly multiplied the number of offices far beyond anything found in the

New Testament. There are two offices found in the New Testament.

There are only two. There are deacons, and then there are the elders, overseers, the presbyteroi, the episkopoi, the pastors, and those are all the same office.

There isn't any question about this. Paul uses the terms interchangeably with one another.

So you have two offices. So are we really supposed to believe that the apostles left us without any inspired concern or instruction about all these other offices?

This is why Rome must deny sola scriptura, because there is no way on earth that Rome could ever substantiate.

All that she teaches on the nature of the church, the function of the church, the sacraments, all the rest of the stuff from Scripture itself, because the apostles didn't believe what modern

Romanism teaches on these things. That's why they have to gag God. They have to take a completely different view of Scripture than Jesus' own view to substantiate these things.

So I look at this article and go, I wonder what the biblical argumentation here is for priesthood, because we know what presbyteros was in the

New Testament. And we know there's a perfectly good word, hieros, for priest, and it's found in the

New Testament, because Jesus interacted with this chief priest and so on. Lots of uses of that term, found in the book of Hebrews as well.

But never, ever do we have any inkling.

And I refer you to my debate with Mitchell Pacwa on this subject. I think it was a good debate.

There was good humor in it. There was respect. There was a little old lady down front that was constantly rousing me from the

Catholic side. But other than that, as far as me and Mitch went, everything was fine. She was doing that because you're

Roma -phobic. Yeah, I'm Roma -phobic. That's papaphobic. Yeah, something like that.

I thought you were going to say I needed aromatherapy, but that would be a completely different thing.

So I just refer you to the debate. I think the result was very clear.

You cannot turn presbyteroi in the New Testament into priests. That is an evolution over time, and it is not apostolic.

That is not what the apostles meant by presbyteroi. At all.

There is two offices, and a priest is not one of them, which means that we have no inspired revelation from God as to the function or role of priests if we're supposed to have them.

And hence, to defend Romanism, what must you do? Deny sola scriptura, so that you have this later tradition, which you can say is apostolic, but you have no evidence actually is apostolic.

So where is the argumentation? I looked through the whole thing, and I wonder how many words there are in this thing.

It's huge. I mean, it is. You know what I'm going to do? Do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do.

This is called, I guess we really can't take a break here, but I should have thought of doing this before.

But I am selecting the entirety, because there is a bunch of comments on it, too. So I'm not going to do that.

but okay here we go. How many footnotes here?

Oh my goodness look at this there we go. 270 footnotes.

270 footnotes. That is that them thems being a lot of footnotes in in this thing and what

I'm gonna do here is I'm gonna I'm gonna try it may not work but I'm gonna try to to pop this into a document and let let the program tell me how many oh don't look for don't look for cancel

I don't want to install these things go away thank you I'm gonna insert them in there and I'm just gonna try to see how big this thing is it's huge but you look through it carefully there's all sorts of biblical discussions there there's there's there's talk about this text that text but to actually substantiate the concept of the priesthood nada nothing zip zero thirty thousand nine hundred and seventeen words thirty -one thousand and there is nothing in this thing that even comes close to substantiating from a biblical perspective the existence of a priesthood or the intention of there being a priesthood all there's lots of stuff well

Jerome said this Augustine said that but actual argumentation from the exegesis of scripture nada nothing so what happens is when that happens what do people do well the default the default goes back to well but Rome says so and Rome has the authority well

I'd like to point out in the last part of the program today what

Roman Catholicism must do to establish its ultimate authority in the papacy it's been a years since I debated this topic

I would recommend the debates that I did with Jerry Maddix in Denver in 1993 1993

Wow coming up on the 20 year anniversary of those the papal visit to Denver 19 years ago and we debated for many hours at Denver Seminary and then that a local

Presbyterian Church and we debated the subject of papacy and then

I would also suggest to you the debate with Mitch Pacquiao on the subject of the papacy as well and as I began my debate with Mitch Pacquiao I made some points

I want to make those points again now you may have listened to this I know for Algo he could

Algo could just repeat these himself because he's listened to debate so many times he has it entirely memorized which is a very frightening thing but I I don't think

I ever have listened to that debate I've actually thought recently about downloading all my debates and listening to him on rides that would take a long time since we're closing in on almost 120 you know

