July 19, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line at an unusual time, 4 -0 -8 p .m.

And that's because, first of all, we had to get that roof sealed up.

Well, I shouldn't say we, Rich had to get that roof sealed up. It was a rather unpleasant feeling when that monsoon storm hit last night to stand there in the doorway and watch torrents of water coming down out of the ceiling.

It was coming down. When a monsoon storm comes through, rarely are they wimpy.

If they're going to rain, either they're going to do their mud thing, we have actually mud showers here in Arizona where you have the dust storm that comes through and just a few drops of rain, so it turns everything to mud.

And that happened on Wednesday night, but we also got the straight line winds that ripped the roof off of that room and only got the plywood back down before last night.

The radar looked good, you know. We all went home, the radar looked good, and then all of a sudden, here it came and drew an

X on the top of our house, and boom. So anyway, hopefully that has been taken care of.

So if we get blasted tonight, I can guarantee there's going to be a few folks staying in the doorway looking up at the roof,

I assure you of that. Pete just left. Thanks, Pete. Pete got us back on the air. That's why it's 408 instead of four.

Okay, there's Pete again. Pete is the one who makes it possible for you to listen to this program as far as the live real audio version of it goes, and the server went, and died, and we had to get

Pete out of bed. I hope Pete isn't sick or anything like that. I hope he was just, you know, having a nice afternoon nap during the lazy days of summer up there in the

People's Republic of Canada. But anyway, we are very appreciative of Pete's helping us out,

PeteWebb .com. I'm not sure if we should tell people that. He may not want people to know that, actually, when you think about it.

It starts getting all sorts of nasty notes from people, and it's all our fault. But anyway, so the server was dead, so we had to get the server going.

We had to get poor Pete out of bed, and he got the server restarted.

So we're getting a late start. So I'm not sure. It's going to be difficult for me to remember what time to get done, but we'll figure it out one way or the other.

And that's assuming that Rich, who just climbed down off the roof, took a quick shower, and is now on the other side of the wall there, doesn't, like, die during the course of the program, which

I wouldn't know, except when we get to the break. If the break doesn't start, then I'll know there's something wrong, and I'll do what

I can at that particular point in time. Because the poor man's been up on the roof, and let me tell you something.

Standing on a black surface in Phoenix, and it's currently—my little weather thingy

Bobby here has—it's just not—it's about 112, 113 right now, something like that.

And so, anyways, thanks again, Pete. God bless. He's probably not even listening to me anyways, so I'm probably wasting my time there.

Anyways, 877 -753 -3341, moving stuff out of the way here so that I can pull the phone out here.

You know how you remember there was an envelope on your desk just a few days ago, and now it's not there, and it's—when you didn't need it, you saw it all the time.

And as soon as you need it, you don't see it anymore? Has that ever happened to you? I think it happens to every human being on the planet.

And anyways, I was looking for that, and I couldn't find it, and now I need to find it. And it's—maybe

I gave it to—did I give it—well, I'll talk to you about it later. Why am I talking about this? I don't know. It's an odd day.

The heat's getting to all of us out here. I was driving a car about an hour ago, and when

I pulled the key out, I could not hold the key. And it wasn't in the sun.

It was just—that's just how hot it is. I could not hold the key. I had to hold it by the plastic thingy, and it was—oh, this is the 90 to 120 days or so where you just go, and then you look forward to when the monsoon breaks in September and starts cooling off, and it's just different.

But right now, when it's been over 110—how many days in a row now has it been over 110 like two weeks, something like that?

It's—yeah, lows in the 90s. First thing in the morning, you open the door, it gets smacked in the face.

It's 93 degrees or something. It's just like, ah! But that's why we have palm trees and not

Christmas trees out here. But anyways, 877 -753 -3341. Obviously, there is a lot of thought right now going on.

At least according to my clock, in an hour and 47 minutes, the

President of the United States will be announcing his nominee. For the

Supreme Court of the United States, if you're outside the U .S., you might not understand that over the past 50 years or so, there has been a quiet revolution in our land where the judiciary has abandoned the role that it was designed for and the only role that it is actually given authority to do and has become the new legislature.

