C. Michael Patton

10 views

July 12, 2007

Today’s DL is an 80-minute version. For the first 45 minutes I replied to this article by C. Michael Patton, focusing upon the key issues of the perspecuity of Scripture, true and false gospels, theology and apologetic methodologies. The last thirty five minutes Mr. Patton and I discussed the issues together. A very important discussion that I hope will be useful to our listeners.

Comments are disabled.

00:12: Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line
00:19: 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
00:27: Our host is dr. James white director of alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed
00:33: Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.
00:38: White call now It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the
00:43: United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is
00:50: James white And welcome to the dividing line today as we have announced on the blog today
00:57: We are going to be continuing the discussion. We began on Tuesday in reference to well a host of issues all centering around apologetic
01:06: Apologetic methodology, but not just so much apologetic methodology because I honestly believe that what we're actually discussing is
01:13: Much more important than just a method methodological issue Instead I I really think what we're discussing is has
01:21: God Revealed his truth with sufficient clarity for it to be known defined and Defended even in a postmodern context where people do not like absolute truth claims and About halfway through the program
01:39: We will be joined by one of the two gentlemen that we have been discussing
01:44: We were discussing on the last program see Michael Patton will be calling in and joining Me at that time.
01:51: We'll be able to discuss these things I would imagine he would be listening now because I'm going to be responding to his response to me
01:58: He responded to the last dividing line on his blog the parchment and pen
02:04: Theology blog And so I have flagged various statements in that I'm going to have to rush a little bit to make sure we have enough time
02:14: We are going long this evening if you are a regular listener. We know you know we normally go an hour
02:20: We're going to go to 20 minutes past So 80 minutes on the program this evening so get a deep seat in the saddle, and let's let's get to it
02:31: I actually want to skip down Toward the end of the response because I believe this truly is the fundamental difference that exists
02:40: Between myself and I should mention that the reason that I have taken the time
02:45: It's not that I didn't have other things to be doing at this point in time and I'm certain that's the the case with everyone involved, but If what is being said is true if we need to have some of some level of epistemic humility in Regards to the very core issues of the gospel if we cannot for example identify the difference between the gospel of grace and the gospel of Roman Catholicism and say
03:13: That these are separate Gospels that they are not the same thing if if if the scriptures are not sufficient to define those things for us then basically everything
03:23: I have ever done in my ministry is irrelevant and completely worthless Because everything we have done has been based upon The idea that God has revealed his truth that we are called not only to a proclamation of it
03:37: But to show discernment in regards to it that on a pastoral level we are called to exhort in sound doctrine all of these things assume
03:45: That sound doctrine exists that we can know what it is that we can tell the difference between truth and error if that's not the case
03:53: Then everything that I have done in my life and and I would suggest a large number of people we go back in history
03:59: Was a grand mistake. In fact, I would say that the entire Reformation was a grand mistake
04:05: If in point of fact, we cannot know That the Roman Catholic gospel is a false gospel that the denial of sola scriptura is is is an error if we can't know these things then
04:19: Really I would say all is lost. We we don't have a message for the world We we have an opinion for the world, but we do not have an authoritative proclamation for the world.
04:29: So These things are very very important. I think this comes out in the a comment from mr
04:35: Patton where he says we live in a postmodern world where people are suspicious of all absolute truth claims I just don't think polemics and claims to absolute certainty about these issues is the way to go about it
04:48: And so it is said a number of times in mr. Patton's article blog entry
04:54: That this is just a difference tree. This is not so much that we believe different things, but it's a methodological difference well
04:59: I would like to submit that the reason we have a method Methodological difference is it goes down to the foundational things about what we actually believe especially in regards to the perspicuity of scripture the unity of scripture and the ability of scripture to communicate a a singular truth a transcendent transcendental true the truth that is that is true in all contexts and in all in all places and so if we
05:25: Are not to proclaim absolute certainty about these issues. Are we to proclaim? uncertainty about the gospel
05:33: How do you do that? How do you go about that in any context whether it's in the pulpit? I as an elder in a church.
05:39: I preach I preached last Sunday. I'll probably be preaching this Sunday I preached last night and What am
05:45: I supposed to am I supposed to say? Well? When it comes to the key issues the gospel when it comes to who
05:50: God is who Christ is what what God has done in? Christ the the entire self glorification of the
05:56: Trinity in the gospel Here are the various opinions Is that what the proclamation is that what the
06:04: Apostles did I would suggest you that it is not Even Even in Mars Hill and and and folks like to go to Mars Hill and say see you know
06:13: Paul didn't you know look look at Paul does there he tries to use you know the language of individuals and things like that in the context they're in to to do these things and and So Even at Mars Hill.
06:28: He doesn't do this this you know strong proclamation something and I would disagree even though he refers to The unknown
06:37: God Utilizing example like that that he is not doing the bridge one plank at a time thing
06:44: He is not standing on Mars Hill saying you know what I'd like to get you to be a little bit less
06:49: Idolatrous than you are This is gonna come out in other things. This is a definite disagreement between us
06:55: I do believe that there needs to be a radical Denial of idolatry and a turning from idolatry and embracing
07:02: Christ for regeneration I do not believe that it is our role to seek to make idolatrous a little bit less
07:10: Idolatrous per generation till they finally get close enough to maybe be in the kingdom. I see no evidence
07:16: That's how the Apostles functioned That's certainly not how Paul functioned on Mars Hill because you will notice what he says in Acts 17 29 being then
07:24: God's offspring we ought not to think the divine being is like gold or silver or stone an image formed by the art and imagination of man the times of ignorance
07:32: It sounds very polemic to me God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent commands
07:39: That's pretty much polemic as well because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in Righteousness by a man whom he has appointed and of this he has given
07:51: Assurance to all by raising him from the dead now. I'm gonna try to keep from preaching today But not only is that polemical it is presenting?
08:00: Absolute certainty he does not say that I think that it's a good possibility that God may have fixed a day on which he will judge the world and I hope it will be in righteousness by a man whom
08:15: He is appointed and of this he has given a really good level of assurance. Maybe if you're willing to think about it
08:22: To all or to most all by raising him from the dead. That's not Paul's proclamation
08:28: This is very cut -and -dry. It's very absolute and it's very certain Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead some mocked now
08:36: Paul knew that they would mock Paul knew their beliefs he knew their worldview and he knew that they would mock but he still presented that which they would mock about and He did so because it is central to the gospel itself
08:50: But others said we will hear you again about this So Paul went out from their midst but some men joined him some men joined him and believed some
08:58: Among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them the point being as X 13 told us already as many as were appointed to eternal life believed it is a proclamation of the gospel and the work of the
09:11: Holy Spirit that brings people to faith in Christ and Paul recognized that and he does so in X 17 may
09:19: I point out that suspicion of absolute truth claims is morally sinful
09:25: We are created in the image of God we are created to hear our Creator's voice and Post -modernism is a sinful worldview.
09:34: It is not morally neutral. It is sinful It is sinful for man to question the existence of his
09:40: Creator The that which is formed when it questions the existence of the one who formed it
09:47: That is not a morally neutral thing. It is a sinful thing it is an example of the rebellion of the heart of man and to therefore give in to man's demands and To adopt a methodology that isn't has no foundation and no warrant in inspired scripture is to in essence
10:08: Demonstrate a lack of faith in the Spirit of God who uses the proclamation of the word which the
10:15: Apostle Paul said would be foolishness More than us To the
10:21: Greeks a stumbling block to the Jews. He knows Paul knows that the world is going to find the proclamation of the cross to be foolishness and yet He recognizes this is the means that God has ordained because in God's wisdom
10:37: The world through its wisdom will not come to know him God has not deemed it proper to use the
10:44: Philosophies and wisdom of man to be the means by which he draws his people unto himself It is a proclamation of a message that the world finds offensive
10:54: And if you don't trust the Spirit of God to utilize that message, well, then you're going to look for something else
11:00: And we live in a society that under the wrath of God does not value truth now
11:07: Our society does not live consistently with itself at that point But that's part of the very judgment of God that the darkening of the heart of man.
