May 6, 2004

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.

Opening Remarks and Upcoming Apocrypha Debate

And welcome to The Dividing Line on this Thursday afternoon, 4 o 'clock here in the Mountain West, 7 o 'clock back on the East Coast, I believe, anyway. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number for you to participate in the program today.

We invite you to do so since it is a pretty much open topic. I had considered possibly pulling some WAVE files together, but I'm trying to get to trying to finish the final half of a lengthy article for a journal submission and have, well, you know, you do a debate and you want to review the material that you have.

We did a debate, by the way. We have a debate coming up two weeks from tonight on Long Island, and you can get all the information on our website. The calendar has been updated for those of you back East who want to know what's going to be going on back there, where I'm going to be, where I'm going to be speaking.

And we did a debate on the subject of what text would you use to support creedal baptism. How about every reference to baptism in the New Testament? I saw that was scrolling by, and since they're all of people who have professed faith.

Anyway, we did a debate on the subject that we're going to be doing, and that is the subject of the Apocrypha. If you're not really up on the subject of the canon of Scripture, the differences between the Roman Catholic canon and the Protestant canon and the historical reasons for that, so on and so forth, we've already done a debate on this.

We did a debate at the, let's see, Boston College, which, of course, is a Jesuit institution. That was done in a lecture seminar room. My opponent was Jerry Matitix, and we had thought beforehand, wow, this is going to be like a really boring debate.

We did two debates, Justification and the Apocrypha. And in talking beforehand, Jerry and I were a little bit concerned that, in essence, everybody was going to fall asleep during the Apocrypha debate, and that the Justification debate, we did that one first so we could have something exciting.

Well, actually, it didn't turn out that way. In fact, the Apocrypha debate turned out to be significantly more, how would I describe it? Not challenging, but fast-paced, maybe, especially once we got to the questions and answers, because, in essence, I had pointed out that the final authority for defending the idea of the canonicity of the Apocrypha, the real argument that's being put forward is the Roman Catholic canon of the Old Testament is right because Rome said so.

Rome has the authority and the power to determine the canon of Scripture, and Rome has said so, and therefore, that's it. That's all there is to it, and that raised the issues of sola ecclesia and everything else, and so it got quite animated toward the end of the debate, especially in the questions and answers at the end.

So it turned out to be a really good experience. Anyway, that's what we're going to be doing two weeks from tonight. In fact, starting exactly two weeks from now, which means there will not be a dividing line.

Someday, I know someday, Rich Pierce is going to go, you know, I've got this video stuff down so easy now that, you know, I think we'll live webcast this now. Do you hear that cackling in the background?

In fact, I'm so good at this now, I don't need someone to help me with the videotaping. I'm going to do it all myself, and I'm going to do play-by-play on the live webcast of the debate while it's on.

I can't guarantee it in the very near future, but knowing Rich, that's on the list. It's going to happen someday. You're going to be able to tune in, and you're going to hear somebody saying, and then we see that the New Testament writers, they made references to the apocryphal literature.

Well, Mr. Matuda, that's true. However, did they ever once cite the apocryphal literature with the phrase, And then you'll hear that Rich Pierce voice saying, ooh, the crowd grumbles or something like that.

We'll have fun. I can just see the people who, oh, let's take care of this right now. Someone just said, hey, how come Doc hasn't updated the recent dividing lines into the archive? First of all, I don't do any of that.

Second of all, nobody here does any of that. It's not our archive. It's not our website. We upload them, and then someone else includes them. You could actually listen to them if you know just how to change the date on it, so you can do that.

But we can't do that. We don't have control over straightgate .com. Somebody else does that, not us. And so I'm doing that for Rich's sake, because he's the one that gets people jumping on top of him, constantly saying, how come you haven't done this?

There's nothing we can do about it. It's not my job, man. So I'll answer that one right now.

And the crowd murmurs.