When you can't get the elected officials to push your social program through, you get the non -elected officials, many of whom are on the bench for life, by just rule from the bench.

And the vast majority of the moral decline of our nation has been directly related to this, reflective of it.

I saw an article by Senator Santorum on this very subject earlier today. And so, a number of us, a couple of us in Channel 2 are really,

I don't know, we just have the feeling that we're not going to be happy in an hour and 45, 46 minutes now, that we are going to be pulling a very, very long sword out of our backs, shall we say.

And I don't know, I just have that feeling. Of course, if certain people are nominated, be really, really excited and you're going to see people like Ted Kennedy, you know, actually putting down their glasses long enough to get very, very angry before picking back up again.

And I'm not talking about spectacles there either. But anyway, I don't know what's going to happen.

None of us do. It's a very, very tightly kept secret in Washington these days. But I don't know.

I just have a feeling that we're going to have one of these.

I have a feeling that the current president will follow his father's footsteps in nominating somebody who you can get through without a major fight, which means they give in to the left and are anti -religion and anti -constitution and so on and so forth.

I don't know. That's just sort of what I'm seeing coming. But we will see and we will be off the air before then anyways.

And I will be watching it very, very, very closely. I have a little clip here. I didn't take the time

I probably should have to convert this over to WAVE and stuff like that.

So I only have it in the real audio format and playing it at a real player, which, you know, it just doesn't work as well as some other things obviously can at, you know, things like that.

But I have been some of you know that over the past number of years, we have taken the time at times when

I have the time to do it, to go listen to other apologetics programs from the other side.

Now, believe me, if the Mormons, for example, had an apologetics program, we'd be listening and we'd be responding to it.

If the Jehovah's Witnesses had an apologetics program that we could listen to, we could record stuff, we could respond to it, we would most definitely be doing that.

But it's the Roman Catholics who generally do have this kind of material. They have their radio programs and so on and so forth.

And so I took time to have taken the time, excuse me, to listen to various presentations from various people.

I find the call -in ones to be the best because you can get the best questions, things like that.

And I was listening just briefly this afternoon while rushing around doing other things to the

Catholic Answers program once again. We played some clips from Tim Staples last week. And I was struck by something once again.

Have you ever noticed, you know, the, what was it, two years, two years ago now, well, the, actually it would be two, it was last debate with Mitch Pacwa on the subject of the priesthood.

Part of that, the reason of, you know, the situation had developed in regards to the scandals regarding the priesthood, things like that.

But we wanted to address, is there a biblical basis for the priesthood? When you look at the

Roman Catholic priesthood as it exists today around the world, not only is it, in essence, and I don't,

I don't think I'm being overly dramatic here, dying in the sense that there are so few people going into the priesthood.

And part of that, obviously, is due to the corruption within it. But you would think that the majority of the apologists would, in fact, be ordained priests.

Maybe some of the younger ones, because they're excited about their faith in that. Some of the older ones, because they've been doing this a long time, whatever.

And certainly, as you look back 60, 70 years ago, most of the spokespeople were, in fact, priests.

And in fact, really the whole Catholic answers, Jerry Mattis, Carl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Robert St.

Genes, Tim Staples, what do they all have in common? None of them are priests. They're not ordained. They're laymen.

And, you know, who spoke for the church in the 1940s, the 1950s? Well, priests did, of course.

And so it's somewhat odd that it's not priests that are taking the lead anymore on those lines.

But then when some do speak, I'm not sure, it's out there somewhere.

I know that people have mentioned that they have listened to this.

But I remember listening years ago to a radio program over in L .A. And it was with Greg Bonson, Jerry Mattitix.

And who was that? Who was the priest? Michael O'Dradditall.

He's sometimes on Larry King. He's been on Larry King recently when John MacArthur was on. I'm waiting for the lag for the channel, the people in the channel to tell me who this is, because they'll remember.

We've talked about him in channel a couple of times. Anyways, Michael Medved.

Michael Manning, thank you. See, John Mark knew it. Medved is of the wrong religion there, brother.

