C. Michael Patton

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 It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And welcome to the dividing line today as we have announced on the blog today

We are going to be continuing the discussion. We began on Tuesday in reference to well a host of issues all centering around apologetic

Apologetic methodology, but not just so much apologetic methodology because I honestly believe that what we're actually discussing is

Much more important than just a method methodological issue Instead I I really think what we're discussing is has

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

We will be joined by one of the two gentlemen that we have been discussing

We were discussing on the last program see Michael Patton will be calling in and joining Me at that time.

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

He responded to the last dividing line on his blog the parchment and pen

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

We are going long this evening if you are a regular listener. We know you know we normally go an hour

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

I actually want to skip down Toward the end of the response because I believe this truly is the fundamental difference that exists

Between myself and I should mention that the reason that I have taken the time

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

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

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

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

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

Then everything that I have done in my life and and I would suggest a large number of people we go back in history

Was a grand mistake. In fact, I would say that the entire Reformation was a grand mistake

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

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.

So These things are very very important. I think this comes out in the a comment from mr

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

And so it is said a number of times in mr. Patton's article blog entry

That this is just a difference tree. This is not so much that we believe different things, but it's a methodological difference well

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

Are not to proclaim absolute certainty about these issues. Are we to proclaim? uncertainty about the gospel

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.

I preach I preached last Sunday. I'll probably be preaching this Sunday I preached last night and What am

I supposed to am I supposed to say? Well? When it comes to the key issues the gospel when it comes to who

God is who Christ is what what God has done in? Christ the the entire self glorification of the

Trinity in the gospel Here are the various opinions Is that what the proclamation is that what the

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

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.

He doesn't do this this you know strong proclamation something and I would disagree even though he refers to The unknown

God Utilizing example like that that he is not doing the bridge one plank at a time thing

He is not standing on Mars Hill saying you know what I'd like to get you to be a little bit less

Idolatrous than you are This is gonna come out in other things. This is a definite disagreement between us

I do believe that there needs to be a radical Denial of idolatry and a turning from idolatry and embracing

Christ for regeneration I do not believe that it is our role to seek to make idolatrous a little bit less

Idolatrous per generation till they finally get close enough to maybe be in the kingdom. I see no evidence

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

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

It sounds very polemic to me God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent commands

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

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?

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

He is appointed and of this he has given a really good level of assurance. Maybe if you're willing to think about it

To all or to most all by raising him from the dead. That's not Paul's proclamation

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

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

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

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

Holy Spirit that brings people to faith in Christ and Paul recognized that and he does so in X 17 may

I point out that suspicion of absolute truth claims is morally sinful

We are created in the image of God we are created to hear our Creator's voice and Post -modernism is a sinful worldview.

It is not morally neutral. It is sinful It is sinful for man to question the existence of his

Creator The that which is formed when it questions the existence of the one who formed it

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

Demonstrate a lack of faith in the Spirit of God who uses the proclamation of the word which the

Apostle Paul said would be foolishness More than us To the

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

The world through its wisdom will not come to know him God has not deemed it proper to use the

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

And if you don't trust the Spirit of God to utilize that message, well, then you're going to look for something else

And we live in a society that under the wrath of God does not value truth now

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.

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

Paul utilized for example the language that people would understand in his proclamation to other people.

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

And if you compromise on that I suggest you you really do not have anything else to to say to anyone

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

Roman Catholic gospel For example the Marian dogmas and their belief in her centrality

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

Representation of the one sacrifice of Christ, which does not perfect anyone he raised the issues of the gospel and Mr.

Patton's response was quote. I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive to the saving grace the gospel

I totally disagree with these doctrines, but at the same time I am not trying to say that we are the same

I have just made the statements that on many things we are closer than we thought even so close as some inter

Protestant denominations Well, I I don't believe that to be the case at all And when it says then we thought

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

Rome has added to the gospel and Subtracted from the gospel and say that's a false gospel.

Then there is no such thing as a false gospel Galatians 1 becomes irrelevant

We cannot tell the difference between a heteros you on Galeon and an alas you on Galeon all of that becomes stuff that well

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

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

Represented over and over again. It never perfects anyone you can approach it ten thousand times twenty thousand times in your life and still

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

Justification by faith by by grace alone through faith alone out and still call it the gospel, then

I can't possibly imagine where you can come up with a false gospel and Does it follow that the

Judaizers had done more than that? There's there's no way to establish. It's on an exegetical basis.