Murmur, murmur, murmur. Yeah, I know. So how about we make this like a subscription service? Pay-per-view. The dividing line goes pay-per-view, sort of like the SmackDown 7. Anyway, anyhow, Gary Machuda and I are going to be debating the subject of the apocrypha, and I can guarantee you one thing, and I'm going to say this right out front.

Anybody who wants to tell Mr. Machuda that, feel free to do so. I would not go back and listen to the 1993 version of the debate at Boston College for a good idea of where I'm going to be coming from.

The reason is there has been so much good stuff published since then, and honestly, without any exaggeration here, I'm going to go conservatively here and say I have four times the amount of documentation and material on the subject of the apocrypha now than I had in 1993.

And there's no way I can get it all in. My biggest challenge is going to be, in essence, trying to accurately and clearly summarize all the information that really needs to be presented within the context of the debate.

So anyone who's listened to that one, I'm not saying that was a bad debate, and it will probably come down to the same issues. Most of the debates do. The ultimate authority of Rome is the final authority for the final issue on all these things.

And people will come up to us and they'll say, how come you don't do sola scriptura again? It keeps coming back to that. Well, we've done sola scriptura. And the first year we did a debate on the subject of Mary, it came back to sola scriptura.

We said that. So then we did sola scriptura, then we did the papacy, and during both those debates we said, hey, you know, this is showing you where the ultimate authority really is. And as we've gone on from there, we can't just keep doing various forms of sola scriptura debates.

I mean, it would be nice. We're always being challenged to defend sola scriptura. It would be nice to hear someone step up and defend the other side. And that's not just simply the idea of the papacy.

That one, we've done that a number of times and it doesn't go well. Look, the history, the epistemology, it doesn't go well. And so what I would like to see is someone defend the idea that the Bible teaches the necessity of the Roman Catholic magisterium because they'd have to admit, I mean, a smart Roman Catholic is going to say, I'm not going to defend that because the Bible doesn't, because the Bible's insufficient.

What they're going to have to come out and to make a positive statement of their position, they're going to, in essence, have to say, the Bible teaches its own insufficiency, but does not, in and of itself, tell us exactly who we are to turn to to make up that insufficiency.

That has to come through church history. And then when you start talking about church history, they're going to have to go, well, at that point, it is church history as interpreted by us. And very quickly, the circular nature of Roman Catholic epistemology begins to take shape because, well, so you're saying, we can't look at this particular early church father because no singular early church father is infallible.

Well, right, okay, so this particular early church father didn't interpret Matthew chapter 16 the way that the Roman Catholic Church today interprets it. Right, he wasn't infallible at that point. So in other words, you get to pick and choose.

You get to, tradition is made up of any statement you can find, no matter what its context, no matter from whom it's found, that supports your modern position. That, in essence, is what tradition ends up being.

Tradition is not something that can be objectively identified. It just can't be done. So that's really why I think most Roman Catholic apologists don't want to do that. They just want to attack solo scriptura because the functional mechanism by which they've worked for quite some time is that by attacking the sufficiency of the scriptures, many people just simply fall into the Roman Catholic epistemology without even recognizing that by doing so, they are saying, well, these arguments work when used against the Bible, but I'm not going to apply them to Rome's claims.

Because in reality, every argument that Roman Catholic apologists place against solo scriptura, if you would turn it around and force them to function on the exact same level and be fair in applying the same criteria to their epistemology, it would fall apart.

But they don't do that. And very, very rarely do they allow themselves to be put in a position of being forced to do so. And so anyway, we're not sure what the debate next year is going to be. We're working on a couple different possibilities along those lines.

It's been quite some time since we've done the Marian dogmas. That was the first one around, and we didn't do it real well in the sense that it was an exciting debate, but we did four subjects at one time.

That just doesn't work. I think most people recognize that. It's just too much stuff. So that's a possibility somewhere down the road when we get around to that. 877 -753 -3341, you can tell that the voice is going fairly quickly, as on Tuesday.

