New Mexico Report

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 to make a ministry 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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good morning, welcome to the dividing line on a

Tuesday morning beautiful day here in Phoenix, Arizona, I Believe I saw something beautiful this morning and it was that the average temperature has now dropped below Triple digits it's always

Something we like to see around here. I was just over in Santa Fe, New Mexico at the discern o8 conference at the

Calvary Chapel, Santa Fe and the pastor there Paul Skaza fava see

I can say it correctly, but I can only say it correctly once and that was my one shot at it Is one of the few Calvary Chapel pastors be who is willing to be able to seen in public with me?

Actually, Pastor Paul was not feeling well and hasn't feeling well quite some time need to pray for him so I didn't even get a chance to see him this time around but I had an interesting mix of folks there and everything went very very well the conference was very well organized lots of neat topics were discussed and had folks

I hadn't seen in a long time saw Mike and Jane gender in there and We had

Ron Rhodes there and Bill McKeever was there and Bill Hansberger was there and Then I got finally to meet

Rob Bowman Who was there and he wasn't feeling all that well either we're all getting old this is just it's we're all commenting on the fact that we're all getting old as well and so I spoke on Islam on the

Marian dogmas and my main presentation was on the reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts I have a new presentation on that That I made in keynote and it really turned out

I'm just I'm just having a grand old time with with that new Mac and especially keynote I've got

I hope I have time to finish all the presentations before this weekend But I have some some templates for that stuff.

That is just gonna be awesome No, you're the only one around here do who doesn't drink chamomile tea anymore

You know the calming oh yes. Yes. Yes, and I don't have any I'll have a need for any bath soaps either calming bath soaps

That's true, and if you haven't seen the Mac commercials on that particular subject, then you're not really following the the joke there, but quite true,

I don't I The blue screen of death is something that is now a past part of my experience in Computing and I'm very happy about that now.

What's coming up this weekend before we get back into the soles critter debate What's coming up this weekend? Three days in fact

I'm having to try to work on my travel plans to fit Friday in now Starting Friday evening this is not on the website yet.

I'm gonna get it up After the program Friday evening seven o 'clock one six seven.

Oh five Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Nine zero seven zero six same place as the debates on Saturday is the easiest way to remember this

We will be having a presentation Where the

Christian debaters who are going to be debating over the course of the weekend are going to be making positive Presentations and then my understanding is the

Muslim debaters are going to be asking questions of us And the public is invited to attend that I am going to be giving a 20 to 25 minute presentation on original sin and atonement and Then taking questions on that and that'll be on Friday night one six seven zero five

Bellflower Boulevard in Bellflower, California and So I want you to be aware of that then the rest information is on the website

I'm looking at The blog entry for you should probably repost this today.

I think that's what I'll probably do is copy it and repost it This is number 2843 from hmm.

Why isn't there a date on it? Oh, it must be up top now Yes, September 3rd of this year is where the great debate series is linked

And so on September 20th, that'll be on Saturday same location at 10 a .m

Does anyone think that early in the morning on a Saturday this? Interesting group of people who get out in Southern, California for a

Christian Muslim debate at 10 a .m On a Saturday morning, but will I be awake at 10 a .m.

On a Saturday morning is the question? I better be because I'm going to be Debating Salma Abdullah on was

Jesus crucified or substituted Some of you may go well, didn't you debate

Shabir Ali on that? I debate Shabir Ali on the crucifixion of Christ. Remember Shabir Ali does not take The normative

Muslim position. He believes that Jesus was crucified, but he didn't die sort of the swoon theory type perspective and so We want to find someone who would defend what most

Muslims believe and that is that a substitute was crucified in the place of Christ and Osama Abdullah is going to be doing that 10 a .m.

On Saturday then at 2 p .m. David Wood is going to be debating Farhan Qureshi on can we trust the

Quran and Then the triple header in the evening at 6 p .m.

So I'm going to have a few hours to go find a place and curl up and try to Get caught back up and I've never done two debates in one day

David does it all time and yeah, but he's young. He hasn't hit 40 yet. Once he does he'll fall apart.

But anyway Then I'll be debating Osama Abdullah again at six o 'clock on can we trust the

New Testament? So was Jesus Christ crucified or substituted 10 a .m. Can we trust the Quran 2 o 'clock

David Wood versus Farhan Qureshi? And then six o 'clock. Can we trust the New Testament then?

I'm not sure How this is working yet, but either that night or more likely the next morning we are driving down to the

San Diego area and Specifically Escondido and That means nice and close to Westminster Theological Seminary there

So I expect all the folks That can try to come out come out because we're not doing it during church time.

Anyways, thankfully at least in the morning I will be debating Farhan Qureshi on did

Jesus claim to be God at 2 30 p .m. On the 21st

I am NOT going to be able to stay For David Woods debate is Muhammad a true prophet at 6

Because I have a flight back and as it is and I want to let everybody know this ahead of time As it is basically as soon as that is over at 5 p .m

I'm gonna have to have everything packed up and right out the door to make it to my flight, so I Hope that no one will be upset with me about that or feel that I'm a terrible horrible nasty man or anything like that I just that's just the way that things worked out

And so I'm not gonna be able to hang around and I enjoy that But I'm not gonna be able to do that this time around so my debate did

Jesus claim to be God This is at two four four nine South Center City Parkway Escondido my understanding

From someone in channel is at one of those two locations. I think the second one is the Calvary Chapel in Escondido.