I hate to put a little plug in here but if you go to the ailment org store anybody who goes there will see a new page that rich just put up today that is a bundle of and we got our bundle of debate the funnel of debate so the first six are up there around so he just blogged it it's on the just blogger okay so six debates

I believe it is it's five or six today just do that over the speaker that sounded really good stuff is happening while you're not this is live man

I mean it isn't getting more alive and then we will have one on papacy we have Islam bundle they'll all begin to put on there over the next couple of days where if someone can just one click and download all these debates all right good well

I think there needs to be a pack would debate bundle so I'm putting a request in for the pack would debate bundle which we would love to be able to provide you the video the first two but the

Roman Catholics still sitting on them if you want to complain about that talk to Scott Butler he is the one who still has the the debate video and after all these years he should release them but he won't anyway in that debate

I started off and I I laid the foundation and I believe that I don't believe anyone's gonna come up with anything new these days

I mean this is a subject that's been debated many many times we may you know there might be some papyri found someplace that might have some relevance or something like that but in general the the topic is fairly well known but each generation has to be reminded and I have said

I have said so many times that if you're not a

Roman Catholic and I think this is what Carl Truman was talking about to if you're not a

Roman Catholic you need to know why you're not you know why you're not

I mean most people who are called Protestants aren't actually processing that they're not protesting anything they don't know enough about Roman Catholic theology to be offended by it they are

Protestants of tradition or Protestants of taste only not

Protestants of conviction there are very few very few even in academia today who will passionately in fact

I was really glad to see as I I haven't gotten a response from Ligonier yet but I got an email this morning saying that RC has put out a new book called for the purity of the gospel and it's about Roman Catholicism and it's available in hardback but I basically wrote in and said is that going to be electronically available anytime in the future because that would be that's obviously for me the easiest way to to get to books especially in a timely fashion these days is to have it in that way but you need to know you know at least when

Pope John Paul II died at least there was some more discussion I remember I was in Detroit and I actually preached at that time in Detroit on the on the the subject and a lot of Roman Roman Catholics come up to me and say oh thank you so much

I couldn't believe what people were saying it caused people to think well what about this papacy thing it isn't

I mean other than how funny the guy looks and he's wearing silly robes and and living in you know amongst all that gold and stuff um yeah isn't it okay just to have some you know kindly old man that you know talks about Jesus a lot isn't is that what the

Pope is well that's a pretty naive view of history and a naive view of the history of the papacy over time that's for sure but I want to emphasize some of the things that I said at the beginning of that debate

I said first we need to focus upon Rome's claims for herself let's listen to the words the great

Vatican Council from 1870 we therefore for the preservation safekeeping and increase the

Catholic flock with the approval of the Sacred Council do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the

Universal Church the doctrine touching the institution perpetually perpetuity and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy please note that phrase in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the

Universal Church now I do not believe for a moment that the church of the second century would even recognize the modern institution of the papacy and I think

I think a lot of Roman Catholics recognize that if you are a if you are a follower of Newman's development hypothesis then you fundamentally agree with me if you follow the idea that well you know that the acorn and then the tree and there was no functioning papacy and in fact the papacy develops over time there are steps sometimes big steps sometimes little steps but it is an evolutionary process over time and it is simply beyond question that the early church did not function on the basis of the idea that the bishop of Rome was the infallible head of the church there's isn't a question about that so to say in accordance with the ancient and constant faith

Universal Church I guess the only way you can say that is well we mean the Universal Church only as it was in Rome and we know all the

Roman prelates believe that well except do the fact that there's really good evidence that there wasn't a single

Roman bishop in Rome until about 140 ad that's a problem but this is

Rome's claims for itself I continue with the words of Vatican Council we therefore teach and declare that according to testimony the gospel the primacy of jurisdiction over the

Universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord for it was to Simon alone to whom he had already said thou shall be called

Cephas that the Lord after the confession made by him saying that the Christ the son of living God address these solemn words blessed art thou

Simon bar Jonah because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee but my father who is in heaven and I say to thee that thou art

Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give to thee the keys the kingdom of heaven and whatever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven whatever thou shalt loosen earth it shall be loosed also in heaven and it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestow the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in these words feed my lambs feed my sheep now by the way you'll search for a long time and find it first only in Rome and then only later anyone that reads into those words any kind of rulership over the entirety of the church at open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture so so you have