See, everybody came up with it. Michael O'Dradditall. Yeah, that's who it is. Botheritall, isn't that what we're supposed to say?

Something like that. Manning. And man, I'll tell you something. Listening to that debate, all

I could think, the very first time I heard it, I was like, excuse me, but why did they have him there?

Could we get him out of there so that the two guys who actually believe something and have something to say can debate?

Because every time they turn to, what do you think about that, Father Manning? It was just sort of like everything had been flying along, and there'd been some good give and take, and then you go to the priest, and so it's like, well, can't we all just get along?

And it's just, and he's the same way when he's on Larry King. I don't know why anyone has this guy on.

I'm sorry. I just, I just don't. And so I was looking at the archives for the most recent

Catholic Answers programs, and, Doctor, my

American accent, I'm sorry, American, I don't have an accent. Believe me, the

British do, but I don't. Anyway, I was looking over the archives, and I ran across this program with a priest explaining the

Eucharist, and I thought, ah, here we go. Now we will have something, okay? And so I'm just,

I'm not sure how much of this I'm going to play, but right off the bat, he explains what the real presence is.

And I've listened to Robertson Janus, and Gerry Madetix, and all these lay people explain their beliefs, but now we have a priest doing it.

All right? Let's just listen here for a moment. I think you'll see what I mean. You know, the context of the

Eucharist is always in the Holy Mass, and the Holy Mass can be divided into basically two parts. You have the

Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, there are basically three parts.

You have what is called the Offertory, then you have the Consecration, and then you have Communion. The moment of Consecration is a very sublime moment in Holy Mass when the priest is repeating the same thing that Jesus did 2 ,000 years ago.

He takes bread, and he says the words of Jesus, take and eat, this is my body.

Then he takes the cup of wine and says, take and drink, this is my blood. When the priest lifts up the bread, you have what is called the

Act of Transubstantiation, which would be the word that St. Thomas Aquinas used, where the bread is really and truly transformed into the body, the blood, the soul, the divinity of Jesus Christ.

And then when he lifts up the cup of wine and says the words that Jesus said at the Last Supper, take and drink, this is my blood, once again you have a real radical transformation of the wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

This is called the Act of Transubstantiation, the word that St. Thomas Aquinas used, using the philosophy of Aristotle.

And what happens is the appearances seem to be the same.

Even after consecration, the bread is no longer bread. It tastes like bread.

It breaks like bread. It smells like bread. It fragments like bread. But it's really not bread.

The substance is truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. So it's a very sublime moment in the context of Holy Mass.

And when the server rings the bell, there are certain attitudes that people should try to have in that sublime moment.

Certain prayers that can just flow from their heart. One would be, O Sacrament most holy,

O Sacrament divine, all praise and all thanksgiving be every moment thine. Or other people unite themselves with the sentiment to the heart of St.

Thomas, who said, My Lord and my God, a beautiful act of faith in the divinity of Christ.

And then another one would be the Christmas hymn that we sing, O come let us adore him,

O come let us adore him. So the real presence becomes a reality in that moment of the consecration and Holy Mass.

Now, it was clear, it was accurate.

I appreciate the fact, very open, the fact that they worship the consecrated host.

There's prayer, adoration, worship, the whole nine yards. Because that's how real, quote unquote, transplantation is, a concept.

A term not known in the first millennium of the Christian church.

And a term dependent upon Aristotelian philosophy, as he rightly pointed out.

A term that therefore, since it's dependent upon Aristotelian philosophy, and that would have been unknown to the apostles, makes the alleged biblical application rather extenuous.

But I just, it seems to me,

I'm just observing this really from the outside in many ways. But it seems to me that the priests are not overly concerned about communicating to non -Catholics.

Maybe because they don't have a lot of, you know, conversations with them. I don't know.

But have you noticed that when you listen to someone like a Matatex or a Keating or an

Aiken, and Matatex and Aiken are both converts, they tend to make their presentations in such a way as to answer

Protestant objections. And in fact, when saying things that are extremely offensive to a

Protestant, well, talking about worshipping the sacrament, for example, they tend to set it up.