I'm not sure Micah put links to the maps I think

Google Maps on this particular on the graphics on this If you click on that you can get directions

To be there so even if you cannot be with us this weekend be praying for us obviously these will be videotaped

And we'll be making them available And of course these continue to be very important topics, and I'm very much looking forward this weekend.

I just Hope I have enough time between now and then to get those presentations put together because I not only have the debate presentations

Which have to be timed? obviously appropriately But I also have then the presentation on original sin and atonement put to put together as well

So gonna be a busy busy week for those of you who like to send me emails again

It's probably where I get this terrible reputation of being a mean terrible nasty man But those of you who send me emails wanting me to be your private

Bible answer ma 'am to do translational work for you To look up everything in commentaries for you, etc.

Etc. Especially this week. You're probably going to get ignored Because there's you know

I know that the big boys might have a staff to help them and to Put material together and stuff like that.

I don't and so I'm On my own with this stuff including the production of the presentations.

I do it all myself so I'm gonna be rather busy this week and I reserve next week for a time of mental breakdown

Can't do that because Next week is after that is the Ligonier conference here here in Phoenix So we're gonna be busy toward the end of the week with that.

Anyhow, and then I'm preaching on Sunday. So It's gonna be a busy busy

Busy busy time. Yeah, I've got something in channel going. Hey, I got a quick question you busy right now.

Yeah That's exactly how it goes People coming to channel all the time. Hey, could you translate this for me and and then summarize?

all of scholarship on this and You know, and I just I sit there going, you know, would you ask ask other people that you know?

Would you you know if you happen to get past the security into John MacArthur's office you plop down say so John Could you stop everything you're doing and I've got some

Hebrew questions for you, you know anyway, but anyhow, it's It's gonna be fun this this weekend.

So Keep us in prayer for that. We very much look forward to it I think the presentations that I did this weekend are online

At Calvary Chapel Santa Fe the audio but the problem is I was using PowerPoint for everything so Might not have quite the same

Level of I now they're videotaping. So maybe maybe they're gonna do something with that I don't know.

I didn't get the details on that but great folks over there. Beautiful beautiful weather in Santa Fe Wow, that was nice, but some odd people

Santa Fe is filled with really artsy folks It's it's it's an odd odd mixture.

Yes Santa Fe's New Mexico's version of our Sedona. Oh, I know that. Oh, I know that.

Yeah Yeah, I was looking for the people standing out, you know on a hilltop going home You know looking for the converging rocks on top day something something like that.

Yeah There's a lot of mysticism and stuff like that around there, but the weather was really really nice I suppose that's why you know,

I I really something tells me that most American New Agers would not like turn

Anchorage into a Vortex, you know because they don't want to be in the cold.

They want to go to nice places Sedona, Santa Fe You know, those are nice places to live and hang out and wait for UFOs and stuff like that Well, anyway, let's let's get on with important stuff here.

Not that the stuff coming this weekend isn't important, but UFOs in Santa Fe don't really excite me that much.

We are going back to our discussion of a debate took place in 1993 well, wait a minute

Hmm Well, you know, I guess I didn't even see that since I was looking at the other stuff so we actually have a caller online, so let's go ahead and Take our caller first and then we will move on with the debate.

So let's talk with David. Hi David. How you doing? I'm doing good. How are you doing? All right My question is with regards to Islam and It's gonna take me a little bit to get out.

Hopefully you can flush something out of there, but it has to do with a trend that I see That's more common and it's for Muslims, especially

Western Muslims to reject a lot of the traditions to reject

Either outright or parts of say the hadith Sarah the biographies and I noticed that there's scholarship that's doing this now, too

I know Shabir Ali he did this with his debate with J. Smith and I've even seen

Nader Ahmed He kind of takes a similar position as well And so I was just wondering when you debate

Muslims or in the future or anyone else Can someone make it clear that this is not

Essentially Islam or not mainline Islam I don't think Shabir Ali is representative of Muslims.

So I just like to get your feedback. Well Obviously Islam is a multifaceted

Religion and Pretty much when you speak with any Muslim just like it's you know It's like talking with the

Roman Catholic their view of Catholicism They think is the most accurate or mainstream or whatever else might be even if they're completely out the lunch

And even amongst the majority groups like the Sunnis there are you know various viewpoints and perspectives clearly

Western Islam Experiences a much wider birth as far as ability to speculate on things ability to be somewhat critical of certain

Hadith traditions or elements of that tradition To develop their own unique takes on things and because in Saudi Arabia or something like that There's there's a rather obvious reason why you don't get to do that Definitely, you know and and I've often said that most

Islamic apologists in the West Would probably find themselves in mortal danger if they were to say the things they say in a place like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Places like that and that does say something to me that that certainly does

I think indicate Something to me, but I do try to deal with the apologist where he is if he's gonna.