Matthew 16 and we could go through the early church's understanding of this and find that the current

Roman understanding of it is a minority view even I've heard Tim Staples year ago saying every single church father believed as modern

Rome teaches and he was it's just lying but anyway at open variance this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the

Catholic Church that is at its very best wishful thinking at its very best and at its worst its deceptive falsehood are the perverse opinions of our separated brethren no it doesn't say that that comes later are the perverse opinions of those who while they distort the form of government established by Christ the

Lord in his church and by the way where would we actually find that that would be in the New Testament that doesn't even have priests in it remember oh yeah deny that Peter in his single person preferably to all the other apostles whether taken separately or together was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed

Peter himself but upon the church and through the church on Peter as her minister if anyone therefore shall say that blessed

Peter the Apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the church militant or the same directly or immediately receive from the same our

Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true improper jurisdiction let him be anathema so much for those who say the anathemas were just for the

Council Trent this comes a good bit after that particular point of time

Vatican Council 1870 they still used the anathema and I do deny all those things and gladly accept the anathemas of a false church but we note that there is no discussion and what we just read of the fact that in Matthew chapter 16

Jesus says to Peter and he does use the singular he uses sue not the

Peters name was sue that's what I was just expecting very to say something about that because that's just just how he would that's how he would think about but he does use the singular soy actually in Matthew 16 19 that would have been easier dosos soy

I will give to you yep that's that's that's the Peter he doesn't use a plural pronoun there but dosos future dosos future not

I am giving I will give and so I asked all of my

Roman Catholic friends and I asked those who are preparing to swim the

Tiber or might be halfway across and maybe have stopped to go I really know what

I'm doing here when did Jesus do this now

Roman Catholics have come up with various answers to this but there's one problem with the answers you would think if this is this this absolutely vital passage

I mean it's in gold around the rotunda of the Vatican it's just all it's just I will give to you it's it's future when did

Jesus do it if you say it's not in Matthew then what you're saying is Matthew did not understand this to be what you think it was because you can't have a promise

I'm gonna give you Peter alone the keys the kingdom I'm establishing my entire church on you

Peter not these other guys on you now if the apostles had thought that that's what

Jesus was saying why were they arguing about who would be greatest later on at the time of the crucifixion why when they're after Last Supper are they walking along asking who's gonna be the greatest because Jesus had already said well it's gonna be

Peter we build my church on him and I separated out from you guys so this is isn't that what

Jesus said to him no it wasn't if this is what Rome says it is then somewhere in the

Gospel of Matthew there's the fulfillment of this but there's a problem there is only one place one place in all of the

Gospel of Matthew where there could be anything even close to a fulfillment of this only one and it's actually found in Matthew chapter 18 and in verse 18 it says truly

I say to you whatever you buy an inertia about in heaven whatever you loose under shall be loosened have he's talking to the apostles in regards to the church and the church taking action against someone who will not receive the teaching of the church the problem is now it's plural and clearly

Matthew 1818 is a reception of the power of binding and loosing and how do you bind how do you open and close something with keys with keys this is the only place in the

Gospel where this could be fulfilled and was it Peter alone no Peter isn't even mentioned so for some reason the

Roman church didn't bother to explain that part that that future thing but let me lay out let me let me summarize here is my time's running out but let me summarize here their own position and let me let me lay out exactly what

Rome has to prove for the papacy to be true the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is placed in a position of primacy by the

Lord Jesus himself this primacy is one of honor jurisdiction and rulership this primacy given to Peter's presented according to dogmatic teachings the

Church of Rome in Matthew 16 18 through 19 and John 21 15 through 17 Roman teaching

Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 that Christ and conferring a primacy upon Peter intends this to be understood to apply to Peter's successors as well and that hence

Christ is in this passage instilling the office of the Pope the Christian Church Rome further teaches that when

Christ spoke to Peter and said feed my sheep he was by so doing setting Peter apart as the pastor of all Christians in a way different from all other apostles

Peter is said to have been the Bishop of Rome because of this is supposed primacy is passed on to his successors the bishops of Rome the form the church includes the papacy is said to have been instituted by Christ himself that is it is not merely the result of long centuries of evolution but is instead the form of government actually instituted by Christ and finally this viewpoint with has supposedly been the ancient constant faith the