11:16: We are not called to alter the message in Such a way as to as to compromise with the world now, don't get me wrong
11:27: Paul utilized for example the language that people would understand in his proclamation to other people.
11:33: That's fine but there's a vast difference between that and Compromise on the fact that God has revealed the truth of the gospel and it abides with us
11:47: And if you compromise on that I suggest you you really do not have anything else to to say to anyone
11:54: This comes out in the second thing that I want to address. This is in one of the comments Micah Burke had commented on the on the thread and Had raised the issue of the fundamental errors of the
12:11: Roman Catholic gospel For example the Marian dogmas and their belief in her centrality
12:19: In for example as the the only conduit through which grace comes to men he mentioned the mass where Christ is sacrificed again, or obviously the term they use is the
12:31: Representation of the one sacrifice of Christ, which does not perfect anyone he raised the issues of the gospel and Mr.
12:39: Patton's response was quote. I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive to the saving grace the gospel
12:45: I totally disagree with these doctrines, but at the same time I am not trying to say that we are the same
12:50: I have just made the statements that on many things we are closer than we thought even so close as some inter
12:55: Protestant denominations Well, I I don't believe that to be the case at all And when it says then we thought
13:04: I'm not sure what that means, but most importantly I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive the saving grace the gospel if we can't look at what
13:14: Rome has added to the gospel and Subtracted from the gospel and say that's a false gospel.
13:20: Then there is no such thing as a false gospel Galatians 1 becomes irrelevant
13:25: We cannot tell the difference between a heteros you on Galeon and an alas you on Galeon all of that becomes stuff that well
13:32: It sure would be nice to live in a day when there were Apostles Because then we could make heads or tails of that But since we don't have
13:39: Apostles today, we don't know what another gospel is We can't tell because if you can turn the once -for -all sacrifice of Christ on its head and turned into something that is
13:52: Represented over and over again. It never perfects anyone you can approach it ten thousand times twenty thousand times in your life and still
14:00: Die -impure and in fact still go to hell having done so all those times if you can can add in the the sacerdotal priesthood and penances and Purgatory and indulgences and sada spacio and all these things if you can you can throw all of that stuff in there throw
14:19: Justification by faith by by grace alone through faith alone out and still call it the gospel, then
14:26: I can't possibly imagine where you can come up with a false gospel and Does it follow that the
14:33: Judaizers had done more than that? There's there's no way to establish. It's on an exegetical basis.
14:40: It's just not possible. So if If it is at all possible To look at the
14:47: Roman Catholic gospel say well, you know I don't know if those are necessarily destructive to saving grace the gospel then
14:52: I would like to know what is a false gospel The what what could possibly be a false gospel in this context?
14:59: I don't think you can identify one Given that kind of that kind of a statement.
15:05: So I go back to the beginning of The response that was given having laid that rather important foundation
15:13: And Mr. Patton says I think where we part ways is referring to me.
15:19: I think where he part ways is in methodology We are reclaiming in my ministries see more value in an erratic peaceful approach to theology and his is more of a polemic
15:29: Confrontational approach now, I wouldn't say theology. I'd say apologetics because obviously You know,
15:35: I teach Doctrine and theology all the time and I it doesn't have to be confrontational
15:42: Confrontation assumes apologetics. So I would say an ironic peaceful approach to Apologetics.
15:48: Well apologetics is of course a defense the faith. There is a battle going on. There is a Confrontation, so I'm not sure how you can have a confrontation without a confrontation
15:58: Maybe it's an ironic confrontation or a peaceful confrontation or something along those lines Now obviously anyone who has watched my debates with Mitchell Paquin knows that you can 100 % disagree with someone on issue and you can do so respectfully but without compromising on The fundamental statement that either you're right or I'm right
16:20: But we both can't be right and I think that really comes down to the issue here is At least
16:25: Mitch Pacquin. I both agree that we both can't be right It almost sounds like this perspective is saying well, maybe we are
16:33: Maybe we've maybe are in history our forefathers Just thought that the revelation of God was a whole lot clearer than it really is and we just don't know
16:43: We can't know for certainty on these topics. Maybe maybe that's where it's going.
16:48: I don't know It says as I said in my blog advice to Christian apologists last night. There is a definite place for polemics
16:54: I appreciate James's passion. Even if I disagree the method has been that methodology. We are both apologists We just part ways when it comes to our methodology is is is
17:05: Believing that the scriptures are clear enough to define Rome as a false art. Is that a method all methodological issue or Is that a theological issue?
17:15: I think it's theological issue that gives rise to a different methodology That that's that's what
17:20: I think it is to me. Anyways at that particular point going on James said at one point that we were parting ways with historic conservative
17:29: Protestant evangelicalism I disagree what I had said was they are parting ways with historic
17:35: Protestant evangelicalism's view of Roman Catholicism and the issues that separate us and I stand by that statement
17:43: This has not been the historic way that evangelicals have viewed Roman Catholicism and the issues of the gospel and the very emphasis on the term evangelical in regards to the gospel is
17:54: Evidence thereof but I don't think we need to go back in history To demonstrate that preceding generations did not adopt this idea that well, you know, maybe
18:04: Rome's changing and and You know We should take the individual opinions of liberal
18:10: Catholics as being more representative than the dogmatic statements of the actual Roman Catholic Church That's not what evangelical
18:16: Protestants have done in the past He says I disagree. Look at our theology go through the courses in the theology program
18:23: You'll see that this is far from the truth Myself and Dan as well referring to Dan Wallace are both evangelical
18:28: Calvinistic Protestants. I'm not ashamed of this title I don't think Dan is either simply because we are not as anti Catholic as James is and he has
18:35: Apologized for the use of the term anti Catholic and don't interpret Catholicism the way he does does not mean that we are leaving our evangelical heritage in any way and at this point once again,
18:44: I Would point out it's not a matter of how I interpret it or they interpret it it's a matter of how
18:50: Rome interprets it and The very fact that that right after I did the program last time
18:56: I get all these emails Where people are linking to the statement that came from the
19:02: Vatican and really it actually came from The the same office that Ratzinger had been ahead of which is the modern incarnation of something called the
19:10: Inquisition That this this document comes out and what does it do it just reaffirms
19:18: Everything that had been said before I believe that you interpret Roman Catholic dogmatic statements in the light of the
19:27: Intentions of their original authors just as I interpret the Bible and I interpret the Constitution and stuff like that and so when we look at the
19:36: Council of Florence you go to the context of the Council of Florence and you go to the People who wrote it and how did they apply it and how did
19:42: Rome interpret it over the years? When you look at Trent you go to there's a whole there's a whole
19:48: Catechism that was produced after the Council of Trent meaning that it was meant to communicate to the
19:55: Catholic people This is what the council was all about you go to things like that You don't go to a liberal
20:00: Catholic in the 21st century Who is applying postmodern categories the
20:05: Council of Trent go? Ah, well, there it is No, that's irrational that words have meaning they have to be interpreted in the context in which they're originally written
20:14: And so that's how I interpret it and and you know, one of the things have been said is well, there's a
20:24: There's a we need to be humble in this idea of knowing what the truth is knowing what
20:30: Rome's teaching or knowing what? the Bible says a pastor sent me a Quote interestingly enough from Roman Catholic GK Chesterton Well, he said something very truthful here and I want to make sure to get it in here before I move on to something else
20:46: GK Chesterton said something. I think it's very relevant this he says what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place
20:54: Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition modesty is settled upon the organ of conviction where it was never meant to be a
21:01: Man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but in doubting about the truth This has been exactly reversed nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part
21:11: He ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part He ought not to doubt the divine reason we are on the road to producing a race of men too
21:20: Mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table and he's exactly right That's right on the nose now
21:27: There's a Catholic I can debate because he's gonna believe that what he believes is true I believe that what
21:32: I believe is true. And so we can actually come to the table and Discern where the differences are and debate them.
