Further Review of Tim Staples Debate on Papal Infallibility (Prt 2)

2 Timothy 2:15 and the Call to Rightly Divide the Word of Truth

2nd Timothy 2 15. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God. A worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly. Dividing the word of truth. Alpha and Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast.

The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is dr. James White director of Alpha and Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602 2 7 4 13 60. That's 602 2 7 4 1360 or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 8 8 8 5 5 0 13 60. That's 1 triple 8 5 5 0 13 60.

And now with today's topic. Here's James White and good afternoon.

And welcome to the dividing line. My name is James. Light white white light, whatever. My name is live in studio You can tell because if we are recording this we could have just digitally removed at that Whoops, and it would have been just fine, but we're live in studio.

We have survived the experience of being up teaching at the main campus of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary the past 10 11 or so days and the experience the week before of the debate in Fullerton, California, which is what we're going to be talking about today and We'll be taking your phone calls later on the program if you want the number.

It's 602 2 7 4 13 60 in the local Phoenix dialing area and 1 triple 8 5 5 0 1360 if you are outside the Phoenix dialing area, maybe listening on the internet. Maybe you're in our chat room since I put a topic line up in the chat room right before I left.

It said listen and so if you're in the chat room and you're not listening You are disobeying channel rules. And when I get back, I will kick ban you for not doing so but be that as it may. Today, I'd like to review some of the events at The Fullerton debate.

I am hoping that many of you have already Ordered the tapes of the debate. They are available audio tapes are available at www .aomin .org. And if you're just tuning in and didn't know about this on Friday night, July 7th.

There was a debate held at Plummer Auditorium in Fullerton, California the subject Papal infallibility now back in November of 1996. I had debated. Mr Timothy Staples who at that time was with st. Joseph Catholic Radio, and he's now with st. Joseph Communications which also handles such notable folks as Mitchell Pacwa Scott Hahn and other individuals like that and Back in 1996.

We had quite the rousing debate where I did defended sola scriptura and Did so in front of a a large crowd of primarily Roman Catholic individuals and prior to doing the program Mr. Staples and I were on for two hours with Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man broadcast back in 1996 and I had recognized at that time both the fact that there were some problems in How the crowd behaved and how they were handled by mr. Staples as well as the use of ad hominem Argumentation by mr. Staples.

I had written an open letter to him, which is still on our website and can be accessed at www .aomin .org and But you know time sort of who heals all wounds and We wanted to arrange a debate with someone on the subject of papal infallibility We have debated the subject of the papacy itself whether the Bible teaches the concept of a papacy where the Bible teaches the the primacy of Peter and then the creation of an office with successors and that the only possible successor to Peter would be the Bishop of Rome in his singular office and his singular person and Debated that first against Jerry Matitix in December of 1990 Out at City of the Lord here in Phoenix.

We debated that against Robert St. Genes and Scott Butler at Boston College. We debated that against Jerry Matitix at Denver Seminary and Faith Presbyterian Church seven and a half hours of debate between the New Testament evidence and the patristic evidence on that Series with mr. Matitix.

I debated against Mitchell Pacwa on Long Island in 1998 and so we have done conservatively. Let's see. That'd be seven.

Nine.

Twelve about 15 hours of Moderated debate on the subject of the papacy already. And so when I contacted st. Joseph's communications Excuse me. I uh, I said I We did solo scriptura the opposite of solo scriptura is papal infallibility.

Not just the papacy, but the idea that the papacy is infallible in its teaching office that's what undergirds the concept of Sola ecclesia that the church is the final and ultimate Authority for the believing Roman Catholic.

It's not scripture in tradition. Because it is the church and especially the Pope that defines what scripture teaches and what scripture is what tradition teaches and what tradition is and therefore It's impossible for the papacy to be held accountable to scripture and tradition because you can't define those things or know what they mean outside the teaching of the papacy, so I said let's debate papal infallibility and.

So that's the the subject if you listened to the Bible answer man broadcasts and and by the way Some of you have been going. Hey, you know you mentioned that you did three hours in studio on July 6 the Tim Staples and we've only heard the first two and I think I mentioned last week via the phone that the third week a third Program was by far the most intense and it hasn't aired yet.

Well, it's supposed to be then we don't have a firm date yet. There's some possibility of July 31st, but we're just not certain when it's gonna air. But it will air eventually and it will be most interesting for you to listen to that.