They tend to prepare you for it. You know, they don't just simply throw it out there at you.

They try to communicate, because many of them are former

Protestants themselves, and they feel they know the best way to proselytize or to evangelize the

Protestants. And so they just present things in a different way. And in a much more, well, much more compelling way, quite honestly.

I mean, that was clear, but it, you know, wasn't the most exciting presentation you've ever heard.

And so the next question that Jerry Usher asks has to do with the Biblical basis of this alleged belief.

Father, you mentioned that the priest repeats the words of Jesus Christ. So obviously then we're looking at Scripture for support for this.

Yes. You know, we could actually go back to the Old Testament there. When you study Scriptural theology, you have what is called typology.

Certain types in the Old Testament that become a reality in the New Testament. One would be

Adam and Eve. Jesus becomes the second Adam. Mary becomes the second Eve. The Ark of the

Covenant that the Jewish people carried. Mary becomes the new Ark of the Covenant.

Then you have the Passover, where Moses brings the people from slavery to liberty through the

Red Sea. And Jesus becomes the new Moses, leading the people from the slavery of sin to the freedom of their sons and daughters of God, through the red blood that he shed on the cross on Good Friday.

But another key type... Let me just stop right there. Most people that I know, most

Protestants that I know, most good evangelicals, you know, sitting in their churches, listen to that and they go,

What? First of all, it's typology. And it's almost like he wasn't sure how to pronounce the word.

And then they'd go, Wait a minute. They have no idea what in the world he's talking about.

And again, that's why I say it doesn't seem like they're overly concerned for Protestants to understand what in the world they're saying.

Now you go and listen to a mathematician, man, he will do an entire hour on Marian typology.

And some of it gets really wacky. You know, Caleb and all this stuff and allegedly knows how old

Mary was when she was bodily assumed into heaven and all this stuff. But he does it with such fervor and passion that most people are like,

Wow, this is really cool stuff. That's really amazing. And when you start going through, I've mentioned this numerous times before, but we have a lot of new listeners.

And so I mentioned again, the first time I ever heard mathetics, and I need to find this tape. I need someone needs to send me a little note saying,

Find that tape so you can play it. So people see what you're talking about. The first time

I listened to this presentation that mathetics made on Mary, I was just blown away. I mean,

I wasn't near a Bible at the time. I was driving. I don't remember if I was riding my bike, if I was driving somewhere, what it was.

But it was in a position where you can listen and you know, you can listen fairly well, but you can't stop and start to tape and check things out and scriptures and things like that.

And that's how most people would hear it anyways. And he's going so quickly that probably most folks sitting in the audience weren't turning to these references either.

It's not like he was saying, Now turn in your Bibles and such and such. He's just giving all these rapid fire verses and stuff.

But it was so smooth and it was it was so passionately done that I'm sitting here going,

I've never heard anything like this. And he's using, he's going along saying, Now Luke is specifically paralleling the language of the

Greek Septuagint here. And the Greek Septuagint is talking about the Ark of the Covenant and 1 Samuel 6.

And here Luke uses the same language in Luke chapters 1 and 2. And he's clearly making

Mary the Ark of the Covenant. And he's going on and on and on. I'm just sitting here going, Wow, I got all the way through seminary.

I didn't hear anything like that. Wowee, you know.

And so I go home and I sit down at the computer and fire up Bible works and I get out my

Greek Septuagint. And I put the tape in a tape recorder that has a stop and a start button on it.

And I start listening. And you get to the first point and you stop it.

And you check it out. And you see, you got to realize anyone who is a good speaker can start to pile stuff on top, pile stuff on top.

You just start slamming and hammering and going after it. And you can really create an emotional tsunami just by the way you make your presentation.

That's very easily done. Anyone who knows how to speak well can speak in that way. And that's what mathematics does.

And it's when you stop and you go, OK, let's check that particular argument out.

Let's check this fact out. You've presented what you think is a fact.