21:39: I can't debate somebody who doesn't believe that you can know the truth If the truth is is unknowable.
21:46: It's just this vague. It's experiential or whatever else it might be Then we really can't have a debate.
21:53: Anyways, I'll be perfectly honest with you In reference to the papal statement
22:00: Mr. Patton said this perceived disagreement and change the Catholic Church is the exact reason why the
22:06: Pope felt it necessary to sign this document yesterday Yes, that's right. There are lots of liberals in the Catholic Church, too
22:11: He is more hardline than John Paul II wasn't demonstrated this yesterday now. I'm sorry
22:17: Brother Patton you you just you don't know Roman Catholicism very well to state that Because if you've read
22:25: Unum since if you've read a Dominus Jesus both Promulgated during the time of John Paul the second pontificate then, you know, there was nothing in the statement that came out
22:35: From the Vatican actually two days ago now That in any way shape or form goes beyond or was not contained in the encyclicals of John Paul the second
22:46: And so it is not true that he is more of a hardliner than John Paul On these things because all the document was addressing was the very
22:55: Definitional nature of the church Rome hasn't changed her view on that. Yes, there are all sorts of liberal
23:01: Catholics running around the West Who will come up with other viewpoints? But that's not what defines the teachings the dogmatic teachings the
23:09: Roman Catholic Church And if anyone was surprised or shocked what the Pope did all
23:14: I can say is well you're living on cloud nine You are living you are trying to project an image of what you want
23:22: Rome to be that doesn't really have a whole lot of connection to what Rome actually is and If you were to engage
23:29: Roman believing Roman Catholics who actually believe that Rome is true Then you would recognize that In in the context now, he likewise says but James must recognize that Semper Reformanda does allow us to advance advance in what?
23:45: Certainly it allows us to advance to advance Semper Reformanda means always reforming reforming in light of what the
23:53: Word of God So we are always to be taking our traditions and examining them in the light of the
23:59: Word of God We don't just simply take the previous generations and say ah so is this an assertion that ah those preceding generations were wrong
24:08: If it is then it becomes incumbent upon Mr. Patton and others to demonstrate that they were wrong and that for example their interpretation of Rome, which is my interpretation of Rome Does not match up with Rome.
24:20: Well, how are you gonna do that? If if there is no official Roman Catholic teaching if the dogmatic
24:26: Canons and decrees the Council of Trent Vatican one Vatican two if that stuff is is actually irrelevant
24:33: Then there's no way that we can even begin to say well This is Roman Catholicism and this isn't you there's no way to know one way or the other
24:43: And so advance in what? Is it an advance to have a view of the
24:48: Word of God that it's not as clear as we thought it was that it's Not as perspicuous as we thought it was it's not as consistent with itself as we thought it was
24:54: I don't consider that an advancement personally if that's what the advancement is But I I don't you know
25:02: It goes on to say as hard as it is to admit the Reformers are not infallible Magisterial authority who said that they were who has even acted as if they are
25:10: I certainly haven't Where have I said anything or done anything that would suggest anything even along those lines?
25:16: They did encourage us to continue to progress Yes in ever deeper knowledge of the
25:21: Word of God, which would not mean Compromising on the very essentials the gospel
25:29: In fact, it would it would mean that we would progress in ever greater recognition of what the gospel is
25:34: Not a regression to where well the gospel is just this really really really small core that can have a huge massive
25:45: You know Amount of variation so that you can have the Orthodox over here and Rome over here and us over here and you've got all this
25:53: Pluriform Interpretation, but it's all just the same gospel. Anyways, I don't consider that progress.
25:58: I would consider that a regression at that point I just don't think we should get upset when progress might possibly be taking place isn't progression what we want
26:07: Do we really have to have the Pope stand on his balcony and say he was wrong as James suggested?
26:14: I I'm just not sure about this Well, what I had said was that we need to recognize the organic unity that exists in Roman Catholic theology history ecclesiology
26:26: Between her overarching claims to be the one true Church again pointed out by the
26:32: Pope and her infallibility as a church and the infallibility of the
26:38: Bishop of Rome They go together the denial of sola scriptura the assertion of the authority of tradition in its myriads of different forms
26:46: We have to recognize the the connection between that and the teachings that mr
26:51: Patton says I completely disagree with these things. The problem is from Roman perspective. You don't have the right to You don't have the right to disagree with these things you are disagreeing with the infallible
27:02: Church you're disagreeing with God himself and So when
27:08: I talk about the Pope standing on his balcony saying he was wrong. What I'm saying is for there to be progression
27:15: Rome has to admit that she can be reformed But when you're infallible, you can't be reformed
27:25: Reformation is impossible on matters of infallibly defined dogma
27:32: So for there to be quote -unquote progression with Rome yes there the first step has to be the recognition that Rome has infallibly defined false teachings and And therefore to repent of false teachings must first and foremost begin with Repentance of the claim of infallibility
28:01: So, yeah How else can you start I would like I'll ask you know,
28:06: I'm I'm certain that The mr. Patton's listening. How could there be progress as long as Rome claims be infallible if she's infallible, how can she move?
28:17: The only movement has to be from whose part ours Toward what toward mother church and that's what the ecumenical movement has been about from the beginning
28:27: That's what it's been about from the beginning at least from Rome's perspective So, I don't know how that that really can be can be argued
28:37: Then quote I think change is the goal Not a proclamation of defeat from an enemy, but this is the difference in our emphasis
28:45: How can an infallible church change Without first admitting that she's not infallible in the first place
28:56: How does how does that work I'm just asking for a Straightforward practical answer. How does that work?
29:02: What what how can that how can that be? That's that's what I understand then here's very something very very very important and I'll try to make this last thing and We'll try to work toward having a dialogue here when we get mr.
29:16: Patton on the line number two James justifies his approach to apologetics By referencing
29:22: Paul's polemical approach primarily see in the book of Galatians. Well sort of In regards to identifying false
29:30: Gospels as false Gospels that are not another gospel the same kind But are another gospel of a different kind Yes Galatians is very important there because there's a whole bunch of discussion of it
29:41: And you can't interpret Galatians without recognizing that there can be something as that is a false gospel
29:47: Proclaimed by false brethren who claim to be believers Who claim to follow
29:52: Christ and yet according to Galatians chapter 5 Christ will be of no benefit to them
30:01: Now why would Paul say that if they were not already claiming that Christ was of benefit to them and they were
30:07: But Paul says Christ will be of no benefit to you So in regards to Gospels and things like that, you better believe it
30:13: Glacier is important But so is Colossians all the pastoral epistles refer to exhortation in sound doctrine
30:21: Acts demonstrates us the entire Johannine corpus is constantly warning us against docetism protanosticism
30:31: All of them present my quote -unquote polemical Approach so It's not just Galatians now
30:41: Mr. Patton says I believe this is a somewhat This is a somewhat misunderstanding on how we were to use Paul as our example for three primary reasons.