But all through the three hours in the Bible answer man broadcast. We kept saying we're gonna be debating the topic of papal infallibility on Friday night and why do I emphasize the fact that everybody knew what the topic was that it was papal infallibility.

Even during the program. I brought up Bishop on Aureus. I brought up Pope on Aureus the Bishop of Rome and I and I said we're gonna be talking about this Tomorrow evening there. There was absolutely no reason in the world for Mr. Staples to be confused as to what we were supposed to be talking about.

Staples’ Opening Statement and the Claim That the Debate Was Misframed

Why do I mention this? Well. Because when we started the debate, mr. Staples, of course defending papal infallibility gets to go first and In all of his presentation He never quoted from Vatican one which defined papal infallibility.

He didn't mention on Aureus. He didn't mention Liberius. He didn't mention Zosimas. He didn't mention John the 22nd. He didn't mention Sixtus V. He didn't mention any of the standard Popes to which we refer.

Who made errors in fact, he didn't even define papal infallibility. Instead as you listen to the tapes and it would be silly for me to in any way shape or form Misrepresent this because we're selling the tapes if you listen to the tapes.

He has 30 minutes and in his 30 minutes. He talks about Matthew 16 Luke 22 John 21 and the primacy of Peter in the Gospels in other words He gives a presentation very similar somewhat Anyways to the debates that I've done against many Roman Catholics in the past on the existence of the papacy.

But without even mentioning the early church. Just a biblical presentation. And even then a very interesting biblical person. I was just looking for some stuff in the first tape to to queue up and wasn't able to find what I was looking for in the first tape and It was specifically I think it's in a rebuttal period we talked about how when Peter pulled the fish up on shore.

That this must have been I guess some indication of his power or something because as he put it Peter wasn't on steroids and While we were queuing it up. We listened to a section where he talked about how Jesus was giving to Peter a power when he walked upon the water that had never been given to any man.

So therefore There's a papacy and and the Pope is to be followed and obeyed I guess Obviously when you start taking that kind of argumentation apart, it becomes tremendously tenuous. But that's what was presented and as I sat there listening to this, I was absolutely amazed.

I was amazed especially because the fact that I had purchased from st. Joseph communications a three tape series on the subject of infallibility was called infallibility versus impeccability, but it was a defense of papal infallibility and On the particular Pope that I spent the most of my time Pope Honorius he had spent a tape and a half Trying to defend Pope Honorius.

He knows what the issues are, but he didn't present them in his opening statement now. If you listen to my opening statement from 1996, you will see that I not only define sola scriptura I say what it isn't and I preemptively answer Most of the arguments that I knew mr. Staples was going to be presenting.

That's the advantage of getting to go first you get to define The subject and you get to in essence argue for your side before the other guy gets a chance to start. That's the advantage of going first.

Well for some reason mr. Staples chose not to do so. So I got up and I had 30 minutes and I focused upon Pope Honorius. I focused upon Pope Zosimus's Command to the North African churches to accept Pelagius and Celestius back into communion.

Even after they had condemned them as heretics and the fact that it was the North Africans that were right Pope Zosimus that was wrong and one of the main things I emphasized in my presentation was if you can't know today That the guidance you're getting from the Bishop of Rome is infallible and true.

What good is the doctrine and I demonstrated that there were periods of time in the past where if you had followed The current teaching of the current Bishop of Rome you would have been in error and it was only decades or years later that the error was quote-unquote fixed and.

So if you can't know That what the Pope is teaching today is infallible if you can't even know Whether it's an ex cathedra straight statement or not. Whether it's from the chair whether it's meant to be taken infallibly or not and no one can know that.

If you can't know these things then what good is the doctrine? What good is the doctrine indeed and so I had 30 minutes I present an honorius Zosimus and very briefly because my time was running out I had to sort of hurry on sixtus a fifth and his infallible Vulgate.

Well, mr. Staples gets up and he says well At least I stuck to scripture in my opening presentation. We know what mr White's tactic is going to be his tactic is going to be To focus on this issue of papal infallibility.

Well, that's what the debate was about and so that's what I was doing now to get to the point where because we're gonna play a whole section of the debate for you down the program and I am going to shamelessly shamelessly steal from a famous excellent radio broadcaster in Giving you commentary on what took place during the cross-examination period on The debate just a couple of weeks ago, and it will be shameless.