Let's check it out. It's a little bit like the blog articles that I was just posting over the past couple of days, responding to the argument presented by a

Roman Catholic correspondent. I'm certain that that man has heard these presentations made by people like Matta -Tixon -Hahn and others and believes fully that what he's saying is actually true and that it holds together.

But it's when you start examining each part of the argument, when you start looking at the papacy, and you look at this long series of very questionable assertions that forms the very foundation of the alleged infallible authority of the

Roman Catholic Church, that's when you start realizing that the whole thing doesn't hold together.

But you see, most people never stop to do each point. And a lot of Protestants feel uncomfortable examining these points.

They've never even heard somebody saying something like, well, there was the Queen Mother in the Davidic Kingdom. Or in this case,

Mary's the Ark of the New Covenant, and Jesus was within her, and he's the new law, and the

Ark carried the old law. And you've got these parallels. And we've never heard stuff like that.

And especially when you start going to the Old Testament, a lot of us are like, okay, it's been a while since I read this book, you know.

And because so many evangelicals are canonically challenged along those lines. And so they get away with it.

But I sit down with the tape, and I start doing it point by point. And he says, Luke is paralleling the language of the

Greek Septuagint. Well, you know what? I happen to have the Greek Septuagint now. I'm not in my car.

And what percentage do you think of Jerry Matytix's audience has access to the

Greek Septuagint? Not too many. I can reach out my hand here, and there's my

Rolf's Septuagint sitting right there. And of course, if you have

Bible works, it's right there as well. And so I started thumbing through. I go, okay, let's turn to the

New Testament. Here's Luke's language. Here's the verbs Luke looks at. Of course, when I look at a text,

I go, is there a textual variance here? No, no textual variance. Okay, this is the verb that Luke uses. We go back to the

Greek Septuagint, and we start looking around. And we don't find that word.

We don't find it. Wow, that's, Jerry, that's not true. And so we make a note.

Jerry says this. Septuagint reads this. Luke reads this. First point, wrong.

And then you start the tape again. You go to the next point, and then you stop it. And you go to the Septuagint. You go to the

Greek. The whole presentation was based on smoke and mirrors.

And once some of the primary foundational assertions are gone, some of the rest of the statements can be true statements in and of themselves.

But the way they were used in this very convincing type of presentation actually is false.

And so the next time we ended up doing a debate, he starts into this stuff, and I start throwing refutations right back at him.

And you can tell when Jerry Madatix gets unhappy about things. That's what happened in the debate that Scott Hahn moderated on the

Isaiah 2222 stuff. And it happened again in 1996 when we, wow, six years later, we debated the

Marian dogmas. You can tell that in the debates that he did, and these days he's running around challenging pastors of small churches to debates, which

I find just absolutely reprehensible. I've talked about that before. But you can tell he had never been challenged on those things.

And I sort of wonder today if his presentations have changed at all because of that. But this priest is simply throwing this

Ark of the New Covenant stuff as if it's, you know, just believe what I'm saying. And I'll talk a little bit about how priests respond when you challenge them.

We're going to take our half hour break here. I think we started about seven minutes after, so we're right around the right time.

And take your calls at 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 930 a .m. and the worship service is at 1045.

Evening services are at 630 p .m. on Sunday, and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at seven.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26 -grace. If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org,

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Is the Bible true? Never before in history has the authority and inspiration of the

Holy Scriptures been so viciously attacked by those outside the pale of orthodoxy and within the walls of traditional evangelicalism itself.

Join us August 27, 2005 at the Sea -Tac Marriott for an historic debate between evangelical

Christian apologist Dr. James R. White and world -renowned Jesus Seminar co -founder and Bible skeptic

Dr. John Dominic Crossan as they debate a topic which every Christian should be concerned about.

Is the Bible true? Seating and tickets are limited, so call today 877 -753 -3341 or visit aomin .org

to reserve your seat today. That's 877 -753 -3341 to be a part of this historic event that will illuminate the fault lines of faith between conservative and liberal

Christians alike. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org.

Even at that, then a few minutes later, and so if you're just now listening and wondering what in the world we're doing the break at 4 .40

in the afternoon for, that'll explain it for you. We're listening to a little presentation on the subject of the

Eucharistic sacrifice by a priest, and it was on Catholic answers.