30:48: This is important Here's the three reasons Paul was an apostle who carried the authority of an apostle This included infallibility in certain areas both of these you and I don't have
30:56: Therefore we cannot approach these issues with the degree of certainty that Paul had Even if we can have a high degree of certainty about certain passages and theological issues
31:05: This does not mean that we are infallible and authoritative as an apostle Now, I think that's probably the most important one.
31:11: I'll address all three of them. It does not require infallibility To apply the message of the
31:17: Word of God. That's what's infallible. Not us. First of all, this is the key issue If the
31:22: Apostles have not communicated the gospel to us So that we can follow their example in defining it and defending it
31:29: Then how is it that the truth of the gospel abides with us in the first place Galatians 2 5 and how then
31:39: Did Peter? Violate his own alleged infallibility in Galatians 2 14.
31:44: So Paul had to rebuke him If this infallibility is just sort of an apostolic thing Paul Pointed out that Peter and Barnabas were not walking in accordance with the truth of the gospel
31:57: How did that happen How can we ep agonize am
32:04: I how can we contend? Vigorously for the faith once for all delivered to the Saints if in fact we need
32:09: Apostles to know That faith was sufficient certainty to define it over against error
32:16: We can't Let me repeat that how can we contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered the
32:23: Saints that's Jude If in fact we need Apostles to know it was sufficient certainty to define it over against error
32:32: How could Paul exhort Timothy to watch his doctrine and maintain a healthy doctrine if this was in fact beyond Timothy's capacity after?
32:40: Paul was gone how does this thinking not lead to the very concept of apostolic succession seen in Rome and Eventually to the overthrow of the ability of scripture to function as a sole infallible rule of faith of the church
32:55: Folks that argument number one under mr. Patton's presentation that argument is the same argument
33:01: I have refuted from Roman Catholic apologists since August of 1990 It's the same argument.
33:08: I don't think mr. Patton's aware of that I Don't think he's read many
33:13: Roman Catholic works on this subject, but it's the same argument Just coming from a non
33:19: Roman Catholic Number two Paul did not always handle things polemically in other words
33:26: I would not make his descriptive encounters prescriptive with the way that with the way we should go about our apologetics especially since he gives us prescriptive advice that should set our attitude and tone now
33:36: I Don't even begin to understand how anyone can understand that that I say you should always do things polemically
33:43: I've I don't understand that Obviously, I don't my books don't do that I I don't understand it, but then he quotes from Colossians chapter 4 about devoting yourselves to prayer conduct yourself with wisdom toward outsiders
34:00: Let your speech always be with grace this isn't an argument about whether your speech should be with grace
34:06: Unless someone is saying that you cannot state the truth in a certain fashion and do so graciously
34:14: I would argue that The most gracious thing you can do for someone who's been given a false gospel is to warn them about their soul's danger
34:24: That takes grace to do that. I Think there we're in danger of redefining speaking with grace as if somehow what
34:32: Paul did to the Galatians isn't speaking graciously But if you allow
34:39: For the inspiration of Scripture then that would define for you what speaking graciously actually is So he says notice the purpose
34:48: Have a number of texts. I was gonna go to and I was could go through a number of texts about doctrine and exhortations of that just just read first second
34:55: Timothy in Titus and I think you'll see Exactly exactly what I mean there Notice he says quote notice a purpose clause so that if you do not speak with grace
35:08: Paul seems to suggest that you are not qualified to know how to respond to each situation. I hope that mr. Patton is not suggesting
35:15: That to follow the apostolic example and identify a false gospel as a false gospel is not speaking with grace
35:21: If it's a false gospel, then it is to speak ungraciously not to identify it truthfully Yes, I Continue on as a quotation
35:30: Grace gives us clarity of mind It is not unlike Christ's admonishment to remove the log from our own eyes so that we will be able to see clearly enough to Correct another the basic idea here is that without grace we cannot understand the issues
35:41: Emotions will rule and harsh polemics will be counterproductive. I don't think this has anything to do with my position.
35:46: I am NOT saying that you should Be polemical for the sake of being a polemical.
35:53: I Am NOT saying that you should be ungracious That has nothing to do with whether you actually believe that the scriptures have revealed the gospel with enough clarity
36:02: To be able to define a true gospel against the false gospel or that it is if someone's saying it's ungracious to identify a false
36:09: Gospel, then that's where we would most definitely disagree with one another finally number three
36:16: Remember, this is all under why Paul's example and Galatians shouldn't be an example for us number three
36:22: We also must recognize this when Paul was polemical from what I can tell it was to those who were under his authority
36:28: In other words, it was pastoral He did so with the Galatian and Galatian and Corinthians I imagine it's the
36:34: Galatians and the Corinthians precisely because he had expressed authority as their leader Well, let me just stop right there.
36:40: He was an apostle. So therefore Everybody all Christians read his authority
36:46: And again, which I guess lead to the necessity of having apostles today to be able to address in a polemical fashion
36:53: Any matter of the gospel at all you'd have to have apostles today, and I don't think that necessarily follows at all Most of the people with whom apologists engage are not under their authority
37:02: Therefore a better models how Paul handled the Athenians on Mars Hill in Acts 17 It was gracious understanding and intent on building bridges.
37:09: He could not approach them the same way he did the others Therefore we need to employ discernment tact. Well, I have already read from Acts chapter 17
37:18: Where this is not Paul was not trying to quote -unquote build bridges If he wanted to build bridges, he would not have finished his presentation in the way that he finished his presentation
37:30: He would not have presented them that which he knew would cause them a stumbling block and that which he knew would cause them to mock
37:37: He would not have presented to them. He would not have said to them the strong words that he said to them in regards to Saying we should not think that God is this he was not doing a one plank at a time
37:48: Bill a bridge -building experiment with the Athenians, that's that's a misreading of Acts chapter 17 and so I Would a assert that this kind of argument means we'd have to have apostles today.
38:03: There would have to be apostolic authority For most of the New Testament to make any sense if this is actually a proper reading of it
38:10: And secondly, it's an improper reading of Acts chapter 17 that there was there's nothing in Acts chapter 17 That would lead us to believe this is some sort of a bridge building one plank at a time
38:19: Move you a little bit closer away from idolatry to the truth type of a type of situation That's not what the
38:25: Apostle was doing Which leads me to the last section here and if mr. Patton would like to give us a call.
38:31: We'll be waiting for him Even now and get our conversation going Quote, I also believe that bridges can be built one plank at a time
38:39: James seems to suggest that it is all or nothing Either the bridge is immediately complete as one side concedes everything or nothing now
38:49: This has especially been part of the issue in my dialogue My not my dialogue, but my response to the dialogues that have taken place between evangelicals and Mormons the millet situation with Johnson and the stuff that took place in the
39:08: Salt Lake City Temple a Tabernacle, I'm sorry temple in in Salt Lake City, I Do not see any basis in the
39:18: New Testament for believing that the mechanism by which you
39:25: You proclaim the gospel is that you move people a little bit at a time one plank at a time
39:34: When Paul speaks the Galatians What terminology does he use?
39:41: He says you once worshipped those which were not God's These people had turned from their idolatry
39:50: There where's where's the the the one plank at a time people doesn't he ever write to them?
39:57: Where you have people who are still in the middle who are still sort of into idolatry But they're not quite as adulterous as they once were and then the next group or even a little bit farther along And where are they?
40:07: I I can't find them anywhere in the New Testament. It sounds to me
40:14: Like the New Testament calls for a radical radical change a repentance isn't that what repentance is
40:23: Repentance is not a slight turning away from it is a hundred and a degree turn from Sin to God from idolatry to the true
40:36: God is it not and so when you deal with Mormons You don't say well, you know,
40:42: I realize that you believe that there's literally an unlimited number of gods But Could could we cut that down to just a billion gods and Then to a million gods and then to a hundred gods and then finally down to one
41:00: God I'm sorry. I don't see the methodology. I know that there's all you know
41:05: I know there's entire books written and you can take missiology classes and all the rest that stuff.