It will not be as good as he does it in fact he warns us Amateurs not to try to do what he does, but I'm gonna take a shot at it anyways. So we're gonna listen to a section of debate, but before we do that to understand what happened During the cross-examination you'd understand two things.

A Mr. Staples was simply out of control during the Bible answer man broadcast at times. Even though he was given significantly more time to answer questions and to say things than I was. And in fact if you listen to the broadcast you can listen to him at equip org the first two anyways.

And same thing happened when mr. Aiken James Aiken was on the program. I get about 40 of time and the Roman Catholic gets about 60 of time just time it out for yourself actually I think that's conservative.

I think it's more like about 65 35. But I expect that because it's a quote-unquote Protestant program. And so to be fair you're gonna give the person who's sort of in the minority the opportunity of saying more.

So.

Even when I would speak and this is especially true in the third hour even when I would speak mr. Staples could not keep his mouth shut and when he disagreed with what I was saying he would simply talk over me and say that's a lie and There's one point in the third hour where Hank Hanegraaff tries to go to the next caller and Mr.. Staples will not stop talking.

He talks over Hank, and he talks over the caller to try to finish his point. He will not stop talking. Well this caused myself. Warren Smith who traveled over with me hi Warren don't drive off the road.

And Eddie d 'Alcour our friend from Southern, California. Who were in the studio, and we're talking afterwards and we go man. This does not bode well for the debate because in a debate you have to follow the rules and especially in the cross-examination period you've got to follow the rules and.

So before the debate started I said to Jerry Usher who was the moderator debate. I said mr.. Usher. I have some concerns. Last time mr. Staples couldn't follow the time limits. And if you listen to the tape you'll hear the time going off.

And mr.. Staples just keeps right on a rolling. I said I want strict adherence to the time limits. Secondly I don't think you can handle the cross-examination that we've designed. And what was the cross-examination.

The cross-examination? Was the free-flowing scholarly kind of cross-examination where the person asking the questions only asks? Questions. You don't argue you don't make statements. You ask Questions on the subject of the debate and specifically on the issues that have already been raised.

That's what cross-examination is supposed to be. The person responding does not filibuster. They do not avoid the question. They give short concise question responses to the questions that are asked and I said to mr.. Usher.

I do not believe that Tim Staples is capable of doing this. I was very upfront. I was very straightforward, and he said well, we will talk with Tim before the debate begins. Mr. Staples got there about 20 minutes before it was to begin.

We had a huddle mr. Staples myself and Jerry Usher we met behind the stage back behind the curtains, and I again voiced my concern and mr. Staples even though I said now did you all watch the debate with Mitch Pacwa?

Did you see how we did the question answer? Yes, we watched that I said, that's how it needs to be done. Mr. Staples said he would abide by the rules. I'm a standing not two feet from him. He looks at me and says I can do it.

That's what I'll do. Now why is that important. Well once we start playing some sections? You'll see why now the second thing you need to understand to really understand the question answer period especially the first few minutes.

Is what happened at the end of my rebuttal period at the end? We each had 15 minute rebuttal periods and at the end of our 15 minute rebuttal periods. We took a 15 minute break and the question answer period began right after the 15 minute break.

So right before the breaks to start now. I've got the last word because I'm the one denying so mr. Staples went first then I went second both in our presentations and on our rebuttals.

So.

Right before the end and if you're listening last week you heard this right before the end of my period. Presented something and I have my debate notes right in front of me. And I'm gonna read you what it says it takes four minutes and 45 seconds by the way but I'll probably read it a little bit faster than I did before because I Want to get all this stuff in?

Here's what I said. I would like to provide a very cogent example of the problem with papal infallibility. Authority and the matter of how we have to interpret when the Pope is allegedly teaching infallibly.

It will be cogent because it speaks directly to what we are doing here this evening my opponent this evening mr. Tim Staples is not an ordained priest. He is to my knowledge a layman yet in his tape series on infallibility.

He makes it very plain that he considers it heresy. To say at the only time you have to obey the Pope is when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra in. Responding to a priest who said that to him mr. Staples replied with great zeal.

Quote and here's Tim Staples from his own tape series. Quote, you know I almost fell over. I'm like have you ever read anything from the documents of the church. Have you read anything? How about unum sanctum which was written in the 14th century.