And I was mentioning, some of you have noticed that, aside from Mitch Pacwa, I've not found him to be this way, but it's been my experience that when you challenge

Roman Catholic priests and you say, no sir, you're wrong about that, they don't like that.

They don't get that very often, evidently. And that was certainly my experience in doing the debate with Peter Stravinskis, was it became very obvious by his language that, yeah,

I'll smack you with a ruler, yeah. It became very obvious by his language and his mannerisms and his body language that he just thought it was terrible that I would dare to say that he was wrong about anything he was saying.

He accused me of playing games when, for example, he completely miscited scripture.

He, I think, squished together a number of citations from different sources.

I think he put some Paul in together with some Peter, or it was all Paul, different parts of Paul, and said it was

Peter, and he throws this thing out, and I'm like, excuse me, where's that?

Now you're playing games. No, I'm not playing games. You're citing the scriptures, but you're not actually citing a scripture that exists.

And yes, he did want to leave in the middle of the debate. That's exactly right. And the same thing with the Augustine quote. You know, he has his

Augustine quote. Well, Augustine never said that. And you could just see, look on his face, like, how dare you question me that you're not supposed to do that?

And that has been the standard experience that I've had, with exception is

Mitch Pacwa. But for most of us, how dare you say such a thing to me?

I am a priest. You're supposed to believe exactly what I say. And so I think part of that goes into the attitude that, in essence, says, you know,

I don't have to actually defend this Mary is the Ark of the Covenant thing. You're just supposed to believe what I say.

And that's how it's supposed to work. So here's some more of the alleged biblical evidence here.

Of the Old Testament, we can find in the book of Exodus, where Moses has brought the people out of the slavery in the time of the

Egyptians, and he's moving through the desert and the people start to complain because there's no food.

And Moses makes the prayer, begging God to send food. And what happens? God sends the manna from the skies.

And Moses tells the people to gather the manna at the beginning of the day. And it was this sweet, this sweet tasting bread that they would be nourishing themselves on for a good time of their journey through the desert.

And that actually becomes a symbol of what would become the reality.

When Jesus says in John chapter six, he says, I am the bread of life.

Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood will have everlasting life. And I will raise him up on the last day. Now, of course,

I would agree completely that Jesus takes that prefigurement and he applies it to himself as the bread which comes down out of heaven.

No question about it. I just wonder why it is. Repeatedly.

And this is not everyone else's experience. I'm talking here to apologetically minded non -Roman

Catholics here. Isn't everybody else's experience that Roman Catholics jump immediately to the illustration

Jesus uses in John 6, 15 and following rather than to the actual didactic teaching that preceded that and that defines that?

Isn't that amazing? Isn't that amazing that that is the first place that they go?

And, you know, you hear people talking about, you know, all sorts of literal ways of reading the text in John chapter six.

But if you're going to read it, read it in its context. And I don't hear

Catholic apologists talking about the issue of reading

John 6 in its context, dealing with John 6, 35 through 45, dealing with what

Jesus says there. It's almost like you have to force them to get there. You almost have to force them to get there.

So not not unusually, he'd go directly to that, by the way, just for those who care. Um, the

Drudge Report is reporting that Federal Appeals Court Judge John C. Roberts, Jr.

is nominee to Supreme Court. I have the foggiest idea who on earth that is. But that's what the

Drudge Report is saying. And so will the Drudge Report be accurate? We don't know.

But we will know, particularly in an hour and 14 minutes when when that is officially announced.

So we will definitely be taking a look at that and wondering what's what's going to be going on.

But anyways, we continue on with the presentation here because I look over my microphone and I see no lights on, which may mean that poor

Rich over there is so zoned out that people call.

He just picks up the phone, goes, uh -uh, just hangs back up again. I don't know.

Oh, two, three. Oh, four. OK, that was my way of finding out all six lines going at once.

Isn't that gorgeous? They're all on hold, which means no one can call in. Well, at least

I know you're still alive over there. You know, it would be a really bad thing to get get done with the program, hang up the headphones, walk around, find you sprawled out over the control panel.