You know just start dismissing Sahih al -bukhari or something like that, then

I'm gonna point out that this person is Very much out of line with with the historical perspectives of Islam And you know the the

Muslims in the audience may or may not get that depending on you know How well read they are and certainly the

Christians in the audience having a clue who sahih al -bukhari is unless unless you try to explain it you know, but you know certainly there is a

Freedom that they tend to express In picking and choosing from especially the sources of tradition because the source of tradition allow for all of that I mean, there's there's no one perspective being presented there

And and so I know that this weekend I was listening again this morning to Farhan Qureshi in his debate with Nabeel Qureshi and An excellent debate by the way

Nabeel did a tremendous job I was going to email him this morning and and compliment him yet again on the passion with which he presented his case for the deity of Christ, but as always

It came around to accusations of the corruption of the text in the New Testament and You know he took the perspective that well

You know as soon as Muhammad would would dictate the Quran There's all these people sitting there And they're memorizing it and they're writing it down on stuff

And and it was all in written form long before Muhammad died and all the rest is done Well if he makes that allegation this this coming

Sunday in our in our debate I'm going to I'm telling him this now ahead of time if he wants to be listening.

That's great I'm going to take him right back to Sahih al -Bukhari. I'm gonna say okay If that's the case then how in the world after the

Battle of Yamama And many of the Qurta have died Why would the death of the memorizers of the

Quran cause someone to feel that a great part? Kathir min a great part of the

Quran Would be lost if further of the Quran were to die if it's already in written form right then why please explain this to me and I've never gotten anybody to explain it to me except for the

Muslims who admit that no It wasn't in written form it had been memorized

And that's why in the same section of Sahih al -Bukhari six five one nine five ten

You will have the the fact that one particular ayah Even after the original compilation was missed and had it was found with one person and Which of course raises in my mind all sorts of questions like well if only one person had that ayah and all these other

Qurra had already been killed How do you know there weren't a bunch of other ayahs that were only with one of them and since they got killed you don't?

Have it you know I mean all these things you'll need to be looked at and I'm I'm not using some Christian source here

I'm using their own and so he might go Sahih al -Bukhari who cares well, you know once you start becoming that selective

I would I would have said assert that the Islamic interpretation of the Quran from the beginning has been utterly

Dependent upon the Hadith itself you can't make heads or tails my point Yeah Even the

Quran itself makes allusions to the traditions and to and I'm trying to think of the ayah where it says

We've given rightly guided moolahs Yeah, and and and Khalif and so you're rejecting that you know you the other problem is for Sunnis Which is the vast majority of Muslim?

You don't get a Sunnah from the Quran I mean if you're gonna start challenging traditions outright like Buhari and all of Hadith there are all of the biographies

You're gonna run into that problem of well, then what is Islam right? You don't get Islam just from the

Quran no and and I would say you know the conversation We're having now we know that and there's even other

Muslims that know that But for the vast majority of Christians I mean It's way over their head one of the things that I've heard you say that I agree with is the debate is both basically supposed to elucidate two positions

You know just make things more clear and at least with the debate that I saw was Shabbir Ali and Jay Smith Now was this on is this was the one off your site the one that was not too long ago a couple months ago

I mean I linked to it, but it was that you're right, and it was showing that in it People didn't get that in fact, that's the version of Islam Westerners want to hear right they want to hear well

We reject those Hadith because they were you know colloquial and of that time and they interjected their own man tradition

This wasn't from God Yada yada, and I've heard that before I've seen that elsewhere on the internet again.

I think you're right I've come to the same conclusion. You're not gonna get away with that in Damascus or Riyadh No, no no that that's that you were here

But I would just like to see someone that just calls it for what it is and just points it out that This is not

Islam. I mean if you were going to debate a member of the nation of Islam I Would think and I think you would that either you or the moderator or whoever was themselves would say hey

I'm not representative of a majority of Muslims I mean if a Muslim were debate a

Mormon, I would hope somewhere in there someone to say well This isn't Orthodox Christianity or mainstream or whatever you want to call it but when

Shabbir Ali gets up there, and he debates people I see him just as much of a heretic as The nation of Islam members that the

Quran only movement to me seems very much a Actually an Islamic heresy well not now

Shabbir Shabbir is not Quran only I Don't know if he would if he would know Position is almost no.

I've heard him. I've heard Shabbir lecture on Hadith and Now I know a

Quran only the first gentleman that I debated the first Muslim I ever debated Hams Abdul Malik has become

Quran only and He considers the Shahada an example of Shirk because it associates

Muhammad with Allah. Oh wow yeah It was very interesting speaking to him in Norfolk because he attended the debates that we did back there when

I debated another Ahmed Well, I debated. I'm not sure what another Ahmed was doing, but anyway Look at the video.

I mean as that was one of the most embarrassing things. I've ever seen an adult do in in in public, but anyway he was there and It was very interesting

What was really interesting me was even though the Muslim debaters knew he was Quran only and hence should be considered a heretic

They knew that he had just enough knowledge of the original languages They were constantly running to him to try to defend themselves against me

So it's like we'll run to the heretic The Islamic heretic even though he's crying only who cares like the

Catholics that run to you for the JW It's like well, that's really weird. It's a strange situation, but so I do know some of them

Shabir would say no no no no no I'm not We just simply have to apply.

You know I mean he's he's doing his PhD in Quranic studies in Canada He's not just challenging like some side thing.