It says we are bound not by just what the Pope teaches about faith and morals. But juridically whatever the Pope says you and I are bound to if he says tomorrow We're gonna say the mass in Swahili in the United States.

He has the authority to do that and we are bound to obey. Have you ever heard this. I love the papacy. I love the Pope, but only when he speaks ex cathedra if he's not speaking ex cathedra. Then I don't have to obey him.

I can do whatever I want. That is a heresy folks. That is a heresy from way back. That's what he says. Unquote. So he says it's a heresy. To say you only have to obey the Pope when he's speaking ex cathedra, then I continue with my notes.

I can truly appreciate mr. Staples position. However, it seems to place him in a difficult position given what we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 under the topic Religious discussions here. Here's what we read.

Quote. It is not then surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation by decree of Alexander the fourth inserted in Sextus decretia lm book 5 chapter 2 and still in force all Laymen are forbidden under threat of excommunication to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic faith.

The text reads quote. We furthermore forbid any layperson to engage in dispute either private or public. Concerning the Catholic faith whosoever shall act contrary to this decree. Let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.

Unquote. Continuing with the Catholic Encyclopedia. It says this law like all penal laws must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic faith and dispute have a technical Signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological the latter to Disputations more or less formal and engrossing the attention of the public.

There are numerous questions somewhat connected with theology which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of Leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy end.

Quote. And I continue with what I said. The article goes on to lay out the limitations in which even clergy must function and documents this decree is fully relevant to our debate this evening as Rome had likewise forbidden even priests from engaging in debates on theological topics with those the Reformation and even as recently as less than a century ago Rome had cited these decrees to forbid Catholics from engaging in disputes with Socialists.

The point is obvious if the Pope is infallible and if as mr. Staples said so strongly on his tape series Catholics are bound to obey even his juridical pronouncements even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.

Then it follows inevitably that mr. Staples need to show us where this decree of Alexander the fourth from the sextus decrees she alum has been rescinded or Why it is not obviously applicable to what we are doing this evening or explain why it was once valid for a Pope to teach This but it no longer is and in any situation mr. Staples will have to engage in private interpretation of the papal decree and what if there are other decrees likewise relevant that is simply unknown to us.

This illustrates the problem with thinking that papal infallibility provides the kind of assurance Roman Catholic apologists often assert that it does. Indeed it has been suggested to me that we offer mr. Staples two options.

If he continues the debate he will need to explain why Alexander the fourth whom he would identify as the vicar of Christ and infallible successor of Peter Centuries ago for bad Catholics from doing what he himself is doing tonight in the exact same context.

And the other option is that mr Staples will obey Alexander the fourth decree and I will get the rest of the evening to more slowly and fully explain the reasons For not believing in papal infallibility.

Since we are now going to take a 15-minute break I for one will be looking forward to finding out which direction mr. Staples will go now. We take a break, and then we're doing cross-examination. Cross-examination is not a rebuttal period.

The only period in which mr. Staples by debate rules would have a time to respond to this Would be during his final closing statement. However, that's not how it went so mr. Pierce if you would be so kind as to.

Know the tables has 12 minutes to cross-examine mr. White.

Mr. White my First first I think I should respond to what you said and stop it. I stopped the tape.

That's a pretty good impersonation. Mr.. Staples, this is the cross-examination period it is not a rebuttal period. It is not a time for you to respond to what has been said in the previous parts of the debate.

It is cross-examination. You're supposed to be asking questions. If he insisted on having a rebuttal period. Then what have would have been fair would have been for him to go the moderator say look I?

Need to have a minute or two minutes to respond to what was said right before the break. And then what would have been fair to give me the exact same period of time to respond to what he said? That's what debates are all about mr. Staples.

That's how it's supposed to be done, but that's not how it was done. Let's continue with the tape.

As far as the matter of not being able to speak and present the Catholic position That's a matter that's hundreds of years old. There's a new code of canon law and a new catechism. That's a matter of It's a matter of jurists.

It's a juridical matter not a matter of dogma. And those matters change. And the Catechism. The Catholic Church says that we as Catholics all of us as does the decree on the the laity in Vatican to Says that all Catholics have both the right and the duty to defend the Catholic faith.

So at any rate stop the tape stop the tape you hear the people. Oh, that's wonderful. That's wonderful. Well, he could have said the Pope is cool, and they would have given him a standing ovation at the same time, but Mr. Staple since you didn't want to give me the same amount of time that you took to provide rebuttals Let me point out to you.