It's just not possible. So if If it is at all possible To look at the

Roman Catholic gospel say well, you know I don't know if those are necessarily destructive to saving grace the gospel then

I would like to know what is a false gospel The what what could possibly be a false gospel in this context?

I don't think you can identify one Given that kind of that kind of a statement.

So I go back to the beginning of The response that was given having laid that rather important foundation

And Mr. Patton says I think where we part ways is referring to me.

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

Confrontational approach now, I wouldn't say theology. I'd say apologetics because obviously You know,

I teach Doctrine and theology all the time and I it doesn't have to be confrontational

Confrontation assumes apologetics. So I would say an ironic peaceful approach to Apologetics.

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

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

But we both can't be right and I think that really comes down to the issue here is At least

Mitch Pacquin. I both agree that we both can't be right It almost sounds like this perspective is saying well, maybe we are

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

We can't know for certainty on these topics. Maybe maybe that's where it's going.

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

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

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?

I think it's theological issue that gives rise to a different methodology That that's that's what

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

Protestant evangelicalism I disagree what I had said was they are parting ways with historic

Protestant evangelicalism's view of Roman Catholicism and the issues that separate us and I stand by that statement

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

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

Rome's changing and and You know We should take the individual opinions of liberal

Catholics as being more representative than the dogmatic statements of the actual Roman Catholic Church That's not what evangelical

Protestants have done in the past He says I disagree. Look at our theology go through the courses in the theology program

You'll see that this is far from the truth Myself and Dan as well referring to Dan Wallace are both evangelical

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

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,

I Would point out it's not a matter of how I interpret it or they interpret it it's a matter of how

Rome interprets it and The very fact that that right after I did the program last time

I get all these emails Where people are linking to the statement that came from the

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

Inquisition That this this document comes out and what does it do it just reaffirms

Everything that had been said before I believe that you interpret Roman Catholic dogmatic statements in the light of the

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

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

Rome interpret it over the years? When you look at Trent you go to there's a whole there's a whole

Catechism that was produced after the Council of Trent meaning that it was meant to communicate to the

Catholic people This is what the council was all about you go to things like that You don't go to a liberal

Catholic in the 21st century Who is applying postmodern categories the

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

And so that's how I interpret it and and you know, one of the things have been said is well, there's a

There's a we need to be humble in this idea of knowing what the truth is knowing what

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

GK Chesterton said something. I think it's very relevant this he says what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place

Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition modesty is settled upon the organ of conviction where it was never meant to be a

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

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

Mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table and he's exactly right That's right on the nose now

There's a Catholic I can debate because he's gonna believe that what he believes is true I believe that what

I believe is true. And so we can actually come to the table and Discern where the differences are and debate them.

I can't debate somebody who doesn't believe that you can know the truth If the truth is is unknowable.

It's just this vague. It's experiential or whatever else it might be Then we really can't have a debate.

Anyways, I'll be perfectly honest with you In reference to the papal statement

Mr. Patton said this perceived disagreement and change the Catholic Church is the exact reason why the

Pope felt it necessary to sign this document yesterday Yes, that's right. There are lots of liberals in the Catholic Church, too

He is more hardline than John Paul II wasn't demonstrated this yesterday now. I'm sorry

Brother Patton you you just you don't know Roman Catholicism very well to state that Because if you've read

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

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

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

Definitional nature of the church Rome hasn't changed her view on that. Yes, there are all sorts of liberal

Catholics running around the West Who will come up with other viewpoints? But that's not what defines the teachings the dogmatic teachings the

Roman Catholic Church And if anyone was surprised or shocked what the Pope did all

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

Rome to be that doesn't really have a whole lot of connection to what Rome actually is and If you were to engage

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?

Certainly it allows us to advance to advance Semper Reformanda means always reforming reforming in light of what the

Word of God So we are always to be taking our traditions and examining them in the light of the

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

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.

Well, how are you gonna do that? If if there is no official Roman Catholic teaching if the dogmatic

Canons and decrees the Council of Trent Vatican one Vatican two if that stuff is is actually irrelevant

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

And so advance in what? Is it an advance to have a view of the

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

I don't consider that an advancement personally if that's what the advancement is But I I don't you know

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

I certainly haven't Where have I said anything or done anything that would suggest anything even along those lines?