I mean right granted. He would not come out himself and say hey I'm an Islamic heretic no But it's basically a default

I would consider it a default position Yeah, yeah, I think over the course of his

PhD studies He's moved away from where he was back say 10 years ago because I heard him doing the

Quran code stuff you know where you count up the number of ayahs and you know all the rest that stuff and I just I Don't know that he would do that anymore to be perfectly honest with you because you know

Canadian Quranic studies are probably not quite as conservative as in Riyadh or Egypt or something like that so you know

So I don't know. I I don't think he would call himself Quran only, but yeah, I mean certainly I've said many times he would he would stick out like a sore thumb over in the

Middle East amongst a a Muslim majority and if your message changes in that context what does that say yeah?

Oh, yeah, I see that it's kind of winning points. I mean even I mean I know you're aware of the debate about the

Quran is that eternal or is it not right and about the side that said yeah? It's eternal basically one so now you can get people that want to hearken back to these older traditions

But they've been largely rejected by the four major schools of Sunni Islam Yeah, so in a way

It's kind of I mean that would be heretical too And I just I do see a lot of leeway that they take with themselves that they would do things

When countering you know an enemy that they would not do in their normal discourse, right? There's no two ways about that and that works both directions

I mean let's face it when when Christianity responds to Islam there tends to be a willingness to somewhat

Drop certain distinctives as well, and I think that that probably goes both directions I mean

I try to be as consistent as I possibly can be but you all you everybody feels the pressure

Along those lines and anyone who says they don't is just lying to you, so People would someone

I mean like I think that you would but that others would point this out to people that you know when they Take those kind of stances that those are not normative.

They're not historic And that they are I guess you could say if the person's not a heretic themselves.

It's it definitely Heterodoxy yeah, yeah It's ad -hoc it's so clearly ad -hoc that they're ditching it just because it's non -attractive, and it makes them look bad and Well, you would think most people with discernment would realize that most of the religions that come into the

United States from from the east Are willing to somewhat edit themselves to make themselves more palatable

Buddhism all of them do the same thing and So Islam seems to to be doing the same type of thing all you gotta do is direct some of these folks folks to memory

TV And say hey sit down and and watch for a while and listen to The folks that are in the middle of the very heart of Islam listen to what they're saying

What they say about Jews they would never ever say exactly Yep, all righty.

Thanks. Dr.. White. God bless everybody Yeah, very very much, so I was sort of watching rich in there is he was sort of you know

Starting to count the number of dimples on the ceiling Like that like that's one of them

Muslim calls Okay, whatever all right. Let's get let's shift gears here and Get into the solo scriptura debate

Patrick Madrid 1993 once again. Just briefly doing this because Well because Patrick keeps bringing these things up.

We played a few weeks ago Comments that he himself made in regards to the debate and it's just always good to remind folks of the reality of history while we still can and decide for ourselves

Exactly how fair people are being in their presentations, so we continue with the soul scripture debate debate from 1993 myself versus Patrick Madrid the

They must contain some different data that is being passed on rather than what's in Scripture There's the problem.

I Challenged mr. Madrid to show us any bit of evidence That any time that the term tradition is used in Scripture where the

Christian Church is passing it on But it means that what is in that tradition? differs from what's in the

New Testament that now Patrick's gonna respond me. Oh, no. I don't have to say it all because I believe in material sufficiency

So what's in the tradition is identical with what's in Scripture? Well, then why do you need the tradition in the in the sense that saying that we?

Rejecting any type of extra biblical tradition as being normative or authoritative in the sense of being necessary to be joined to Scripture We are somehow avoiding the scriptural command or we are somehow missing something

Then he's gonna flop back to the well actually the tradition is the how it's the how to interpret

Scripture Well, wait a minute even go back to the Thessalonians patches passage second. That's only is 215 How does that work

Paul has even finished writing his letters yet? How can the tradition that he delivers the

Thessalonians be some kind of tradition about how to interpret? What doesn't hasn't yet been written?

Even when you go to the early church fathers who use a term tradition go to Irenaeus look at what his tradition was his tradition is

Sub -biblical what I mean by that is his tradition is a summary of the primary

Biblical teachings the fact there's one true God who is the creator of all things who sent his son

Jesus Christ It's a basic framework that denies that the Gnostics Can use the

Christian scriptures because the Gnostics don't have are a Christian worldview They've already rejected the fundamental element that defines the

Christian faith Which is monotheism and that God is the creator of all things the Gnostics said no God isn't the creator of all things

There's this Demiurge the creator of all things God is all spirit. They're dualists etc etc And then they turn the scriptures upside down based upon that similar to when

Mormons try to deal the scriptures if you don't start with The basics that is that there's one true.