That's not an answer. You say there's a new code of canon law. How do you know that are you an infallible interpreter of canon law? The new encyclopedia of the Catholic the old encyclopedia of the Catholic Church says that that was still in force in 1917.

Are you saying there's a new canon law since 1917 if There's a new canon law then what happened to the old canon law if it was infallible back, then is it infallible now? Aren't you just engaging in private interpretation?

Let me let me mention something. I don't think mr. Staples had ever heard of the decree of Alexander the fourth and so we get a Basically an impromptu interpretation. How does he know that's right did he contact Rome?

I didn't see him on a cell phone numbers to get into Italy. How does he know that he's right about that? Catholic apologists are constantly doing this issue of private interpretation and how are we supposed to know they're right and If these things are dogmatic and if these things are relevant to the very salvation of our souls, why should we follow them?

We should have we should have Pope John Paul online every night for live chat So that people can get their infallible guidance on understanding these things if of course the arguments that are being presented are valid.

Okay. Well, let's let's let's hear what the first question now. Remember we're supposed to be asking concise Questions, let's hear. Mr. Staples first question. I got it. Please. No, no, no, I got now a question for you is.

We believe as Catholics that the Bible Establishes very clearly that the scripture is the infallible inspired Word of God. We agree on that. However, my question for you is How do we in fact know? Let's say for example the epistle to the Hebrews to this day.

We do not know who wrote it Mark's gospel Luke's gospel who are not written, but they are not written by Apostles. How do we know that those books should be included in sacred scripture? How do we know in fact that we have 27 books of the New Testament if Sola Scriptura is the principle whereby.

We determine all of our dogmas and doctrines. Stop the tape stop the tape stop the tape. Not only did that take 50 seconds almost an entire minute to ask. But it seems that mr. Staples went into a time warp.

That was the topic of the debate in 1996 and if you listen to the tapes You'll discover that he already asked that question in 1996. The topic today is Papal infallibility. Not the canon of scripture.

I would be happy to debate These Catholic apologists on the canon of scripture. I would be happy to have the time to actually Develop the concept defend the concept and point out to people. Hey, you know what?

You don't have any meaningful answers to the issue of the canon. Saying well the Pope told me is not a meaningful answer to the issue of the canon and I had to point out over and over again that for example Pope Gregory the Great had a different canon as them than the modern Roman Catholic Church.

If any of you are interested we did a debate at least on the Apocrypha against gerrymatics at Boston College in 1993 we make that available so you can you can debate issues the canon I think quite successfully with Roman Catholics, but that's not the subject of the debate.

Is it it's papal infallibility and So the first question and we were already about two minutes into the cross-examination period.

Okay.

Two minutes into it and the first question so far has not even touched on the subject of debate. We've had a rebuttal period and then we've had a 50-second giving of a question By mr. Staples that is not even on the subject of The debate itself and it's only gonna get worse folks.

So we're gonna take a break and then we'll be right back here on the dividing line. One triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. I'd like to at least try to get through his Questions and answers and maybe mine.

So we're gonna be a little quick on the on the calls. But if you'd like to call in now now's your time to do it. We'll be right back and welcome back to dividing line. We are listening to the cross-examination period During the debate held in Fullerton and let's go right back to it with my response to mr Staples a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the canon the can is not something that the church creates by her authority.

The can exists because of the work of inspiration the Holy Spirit and just as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and during the period of time between the Old and New Testaments Was able to guide the people of God to a passive recognition of what God had inspired so much.

So that Jesus could hold men accountable to the scriptures without any infallible Source for them to go to to know what those scriptures were. The same thing that happens in the New Testament and I think this is clearly evident in the fact that in the Differences that you and I have over the issue of the canon that the canon that I hold to is the same can that was held to by Jesus and the Apostles by Athanasius by origin by Jerome and interestingly enough by Gregory the great bishop of Rome as well the first of the great medieval Popes.

Okay, you didn't answer the question though.

Let me perhaps you didn't hear it. Let me know. I heard I heard it. Fine. Let me rephrase it. How do we know that we have 27 books of the New Testament. Not 28. Not 29 not 25. For example, we have men fathers of the church early Christian writers as well that deny certain books of the Bible that you and I accept.