They did encourage us to continue to progress Yes in ever deeper knowledge of the

Word of God, which would not mean Compromising on the very essentials the gospel

In fact, it would it would mean that we would progress in ever greater recognition of what the gospel is

Not a regression to where well the gospel is just this really really really small core that can have a huge massive

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

Pluriform Interpretation, but it's all just the same gospel. Anyways, I don't consider that progress.

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

Do we really have to have the Pope stand on his balcony and say he was wrong as James suggested?

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

Between her overarching claims to be the one true Church again pointed out by the

Pope and her infallibility as a church and the infallibility of the

Bishop of Rome They go together the denial of sola scriptura the assertion of the authority of tradition in its myriads of different forms

We have to recognize the the connection between that and the teachings that mr

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

Church you're disagreeing with God himself and So when

I talk about the Pope standing on his balcony saying he was wrong. What I'm saying is for there to be progression

Rome has to admit that she can be reformed But when you're infallible, you can't be reformed

Reformation is impossible on matters of infallibly defined dogma

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

So, yeah How else can you start I would like I'll ask you know,

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?

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

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

Then quote I think change is the goal Not a proclamation of defeat from an enemy, but this is the difference in our emphasis

How can an infallible church change Without first admitting that she's not infallible in the first place

How does how does that work I'm just asking for a Straightforward practical answer. How does that work?

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.

Patton on the line number two James justifies his approach to apologetics By referencing

Paul's polemical approach primarily see in the book of Galatians. Well sort of In regards to identifying false

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

And you can't interpret Galatians without recognizing that there can be something as that is a false gospel

Proclaimed by false brethren who claim to be believers Who claim to follow

Christ and yet according to Galatians chapter 5 Christ will be of no benefit to them

Now why would Paul say that if they were not already claiming that Christ was of benefit to them and they were

But Paul says Christ will be of no benefit to you So in regards to Gospels and things like that, you better believe it

Glacier is important But so is Colossians all the pastoral epistles refer to exhortation in sound doctrine

Acts demonstrates us the entire Johannine corpus is constantly warning us against docetism protanosticism

All of them present my quote -unquote polemical Approach so It's not just Galatians now

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.

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

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

This does not mean that we are infallible and authoritative as an apostle Now, I think that's probably the most important one.

I'll address all three of them. It does not require infallibility To apply the message of the

Word of God. That's what's infallible. Not us. First of all, this is the key issue If the

Apostles have not communicated the gospel to us So that we can follow their example in defining it and defending it

Then how is it that the truth of the gospel abides with us in the first place Galatians 2 5 and how then

Did Peter? Violate his own alleged infallibility in Galatians 2 14.

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

How did that happen How can we ep agonize am

I how can we contend? Vigorously for the faith once for all delivered to the Saints if in fact we need

Apostles to know That faith was sufficient certainty to define it over against error

We can't Let me repeat that how can we contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered the

Saints that's Jude If in fact we need Apostles to know it was sufficient certainty to define it over against error

How could Paul exhort Timothy to watch his doctrine and maintain a healthy doctrine if this was in fact beyond Timothy's capacity after?

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

Folks that argument number one under mr. Patton's presentation that argument is the same argument

I have refuted from Roman Catholic apologists since August of 1990 It's the same argument.

I don't think mr. Patton's aware of that I Don't think he's read many

Roman Catholic works on this subject, but it's the same argument Just coming from a non

Roman Catholic Number two Paul did not always handle things polemically in other words

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

I Don't even begin to understand how anyone can understand that that I say you should always do things polemically

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

Let your speech always be with grace this isn't an argument about whether your speech should be with grace

Unless someone is saying that you cannot state the truth in a certain fashion and do so graciously

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

That takes grace to do that. I Think there we're in danger of redefining speaking with grace as if somehow what

Paul did to the Galatians isn't speaking graciously But if you allow

For the inspiration of Scripture then that would define for you what speaking graciously actually is So he says notice the purpose

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

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

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

That to follow the apostolic example and identify a false gospel as a false gospel is not speaking with grace

If it's a false gospel, then it is to speak ungraciously not to identify it truthfully Yes, I Continue on as a quotation

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

Emotions will rule and harsh polemics will be counterproductive. I don't think this has anything to do with my position.