I feel pretty good, but there's something not quite working in there, and it looks like it's heading toward the old pipes down there, heading into the chest. So we've got the coffin-type thing and things like that.

I brought my Gatorade over so when we start talking to callers, and I can use your help today because if I have to talk another 45 minutes, it's going to be pretty ugly at the end of this particular period of time.

But 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. And so let's go ahead and talk with our first caller and talk with Mark in Atlanta. Hi, Mark.

Hey, Dr. White. How are you doing?

I'm here. What's up?

All right. What's that?

What's up?

Just a quick question about. I've been speaking with a friend and dealing with the Regulative Worship Principle, and he's saying that we should not engage in public debates. How would you answer that as far as that?

So this individual is saying that RPW, the Regulative Principle of Worship, has something to do with public debates?

Well, I don't know that he would say that it's directly tied. It's just kind of his, that's where he says, I hold to the Regulative Worship Principle, and from there I think he's, I don't know how I would describe it actually.

Well, the only way I could see, if the person was saying, well, I don't believe in having a debate as part of a worship service, there's no question that I would agree with that. I can understand those who would not want to have a debate within their church because they would not want to, even in the process of refutation, give a platform to a heretic.

I can understand that. However, it sounds like what is being said is that, well, I don't see any New Testament basis for debating, and I would disagree heartily if apostolic example is what provides us with the Regulative Principle of Worship, and that is the idea that what makes for God's worship is positively laid down for us in Scripture.

And hence, many people who hold to that would obviously find the large majority of worship in evangelical churches today to be displeasing to God, and yet the whole idea of applying this to worship in general is something I really don't follow where this person is going with it.

But even if we say that, and even if we get rid of the worship part and say, well, you need to have apostolic example for anything you do, the fact is Acts 17 and 18 show not only apostles but laymen engaging in public disputation.

It wasn't private. It was out in the open on the subject of theology where they were defending unique Christian claims, which would also have involved, especially for the Apostle Paul, the public refutation of cavils against the Christian faith and of distortions of the Christian faith.

And so I don't see any way around that. And so unless apostolic example in those places is not relevant to this particular individual's definition of the Regulative Principle of Worship, then I would simply disagree with his application.

Sure, and I guess that's even beyond the Regulative Principle of Worship is just engaging in public debate.

Well, I just don't see RPW as addressing the whole area at all. I mean, that would be like saying, I believe that Pete in Canada has a problem with Furbies and therefore I do not drive a Ford. I'm sorry, the two are not really connected to one another in any meaningful, logical fashion, even to people who listen or are in our chat channel.

So, you know, the Regulative Principle of Worship, I just don't see its relevance to the issue of debating in the context that we do debating outside of what I said at the beginning.

Sure, well, I think the main objection is that he doesn't believe it can be supported from the New Testament. You know, obviously, just speaking of Acts 17 and 18, but there's always a yeah, but. When you bring anything up about any type of debate, anticipated debate in any of Paul's writings even, or anything like that, there's always a yeah, but.

Well, I just disagree. I think that you can lay a foundation for that particular issue in regards to the commands that are given to Timothy, and the commands that are given to Christians in Ephesians chapter 5, that we are to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, and then the fact that Paul obviously did that by directly dialoguing, and that that term can be translated as debating.

His opponents in a public forum. So I think there's apostolic examples, so I would say, well, you know, obviously, probably your friend shouldn't engage in debating himself, but that's a different thing than saying nobody else.

Yeah, I think that's a sufficient answer.

All righty.

Just kind of looking for another road to go down. And you've got to listen to the Jerry Walls debate if you can get that.

I've already ordered it.

Very nice. There's straw men and many other logical fallacies.

Well, I had heard that it was going to be taking place. I wasn't sure when. I guess it's been over a year now, but I appreciate the link for that. Already ordered it, and look forward to getting an opportunity of listening to it.