God is a creator of all things you're going to just completely melt down in Attempting to deal with the text of the

Bible You're just not going to be able to do meaningful exegesis as the Gnostics couldn't either so that was what Irenaeus Was saying his tradition was so he's gonna say oh no no no

I see you're confusing material and formal tradition and formal sufficiency and la la la la But that's why he can't be going to second

Thessalonians 2 15. That's why he can't be using those texts So he wants to have his cake and eat it too and when challenged on the one to drop back to the other and then

You know throw lob a few smoke bombs to try to Confuse people as to what he's doing in that particular context, so we'll continue on with the

Are we gonna be taking a no we're not gonna be taking a break. Oh, okay, so so you just just this is executive decision

Oh, okay, executive decision from the other room I just sort of looking around for the note on my screen here

Rich is just giving me a little dirty look from him. I wish I could remote control We're on a roll. Why should

I stop? I wish this was on remote control so I could everyone so I'll just pan around Yeah shoot through the window and catch you sitting there, you know staring off in this base

There's That was a very interesting call that really was oh sure it was so soon who is

Sahil Bakari anyways rich You know that's That's why

I look up there to keep an eye so that you know make sure nobody's stealing trying to steal my car

Or my motorcycle for that matter so that's yeah, I've got it right here. I'm I've got the security cameras

What motorcycle that's right? No, it's right there. Don't worry. I've this program would be cut very short very quickly

If someone was walking off with my motorcycle, so anyhow, okay, so we're not taking a break

So we're gonna continue on with the commentary Assumption that must be proven by the Roman Catholic for these citations these passages to be relevant at all

Now did Paul teach something different in the presence of many witnesses when he taught in his epistle to the

Romans and the Galatians It's interesting that Tertullian addressed this very passage and mr. Madrid said he could bury me and held up a notebook

Well, I'm not to get into stuff like that sort of silly We can debate that if we want But Tertullian addressed this very passage when refuting those false teachers of his day who claimed that the

Apostles had two different teachings Sounds familiar one which was open and known by all and a second secret doctrine known only to a few

He says but here is as we have said the same now before I read the Tertullian quote there Isn't that a wonderful description of the the

Roman Catholic concept of tradition at least at the time of the Council of Trent and as continues to be held by more traditional and conservative

Roman Catholics That you have you have the one public teaching everybody knows about that as it was found in Scripture But then you have this this other teaching and that's why for years now

We've been challenging Roman Catholic apologists. Give us a catalog of tradition You know you you say the church has this tradition, and she's drawn from this tradition to interpret these doctrines and dogmas

Why don't you tell us? What what is the rest? What's what's the rest of this unwritten tradition this oral tradition?

You keep referring us to can you tell us what's in there? And the answer is they can't not until the church comes along and dogmatizes something and so if that traditions always been there

Then that would mean the things that have been defined now We're part of this oral tradition which since Patrick Madrid quoted these texts.

He must believe we're relevant to that oral tradition That's why I can say all right show me where the feds

Paul taught the Thessalonians these things Where'd he teach you about papal infallibility where'd he teach you about the bodily assumptions of Mary?

Where are you teaching about the Immaculate Conception where'd he teach you about the Tharsis Meritorum? Where'd he teach him about these things and?

They can't answer those questions Which is why they don't want to have to try to even answer those questions I was interesting when

I was in New Mexico this weekend. I had a Catholic apologist attend my presentation on the Marian dogmas fell by name of Mike and Mike only attended half my presentation on the

Marian dogmas and specifically on The whether the Roman Catholic Church is going to define the fifth

Marian dogma The movement spearhead by dr. Mark Miravalle out of the Franciscan University of Steubenville As to whether Mary is

Choreodemtrix comediatrix an advocate for the people of God the whole presentation was on here are the first dogmas this is where they came from here's this dogma it comes from the same same sources and Here's the situation facing

Roman Catholic Church today. I even included a video of Miravalle explaining this concept and and It sort of helped because it was making the same points

I had made for a long long time and so I included that So he's first one with his hand up afterwards, and and he says well the church hasn't defined

This is a dogma, and I said yeah That's my whole presentation was about and then when we finally started going back and forth a little bit

He very openly and plainly admitted. Oh the Marian dogmas about the bodily assumption immaculate conception

That comes long after the Apostles so you admit. This is not something the Apostles taught.

Oh, yeah No, it's this this comes from the church this comes Clearly from the church is not something the Apostles themselves taught it's not apostolic in nature now

I had just played a clip during thing of Jerry and I Jerry magics and I going back and forth and Jerry saying you're cutting yourself off because You your

Bible came from what these people said and these people taught certain things about Mary And so if you say they're unreliable then you can't even trust they say about your

Bible I say they didn't teach these things about Mary Jerry. I said Athanasius gave me the exact same

New Testament that I have today show me where he taught the bodily assumption of Mary Show me how about the councils

Hippo and Carthage well James I don't need to show you where every single church father said these things to which

I said Jerry I'll take one and that's when the whole audience started clapping because they all they were all seeing the same thing

I've been challenging him at every cross -examination period show me an early show me some early source You keep saying that this comes nearly church show me the sources show

You know and he just couldn't do it and they can't because this was not a part of the faith of the early church

That's just all there is to it and so So who do you who who do you believe you know

Jerry was still an orthodox Roman Catholic back then? You know the Catholic apologists can't figure out what this issue is because Rome hasn't figured out what this issue is

There is no one single dogmatic definition even of what tradition is for that matter sure

It's talked about all the time, but in very nebulous forms and even once it's discussed what then can happen well once you put something in writing people interpret it and every word of Vatican 2 has been interpreted in at least three different ways and So you know whenever again so whenever you know the

Roman Catholic comes on well You just you know the Bible's just not safe because people can misinterpret it well any written document is subject to Misinterpretation and that's why we have the

Pope right and exactly how does the Pope help you with this? Well the Pope can help us to interpret these things really well once the

Pope interprets something How do you know about it? Do you go to Rome and listen to him and?