41:12: I Don't see it. I Don't see that as having apostolic warrant and if someone like to say there is
41:20: I'd like to see it in the text I honestly would like to see the exegetical foundation
41:29: Presented I really would but I don't see it. So In regards to Roman Catholicism Some I say well, it's completely different than Mormonism a lot a lot of folks get really upset when you draw the the
41:43: Mormon connection there Well, but this is a completely different doctrine of God.
41:49: Okay. All right completely different doctrine of God Both have external authorities outside the scriptures both reject sola scriptura
41:57: I think there's more parallels there, you know priesthoods and things like that and you want to admit but okay fine The Roman Catholic Church has the right doctrine of God.
42:08: So what exactly does that mean in regards to the gospel? Well, you can you can move people a little bit, you know, get them a little bit clear and they'll try to say well
42:17: You know, there's Protestant groups got some problems the gospel too And the whole idea is to say, you know what?
42:22: there's just so much confusion on the gospel that can anybody really say and if you do say that you that you are
42:32: Clear on these things then you're just not being humble You're being arrogant Well, are you really was was
42:41: Paul being arrogant when he said the things that he said Is that is that really how we have to take this?
42:51: when we talk about bridge building yeah, I am talking about a I'm dealing with a system here
43:01: That has made infallible claims that that's got to be understood.
43:07: That's got to be to be plugged in here. So When it says I have the bridge is immediately complete as one side concedes everything or nothing as well
43:15: I think the building needs to come from both sides Evangelicalism is not perfect and is not beyond correction and learning things from other from other traditions
43:23: We do have serious problems in our own ranks as well I just would not stand with a torch burning every plank that is laid one at a time.
43:29: Well, I Have to ask what planks are being laid? What can I learn?
43:35: From the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass What can I learn from purgatory?
43:43: What can I learn from a sacerdotal priesthood where priests claim to be an altar Christus another
43:48: Christ? What what what is there for me to I?
43:55: Don't understand that part and I've been asking folks, you know, what really is there to learn here?
44:02: from falsehood and That falsehood part is so it brings us back full circle to the well
44:09: I'm not really sure those things actually end up denying, you know, the graciousness of the gospel quote
44:15: I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive the saving grace the gospel and I would say I Don't know how to define the gospel in any way if that's the case.
44:25: I don't think we can say this is a true gospel This is a false gospel Anything else so there
44:30: I rushed it. I know I was speaking very quickly. I Apologize for that. There was some other things
44:35: I wanted to do, but we want to be able to have You know some give -and -take some discussion some some back and forth.
44:41: And as I said, we're going to be going long today We'll be going till 20 minutes after so that gives us about 35 minutes from now
44:50: To have conversation and so I am very thankful to have Michael Patton joining me on the line even now
44:59: Let me just ask a quick question. Were you able to listen to the webcast of this point?
45:05: Yeah, I was Just I missed the last maybe five minutes because my son came up here with all these
45:11: Batman toys that I bought him and I had to open him or he was going to be banging at my door all day I can I can understand that So you you end up on the
45:20: Batman side of the Superman vs. Batman great controversy, you know I'll tell you what that is a hard one
45:26: I am leaning in that direction, but I would not say that I have made the jump So there's there's actually some epistemological humility being exercised by you in regards to superhero
45:35: I am putting one plank at a time on the bed At one point at a time on the Superman side I Think that's actually a good application given the lack of perspicuity in the revelation concerning the supremacy of one over against the other but I would just say that there's a lack of people willing to concede
45:58: Okay, but I'm not sure there's a standard that will actually answer the question that's really where we're coming down to I think but Anyway now, you know,
46:08: I I have to admit I don't think you were looking to quite have a controversy erupt when when
46:15: Dan posted his 51 % Protestant article but you know when you when you throw a
46:22: Hand grenade into the middle of the theological blogosphere and it goes off.
46:28: Well, there's there's going to be results. So That's the nature of Dan. That's why we brought him on You know, he's uh, he's good at getting this stuff going and it's a lot of fun and he backs out whenever Well from what he said, he's a little bit too busy to be probably listening anyways or if he's doing so he's listening to on the archive, but All right.
46:52: So I've made my position very very clear. I think really honestly, you know, you've said this is a methodological issue
46:59: Do you want to stick with that or would you think that we do have some functional differences in regards to our view of the of the perspicuity of Scripture You know, here's the deal with me.
47:13: I think I approached this more from a I guess if you'd say what what's what? Do I focus on most and if you looked at my bookshelf and said what is it filled with?
47:22: It's filled with a lot of Prolegomena type stuff a lot of post -modernism a lot of emerging church a lot of that kind of stuff and mine has more to do with trying to figure out how it is that we are speaking and coming across than it is first on trying to articulate the doctrine because and the reason for this is because Sometimes I find that we are saying something so similar and then we're talking past each other and James I'm not sure if that's the case here.
47:49: I really am not but at the same time It's like, you know, I want to I want to try to be able to see whenever I talk to Eastern Orthodoxy people
47:57: There's so many assumptions that are broken down with me that I say gosh maybe we in our culture and the polemics and the battles that have rages have pushed each other into corners to where we're misrepresenting ourselves and the other people well, you know
48:12: Especially when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy I've explained many many times that a true Orthodox person thinks in category is completely unlike a
48:20: Westerner and therefore there's there's not much the way of communication it goes on there, but I would argue that that's because of a more fundamental and foundational presupposition both on their part and on our part and I if we're talking about Prolegomena and how we speak my argument would be that it is what you are saying that will determine
48:42: How you're going to say it? I've often used the illustration being a little bit of a
48:50: Buff of the war of northern aggression. I will keep my southern friends on my side for the moment
48:56: Being a bit of a buff of that if if you were to say to to Robert E Lee defend
49:03: His first question to you would be defend what? You can't get into issues of how you defend
49:11: Until you know what it is that you're defending in the same way the relationship between theology and apologetics
49:17: Has to be seen as you can't just go out and defend it is your theology that will determine
49:22: The mechanisms that you use to defend and in the same way the way that we speak is going to be dependent upon what we believe about whether all men are made in the image of God whether men are suppressing that truth of God what that means and Most especially what we believe the message is and so when you speak of ironic
49:44: Theology was I right to? You know you said here I quote you we are reclaiming the my ministry to see more value in an erratic peaceful approach with theology and his is more of a polemic confrontational approach well
49:56: Do you mean theology or apologetics? No, I mean both I think they're both going to be overlapping in this case
50:02: But here's what I would say and expand upon that with ironics a main thing We want to don't want to do and I'm not saying that all you do this
50:09: James I have listened to many of your debates, and I think you do very well, and I think it is lots of Lots of confidence can be gained on our side by listening to those things
50:21: And I have I've listened to especially your debate on the apocrypha And I think it was very well done the one with matics or matured it
50:28: You know I don't know it was two years ago on the way to San Antonio for Yes, I do all kinds of things on the way to ETS.
50:34: I guess okay But what I would say is it kind of It kind of goes both ways a little bit because sometimes whenever we are defending certain things
50:45: We begin to defend it so strongly that we begin to misrepresent the original intent of what we were defending and let me give you an
50:51: Example most of the time whenever I'm teaching theology, and you know this as well And I'm not at all accusing you of this
50:57: But most people are having to be rescued from a sense of if the if it's not in the
51:03: Bible I don't believe it period and in the sense of I have no authority But the
51:08: Bible and that's just not true from a historic Protestant sense We all have authorities that are outside the
51:14: Bible But what has happened is a polemic and an apologetic has arose that makes us feel that we have to teach according to that which we are against which is the abuse of the
51:24: Catholic authority and So I would say that sola scriptura is something that is widely proclaimed
51:30: But very little understood especially with issues of prolegomena And I think once we begin to see and and James whenever it comes to the charismatic issue.