Good deal.

All righty, sir.

Thanks a lot.

Take my call.

God bless you.

Okay, God bless.

Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

The 2002 Ware-Schreiner Debate and Middle Knowledge

What he's referring to there is a debate that took place April of 2002 up in Kentucky, I believe, between Ware and Schreiner, two Calvinists, and the authors of the book, Jerry Walls, and the other name escapes me at the moment, from Asbury Seminary, who wrote the book Why I'm Not a Calvinist.

I mentioned some of the issues I had with the book a few weeks ago. It may have even been last week, early last week, here on the program in regards to that particular book. So there was a debate that was done.

I've done two-on-two debates, and I guess if you have enough time to really develop a point or allow speakers to do some speaking, I guess that works. It's not something I really enjoy doing myself.

I can see some situations where it might be advantageous. But anyway, it was advertised. I wanted to listen and pick it up, because it would give me an idea. It would be nice to read the book with voices.

In other words, I look at this book, and you read the ideas that are presented and the friendliness toward Mullinism and a friendliness or at least an openness to open theism. You go, what's really behind this?

When you get a chance to listen to someone speak, you can start picking up some of those elements as you read. It would be worthwhile doing something like that. 877 -753 -3341. So far, no one else has picked up the phone to call in, which means it's quite possibly the fact that the listeners, and I can see them.

They're all moving in the channel right now, dodging from side to side and saying strange things. It's just possible that those who are listening right now are enjoying the fact that they're listening to my voice cracking and things like that.

Someone just asked, what is Mullinism? It's M-O-L-I-N-I-S-M. I've seen it. Of course, Monaghan spells it correctly because Monaghan spells everything correctly. But then right after she spells it correctly, it's misspelled by somebody else.

Mullinism, of course, the theory of middle knowledge and the idea that God has a special knowledge of what free creatures who have libertarian free will will do given any set of circumstances. So that God controls circumstances, not people, and places them in situations where they do what he wants them to do, but they do it freely.

This is simply a mechanism whereby Louis de Molina, a Jesuit philosopher, sought to get around the sovereign freedom of God and hold on to libertarian free will. God is in essence limited in his sovereignty to the manipulation of circumstances and he places them, there's a lot of misspelling in the channel right now, he then places them within these circumstances where he somehow has this special knowledge of knowing what they're going to do.

Of course, the problem is, where do you get that from? Scripture, A. And B, even open theists would argue very strongly that that in essence would create a situation where libertarian free will really wouldn't be free.

That is, that if God controls the situations so that I cannot do otherwise than what I freely choose to do but could not do anything other than what I freely choose to do, am I really freely choosing to do it?

Which is why open theists argue that they are the only consistent Arminians, they're the only consistent people who hold to libertarian free will and that even the Molinist has created a, what is fairly obvious to most people, to be somewhat of an artificial means around the situation.

877 -753 -3341, let's talk with Kevin in Kentucky. Maybe the same Kevin who sells debates. Actually, it wasn't Kevin. I don't know. Hi, Kevin, how are you doing?

Hello, how are you doing?

Do you know who sells that debate? Because you are in Kentucky and everyone in Kentucky knows everybody else in Kentucky.

I sent half of my youth group to go up to see that debate. I couldn't make it, but I'm not the one selling them.

What was your youth group's general opinion?

Their general opinion was that the Reformed folks used scripture and they used emotion and tradition.

Philosophy?

A lot of things where they would say, well, you know, God wouldn't do that. Dr. Ware was my theology professor at Southern Seminary, so I kind of have an idea of what he was going to say, but they were real impressed.

Well, anyone who meets Bruce Ware is very impressed with Bruce Ware. They have to be.

He's very passionate. In class, he just does the most otherwise mundane things. He's just, isn't this wonderful?

He's just real excited about everything. The first time I met Bruce was at a Founders Conference in Lynchburg, Virginia. I was introduced in the most unusual fashion I had ever been introduced before.