Say origin. Who said second Peter is doubtful. Say Eusebius. Who said? Revelation is spurious said other books were doubtful like second Peter. And other books of the New Testament Hebrews, I believe second and third John.

My question is now we as Catholics understand that tradition. Precedes sacred scripture just as in the Old Testament. The family of God. Answer. The family of God existed 430 years before the scriptures began to be wrote down.

We understand that tradition precedes and then you have an authority that declares what the books of the Bible are. I'm asking you what is your authority for declaring which books of the Bible are the books of the Bible again?

I heard your question just fine. I point out that it was based upon a misapprehension of the nature of the canon. Seemingly you seem to feel that there is a need for an infallible authority to define the canon of scripture and I saw my lord.

Sir, this is supposed to be question answer. You're asking me questions and I give you answers. And authority. Sir, let me finish my answer, please.

Okay.

I believe that since the Lord Jesus Christ could hold men accountable for what the scriptures were without any infallible authority that I have the exact same foundation that the person living 50 years before Christ had for knowing that Isaiah was scripture or Deuteronomy was scripture.

And that is I believe God has a purpose and inspiring that which is they honest us and that God will not allow the purpose which is the edification of his people to go amiss and to go without fruition.

And Therefore God has led his people to recognize not through the use of an infallible authority or some authority external to scripture. But through his guidance of his people in a passive way to recognize that which he has inspired which is they honest us.

Okay, and what is your? biblical proof for that.

The biblical proof is found for example in the fact that in Matthew chapter 22 the Lord Jesus Holds men accountable for what God has spoken to them in scripture. He said that what is what they read in scripture is what God has spoken to them from the premise of your question.

They should have responded and said oh, but we don't have an infallible authority to tell us what is and is not scripture. So you can't hold us accountable since they did not. The very premise of your question is flawed and in error.

Actually, mr. White. No my point my question was.

What.

Was the authority by which the people let's say of 50 years before Christ, what was the authority? They had in order to determine what the canon was. It's obvious to me that the authority must be outside of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves don't tell us.

There is no divinely inspired table of contents, but anyway, no that was it.

Another question. You asked a question and I will now answer that. My next question is sir You asked me a question and the error of your statement. Why did you continue to ask for an authority outside of the Lord.

Stop the tape? Did you hear what he said there? I didn't ask you a question. In other words He's admitting that what he had just said for 30 seconds wasn't a question. He was arguing a point. Folks this is the same man who stood two feet from me and Said.

I will abide by the rules of cross-examination. I will ask succinct questions. I will expect succinct answers. The exact same individual who upon standing behind the podium in front of his His followers all of a sudden what was said only if you know an hour or two hours beforehand somehow gets forgotten.

Let's continue. And then scripture is God speaking. You are asking for an authority above that which God says and that is not what the scripture teaches.

So I'm asking if we have disagreement among the fathers of the church, which is an historical fact.

Yeah.

There was disagreement among the church fathers for hundreds of years as you pointed out which screams of the necessity the obvious Necessity for a church hence Jesus gave us one in Matthew 18 15 through 18.

Is that a question sir? And there's no sense in going over it again because I just don't think you're seeing things. Okay. Look the next question is this.

St. Athanasius I'll just mention in passing that was an obvious breach.

Yes in his history of the Aryans part 4 section 42 says referring to this Bishop Hosea's While he is in his home own place The rest also continue in their churches for he is able by his arguments in his faith to persuade all men against us.

He is the president of councils and his letters are everywhere attended to he. It was who put forth the Nicene Confession and proclaimed everywhere that the Aryans were heretics. Referring to Hosea's who according to st. Athanasius presided at the councils of Nicaea and Sardica.

Now if He did in fact and by the way In day for the section 5 Athanasius goes on to say. When was there a council held in which he did not take the lead.

And.

Sosamin in his history book 3 chapter 12 says similarly that Hosea's and Protagonist who was Bishop of Sardica presided at that council. Why is it that if the Bishop of Rome did not have authority over or the final word on these councils?

Why did Hosea's at Sardica which Athanasius said he presided at. Why does he then and I quote from Sosamin's now? This is a 4th century historian not a 19th century Protestant historian from the 4th century.

He writes. Fearing perhaps lest they should be suspected of making innovations upon the doctrines of Nicaea. They appealed to Julius. Why do they appeal to Julius if Hosea's is the presider?