Even if you do once he says it is the guy standing next to you gonna interpret the same way

It's it's it's a chimera. It's a shadow It's it's a promise that has no meaningful fulfillment and besides that even if you can get the

Pope to sit down say no This is it once he's gone the next guy comes along is he gonna say the same thing

That's why I point out the differences between things like the Council of Constance And it's clear statement the

Jews schismatics and heretics will not enter into the kingdom of God unless they become a part of the church and No one can seriously doubt in the context of the

Council of Constance what they meant by that but there are people today willing to take modern liberal post -modernism and Ship it back to the

Council of Constance by Many centuries past where it would be at all relevant or understandable and say oh well

They didn't really mean it that way they mean it the way that the inclusive church today means it and I mean folks

There is no way that with a straight face You can tell me that the council fathers account

Constance who said the things they said about Jews schismatics and heretics Would look at what

Vatican to said about the Muslims adoring the same God and Go oh, yeah, that's the one true church speaking with glorious spirit derived harmony

No people it isn't it's called a contradiction. It's called massive change over time and There's just no way

I mean and all I you know I can just throw this out there and say go ahead and call Jimmy Call Tim Staples call

Patrick Madrid call Carl Keating and Listen to them try to explain these things and I can just sit back and let their explanations speak for itself because trying to put a square peg in a round hole doesn't work and If you have any kind of meaningful definition of truth you can listen to this and go huh wow okay?

Hmm all right fine very very very interesting, so I think I've gotten exactly one minute in Not exactly flying along today are we

Let's let's press for madness, and they're allowing indeed that the Apostles were ignorant of nothing and preached not any doctrine

Which contradicted one another but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men But they proclaim some openly into all the world will say disclosed others only in secret into a few

Because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy Oh Timothy guard that which is entrusted to thee and again that good thing

Which was committed unto thee keep? What is this deposit to tell you that is it so secret is to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine?

They're supposed to characterize or is it a part of that charge of which he says this charge I commit unto thee son

Timothy and also that precept of which he says I charge the inside of God who quickeneth all things before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate that thou keep this commandment now

What is this commandment? What is this charge from the preceding and succeeding context it will be manifested there is no mysterious hint

Darkly suggested in this expression about some far -fetched doctrine But that a warning is rather given against receiving any other doctrine than that which

Timothy had heard from himself as I take it Publicly before many witnesses is his praise

So to tell Ian says no this isn't some secret doctrine This isn't some some oral tradition that contains some other revelation than what we have in Scripture no no no

This is all what is taught by the Apostle Paul and is what's taught by the Apostle Paul The same as what we have in Scripture.

I'd like to refer you to a passage look at 2nd Thessalonians 3 6 2nd

Thessalonians 3 6 What do we have here?

Well? It's interesting. Here's one of those passages. It talks about Tradition or teaching 2nd

Thessalonians 3 6 in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we command you brothers to keep away from every brother Who is idle and does not live according to the teaching or the tradition you receive from us?

Oh, well well here is this oral tradition this oral tradition. We need to keep really No Look back at 1st

Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 14 as well as 1st Thessalonians chapter 4 Paul's referring back to the tradition.

He had already delivered to them that is in writing as we will see the term tradition

Normally refers to that which was orally preached But it's the same message in fact in 2nd

Thessalonians 2 15 as we will see the next time we have some time together It's talking about the gospel not oral tradition somehow

Passed down to the Episcopate not oral traditions that you have to have to have the completeness of God's revelation

No You're talking here about the gospel itself the teaching of the gospel which of course is found in the

New Testament And so I just simply point out to you Mr..

Madrid did not even begin to refute the information. I presented to you. He simply said well, it doesn't teach that I Presented to you the references the terms their meaning

I gave you an exegesis of the passage that you can follow along notice when it goes

Thank you. I stopped Unlike some my opponents down through the years unfortunately

Mr.. White mr.. White Mr.. White mr.. White mr.. White I'm reminded of Jesus's words to Martha mr..

White you are anxious and concerned about many things But only one thing is important that you show us in the

Bible where it teaches the sufficiency of Scripture And I'm going to hold you to that tonight

I wasn't gonna say I was gonna hold his feet to the fire, but that might have bad connotations. You know the Inquisition and all that Which remember

I used the same joke two years later in nineteen nine three years later in?

1996 with Jerry Matta ticks the beginning the Marian thing and he did not like it

Everybody laughed they thought was funny because there was a fireplace behind us, and and I said so yeah,

I wouldn't fire You know might not have good connotations and everybody laughed and Jerry's off And I I don't

I don't remember remembering what What Patrick had said, maybe I stole the joke from him or something believe me even though?

There is a fire going in the fireplace in 1996 at the Coral House in Baldwin We didn't need a fire going in San Diego because it was hot in there, and I'm not talking about the debate

It was just thermally excessive at that particular point in time. It was really cooking like you

I'd like to begin my remarks simply by just going through the few points that mr.

White brought up and try to respond to them as briefly as I can but hopefully as effectively number one let me point out mr.