What happened was the pastor of the church, and I didn't know most of these folks. I've not been back that direction much. It used to be on my website, I've taken it down, but there was a description of me.

It would start off by giving all these insults that various people who don't like me. I don't know if you've ever seen that before. Gail Ripplinger calls me a serial soul killer and a rude, crude heretic, and this Roman Catholic says this, and this Mormon says that.

The pastor gets up there and he reads all of them. Then, of course, the description then goes on to give some information of me. What he does is he just reads all of them and then looks at me and says, here's James White and sits down.

The place is just dead silent. I looked down and I think it was Mark Dever just had this ashen look of shock on his face. I get up there and, of course, I tried to be somewhat humorous about it, but I remember Dr. Ware afterwards was just so apologetic.

I hope you weren't offended. He has a very big heart. It was just, I've never heard an introduction like that. It was just like, neither have I, but hey, you take what you can get and roll with the punches.

It was a lot of fun.

He's very great. I've just noticed that he's got summaries of his systematic theologies online for people to listen to.

Everything is going online these days, isn't it? Anyway, that's not why you called, is it?

Can I change why I called?

You can do whatever you'd like.

I'm just curious what your opinion is of some of these events. I know that John Piper and Willie Giglio speak at them. What's your opinion of them?

You're going to have to... I'm sorry, Beth Moore?

Beth Moore. She's one of the... They've got a handful of speakers at these.

Fashion conferences,.

And she's usually in the mix. One stage is Piper, one stage is Giglio.

Well, that generally doesn't happen at Reformed Baptist conferences for some odd reason. I guess it would depend on what the subject is. If it is preaching, if it is the proclamation of the Word of God, then I would have a problem with that in light of my beliefs concerning the proclamation and the authority that is invested in the one proclaiming the Word of God and the fact that the proclamation of the Word of God should be authoritative when it is proclaimed.

So I would have a problem at that point. If it was something in another realm that did not involve the proclamation of the Word of God, then I suppose there would be room for that. But I'm really not familiar, even with the individual to whom you're speaking.

I don't generally go to these things. I don't have time to. When I travel, I'm either speaking at one or I'm doing a debate or something like that. I generally don't go to them myself. We've had things right here in Phoenix that were just across the valley and I don't even get in the car and go that far personally because I don't have time to.

So yeah, it does raise an issue, doesn't it?

Beth Moore writes a lot of discipleship materials for biblical material. My wife has been through several of her studies and this conference is more for even being associated with these.

I've got to leave that up to them. I know it sounds like I'm dodging that. Maybe I am, because I've not been put in that position personally. All I can say is that sometimes I find myself in a difficult situation because I'll be invited to something and I don't even know who else is speaking.

That's not a good situation to be in. I almost ended up on TBN once at the Christian Booksellers Association. I managed to just barely escape that by 30 seconds. I think each individual has to answer for where they are willing to speak and the subjects upon which they are willing to speak and the people who are going to be there.

The only reason that I would ever be on the same speaking platform with certain individuals would be if I was debating them. I don't know this individual. I haven't been to anything like that. I really don't have anything overly meaningful to add to that.

Sorry about that.

No problem.

All right, Kevin. Thank you. Thanks. God bless. 877 -753 -3341. We have three folks online now. We can get three or four in on a half hour. If we go ahead and take our break now. I definitely need it.

Take some Gatorade here and take your phone calls. When we come back from this break, we'll be right back.

Homosexuality, Mary, and Church Sponsorship

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 almen .org.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are imploring Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic. He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived, bodily assumed queen of heaven, viewed as co-mediator with Christ and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church.

Mary, Another Redeemer, is fresh insight into the woman the Bible calls blessed among women and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth. You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at almen .org.

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 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. 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 are 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.

Debates, Voice Strain, and Top Five Favorites

Welcome back to the dividing line. We have folks lined up on the phones. Let's go ahead and get to them and let's talk with Glenn. Hi, Glenn.