He died at his post. Someone says

Judge Roberts wrote a brief that said Roe needs to be overturned. Well, hallelujah there. That's I can handle that.

That's going to that's I can I can see the left lining up and getting ready to throw rotten apples.

However, how am I? Anyhow, let's get back to the the really serious stuff here.

And then Jesus said, Moses gave the bread of the people in the desert, but they died.

But whoever eats the bread that I will give to them will live forever. And then later on, we can read in the passage referring to Elijah, one king's chapter 19.

Elijah is fleeing from the king Ahab who wanted to kill him.

And Elijah is walking through the desert and he becomes tired and discouraged. And he he drops of exhaustion, exhaustion.

And as he's resting, an angel touches him and says, get up, get up.

You have to eat. So he gets up and he eats this bread. He falls asleep again. The angel taps him on the shoulder and says, get up and eat.

He eats a second time. Then after he eats a second time this bread, he walks 40 days and 40 nights to the holy mountain.

This is also symbolic of what would happen with the reality of the

Eucharist. Then after John chapter six, where Jesus goes into the bread of life discourse, saying that whoever eats his body and drinks his blood will have everlasting life and he will be raised up in the last day.

And I'm going to stop there for a moment. I guess you don't even have to bother to try to make any type of New Testament application.

OK, I guess the New Testament writers didn't have to make any reference here, didn't have to ever even allude to these things for them to allegedly be be valid.

And really part of this, let's face it. And I think this came out again in the blog articles recently.

Biblical evidence for a faithful Roman Catholic is only meant to be confirmatory.

It does not actually have to be compelling. Now, obviously, I'm making a differentiation there between confirming someone in their belief and compelling someone to believe.

If you already believe in the ultimate authority of the teaching magisterium, the

Roman Catholic Church, then the Bible simply functions as a way of confirming what you already believe.

It doesn't have to be compelling argumentation. Compelling argumentation would be, look, to handle the

Bible accurately and to believe what the Bible is saying is true, you would have to believe the following things based upon this type of exegesis and this consistent reading of the text.

But these arguments aren't compelling. It's like, well, look at this Old Testament story.

I can make this typological application here. Why is it that when

Rome does that, they go, oh, that's wonderful. And then when Dave Hunt goes off and does something weird with the same type of typological application to Rome, saying

Rome's a false church, they laugh. I mean, if you're going to be consistent, you need to reject both those types of argumentation, not except one when it's on your side.

And I say that to, you know, the Dave Hunt fans that, you know, find Rome lurking behind all sorts of things, too.

You got to be consistent here. And so this type of argumentation really isn't meant to convince, mainly the audience that we have, where you have individuals who have a biblical knowledge and a conviction that if you're going to believe something to be true on the basis of the

Word of God, then you need to be compelled to do so by the Word of God. Instead, you're just confirming those who've already accepted the ultimacy of the authority of Rome at this point.

We move into the Last Supper, or we can find in Matthew chapter 26, verse 26, where Jesus takes the bread, and he takes the wine, and he says the words of the institution, this is my body, this is my blood, instituting the great sacrament of the

Eucharist. And at the same time, he institutes the sacrament of holy orders, which these two sacraments are intertwined.

Without holy orders, of course, you don't have the holy Eucharist. Now, catch that. Catch that.

That is a major, major Achilles heel to the entire

Roman position that doesn't get discussed a whole lot. If you listened to the

Pacwa debate, how does Rome defend holy orders? That is, in case, again, once again, you know, they didn't really explain this.

But the assertion of Rome is that the apostles are ordained in the command of Christ to do this.

I remember when that was first presented to me in the Mass debate, well, first debate of the issue in the

Mass debate with Mitch Pacwa, and the imperative, and the imperative becomes the basis for holy orders and all the rest of the stuff.

And you're like, wow. Do this, remember, to me, since it's a command involves the ordination of the apostles as priests.

That just went zooming by there in that presentation. And it's, you know, it's a good thing to be aware of that type of argumentation.