51:39: I'm not a charismatic But there are and and I'm sure you would agree there are abuses in the charismatic
51:44: JPMorland who's Part of the vineyard movement would agree. There are abusive abuses, but many times we build an apologetic that characterizes that which we are against to such a degree and then ends up characterizing our own theology as being
52:00: Antiexperienced anti -emotion. I am neither anti -experience anti -emotion anti -tradition I know neither are you but our apologetics can present us as such what
52:09: I'm saying. I understand what you're saying, however Given that the the the assertion has been made that there's a difference in methodology and my name specifically presented there
52:19: If I were doing that Given the wide range of individuals that I have engaged in public debate
52:27: That would have been exposed long time ago, and I personally Have warned against that very imbalance many times myself
52:36: And so I I don't you know, I I fully recognize it's one of the reasons. I'm a churchman. I have many times
52:43: Lamented the fact that there are people who get involved in quote -unquote apologetics Who are not churchmen that is they they do not take their learning and present it within the context of the local assembly
52:57: In the edification of God's people, etc, etc. I I teach an adult Bible study class every
53:02: Sunday morning We're going through the synoptic Gospels using the the all ends Parallel text we've been doing that for four years when
53:11: I even halfway through it's probably take most of a decade to get the whole Thing done. That's what I do. I did on a regular basis.
53:17: So I don't have The same temptation to define my theology and my apologetics by a particular group
53:24: For example, some people only deal with one group Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, whatever. I don't do that I if I become imbalanced in that way and dealing with Roman Catholicism should beer
53:34: I'll leave the Muslims gonna knock me off my pins because I've gone too far one direction or Greg Stafford the Jehovah's Witness over here
53:40: Or this Mormon over here this atheist over there since I deal with a wide variety of things like that I I can't afford to become imbalanced that way
53:48: So I I agree with you that some people can become defined by what they're arguing against but I think the great way of avoiding that is to be exceptionally biblical and exegetical in one's proclamation to be plugged into the church and regularly preaching and teaching and Then you're going to be able to avoid that so I don't see that as a methodological difference
54:09: What caused me to respond to what Dan said and then what what you said? It was especially in regards these issues of well
54:16: Well, for example, I was I think I was going to ask you what you specifically meant when you when you stayed in response to Micah Burke you see he mentioned issues like the mass and the
54:28: Representation of the sacrifice of Christ and things like that and you said to him I would disagree that these are necessarily
54:35: Destructive to the saving grace of the gospel What what do you what do you mean by if that's the case?
54:43: then how could I ever identify a False gospel today if we need to have
54:50: Apostles as you argued in regards to Galatians and Paul How could you or could you ever say today?
54:58: That is a false gospel? Well, there's kind of two questions there in that second one I want to answer as well but the first one having to do with the
55:05: Just the kind of premise behind it and the idea of the gospel and you mentioned this I think at the very beginning your show
55:11: And said, you know, there's a central core to the gospel and there's something wider And I think there's something very important to be said is that from my standpoint whenever I read
55:19: Paul such as Romans I think Paul is probably the clearest proclamation of the gospel in all of the
55:24: New Testament. I think he was called Specially to be able to articulate it better than anybody else.
55:30: Not that anybody else is wrong. I believe in inerrancy and Like I said before I'm very
55:36: I square with you pretty much theologically on Everything that I can think of but at the same time
55:42: I would say that whenever Paul is presenting the gospel to the Romans He presents it much more broadly than many times our conversations would suggest
55:52: For instance, I believe in Paul's mind whenever he is writing to the Romans part of the gospel in his argument is the sovereignty of God the promises of God the
56:06: Security of the believer and then the defense of that security based upon an individualistic predestination and I would say that is part of the gospel in Paul's mind and I would also say that were he to Encounter someone who would deny that I would think he would pronounce an anathema upon them as well
56:24: But at the same time I would think that the rhetoric is very strong from Paul based upon the purity that he has of the
56:32: But we have to put this into perspective and say are we going to anathema ties since there is a departure
56:40: I think a clear departure for Romans chapter 9 from Pentecostals Methodist and everybody who would have an
56:45: Arminian doctrine Are we going to anathema ties them and say they have a false gospel and my point right now is
56:50: I don't think so So if so what you're saying is if you're going to anathema ties a gospel say it's a false gospel
57:00: Then it would have to be a completely false gospel And if it has any male elements of truth to it, then it it shouldn't be anathema ties
57:06: No, I would say that we'd have to qualify exactly what we mean by anathema I mean there I can point out an anathema upon the insecurity of the believer doctrine
57:16: But at the same time I'm not anathema. I'm not saying that they have no elements of the gospel whatsoever
57:22: I believe that Rome has lacked the fullness of the gospel. I believe that Arminians lack the fullness of the gospel
57:29: I believe that many people who would misunderstand the Sinfulness of man lack the fullness of the gospel and part of my job as a pastor and or I'm not a pastor anymore
57:40: But Stonebriar, but as a teacher of theology is to say every single class I want to make people more aware of the fullness of the gospel
57:48: I want them to have a deeper understanding of it and in that sense correct false
57:54: Gospels that are out there. And so It's not a disagreement so much
58:00: James as it is of one of perspective I think well, let me put it this way How does
58:06: Rome's gospel? Differ from what the Judaizers did so that it's appropriate for Paul to anathema ties them as a as a group
58:16: He didn't just anathema ties elements of their teaching. He said let him who preaches that Faults gospel be anathema ties.
58:25: So he placed them under the anathema not elements. They're teaching. How does Rome's gospel? Differ from what the
58:32: Judaizers were teaching so that it's inappropriate to anathema ties Rome's gospel and say well that that still might it almost sounded me like you were saying and maybe
58:42: I'm misunderstanding you But when you said I would disagree that these are necessarily Destructive to the saving grace of the gospel.
58:47: It sounds to me like you're saying a person can embrace The dogmatically defined teachings of Rome in regards to for example the role of Mary in the in the in the salvific process the concept of Transubstantiation the issue of the representation sacrifice of Christ through the sacerdotal authority of the priest
59:08: And everything that is associated with that and a person can wholeheartedly embrace these things and yet still be
59:16: The recipient of grace there's enough. It almost sounds like there's enough gospel there To get them saved.
59:22: Is that what you're saying? Well in a sense, I mean, here's again it's an issue of perspective and saying how much can a person be wrong and Still have at least fallen at the foot of Christ and begged for forgiveness
59:36: I think you have to follow the foot of the God man If you were to push my back up against the wall and say what do you have to do to be saved?
59:41: I'd say you have to follow the foot of Christ and beg for forgiveness, which assumes your own sinfulness in your own need But what
59:47: I would say is now we have to start educating people into the fullness of the gospel But at that point
59:54: I would say that they can embrace falsehoods. Look at the Corinthians I mean whenever Paul writes to them
59:59: He is telling them at one point that one person believes that that Or the
01:00:07: Romans as well, but more succinctly the Corinthians that an idol
01:00:13: Still contains some type of element to them and therefore we need to be careful with these brothers of For whom
01:00:20: Christ died now, they're still believing in idols That they are the best
01:00:26: I can say for them at that point is that they are Hypothesis, okay I believe that God is the greatest but you know and Paul is dealing with them and say be gentle with them and they are
01:00:35: Weak brethren, okay, and I need to but they need to grow. Okay, Michael. Let me let me put it this way Do you do you see a distinction?