Hey, Dr. White. Can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Very good. Just wanted to call out of mercy with your voice going and I've had a lot of Calvaries coming to your rescue.

Yeah, but they all ask me questions so I have to talk anyways.

We can just ramble on.

Well, you could call in and sing, too.

I could. I have maybe some Rocky Mountain High out in the truck right now.

No, no, you have to do it yourself.

Oh, no.

It's all the rage right now. For, what is that show? American Idol.

Oh, yeah.

So this is your shot. We can go with American Theological Idols.

Well, only if you can pretend you're Simon and you can give me a good one-liner.

Oh, yes. Well, Glenn, I would keep your day job.

Well, I was just going to ask you, what your top five favorite debates have been over the years?

I've never really put them in any particular order because each one differs from all the rest and you'd have to say, well, top five as in the most useful, top five as in the most enjoyable, top five as in the toughest.

There's all sorts of things like that.

What about a top couple of each?

Well, I think the... And by the way, I need to quash a rumor here. It says someone just said in Channel that I watch American Idol. Actually, I caught the last ten minutes of it last night to see who was going to get kicked off.

It's sort of like watching the playoffs in almost any sport. If you wait until the end of the season, then it's worth watching. And that's sort of where we are now with this. Even though, I have to admit, seeing the promos of the really bad singers is very enjoyable.

It is just a joy.

My five-year-old loves that show.

So anyway, I would say that the toughest debates would be the one last December on the subject of the Deity of Christ in Tampa with Greg Stafford. Back in January 1991, I debated Mitchell Pacwa on justification of the Mass.

And I probably prepared more for those than almost anything else I had done. I think back on the preparation for those. The number of times that I went over my opening statement, timing it, and everything else, that was a tremendous challenge for me because I had seen Mitchell Pacwa on the Ankerberg show.

This was only like, let me see, one, two, three, it was only my fourth and fifth debates, actually. So it's not like I had a whole lot of experience. And I was sick. My voice pretty much was as bad as it is right now.

And so those were very, very challenging. Some of the ones that pop into my mind as well, whenever I've been in Roman Catholic context, I did two debates up in Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska, back about 92, as I recall.

And I didn't know a soul. I was dependent upon my opponents for transportation. It was frigid outside. And as far as I knew, there was only one other non-Catholic in the room. And that was odd. That wasn't overly enjoyable.

The debate with Art Sippo in 91 in Toledo, the great ambush, certainly goes across my mind as one of the worst debates as far as the behavior of my opponent went. There have been some pathetic debates where, quite honestly, the other person should not have ever said yes to that invitation.

Let's not do this again. Because there were some times I just basically had to stop, almost like a mercy killing. It was just really that bad. So each one's different. I think probably, and someone mentioned this in channel just now, probably the two that stick out in my mind most, though, just as far as unusual events, was the debate with Tim Staples on PayPal.

Well, both debates with Tim Staples have been wild. His followers are wild. When you have people out in the audience just screaming out in the middle of everything, the Eucharist! And everybody's like, ah!

You're looking for the closest exit at that point because you figure that someone's going to whip out the bicks and it's time to burn the heretics. So that one was pretty wild. And then the one on PayPal infallibility where he just did a complete meltdown.

And then just completely ignoring the rules of the debate. There was no moderator to stop him, in essence. And then they wouldn't give us the videos. That was all pretty wild. And then probably the most...

When someone says, what's the top event? I would say that in the very first great debate on Long Island, when after four subjects, four periods of cross-examination, I keep hitting Gerry Matiticks with, Mr. Matiticks, can you name anybody in the 2nd century that believed what you believe about this subject?

No. Can you believe anybody? Anyone in the 3rd century? Mr. White, anyone in the 4th century? Sir, I'm asking questions. And then finally he says some long lines of, Mr. White, you can't expect every early church father to have discussed these things.