Well, remember how Pacwa defended it? He defended it in a developmental sense.

But did you hear what this priest just said? Without holy orders, you can't have the

Eucharist. So if this only developed over time, then how could you have had this?

I mean, isn't the Eucharistic sacrifice absolutely definitional of the church? And so were these people doing it, but just didn't know what they were doing?

Is that what the argumentation here is? There's absolutely no way of avoiding the reality that these two are very closely related to one another.

They are. And when you give that consideration and then recognize there is no biblical foundation at all for the concept of holy orders and a sacramental priesthood, and that the best

Rome can do is say, well, you know, over time, there is this growing recognition and blah, blah, blah, blah.

I'm sorry, but this is, again, this is not even confirming argument. It is certainly not compelling.

But it's certainly not confirming either in any way, shape, or form. And since this is so foundational,

I feel this is an excellent direction of approach as far as giving biblical demonstration of where the

Roman Catholic system is in error at this point. For those of you who are keeping track of time, we're going to go ahead and wrap up at our normal time.

I know that means it could be a little bit shorter today, but we're going to wrap up at our normal time. Let's Rich over there go sleep under a fan for a while or something like that.

So we're wrapping up here in just a few moments. But let's get a few more comments in here. Our guest on the program today,

Father Edward Broom, if you feel like your understanding or the ability to explain the

Eucharist could use a little tweaking here or there, give us a call. We've got an open phone line at 888 -318 -7884.

If you would like to get on the program, we've got, again, like I say, still an open line there. Now, the only reason

I had to play that is because I don't have the WAV file, so I couldn't skip past it. We'll get to your calls in a few minutes, Father Broom, and I still have some ground we want to cover here.

But really, virtually anything having to do with understanding the Eucharist, explaining it, preparing to receive the

Eucharist, prolonging the effects of receiving the Eucharist. Catch that? Prolonging the effects.

I have said many, many, many times, you need to remember that in Roman Catholic theology, when you approach the Eucharistic sacrifice, which allegedly, and this is their key way of defending this, allegedly is the same sacrifice as the cross.

It is a re -presentation of the same sacrifice of the cross.

Prolonging the effects? What's the effect of the sacrifice of the cross, Hebrews chapter 10 says?

The perfection of those for whom it is made. Notice the difference. Your life, adoration, things like this.

Do join us if there's something on your mind or on your heart you'd like to talk about today. Father, while it's not the same necessarily as making a worthy reception of the

Eucharist, there are also things I understand that we can do to make our communions more profitable spiritually.

Maybe you can talk about that for a minute. Sure. I think it's a good idea to go through the basic requirements and we can get into the way to really prepare to receive an excellent communion.

Now I'm just going to stop it right there just because we're about out of time. But if you notice, I've started a response to Art Sippo on the blog in regards to his comments on Romans chapter 9.

And one of the things that comes up is he says that the Reformed understanding of salvation is irrational.

That God is capricious and arbitrary. And since God chooses the elect not based on anything in their own character, but solely based upon his own mercy and grace, that it is irrational.

And my point is that here we see real Roman Catholicism. The real

Roman Catholic emphasis upon what? Upon the human being.

Upon the human element of the equation. Everything is dependent upon that. How do you make the

Eucharistic sacrifice more profitable? It's up to you. It's not up to God.

The sacrifice is what it is. It's not going to perfect you. But the better your intentions when you approach it, then the longer lasting its effects are going to be.

You see what I'm saying here? The stark contrast between that and a finished sacrifice of Christ.

A complete and perfect work of a perfect Savior. What a contrast it is. We may go ahead and continue with that.

Look at some more of that in the future. We were sort of throwing stuff together at the last second today.

We appreciate your patience. Even though we got a little late start, we appreciate your patience with us and moving the time as well.

Lord willing. And not too many monsoon storms come by. We will be here again Thursday evening.

Same time except right at four o 'clock, seven o 'clock Eastern Daylight Time. Thanks for being with us.

God bless. Call us at 602 -973 -4602.

Or write us at P .O. Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona 85069. You can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org.

That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G. Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.