White blundered badly into error number one For most of his rebuttal period by confusing formal material sufficiency or by perhaps not

Remembering what I told him and told the audience with regard to the material sufficiency position of the

Catholic Church I'll restate it again so that mr. White can keep that in mind now aside from the obvious condescension his voice this point in time

Did you know so he just said the material sufficiency position of the Catholic Church Patrick Madrid actually thinks that he can define for the

Catholic Church what its official position is as If the Catholic Church has officially defined this as its position it has not anyone who's read

Eve's Kongar as work on on on Tradition knows that there are lots of differences lots of different takes on this

And that the majority at the Council of Trent didn't hold that position so if he's going to say it's now the position all he's

Documenting is now there's been a change from the majority pardon pardon perspective to now material sufficiency perspective etc.

Etc This is again one of the things that may these Catholic apologists will do is they'll make it look like there is a level of Unity that doesn't exist

In any way shape or form now some people say will you do the same thing? The difference is

I am more than willing to say that the liberals who deny such fundamental truths as the resurrection of Jesus Christ are not

Christians They're not willing to say that the people disagree with them in the Roman Catholic Church are not actually

Catholics And there's a reason that that's because Rome doesn't bother to do that. I mean how often does

Rome kick people out? Yeah, it does once in a blue moon but given the massive number of people

Who teach in Roman Catholic institutions today who? Do not believe what the

Roman Catholic Church teaches they not only question in their hearts and their minds and The such things as the bodily assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of their papal infallibility

But they openly in their writings profess these things now the conservative

Roman Catholic who I can at least understand says well They are by nature excommunicate as a result.

You know I appreciate that, but there's one big problem To be a conservative

Roman Catholic day means you don't have a leader anymore Because the Pope doesn't act in accordance with what your beliefs are that must be so utterly frustrating

They must really wish the Pope would come out swinging and really stand You know be a be like one of the

Pope's was back in the you know early 1800s You know maybe the papal syllabus of errors or something like that, but they don't do that and they know that they know that the church

Knows of these whacked -out leftist liberals, and do they do anything about it does the church say you know put the foot down say

Yeah, no more. Oh they compromise Face it Rome compromises.

That's how they keep all this stuff going the same direction and yeah Exactly, I mean if if Rome had the courage of its convictions

They'd be booting every single pro -abortion senator right out the door or House representative leader to they'd be they'd be pointing right you know right and left

They'd be having the bishops, and they're not gonna do that. They ain't gonna. Do it. They don't have the courage their convictions They want to keep all that and all those people nice and happy because they get money

I mean, let's just be really brutally honest about this. They they don't they they are very concerned about things like that and That's just I don't think anyone can really argue about that and in fact

I hear some grumbling out there, and that's from the conservative Catholics are listening man It was he wasn't right Catholic Church does not need to prove that everything that is an oral tradition is not found in the written tradition

Our position is that everything that is in oral tradition Is in sacred scripture.

It's in written tradition everything mr. White brought up the assumption he could bring up any doctrine he might like none of which would be the topic of our debate tonight

But at some future point perhaps we could discuss where those doctrines are found And I hope we can

Patrick even though at the end of the debate he realizes that he got a little bit too excited

And made statements that He wanted to back away from like this one

Because that sounds like what he's saying is oh hey I could defend that I could defend the bodily assumption

Mary well Patrick Let's do that Let's debate the bodily assumption of Mary.

Let's debate the Marian dogmas. Let's let's see where the Bible Implicitly teaches these things let's go to Revelation chapter 12.

Let's do it Let's get into the text. Let's go to the early Church Fathers. Let's go into the patristic sources.

I would be happy to I Look forward to getting an email or rich Maybe the phone will be ringing this afternoon where Patrick's gonna want to arrange that because I just I just know

That that he's just been chomping at the bit To to to array, I mean how many phone calls and emails have we gotten from Patrick wanting to arrange those things oh?

None oh well okay, but maybe Is he hitting our spam filter?

Maybe could that be where I don't know let's continue the assumption for example since he brought it up I'll just refer to it Revelation chapter 12.

Mr.. White. It's a very commonly used passage for Catholic apologists I don't know why you would have missed that I Mean that's just cheap shot childishness isn't it isn't that just cheap shot childishness

Why would I have missed it? I didn't miss it the early church didn't interpret that way the woman in Revelation chapter 12 was interpreted by the early church as being the church the people of God and not as Mary and the woman in Revelation chapter 12 is having pains of childbirth isn't the pain of childbirth the result of the curse and yet if Mary is immaculately conceived and by a application of the merits of Christ Doesn't receive the stain of original sin.

Why would she be in pain and childbirth you see? It's not that I missed it

It's that I do something called exegesis and actually allow the text to speak for itself in its own context

Rather than ripping it out of its context and turning it into the plaything of the Roman Catholic Church The woman clothed with the

Sun was seen not only by modern Catholic apologists as Mary's assumption But also the early church fathers which mr.