I am NOT saying that you should Be polemical for the sake of being a polemical.

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

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

Gospel, then that's where we would most definitely disagree with one another finally number three

Remember, this is all under why Paul's example and Galatians shouldn't be an example for us number three

We also must recognize this when Paul was polemical from what I can tell it was to those who were under his authority

In other words, it was pastoral He did so with the Galatian and Galatian and Corinthians I imagine it's the

Galatians and the Corinthians precisely because he had expressed authority as their leader Well, let me just stop right there.

He was an apostle. So therefore Everybody all Christians read his authority

And again, which I guess lead to the necessity of having apostles today to be able to address in a polemical fashion

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

Therefore a better models how Paul handled the Athenians on Mars Hill in Acts 17 It was gracious understanding and intent on building bridges.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Move you a little bit closer away from idolatry to the truth type of a type of situation That's not what the

Apostle was doing Which leads me to the last section here and if mr. Patton would like to give us a call.

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

James seems to suggest that it is all or nothing Either the bridge is immediately complete as one side concedes everything or nothing now

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

Salt Lake City Temple a Tabernacle, I'm sorry temple in in Salt Lake City, I Do not see any basis in the

New Testament for believing that the mechanism by which you

You proclaim the gospel is that you move people a little bit at a time one plank at a time

When Paul speaks the Galatians What terminology does he use?

He says you once worshipped those which were not God's These people had turned from their idolatry

There where's where's the the the one plank at a time people doesn't he ever write to them?

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?

I I can't find them anywhere in the New Testament. It sounds to me

Like the New Testament calls for a radical radical change a repentance isn't that what repentance is

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

God is it not and so when you deal with Mormons You don't say well, you know,

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

God I'm sorry. I don't see the methodology. I know that there's all you know

I know there's entire books written and you can take missiology classes and all the rest that stuff.

I Don't see it. I Don't see that as having apostolic warrant and if someone like to say there is

I'd like to see it in the text I honestly would like to see the exegetical foundation

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

Mormon connection there Well, but this is a completely different doctrine of God.

Okay. All right completely different doctrine of God Both have external authorities outside the scriptures both reject sola scriptura

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.

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

You know, there's Protestant groups got some problems the gospel too And the whole idea is to say, you know what?

there's just so much confusion on the gospel that can anybody really say and if you do say that you that you are

Clear on these things then you're just not being humble You're being arrogant Well, are you really was was

Paul being arrogant when he said the things that he said Is that is that really how we have to take this?

when we talk about bridge building yeah, I am talking about a I'm dealing with a system here

That has made infallible claims that that's got to be understood.

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

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

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.

Well, I Have to ask what planks are being laid? What can I learn?

From the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass What can I learn from purgatory?

What can I learn from a sacerdotal priesthood where priests claim to be an altar Christus another

Christ? What what what is there for me to I?

Don't understand that part and I've been asking folks, you know, what really is there to learn here?

from falsehood and That falsehood part is so it brings us back full circle to the well

I'm not really sure those things actually end up denying, you know, the graciousness of the gospel quote

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.

I don't think we can say this is a true gospel This is a false gospel Anything else so there

I rushed it. I know I was speaking very quickly. I Apologize for that. There was some other things

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.

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

To have conversation and so I am very thankful to have Michael Patton joining me on the line even now

Let me just ask a quick question. Were you able to listen to the webcast of this point?

Yeah, I was Just I missed the last maybe five minutes because my son came up here with all these

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

Batman side of the Superman vs. Batman great controversy, you know I'll tell you what that is a hard one

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

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

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,

I I have to admit I don't think you were looking to quite have a controversy erupt when when

Dan posted his 51 % Protestant article but you know when you when you throw a

Hand grenade into the middle of the theological blogosphere and it goes off.

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.

So I've made my position very very clear. I think really honestly, you know, you've said this is a methodological issue

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

How you're going to say it? I've often used the illustration being a little bit of a

Buff of the war of northern aggression. I will keep my southern friends on my side for the moment

Being a bit of a buff of that if if you were to say to to Robert E Lee defend

His first question to you would be defend what? You can't get into issues of how you defend

Until you know what it is that you're defending in the same way the relationship between theology and apologetics

Has to be seen as you can't just go out and defend it is your theology that will determine

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

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

Do you mean theology or apologetics? No, I mean both I think they're both going to be overlapping in this case

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

But most people are having to be rescued from a sense of if the if it's not in the

Bible I don't believe it period and in the sense of I have no authority But the

Bible and that's just not true from a historic Protestant sense We all have authorities that are outside the

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

Catholic authority and So I would say that sola scriptura is something that is widely proclaimed

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.