Christian Church supposedly church has always believed this to be true anyone who would express a different perspective is holding a perverse opinion and are in fact anathema and if you're if you're haven't heard

Roman Catholics especially those are fond of Newman and it will use the development hypothesis you haven't heard them actually saying it that way let me point you to the words of status cognitive cognitum from June 1896 which says wherefore in the decree of the

Vatican Council which I just read to you as the nature and authority the primacy of the Roman pontiff no newly conceived opinion is set forth but the venerable and constant belief of every age so much for Newman's development hypothesis but here is what the

Roman Catholic has to prove to be true for the papacy to be true number one and this is not exhaustive but I'll just give you five because there's five points

Calvinism so I'll give you five points to what the papacy has to prove how's that Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew 16 and is in so doing identifying him and him alone as the rock upon which the church is built that has to be without question the fact that that's a minority view of the interpretation of the early church should mean something number two that the words

Lord Jesus speaks established Peter as the prince of the Apostles the very first pope the head of the

Christian church that is a huge leap number three that these words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an office of Pope replete with successors and the associated powers this is one of the hardest leaps for Rome to make because there is nothing in the words of either of those text that even begins to hint at the massive creation of the papacy that would take so many hundreds of years before it came into full flower number four that these successors are only the bishops of Rome not the bishops of any other city that's really important because Roman Catholics love to quote text about the

Cathedral Petri the chair of Peter the problem is that people like Cyprian said he sat on the

Cathedral Petri but Cyprian wasn't the Bishop of Rome he was a bishop of Carthage he clearly taught that every bishop sits upon the

Cathedral Petri oh there you go number four that these successors are only the bishops of Rome not the bishops of any other city and finally number five that the

Christian church has always held this to be her constant and unchanging faith because that's what

Vatican one said that's what Sotus Cognitum said and I know the

Roman Catholics have never read either one but we're talking about something important here we're actually talking about the dogmatic teachings of the church now you need to throw in there you also have to establish that Peter actually was the

Bishop of Rome that he actually went there and I know tradition says he went there but there are other parts of tradition that says things do and if he was there when

Paul was there then Paul said everyone abandoned him does that mean Peter abandoned him or did

Peter come later except most people to say Peter is probably dead by the time Paul said that but anyway now you see for the papacy to be the foundation for the certainty of Roman Catholicism then you cannot present probabilistic arguments for each one of these you can't go well you know it's possible you know you know we recognize that our current understanding of Matthew 16 is actually the minority view of the early church but it's possible that that that's the case and then the next argument well it's it's possible that that it means that and the next argument well it's possible let's say it's 50 % each time if you've got five steps what are you left with 50 % times 50 % times 50 % times 50 % times 50 % that's the level certainty you have their own papacy when

I talk to someone who's looking at Rome and I I point out excuse me how can you believe that the bodily assumption of Mary is a dogmatic day feed a belief that that is a part of the gospel how you know the apostles didn't teach that you know the early church didn't teach that and they go well hey if Peter's the

Pope and there's still a Pope today I'm gonna skip all the historical stuff and I know the pornography and the

Avignon papacy and I know you really can't trace it back directly but but you know it's a spiritual thing and so if Peter's still there then

I guess I have to believe that that would mean you have to have absolute certainty and yet the papacy is an argument based upon numerous sub arguments that all must hold together to be true and every one of those five steps

I can dispute and dispute successfully everyone so there's something to think about as we talk about these particular subjects haven't talked about a lot of Rome Catholicism for a long time least on that level reading dogmatic constitutions and things like that but that's why you listen to the dividing line is because we talk about a lot of things all in one program in fact and that's what we'll do

Lord willing next Tuesday as well we'll see you then God bless standing at the crossroads let this momentous flow away we must contend for the faith above us fought for we need a new

Reformation day it's a sign of the times the truth is being trampled into its paradigms won't you lift up your voice are you tired of plain religion it's time to make some noise pound on Wittenberg pound on Wittenberg pound on Wittenberg stand up for the truth won't you live for the

Lord cause we're pounding pounding on Wittenberg The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org

that's A -O -M -I -N .O -R -G where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks join us again next