White is so fond of bringing into the picture, and if he'd like to back that up Maybe he would like to try to do that But the earliest viewpoint and Roman Catholic historians confirmed this the earliest viewpoint is that it is not in fact

Mary I'd be more than happy in some future point to demonstrate in a different debate How the early church fathers viewed

Revelation 12 that that sounds to me like an open invitation on the part of Patrick I would be more than happy in a future debate to do this and Evidently during one of the breaks or something

Jimmy Akin or Carl Keating or somebody came to Patrick and said you said that and you don't want to do that and he actually takes time in his

Closing statement to try to renege upon this promise But is there any real question about what

Patrick Madrid just said does anyone is anyone really? Confused as to what he just said let me let me just you know roll this back here again

Let's let's let's make sure we heard it I've been happy in some future point to demonstrate in a different debate how the early church fathers viewed

Revelation 12 They exegeted that passage to mean that Mary had been brought up into heaven in a special way

Okay, that does that sound to you like? Like he's he's ready to do that don't boxers call that leading with your chin something like that It worked for Rocky But Sounds like that he said that so I'm just letting everybody know you know since Patrick Madrid Claims to have defeated me

Twice he claims to be undefeated in this area It sounds to me like you said he'd be more than happy at a future time in a future debate

To demonstrate the bodily assumption Mary in Revelation chapter 12. I say let's do another topic

Mr.. White is resting his case on the say -so of a few Protestant Greek scholars that did you catch that a few?

Protestant Greek scholars no sir First of all how does he know they're Protestant?

Did he look him up did did he look into the end of the sources I? Guarantee you that before that night

Patrick Madrid had never looked into the lexical sources for the meanings of Arteas and XR That I cited that night

I guarantee you that that's off the top of his head, and he's wrong Because as I pointed out many of those lexical sources

How are done by committees that have Roman Catholics on them as well, and if Patrick Madrid had?

Looked at these things and had the documentation. He would have used it that night He did not because he had never looked at it

And that means the Patrick Madrid is willing to dismiss things that he's never actually even looked at Rather than simply saying you know what folks.

I haven't done my homework on this. I haven't looked at these issues I can't answer this

I will promise to look into it at a future time But I simply haven't looked into it that would have been the appropriate thing to say but instead to belittle meaningful lexical sources and to just dismiss them as a few

Protestant scholars is a cheap debating trick, and it's not honest

But that's what Patrick Madrid did to me is not an infallible source of authority mr..

White the Bible is It's this so so I I can't refute what you've said about the original languages but but that's not an infallible source of authority the

Bible is so I believe the Bible is infallible and Yeah, exactly, and so I just want to go okay

Patrick so exactly where has Rome Infallibly defined the meaning of Arteos and Exartidza for you

Patrick. Hello. Hello. Hello And there ain't gonna be any answer.

This is called pure bluster. This is this is cheap debating tricks it's how to save face in front of your audience and You've just got to be able to see through this kind of stuff

Everybody does it every politician when they're when they're hit with something they've never heard of before They they're all trained to just babble on about things

And as long as you babble longer than the attention span of the average American. It'll sound like you actually answered the question and If you haven't seen that happen, then you're not watching political debates on both sides of the aisle

But that's exactly what just took place here Well, my infallible authority is the Bible and you're not using your infallible authority the

Bible and they're using Protestant Greek scholars and blah blah We're talking about the meanings of the words in the original language

That's a not a violation of sola scriptura and be if he had any meaningful response. This is where he would have offered it

He did now I didn't mean to denigrate the biblical language And I'm sorry that you took it that way when I said that your argument was irrelevant

What I meant was that you can use all the Protestant biblical scholars citations that you want to show that a word means

Something but notice that the word sufficient came as a third or fourth Definition of the third or fourth meaning that was assigned to this word.

It was not the primary meaning Now does he have these resources? No, has he ever looked at these resources?

No And was I just simply trying to dig for one down the road as if it's somehow

He's referring to the low and need a definition that I gave at that point and it's not in order of this is best

This is second This isn't I was reading 1a then 1b or 1c or something like that And he he's making this up on the fly because he's never looked at this stuff now has he now don't know

Don't know But had he then no, he hadn't and if he was honest, he would have said

I'll look into it That's interesting I Can't respond to that Do you have a photocopy of that that I could look at maybe during the break or something or something along those lines?

But he didn't want to do that because that wouldn't look good It doesn't look good in a debate to be saying

I've never seen that before But the fact the matter is all of us are going to at some point in our lives gonna face a claim

We've never heard of before and that's why you want to ask for documentation. Well, I provided the documentation

I gave the exact references to anyone who wanted to utilize them But let's face it for Catholic apologists

They're much more comfortable running off to Juergens to find a quote from the early fathers Then they are dealing with the original languages of the

Bible That's not their thing In any way shape or form. I am

NOT going to debate what this Protestant Greek scholar may or may not have said first of all They're Protestants, so they're naturally going to give a spin to something that a

Catholic scholar might see something different in Does he have any evidence of that? Does he have any evidence whatsoever?

that a Catholic Greek scholar has defined these words differently Answer is no because he doesn't even know who was involved in the production of these lexical sources

This is called blow wings smoke 100 % and Patrick Madrid was very good at it and it's sad that so many people even this day even

Catholics will listen this go Oh, it sounds like good answer to me folks think about it if this debate was not with a

Protestant what if it was a Jehovah's Witness Speaking like Patrick Madrid is speaking.

Would you accept what he was saying? Of course you wouldn't so why don't you see that one? Patrick's doing it.

Good question. We'll continue with our examination of this debate next time on the dividing line. See you then. God bless

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