I'm not a charismatic But there are and and I'm sure you would agree there are abuses in the charismatic

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

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

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

If I were doing that Given the wide range of individuals that I have engaged in public debate

That would have been exposed long time ago, and I personally Have warned against that very imbalance many times myself

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

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

In the edification of God's people, etc, etc. I I teach an adult Bible study class every

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

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.

So I don't have The same temptation to define my theology and my apologetics by a particular group

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

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

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

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

What caused me to respond to what Dan said and then what what you said? It was especially in regards these issues of well

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

Representation of the sacrifice of Christ and things like that and you said to him I would disagree that these are necessarily

Destructive to the saving grace of the gospel What what do you what do you mean by if that's the case?

then how could I ever identify a False gospel today if we need to have

Apostles as you argued in regards to Galatians and Paul How could you or could you ever say today?

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

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

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

Paul such as Romans I think Paul is probably the clearest proclamation of the gospel in all of the

New Testament. I think he was called Specially to be able to articulate it better than anybody else.

Not that anybody else is wrong. I believe in inerrancy and Like I said before I'm very

I square with you pretty much theologically on Everything that I can think of but at the same time

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

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

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

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

But we have to put this into perspective and say are we going to anathema ties since there is a departure

I think a clear departure for Romans chapter 9 from Pentecostals Methodist and everybody who would have an

Arminian doctrine Are we going to anathema ties them and say they have a false gospel and my point right now is

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

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

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

But at the same time I'm not anathema. I'm not saying that they have no elements of the gospel whatsoever

I believe that Rome has lacked the fullness of the gospel. I believe that Arminians lack the fullness of the gospel

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

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

I want them to have a deeper understanding of it and in that sense correct false

Gospels that are out there. And so It's not a disagreement so much

James as it is of one of perspective I think well, let me put it this way How does

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

He didn't just anathema ties elements of their teaching. He said let him who preaches that Faults gospel be anathema ties.

So he placed them under the anathema not elements. They're teaching. How does Rome's gospel? Differ from what the

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

I'm misunderstanding you But when you said I would disagree that these are necessarily Destructive to the saving grace of the gospel.

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

And everything that is associated with that and a person can wholeheartedly embrace these things and yet still be

The recipient of grace there's enough. It almost sounds like there's enough gospel there To get them saved.

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

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?

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

I would say is now we have to start educating people into the fullness of the gospel But at that point

I would say that they can embrace falsehoods. Look at the Corinthians I mean whenever Paul writes to them

He is telling them at one point that one person believes that that Or the

Romans as well, but more succinctly the Corinthians that an idol

Still contains some type of element to them and therefore we need to be careful with these brothers of For whom

Christ died now, they're still believing in idols That they are the best

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

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?

Between the idea of having an imperfect knowledge they still believe some wrong things and denying knowingly

Elements of the gospel that have been proclaimed to you for example the

Judaizers It seems very clear to me We're denying

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

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

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

To what Christ has done then then then you are making his cross of no effect, etc, etc

So they clearly had that part. But what they were doing is they were specifically denying a

Constitutive element of the gospel now if the Judaizers were doing that do you see anything in Rome?

Where there is a denial a knowing denial. I mean certainly modern Rome You know, it's not like the

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

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?

A wrong belief about X Y or Z or being inconsistent or something like that? Oh sure. I do

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

Being against the the truth and not understanding it but at the same time Here's what

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

Christians have been presented with the truth have the knowledge of these things Who will call me up and say

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

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

You're denying the truth. You are lacking to live according to the fullness of gospel and therefore have fallen from grace

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

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

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

Better understanding than we ever had before and so I think there's different levels that we can have

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

Again, and I don't want to seem like I'm defending Catholicism. I am NOT a Catholic. I think that it is

Institution that will bring about a fallen falling from grace with regards to soteriological issues

I do think there are things we can learn more from them with regards to ecclesiology not authority in ecclesiology

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.