01:00:42: Between the idea of having an imperfect knowledge they still believe some wrong things and denying knowingly
01:00:53: Elements of the gospel that have been proclaimed to you for example the
01:00:58: Judaizers It seems very clear to me We're denying
01:01:04: The sufficiency of faith alone to save they clearly believed in faith in Christ There's I don't think anyone can can can get around that Galatians 5 2 says behold
01:01:15: I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision Christ will be of no benefit to you and I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under obligation
01:01:24: To keep the whole law clearly they they had fallen at the feet of the God -man Because they recognized they needed the benefit of Christ Earlier in Galatians 2 it talked about the fact that that if you if you add anything
01:01:39: To what Christ has done then then then you are making his cross of no effect, etc, etc
01:01:45: So they clearly had that part. But what they were doing is they were specifically denying a
01:01:51: Constitutive element of the gospel now if the Judaizers were doing that do you see anything in Rome?
01:01:58: Where there is a denial a knowing denial. I mean certainly modern Rome You know, it's not like the
01:02:04: Gospels unknown to them Trent knew what Luther was saying and Calvin was saying and so on so forth and and there's been all this dialogue and stuff
01:02:12: But if you continue to deny a constitutive element of the gospel Do you see a difference between that and just being ignorant of something or still holding on to you know?
01:02:22: A wrong belief about X Y or Z or being inconsistent or something like that? Oh sure. I do
01:02:27: James I mean, I think it's it's much worse. I think that it is something that takes a whole lot more for lack of a better word rebellion against God or in this a
01:02:40: Being against the the truth and not understanding it but at the same time Here's what
01:02:46: I would present to at least as I think about this myself As I say, you know what there are so many people at least that I am engaged with Who whenever they all have been
01:02:56: Christians have been presented with the truth have the knowledge of these things Who will call me up and say
01:03:02: Michael? I need to talk because I'm really confused right now, and I'm really doubting my salvation I really don't think that you know that I've done this really bad, and I am in the midst of Confusion right now now at that point
01:03:15: I would say that they have the truth But at the same time that they are denying that truth anytime. I believe you doubt your salvation
01:03:22: You're denying the truth. You are lacking to live according to the fullness of gospel and therefore have fallen from grace
01:03:28: Doesn't mean that you have fallen from grace in the sense of you lost your salvation But you've fallen from grace in the sense that you're not living according to the fullness of God's Revelation and what
01:03:36: I would say here is that none of us none of us Understand the rattleness of the grace of God and I think once we get to heaven
01:03:45: We'll have a whole new perspective on it. And so therefore I'm saying all of us that are at different Spectrums within this and once we get to stand before God we'll have a
01:03:56: Better understanding than we ever had before and so I think there's different levels that we can have
01:04:02: Understanding and different levels in which we can have denial and different reasons why we can have denial I just don't want to broad brush everybody and make you know
01:04:11: Again, and I don't want to seem like I'm defending Catholicism. I am NOT a Catholic. I think that it is
01:04:18: Institution that will bring about a fallen falling from grace with regards to soteriological issues
01:04:24: I do think there are things we can learn more from them with regards to ecclesiology not authority in ecclesiology
01:04:29: But intentions within the ecclesiology that we have rebelled against same thing. I think about Eastern Orthodox we can learn from them whenever it comes to issues of Redemption and recapitulation and many different things.
01:04:42: I think we all are we all to some degree lack the fullness of the gospel But I think that theirs is the most destructive.
01:04:49: Well, Michael, what is it about Rome? that Allows their gospel to still save whereas the
01:04:59: Judaizers did not would you agree? The Judaizers gospel did not save if it if it actually anathematizes you, you know,
01:05:05: I I don't know Here's what I would say is that the Judaizers gospel was not the full gospel I would say just like one of our
01:05:11: Paul said to those people that were preaching the gospel without Without the good intent they they were not even
01:05:18: Christians preaching the gospel, but that kind of gospel can't say But I think the basic essential elements of the gospel if they're presented that Jesus Christ has died for you that you are a sinner
01:05:27: And you're in need of him. I think that will cause people to fall upon their face and I think some Catholics have
01:05:32: I'm not saying all Catholics have just like I'm not saying all Protestants have and I know that you want to say that either But you see what I'm saying here.
01:05:37: Yeah, but how can a person who falls on? Isn't there some something more than just falling on your face in front of someone because if That doesn't make any sense in regards to a number of things here
01:05:50: But if if you actually believe when you ask Christ to be your Savior that there are things you then can do
01:05:58: You know along with that to bring about your righteous standing before God if you're not just asking him
01:06:06: Alone, but you in fact are trusting in these other things Is that it does that bring salvation if I believe that there are things
01:06:15: I can do that I must do and that the work of Christ alone without those things is not going to save me
01:06:21: Is that a false gospel? Is that gospel going to save me again keeping that idea of false gospel relative to that?
01:06:28: There's a lot of different types of false gospels out there Just like I said, we can even include a denial of God's security as a false gospel if you wanted to go that direction
01:06:36: Let's define it as to that which is going to bring about eternal life Okay, let me give you an illustration from Christ's parable and see what you think of this and you know
01:06:46: I'm not sure about many of these things James so I'm not arguing from the point of I've got these beliefs and I'm gonna lay them out and defend them and I Just not sure but whenever it comes to Christ telling the parable of the sinner and the
01:07:01: Pharisee Where the Pharisee comes and says thank you Lord that I am NOT like this guy over here
01:07:07: Who's done all these bad things and you know? I've paid my tithes and everything else and then the other guy says just have mercy upon me the sinner
01:07:13: I look at that person and I say whenever he left there We know from the outside looking in that he was justified
01:07:22: But whenever he left there, I don't think he had any clue of his status before God I think he might have gone back and said boy
01:07:29: I hope God has justified me and I'm gonna try to do the best I can and So therefore he continues to pick back up on his works and try to do his tithes
01:07:39: But God has had mercy on him And I think that's what we bring we bring the fullness of the gospel and say hey listen
01:07:44: God has forgiven you if you have fallen on your face and then pleaded for mercy whenever somebody's doubting their salvation
01:07:50: I say to them listen, that's the radicalness of the gospel You've got to reembrace that and I think that's part of our job is to say
01:07:58: Let's get people to reembrace the fullness of it Even though there are many people who do have absolutely false
01:08:04: Gospels out there Well, you know, I obviously I I would I would argue that the the parable that Jesus told had one primary point and that was that the the man that the world considered to be a sinner who was beyond the grace of God because he
01:08:20: Threw himself solely Upon that grace was the one that was justified and the person at the world thought was the very righteous individual
01:08:28: And the one who clearly had the grace of God was one who didn't because he trusted in his own righteousness
01:08:34: Which sort of takes back Galatians 5 tell me how you understand What Paul said in Galatians 5 to and he said behold
01:08:41: I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision One thing and it was a godly thing by the way
01:08:47: It was something God had established as covenant with Israel for for time perpetual in the Old Testament if you receive circumcision
01:08:54: Christ will be of no benefit to you. What how do you understand Christ will be of no benefit to you?