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.

Well, Michael, what is it about Rome? that Allows their gospel to still save whereas the

Judaizers did not would you agree? The Judaizers gospel did not save if it if it actually anathematizes you, you know,

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

Paul said to those people that were preaching the gospel without Without the good intent they they were not even

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

And you're in need of him. I think that will cause people to fall upon their face and I think some Catholics have

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.

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

But if if you actually believe when you ask Christ to be your Savior that there are things you then can do

You know along with that to bring about your righteous standing before God if you're not just asking him

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

I can do that I must do and that the work of Christ alone without those things is not going to save me

Is that a false gospel? Is that gospel going to save me again keeping that idea of false gospel relative to that?

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

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

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

Pharisee Where the Pharisee comes and says thank you Lord that I am NOT like this guy over here

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

I look at that person and I say whenever he left there We know from the outside looking in that he was justified

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

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

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

God has forgiven you if you have fallen on your face and then pleaded for mercy whenever somebody's doubting their salvation

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

Let's get people to reembrace the fullness of it Even though there are many people who do have absolutely false

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

Threw himself solely Upon that grace was the one that was justified and the person at the world thought was the very righteous individual

And the one who clearly had the grace of God was one who didn't because he trusted in his own righteousness

Which sort of takes back Galatians 5 tell me how you understand What Paul said in Galatians 5 to and he said behold

I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision One thing and it was a godly thing by the way

It was something God had established as covenant with Israel for for time perpetual in the Old Testament if you receive circumcision

Christ will be of no benefit to you. What how do you understand Christ will be of no benefit to you?

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

I mean both times once we once we try to take up the burden that we have laid down We are saying

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

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

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

But at the same time under the assumption just like the Hebrews warning passages under the assumption that you are

Then once you have taken back up that burden that you have laid down at the foot of the cross

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

You have fallen from grace and then he he goes from the the second person you

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

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

I mean falling from grace is a bad thing to quit relying upon. God is a is a terrible thing

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

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

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

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

You believe that your works are saving you as well that you're just fine. No, I mean, that's a serious thing

So I'm not going to automatically say that they are not believers or they don't have any aspects of the gospel.

So Again going back to Rome here making application to Rome It is your position that a person fully knowledgeable of the of what

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

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

But there's they can still be saved by believing that gospel or they saved in spite of all that stuff

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

What is the basic bare essential and have we really embraced that and we build all kinds of things around that basic bare essential

I think that Protestantism that lacks the fullness of the gospel and I mentioned this earlier with respect to our

Eschatology not in the sense of pre -mood post all that kind of stuff But in the sense that we are very

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

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

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

Can your faith still be a saving faith? No, okay

So sola fide is not a defining aspect of the gospel from your perspective

Sola fide in itself objectively is but epistemologically it is not and How do you differentiate that?

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

That's sola fide over against you who are justified by the law. You are seeking to justify the law.

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

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?

Yeah, logical conclusion, but my my point with our minions has always been that they are

They aren't anything but consistent. They will bow. I would say they believe in salvation by faith alone in confession

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?

But the point is that the Roman Catholic Church knowing that sola fide

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?

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

Corinthians They were they were essentially polytheist Christians. I mean, it's bad doctrine

It's part of our gospel message every day to be able to make people realize more fully what the gospel is.

I Say they can though James. I'm not saying that anybody does I I'm not saying that anybody

Or everybody does at all and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be out there Trying to get

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

Roman doctrine of soteriology But at the same time here's the deal is

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

Beckwith would leave based upon such a such a a

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.

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

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

I have the the only authoritative structure given the New Testament and I argued this in the Broadman Holman book on ecclesiology

What are we given beyond the the elders and deacons in the church?

What what where did the Apostles? Create a structure outside of that.

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

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

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

I would say I understand where people are coming from because if you've been exposed to such craziness

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

I agree with you and I don't even see I don't even see necessarily disunity as a bad thing from a

Doctrinal standpoint on other issues that have not defined historic Christianity. I think that it's a good thing

I just don't think we need to divide over things that aren't aren't essential. Okay.

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?

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

Listening, I hope you have been aided and assisted by the dialogue and the discussion

These are important things and let's face it. There's almost no place else you can go where people are talking about this

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

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

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

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