01:09:01: Why would that why would that be an argument? What does that mean? I think it's the same thing as one where he says you have fallen from grace
01:09:07: I mean both times once we once we try to take up the burden that we have laid down We are saying
01:09:13: Christ you are of no benefit to me, even though Christ may have taken that burden We may attempt to pick it back up and then suddenly we have fallen from grace and Christ is no benefit to us
01:09:24: So so in both these situations, he's talking to People who've actually already been forgiven and they're just not walking in the fullness
01:09:33: What Paul believes at that point in this sense that Paul is Offering Correctives to people and I'm not sure he knows exactly whether they're believed or true believers or not
01:09:44: But at the same time under the assumption just like the Hebrews warning passages under the assumption that you are
01:09:49: Then once you have taken back up that burden that you have laid down at the foot of the cross
01:09:55: Christ is of no benefit to you not that you've washed your salvation or anything like that But the fullness of salvation cannot take place within your life and sanctification and and being able to to grow in Christ so you don't see a contrast between Five four where where he says you have been severed from Christ you who are seeking to be justified by law
01:10:17: You have fallen from grace and then he he goes from the the second person you
01:10:23: To the first person for through the Spirit by faith we ourselves Eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness in Galatians 5 5 you don't see the contrast there being a complete contrast
01:10:36: Oh, I think it is I think it's a radical contrast in the sense that Paul's trying to present the radical nature of the falling from grace
01:10:42: I mean falling from grace is a bad thing to quit relying upon. God is a is a terrible thing
01:10:47: But you know, here's the deal is that I believe that Paul Just like in Hebrews chapter 6 whenever he said one of the author of Hebrews says
01:10:57: We are convinced of better things for you. I think Paul is trying to Reengage them within the benefits of that which they have already and Undersuming I just think he's assuming that most of these people are believers, but there might be that underlying thought
01:11:14: That they may not be as well. It's a real warning I mean, I think we all ought to take those warnings very seriously and really question ourselves and the trueness of our belief
01:11:24: And so I think if you have taken back up that burden You do need to question whether or not you ever really laid it down And I'm not trying to give anybody security and say if if you know
01:11:32: You believe that your works are saving you as well that you're just fine. No, I mean, that's a serious thing
01:11:38: So I'm not going to automatically say that they are not believers or they don't have any aspects of the gospel.
01:11:46: So Again going back to Rome here making application to Rome It is your position that a person fully knowledgeable of the of what
01:11:57: Rome teaches in regards to its denial of sola fide, it's it's it's assertion of the incompleteness of the work of Christ through transubstantiation the perpetuity mass and so on so forth the whole concept of temporal punishments remaining upon your soul so that there is a cessation necessity for purgation and Cleansing before you enter into the presence of Christ treasury of merit all those
01:12:26: Aspects of things that are a part of the dogmatic teaching of Christ of the of the Roman Catholic Church because a person can know all of that and That's their gospel
01:12:38: But there's they can still be saved by believing that gospel or they saved in spite of all that stuff
01:12:45: Now I'd say in spite of it I would say in that's what it comes down to what I'm trying to get at is
01:12:50: What is the basic bare essential and have we really embraced that and we build all kinds of things around that basic bare essential
01:12:58: I think that Protestantism that lacks the fullness of the gospel and I mentioned this earlier with respect to our
01:13:04: Eschatology not in the sense of pre -mood post all that kind of stuff But in the sense that we are very
01:13:10: Gnostic in our understanding of salvation We believe you know and in essence We are trying to escape this body and get to where we're floating on clouds and and we'll be flying and doing all kinds of Things and you'd be playing
01:13:23: Batman and I'd be playing Superman It is something to where it is a lack in an understanding of the fullness of the gospel that God is in the process
01:13:33: Of restoring all that there is and I think Eastern Orthodoxy does have that to a greater degree but but People my chat channel are gonna gonna hang me out if a you deny a central defining aspect of the gospel
01:13:51: Can your faith still be a saving faith? No, okay
01:13:56: So sola fide is not a defining aspect of the gospel from your perspective
01:14:02: Sola fide in itself objectively is but epistemologically it is not and How do you differentiate that?
01:14:10: Especially in light of the fact that I think that's what Galatians 5 is about is that the contrast is between Those who are we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness
01:14:20: That's sola fide over against you who are justified by the law. You are seeking to justify the law.
01:14:26: So there's your contrast And our minions hold of the same thing. I mean they believe that they are justified by keeping their faith or or Making sure they don't they don't do anything really bad
01:14:39: I don't think that's really a fair representation of Arminian ism Some are many. So wouldn't you admit that that is the the product of many logical?
01:14:48: Yeah, logical conclusion, but my my point with our minions has always been that they are
01:14:54: They aren't anything but consistent. They will bow. I would say they believe in salvation by faith alone in confession
01:15:00: But whatever comes to their daily lives, they don't really live that out I would say it's more important to live it out then confess it, right?
01:15:06: But the point is that the Roman Catholic Church knowing that sola fide
01:15:12: Knowing what it means and knowing what it is has not only anathematized it But has has taught the exact opposite of it as de fide dogma if a person believes that It does that person have eternal life?
01:15:27: I'd say they can I mean, I would say it's much harder I would say that it's much odder a person just like to the
01:15:33: Corinthians They were they were essentially polytheist Christians. I mean, it's bad doctrine
01:15:40: It's part of our gospel message every day to be able to make people realize more fully what the gospel is.
01:15:47: I Say they can though James. I'm not saying that anybody does I I'm not saying that anybody
01:15:54: Or everybody does at all and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be out there Trying to get
01:16:00: Roman Catholics to understand the fullness of the gospel should we be calling them out of Rome? Yeah, I think we should be calling them out of the
01:16:08: Roman doctrine of soteriology But at the same time here's the deal is
01:16:13: I understand people like Beckwith And I'm probably going to get in trouble here because I don't even know if my thoughts are really articulated on this but I do understand to some degree why
01:16:22: Beckwith would leave based upon such a such a a
01:16:28: Distorted not his self distorted But the church being distorted in the free church mentality to where we do allow people like Benny Hens and all that We have no structure.
01:16:37: We have no way to be able to pull things together Well, let me show you let me show you my he couldn't be a member of my church and I don't recognize him as a brother
01:16:46: Who Benny in now? Well, exactly, but that's the point is whenever you have no type of authoritative structure and I have an authoritative structure
01:16:55: I have the the only authoritative structure given the New Testament and I argued this in the Broadman Holman book on ecclesiology
01:17:01: What are we given beyond the the elders and deacons in the church?
01:17:06: What what where did the Apostles? Create a structure outside of that.
01:17:12: Oh, I wouldn't say necessarily that he does But here's what I would say is that we are lacking in our ability to as a
01:17:18: Protestantism as a whole and it's a misunderstanding I agree with you But at the same time it is a frustrating thing that you do find comfort whenever you get underneath a tradition that seems unified
01:17:30: But but is it is a real comfort or a false comfort that I agree I think it would be a false comfort at the same time
01:17:36: I would say I understand where people are coming from because if you've been exposed to such craziness
01:17:43: Then you know you were where do you turn me like like the craziness in the early church? You can tell from first John and and Paul that there are all sorts of competing viewpoints and false teachers and ravenous wolves that are coming
01:17:55: I agree with you and I don't even see I don't even see necessarily disunity as a bad thing from a
01:18:02: Doctrinal standpoint on other issues that have not defined historic Christianity. I think that it's a good thing
01:18:08: I just don't think we need to divide over things that aren't aren't essential. Okay.
01:18:14: All righty Well, hey, you believe it or not. It's We've we've come to the end of our time and I really appreciate your participation the program today and you're calling in Did you want to say anything real quick just to wrap up?
01:18:27: No good. Thanks for having me on Hey, go get go get that Batman stuff taken care of. Thank you very very much for your phone call today and for you folks
01:18:34: Listening, I hope you have been aided and assisted by the dialogue and the discussion
01:18:40: These are important things and let's face it. There's almost no place else you can go where people are talking about this
01:18:45: And that's a sad thing, but we're gonna keep doing it. See you next week on the dividing line The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries
01:19:35: If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at P o box 3 7 1 0 6
01:19:42: Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org
01:19:48: That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks