Responding to audio clips from Catholic Answers Live

And good afternoon and welcome to the dividing line My name is James white and we are live today and we are going to continue looking at what is

Going on out there in the field of apologetics and some people saying well, you're only talking about the

Roman Catholics How how about you talk about the Mormons the Jehovah's Witnesses? Well, if they put stuff on the web that I could get to and could play for you.

That would be great I don't see a whole lot of some of you'd like to help me find some of it That would be great.

I would actually take any assistance you could give me in finding real audio files out there

That I could grab and then we could play but especially since it's the the

Roman Catholics that just seem to have the unlimited resources to be out there of throwing around the the

Assertions and the arguments and having the television programs and everything else. It just makes it a whole lot easier

To get hold of Their information and I'll tell you something else most of these folks that we respond to our folks who won't debate me.

Anyways We've challenged them to debate and a couple, you know One of them maybe is debate me once decide that wasn't a really good idea and they're not debating anymore or they're just too busy, even though I don't know of a one of them who is is doing what

I'm doing as far as Writing the same number of books Teaching and doing all the rest that stuff.

So not really sure that particular excuse flies very well But be that as it may these are folks many of them, you know, we've responded to Scott Hahn respond to Carl Keating They were they just won't debate.

So the bet next best thing Let him speak for themselves. You can't say

I'm misrepresenting somebody when I play their whole statement and you can hear them exactly how they're talking to fellow

Catholics or to To non Catholics who call in I mean, I'm letting them state their own case and then

I respond so that seems to be I think a fair way of handling things and That's what we have been doing and I found

Right at the right off the bat today. We're going to respond to an assertion

To a statement that was aired Yesterday. Yes, we are on top of things now yesterday on Catholic answers live

There was a there the guest was David Currie now David Currie is a former

Baptist he's the author of born fundamentalist born -again

Catholic and they opened it up to phone calls and it was really interesting when a person called in and asked about a book it's a collection of of testimonials from 50 former priests and It's really interesting to listen to the somewhat offhand critique and the reason

I raise this is a Generally, that's about all we get when we when we write books if you go to Amazon, for example, you'll find

Individuals there who Will leave and I've just I just have refused to get into this silliness but people will go to Amazon and they will write reviews and They'll write the stupidest things

I mean They only use it to get their points across and they're there 15 minutes of fame then to give you one star instead of five

Stars on us as well. Just try to drag your book down. It's it's just ridiculous but anyways, and then of course, they'll go over the books they like and you know, give them five stars and you know try to do stuff like that, but There's there's this kind of response out there.

We we simply don't get people doing the kind of Response To the books that we write

That we give to others, you know I mentioned last week the the Webster King work and how people have already written responses to it and they admit they haven't even read it

You know, here's a work that was four or five six years in the in the in the offing hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of money spent to buy original resources

Time hundreds and thousands of hours spent in libraries and things like that and People respond in you know two days

This kind of surface level. We've got to throw a response out there kind of kind of a thing

We for example, Eric Svensson's new book. Who is my mother? Robertson Genesis organization is working on a response to that and and I I don't know what the

URL is Maybe somebody can grab real quick in the channel and throw it up there and if they do I can throw it up but there's a There's a man

I think the name is John Pacheco Who works with Robertson Genesis organization up in Canada who is supposed to be writing responses now?

I'll be perfectly honest with you. I Don't see any reason to believe that mr Pacheco is is even capable of doing the kind of research that is necessary to respond to a

Doctoral thesis in the first place, but be it as it may I saw an article What I do

Eric is your mother as who is my mother what are you talking about? Anyways, I saw an article on the on the web recently that was just it was infantile

It was so silly. It was ridiculous by mr. Pacheco responding to mr.

Svensson and their action They're actually putting an outline of the book and how much of it's been written and they're predicting how long

Chapters gonna be how many reference notes is gonna be how do you I mean anyone who does serious research?

Just just looks at that and just almost dies laughing. It is absolutely ridiculous, and there's some

Helveteus refutation meter and it is just really the contrast in Seriousness the contrast in content and presentation

Absolutely striking and I think it's the same thing There's there's someone in China in the channel right now who's been talking about the fact that our main page article right now is on First Corinthians chapter 3 and I respond at the end of the article to Robertson Genesis comments from 1994

Well, wow took like a couple days and mr. St. Janice has a response up on their particular.

Thank you spinster There's the URL in the channel Catholic intl .com

slash CAI slash book report dot HTML there's the There's the

URL you can go and take a look at what I was talking about. Anyways Mistress and Genesis posted a response which would also be at the same main page

Catholic intl .com that Allegedly responds what

I was saying. Well someone in channels been posting sections of it very It seems of stir us and Janice has decided to abrogate an agreement he made a couple years ago in regards to how to do things

Very straightforward very well nasty at times and somewhat silly. I mean,

I I read the first few paragraphs where he was saying Well, you know Dr. White's desperate to get away from you know, he tries to change context or all

I said in regards to first Corinthians 3 It's the context is about workers in the church and I demonstrated why that is from the text

And of course my demonstration from the text was ignored But three paragraphs were provided and and that's why

I really don't think I'm going to provide a written response unless there's just some You know really grossly silly things there

I think I'll probably just do a program on it and link to it a voice response people can listen to it and and Hopefully gain some positive things out of that, but there seems to be no end

To the length to which mr. St. Janice will go as far as file size To attempt to Maintain his position, but I just I would just invite people read what

I wrote Read the main page article and then go read his and see if you don't see just a huge difference in Presentation content style and if people aren't able to see those things well, you know, like I said to the fellow and channel

There's not much I can do for him If people are impressed by bluster rather than by content

There's there's really nothing nothing that can be done. Well, anyways back to this clip. This is from yesterday Catholic answers live and here's a response

To a caller who asks about all these books and listens to what listen to what is said about This book.

My question is is about a about a book. I had a friend of mine who reverted back to the church after 18 years by I gave her the surprised by truth book and you know, she she said she was going to read it and straighten me out and I had a message on my phone the following night that I was rocking her world and she's she's since come back to the church and she actually announced it in her

Christmas letter to all her Protestant Evangelical friends and she's just been getting hammered really really bad and the latest one was a book called

Far -from -Rome close to close to God It's a book about 50 priest who has left the priesthood

And I was just wondering if either one of you gentlemen knew anything about that book Well, Jerry, I uh,

Jerry, do you know anything about that book Richard? I think it's right, right I've heard I've heard of the book actually

I've seen it a friend of mine Tried to give me that book a non -catholic friend a number of years ago

I picked it up just open it at random and I'm no theologian or apologist And I could have driven a truck through the holes in the theological argument.

So really it's a it's a shoddy piece of work I'll tell you that right now It's just it may be 50 X priests

But I would guess that it's probably 50 X priests who have Some kind of an axe to grind some kind of an agenda against the church because there's really not much truth to be found in The book that's all

I know about it. I haven't read the whole thing David you you sound like you're not familiar with it I'm not real familiar with it

Tim. Let me just make this comment though Five minutes before most

Catholics leave the church They would admit that they know very little bit about the church five minutes after they leave the church

They are experts on Catholicism If if you understand what I'm saying here,

I know exactly what you're saying Okay, you know, I was a Catholic and this is what they believe, you know, and you know 90 % of the time

It's not at all what we believe And and that's one of the big changes that occurred, you know when

I started to read Catholics But we're still in the church what they were saying. They really believed so You know, there's a lot of a lot of works out there like that from people that really just don't understand exactly what?

What they left and my latest my latest line to all the all the Catholics that have left is that you know?

Maybe you owe it to yourself to Find out what you left before you start talking about it.

Yeah, there's a difference in attitude that I've discerned I mean, I know a lot of people that have that have come to the church and We're very very intent on two things.

First of all, we're intent on what we came to we talked about what we came to what was given to us by that decision and The second thing

I've never met one single person that has that has come to the church that has trashed where they were

You know, I have the utmost regard for where I was and and I believe that Jesus Christ used how

I was raised to bring me to where I am and The difference is is it tends to be that when people leave the

Catholic Church? They don't talk so much about where they came to as where they left and how bad it was

And and I think there's a fundamental difference there that maybe gives a hint as to what you know Where these people are coming from?

Tim thanks very much for your phone call and congratulations on assisting your friend in coming back into the church

You might just continue to give her good Catholic materials that should bolster her against the attacks that she is experiencing in her faith okay, that was yesterday on Catholic answers live and so a couple things are

It's always best to acknowledge anything that is true in what someone says and Are there former

Roman Catholics who are not balanced are there for Roman Catholics who?

truly deserve the phrase Anti -catholic are their former Catholics who left the Roman Catholic Church for all sorts of bad reasons instead of good reasons yes to all of those things and Obviously there is a tremendous amount of Of need on our part to be very careful in the argumentation we use and Folks we we have a long track record of Offending people and losing possible supporters because we tell people you need to leave groups for the right reasons and If you for example leave

Rome Because you were mad at a priest or something like that I still need to talk to you about the gospel because if you don't leave

Rome Because Rome doesn't have the gospel if you don't leave Rome so you can embrace the truth of God then

Your your reasons are not reasons that are going to stand up over the long term and Are those things true yes, however

Let's look at the other things we say well you could drive them a Mack truck through the theological holes even though the man admitted he hadn't read it and Of course

I you know I look at surprised by truth and Throw my hands up in despair at the shallowness of what is said in both of those books.

I Know that there are full Complete solid exegetical rebuttals to every argument those people raise

So I could drive a Mack truck through the the books that they promote all the time

Carl Keating's Catholicism and fundamentalism has it looks like Swiss cheese when you examine it historically and biblically and That's why

I think mr. Keating will not come out and defend it except against people It doesn't feel have the ability to actually push him on those issues so The difference is

I read Catholicism and fundamentalism The difference is that I took the time to when he talks about Mary to look up What is said about Mary in various and sundry?

Resources and so on and so forth So there's a little bit of a difference at that point and then

Also this statement, you know, well, you know, I came to Rome and you know, I don't trash my old my old

My old viewpoint. I appreciate what came what I what I received in my old church, but now more focused on the positive

Well, that's a that's a nice sentiment But you know that sounds properly ecumenical and and things like that but in reality

Here we have Individuals who are promoting Giving materials to others that do quote -unquote trash their churches that say they are not actually the

Church of Christ They don't actually have the fullness of the gospel Etc. Etc. Etc. So they may not use

Similar language, but the fundamental thrust they're making is in fact the exact same thing

So that's I'm not really sure that's a really valid point to be made But it is interesting to hear and I've got another cut that we want to play from yesterday's program here in a few minutes when we look at the subject of the mass as Mr.

Curry demonstrates that You know, you know He said in there, you know people five minutes for leave the

Catholic Church admit They don't know much about the Catholic Church, but then five minutes later. They're experts on the Catholic Church Well, not exactly

There may be people who do that, but isn't that exactly What Jerry Maddix and Robertson Janice and these converts say?

Oh, I you know, I knew my faith and I know that it's you know, I know where you're coming from I mean

I have heard that song over and over and over again All you got to do is tune in EWTN or listen to the debates of don't these folks and it's just a constant drumbeat

I know where you're coming from And yet as we'll hear from David Curry later on he when he tries to respond to the

Protestant use of the book of Hebrews He fails completely to actually give the only meaningful argument from the book of Hebrews He gives a completely different argument.

So evidently he didn't really Understand what that was and it's time to go ahead and change the order that was to do this

And I I just want to throw this one out here and I seemingly do it toward the beginning of each program

You may remember a couple weeks ago and I started doing this where I'm actually responding to folks Let them let them give their case respond to them.

These are folks. Like I said, they just don't want to Don't want to Engage in debate. So we'll do the closest thing we can because I am committed to the assertion that Truth is most clearly seen against the backdrop of error and Proverbs tells us the first one to present his case sounds right until his neighbor comes along and examines him

It's real easy when you just present your side to make your side look good but it's a different issue when you actually have to have give -and -take and That's why

I like debates. But if these folks consistently Decline to utilize that forum and Consistently decline our challenges to debate, but they're gonna go out there and act like they're apologists well, we're gonna respond to what they have to say and Wouldn't it be interesting if somehow we eventually hear from them going?

Well, we'd appreciate if you wouldn't do that anymore. That would be I think the greatest example of Which side is speaking the truth of anything else

I could I can imagine but anyways I'm gonna switch the the ordering I was gonna do these in I was listening to a program where Patrick Madrid who

I Need to say right up front is going to be debating me July 11th on Long Island on the subject of prayers and veneration of saints and angels and That's coming up this year now

So he's not one of those who will not debate. We've debated once before September 1993 on the subject of solo scriptura

Patrick's editor of envoy magazine, which has taken some pretty cheap shots at me. I'm gonna hope to ask him about especially the last one on that particular level, but anyways, he was on the program and This next this next clip is just is just fascinating Note the absolute and complete unity that exists between Roman Catholic apologists on this one topic

If you were listening a few weeks ago to Carl Keating when he answered a question on this subject, you'll see almost a lockstep

Viewpoint as well as and this is where you you wake up Dave Hunt Norman Geisler and others and how they get around the utter freedom of God Notice you'll even hear the line here from Patrick Madrid.

God is not a rapist Well, where have we heard that one before? Listen to this particular clip from Patrick Madrid.

My question is regarding predestination and I've been having some ongoing discussion with my sister and She's a

Baptist and I just found out that she informs me She's also Calvinistic and I don't know whether all the

Baptists are or not, but she's using Romans 8 and to support that particular line of thinking and so after that we were going on to free will and I was making my feeble points on free will and she's very good in the

Bible and she says show me that in a Bible And so if you could and and it's interesting to note also that she's been using st.

Augustine And Thomas Aquinas to support the predestination and I know the church also uses those to support their contention that there is

No such a thing, right? So well, let me where can I look let me take a run at that First of all

Romans 8 of course is the classic one of the classic passages for the issue of predestination the problem with the the reformed or the

The point of view that John Calvin promoted Is that it involves at least in most instances it involves?

double predestination and Calvin Theorized that God creates

Humanity in two categories those who are predestined for heaven and those who are created simply for the purpose of damning them to hell

And that would make God into a monster now I know that my Calvinist friends would have a response to that and I wish we had time to go into greater detail there

But the point is the nature of God's love involves freedom by its very definition, you know what

Jesus said When st. John said that God is love we see in that that God is not just a loving person but he he embodies love itself and that means that when you love somebody that your love must be given freely and The person who is receiving your love must be free to accept or reject it

Right, because if you force the person to accept your love that is rape

God is not a rapist, right? And so we know that from even as far back as the time in the garden that God created

Human beings with the capacity to choose good or evil and he did not hinder or thwart them from exercising their freedom and this is another very important point and this is one of the the reasons why the

Calvinist devil predestination Point of view can't work and that is because not only is

God love itself But also the very nature of our human being excuse me our human nature made in the image and likeness of God Rests upon the foundation that we are created in freedom that we're not

Automatons, we're not marionettes that God just make winds us up and makes us go regardless of what we want

So when we consider those you might say presuppositions and then we approach a passage like Romans chapter 8 where it talks about people

Who are predestined, you know, we read for example in in Romans 8 29 for those he foreknew

He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son So that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and those he predestined

He also called and those he called he also justified and those he justified

He also glorified now notice that he's speaking there about people who are predestined for heaven and the

Catholic Church Recognizes and admits that there are people who are in fact predestined for heaven

The Blessed Virgin Mary would be the par excellence example of that But the church rejects the erroneous view that there is a second class of people who are predestined for hell well

You've we've heard that In so many different forms about the only thing that would that would separate the standard

Arminian from what was just said there was maybe the section about well the church says and the section about Mary Other than that Basically what we just heard is exactly what you hear in Arminianism today and That's what you hear for example from open theists who detests so much the freedom of God in his sovereign decree and are so focused upon the worship of man's autonomous will libertarian free will

The central aspect of human religion all human religion and So did you hear any discussion of Romans 8?

No We didn't we didn't hear anything concerning What Romans 8 says it's clear assertions.

There was no exegesis offered Instead you have you have all these things that are said sort of on the on the periphery

And it can't mean this because of this because we assume this because we have to believe this The church says this and therefore

You know, I I think that fellas sister as long as she stays with scripture is gonna have no problems whatsoever

Dealing with that particular issue well, I just want to throw that one in there because I just you know,

I just have to keep telling non -catholics if you worship at the altar of freewillism

Then you're the guy next to you is a Catholic. Okay? I just tried to get that across to you that the at the

Reformation the line was clear and If you sit here and listen to this program and you hear us talking about purgatory you go.

Oh, yeah Oh, that's and here's talking about the mass. Oh, yeah, go go get him And then you go and say ah, but but God's under the control of my free will

Hey, you would have been opposed to the Reformation you would have been opposed to the Reformers You would have been on Erasmus's side in the debate with Luther You need to realize you're holding a self -contradictory position and these folks are gonna get you on it so if we're gonna give a meaningful response, then we need to give that response in a consistent manner and I do not believe that a person who agrees with Rome on the nature of grace the nature of man's will

The nature of God's decree is going to be able to consistently give a response

To the Roman Catholic system just not going to happen. And here's another good example of that some of some of you who

Listen to the program regularly know that we have a worldwide chat channel called prosopology on that's how you pronounce it

Apology on I've heard every possible Pronunciation of that as I've traveled around it's sort of like we have an op that comes in whose name is

Karis Ch a RIS and I've heard every possible pronunciation of that to cherish and cherish and everything else

Anyways, we have a chat channel and of late it has been Very heavily inhabited by Roman Catholic apologists and One who is in there right now in fact, but not listening as I can see called

Catholic answers this week on Thursday and asked about something that I had said to him and Specifically he was asking

James Aiken about an assertion that James Aiken makes and we come back from this break We're going to listen to what

James Aiken had to say and test it by the light of scripture here on the dividing line

And Welcome back to dividing line. My name is James white We're talking about well lots of stuff today on the program and we are listening to what other folks have to say

Including some folks in the channel. I noticed that our Catholic apologist is continuing to demonstrate that he doesn't understand

The Reformed Faith though. He's confident that it's wrong That's why that you know, I I have

I don't have any problem being upset about that Because I've taken the time to learn about the groups that I speak on Well enough to be able to show respect to them in That the objections

I make to their beliefs are actually what they believe that doesn't mean I haven't encountered people who didn't know their

Their Beliefs well enough and now you're misrepresenting us in each one of the situations. I was able to to demonstrate that In fact, they were the ones who were not understanding of the teachings of their own church but be that as it may that's going on the channel right now and Interestingly enough.

It's the same individual who called Catholic answers live and asked a question

What had happened was? Late last year just a week or so a little bit more ago.

I Came back in channel and this individual had been talking with the one of our regulars in the channel and they had been talking about John 644 and One of the other regular users messaged me something that had been said

By this Catholic apologist in regards to John 644 and I immediately recognized as soon as I saw

What was said that what had happened is this person had gone off into the internet and had found a set of notes from James Aiken now, mr.

Aiken I did a Radio discussion slash debate and this wasn't the Bible answer man. That's right.

That's just a radio talk. That's just taking phone calls It's not a debate in any way shape or form, even though that's what they call it

I guess that's how they try to make it sound like They've actually debated me when they haven't

Mr. Aiken anyways, and we did one on it. I think it was k -i -x -l in Austin and we did it on I think it's on eternal security and John chapter 6 came up and in the years since then

I have a couple of times run across people who have found his notes posted on his website and In these notes

Mr. Aiken asserts that in John 640 he gets around the message of John 644

By asserting that we have here inceptive heiress Now an inceptive heiress verb in the

Greek language. The more common term is ingressive Ingressive or inceptive heiress are terms.

The the heiress is an undefined action in The Greek language the type of action describes is is undefined.

It can be It can be punctiliar or it can just be the statement that the action takes place that any comment whatsoever on whether it's

Continuing or anything like that at all and an ingressive or inceptive heiress is an heiress that emphasizes the beginning of an action rather than a culmative heiress

Thank you very much Jimmy Joe J just joined and I I forgot that my system plays that song when

Jimmy Joe J joins Before I go I want to get that sound myself anyways in contrast to a culmative heiress a

Culmative heiress would emphasize the end of the action and then a Constantive heiress is just simply the standard heiress where there's really no emphasis on a beginning or an ending now

Constantive is the normal use of the heiress and you have to have certain elements present in the

Context in the type of word used in the context of the word as it is used Etc.

Etc. Etc that indicates that it's a Ingressive or a culmative.

Otherwise, you have to stick with the general usage of the term So in other words, you can't just simply throw

I'm gonna assume that this is a an ingressive heiress No, you have to be able to back up your assertion when you take when you're trained in the language

When you when you take those classes Normally second year in college second semester in seminary you have to Defend your syntactical choices is what it's called to the professor.

I remember in second year Greek I missed an a by one question on one test that was on this very issue and I disagreed with the professor over whether something was a culmative a

Constantive or an aggressive and I think it's between culmative and constative and I think now today I'd agree with him He was probably right, but the time

I didn't think he was but I missed an a On one thing like that. I had to be able to defend it.

I wasn't able to do so to his his satisfaction. That's That's how you do it so anyways

James Aiken is out there and he's got these notes out here and the first time I actually ran across this interestingly enough

Was on a Calvary Chapel chat List Actually wasn't a chat list.

It was an email list and I had been invited there because there was a fellow who used the Nick Arminian or Arminius Who was just ripping and shredding on me and how this

Catholic had just beaten me up on John chapter 6 So I went into the I went into that list and I responded to everything

James Aiken said and of course the the guy that was Was beaten up on me immediately became very quiet and was unable to respond to anything

But of course after I left then he got real vocal again, which is a very very common thing But anyways, so I responded to it then here's an

Arminian using James Aiken's materials to try to get around the the truth of John 644

So anyways this Catholic apologist posts in the channel stuff directly from James Aiken in these notes and So I went back to what

I had written on the count for the Calvary Chapel thing and posted it to this individual Well, he didn't have any response he wasn't able to reply to it and so what he did is he took the time to Get a hold of James Aiken and call him about it.

Now remember He's gonna ask a two -part question He's going to ask the specific element about the ingressive heiress inceptive heiress the terminology that's

Aiken uses Secondly, but listen carefully To how a the senior apologist of Catholic answers responds this question in light of John 644

Good evening. I have a question concerning John 6 verses 42 44 now

Five -point Calvinists will often use this as a proof text for eternal security and I have read

Well, I would like to know what is the Catholic response to that and if I may

I would like to follow up with the Technical question about the

Greek. May I read that for the listeners? Sure. Okay. This is John chapter 6 verses 40 through 44

Paul, correct? Yeah, for this is the will of my father that everyone who sees the

Son and believes in him should have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day the

Jews then murmured at him because he said I am the bread which came down from Heaven they said is not this

Jesus the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know How does he now say

I have come down from heaven and Jesus answered them do not murmur among yourselves

No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day

Okay. Well, there are a couple of things in here that would be appealed to by people who who hold to the doctrine of eternal security

The first one is in verse 40 where it says for this is the will of my father that everyone who sees the Son and believes

In him should have eternal life. Well, that's true. That is God's will but those who

Who do convert and embrace Christ do have eternal life that's a separate question then can you lose it

Secondly in verse 44, he says no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and that's that's true

It requires an initiative of God's grace for individuals to come to God in the first place the denial of that being the heresy of Pelagianism And he says that he will raise such individuals up on the last day

But this again is presupposing individuals who have come to Jesus and have not

Subsequently departed and one finds out if you look elsewhere in the gospel of John in chapter 15 in particular

Jesus says that If anyone does not abide in him if anyone does not bear good fruit

Then the father comes along God and God the father himself Comes along and removes those branches from Jesus who is here being depicted as a vine and The end of those branches is to be burned in the fire

So Jesus indicates that even though you can genuinely be in him be a

Christian You can be removed by the father and end up going to a place rather warmer than Tucson Okay, there you have it

Paul you have a follow -up Question I seem to Remember reading one of your tracks on this in which you sit in which you maintain that the

Infinitives used in verse 44 are

Inceptive or aggressive Aorist meaning to continually draw now

I've asked a Self -proclaimed Protestant scholar who you may know you debated him once And James White who argues

Splendidly that there's no There's no warrant to take these aorists as Inceptive none whatsoever and I wanted to ask you if What's the

Greeks what's the scholarship be on your claim well,

I would say that it's true that these areas can be taken as either inceptive or non -inceptive, but You have to decide that question by looking not just at the form of the word but at broader contextual issues and as I indicated earlier when you have elsewhere in the

Gospel of John Jesus indicating that individuals can lose their salvation as he very clearly does in chapter 15

Then that tells you something about how you have to interpret other statements elsewhere in the

Gospel of John so if you have a clear indication in John 15 that folks can lose their salvation and that means that when you look at Verbs and participles elsewhere in the gospel that can be taken more than one way

Just by looking at their form then that is going to indicate to you that you should take them in a way compatible with the clear statement in John 15

Well, okay a number of things to to look at there seemingly we

Interpret John chapter 6 in the light of John chapter 15 Despite the fact of course of John chapter 6 comes prior

To John chapter 15 we are to interpret later passages in the light previous passages in the light of Later passages,

I think we can all see immediately that there's a bit of a problem secondly no exegesis was offered of John 6 at all

That's not surprising because I've said many many many times That it is simply impossible

For anyone who believes in man -centered salvation to start in the gospel of John chapter 6 and walk through consistently verse by verse in context following the use of language

Following grammatical and syntactical rules that everyone recognizes are valid and come to any conclusion that is commensurate with the religions of men the passage is clear it is very straightforward and There's just simply no question about it, so we don't have any exegesis offered

Instead mr. Aiken in response to Paul's question Dives away from John 6 over to John 15 now

He also doesn't engage in any exegesis of John 15. I would direct you to the website a omen org

John 15 John is capitalized John 15 dot HTML for a

Exegesis of John chapter 15 not this is what the church says and not this is what my tradition says but an exegesis of John chapter 15 that demonstrates that in point of fact you are ignoring the context of John 15

Vine in John 15 if you allow the language to speak for itself if you allow

Jesus To define the terms that he himself uses, but did you hear any discussion of that no?

Has mr.. Is mr.. Aiken even aware of those issues. I don't know I cannot tell I Would actually probably guess that he is not that he has simply embraced this as being his

His tradition, and that's what he repeats to people then Paul asked the question well

Well, what about this this issue of the inceptive errors now? I should mention to everyone that Paul has

Apologized to me and in our chat channel He said it was wrong and sinful

I believe to use the insult that he used a self -proclaimed Greek scholar

He recognizes that that I have taught the language for many years that I have been employed by a major Bible translation and that's that was a unwarranted assertion that that he made at that point in time and he has

Apologized for that so I don't think we need to pursue that any farther, but The response to his question, and it's an excellent question.

He asked it very directly. It was very understandable what he is attempting He's asking mr..

Aiken mr.. Aiken. You say this is an inceptive errors without an inceptive errors identification in John chapter 6 verse 44 your entire interpretation collapses upon itself so What is your scholarly?

backing What what other scholars say this? Where are you getting this and any person who has ever had?

to engage in syntactical study of the Greek New Testament knows

Mr.. Aiken did not even begin to answer the question

You do not determine the syntactical Utilization of an heiress verb in John 644 by making reference to your seemingly infallible interpretation of John 15

You examine the term in its context There are certain things that we need to know about inceptive errors

Let's examine some of the claims mr.. Aiken makes We are told by mr.

Aiken in here on his web page at the Greek word for can in John 644 Is present tense if mr.

Aiken is referring to do not I is able yes It is a present tense verb however do not I by nature requires a verbal compliment in this case

It is alfine that is to come this is a Phrase one of the most common errors of those who have but a little experience in the language as they focus upon words rather than phrases

Syntax is a more advanced subject than grammar, and it is here that mr. Aiken fails the test

Consistently throughout all of his comments on this particular subject

Alfine which means to come is an heiress infinitive form of Eric am I note that Aiken pretends to be giving simple grammatical information in his discussion of this on his website when he is not an

Inceptive heiress is an exegetical and syntactical category when you assert an heiress is functioning in a certain way

You have to give reasons Aiken offers no reasons at all so let's ask the question.

Why does he claim? This is an inceptive heiress? Well as mr.

Aiken would have to know there are particular categories that must be fulfilled to identify a word as an inceptive heiress specifically

Grammars such as Dan Wallace's excellent grammar of the Greek New Testament.

It's syntactical grammar says number one state of verbs

Such as basal you wine which it means to to rule lend themselves particularly to the inceptive category

Now think about for just a moment. I don't think you have to I don't think you have to be a

Greek scholar to understand this when you say King John began to rule

You can see that since ruling is something that normally takes place over a period of time then it's easy to see how you could emphasize the beginning of a period of ruling and The end of a period of ruling or you could just simply refer to the to the rule of someone as a whole

Those would be the three kinds of heiress at that point Inceptive or aggressive the beginning of the ruling the whole ruling as a whole

Constantive or culminative emphasizing the end of that particular action say

State -of -verbs then Lend themselves particularly well to the inceptive category. There's a problem here.

However Eric am I is not one of these verbs which mr. Aiken says is

An inceptive so automatically the kind of verb does not fit into the category that has been defined by grammarians as indicating inceptive aorist secondly an aorist introducing a new concept especially to narrative

Dialogue can often be inceptive. Well, let's think about that What do we mean?

Well if you are narrating something that took place in the past And you are telling people, you know, this has happened and this happened and then you introduce a new thing

It is easy for an heiress to be used in that way in narrating a story to talk about. Well, then someone began to pour water

Into a bowl or something along those lines. You can see how that would as you're narrating actions in the past Could be an inceptive or ingressive heiress, but L fine doesn't fit that category either

I Have any Greek grammars that cite this passage as an example of an aggressive or inceptive heiress not one

Nor do I find any English translations that render the passage to begin to come not one.

No Roman Catholic ones do So if your verb doesn't fit the context doesn't fit

There's not a translation the world supports you not a grammar that supports you then either James Aiken is the greatest

Greek scholar on the planet and we all the rest of us are clueless or Mr.

Aiken is wrong and needs to admit it and needs to pull this material from his site Next there is no basis

Even if this was an inceptive heiress for the rendering that Aiken offers to begin to continually come

That's how he renders it to begin to continually come and did you hear in his explanation to Paul That oh, yes, they began to come, but they didn't continue

That's how they get around the idea of the perfection of the work of Christ Well, they can begin to come but then they can they can go away.

They don't so they don't remain faithful in fact Just the opposite is true in regards to rendering in this word the inceptive heiress

Translation would simply be began to come with no statement regarding the continuing process

Hence, the rendering offered is simply an error and I do not believe that. Mr. Aiken could find anyone who would substantiate his translation

The fact is this is not an inceptive heiress Aiken is an error I believe the vast majority of Greek scholars would agree

This is simply a constant heiress the action of coming is taken as a single whole That which no man is able to accomplish outside the drawing of the father.

There is no lexical grammatical or syntactical Reason to take it any other way Next Aiken asserts that he'll kuse the era subjunctive of helco is an inceptive heiress as well

Not only is the same error made regarding the inceptive heiress in its proper translation, but this case even has less of excuse

This is an heiress subjunctive used in an eon may clause Time elements fall out when you leave the indicative for the subjunctive and Aspect issues are not as clear -cut as in the indicative either

So helco is not stative. It does not fit the inceptive heiress category, but it is instead another constative

Therefore we see that Aiken has presented exegesis. That is totally unsubstantiated and on the basis of that Innovative idea that these are inceptive heiress has turned the text on its head

Turned it upside down Now I noted that Paul did not have a response in Channel, that's why he called.

Mr. Aiken. Mr. Aiken hasn't had a response either as we have heard and Hence I would

I would say that it would be very proper to call upon James Aiken to either remove the material from his website because it has been fully refuted or Defend the material by providing the scholarship that he did not provide to Paul when he called

And we would be more than happy To have mr. Aiken on our program to defend his comments on John 644 all he needs to do is contact our offices and Set up a time when he'd like to come on and we will be glad to do so I can guarantee you that what's unusual is while we will respond to what they're having to say

I sort of doubt that You're gonna hear us on Catholic answers live, but I will say again if Mr.

Aiken would like to have home field advantage. I would be glad to come on Catholic answers live and Discuss this issue with him.

You might say well, that's you know, who are you to go on Catholic answers live? Well, I think the fact that I've written a number of books on Roman Catholicism done nearly 30 debates against the leading

Roman Catholic apologists teach Greek and Hebrew Should give me sufficient basis to go ahead and discuss this with With mr.

With mr. Aiken, so why don't we why don't we put that invitation out and see if mr

Aiken will do what's right and either pull the information admit that it's wrong and Come up with some other response, whatever that might be or just let's let's discuss it.

Let's let's debate it I think that is the way that needs things need to be taken care of Well when you listen to the dividing line you get to hear both sides and That means the phone lines are open.

Maybe mr. Aiken would like to call in today maybe some others who would like to maybe you hold to James Aiken's perspective or maybe to what

Patrick Madrid said or David Curry or whoever else give us a call at eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three eight six six

Eight five four six seven six three is the phone number and we'll be taking calls after the break

I haven't even started to scratch Everything that I have available today.

It is truly incredible We still have the the second part from from David Curry to look for a look at and then we have a bunch of stuff from Steve Ray on the papacy and Just not enough time to get it all in but that's that's what we're doing here on the dividing line

We're gonna go ahead and take our top of the hour break and our phone callers at eight six six eight five four sixty seven

Sixty -three, we'll be right back And welcome back to dividing line.

My name is James white. We are looking at what the The leading Roman Catholic apologists are saying in fact today.

We've been talking about stuff. They said yesterday Less than 24 hours ago, in fact, and So we are trying to keep keep up with things here

I know some of the things we're playing were said months ago Well, I didn't have an mp3 player back then to be able to listen to stuff

I'm driving around and doing stuff like that. And that's been a that's been a cool addition. No two ways about it before we take our our next before we take our first caller, let me just Just throw this one out here.

I wanted at least get to it since I mentioned it I want to at least get to it a call call a caller called in regarding the subject of The Mass and the book of Hebrews and it's very interesting to hear how

David Curry a former Protestant But not a reformed Protestant Responded to this particular call

Isis that Christ replaced and he did he replaced those but he instituted the mass Well, you know, it would be helpful if it started at the beginning.

That's My question is concerning the mass. I was always taught that the mass is a sacrifice and And I understand that that sacrificial

Terminology is used by our Lord in the Last Supper Understand that the Eucharist was described as a sacrifice as a fulfillment

Concerning Malachi's prophecy chapter one. Mm -hmm, but my Protestant friends would point out in the letter to the

Hebrews on how How can mass be a sacrifice because Jesus died once and for all?

Okay. Well in light of the letter to the Hebrews How should I respond?

Okay, that's a very good question And I think there's a couple things we need to discuss real quick fence

First of all, the the mass is a sacrifice, but it's an unbloody sacrifice

In other words, it's a part of the sacrificial atonement that Christ did on the cross.

It's it's not a separate sacrifice It's actually part and parcel of that. It's us joining in that Sacrifice that's eternal in heaven

When st. John looked at Christ in heaven in the book of Revelation He saw a lamb that was slain and not a lamb that had been slain

I was a lamb that will be slain but a lamb that was slain Eternally, you know

That sacrifice is in heaven because time is different and it is down here.

It's eternally present Now so first of all, let's make that distinction this is this is not a separate sacrifice

This is a sacrifice as part and parcel. It's an unbloody Sacrifice that's part and parcel of the passion that our our

Lord went through So that's the first distinction that we need to to get them to understand. We're not saying that this is a sacrifice is different It's not another sacrifice.

It's not a second sacrifice It's the same thing and the second thing though is that I think we need to help them to understand and this is something that You really have to watch and I say this with as much kindness as I can you really have to watch

Protestants on this and they take the book of Hebrews totally out of context really now, what is the book of Hebrews?

What was it written for? Well, it was written just before the Jerusalem was was

Conquered and the temple was demolished in 70 AD by the Romans Okay, and Hebrews was written just a little bit before that probably about a decade and a half or maybe you know

Right in that range somewhere maybe a decade before So you have these

Jerusalemite Christians these Jewish Christians the Hebrews the Hebrew Christian who's written to in in Judea trying to become trying to be

Christians and Being terribly terribly persecuted by the Jewish leaders the

Jewish leaders in about 64 AD Convinced Rome and Nero at that point that these

Christians were subversive and they weren't a part of Judaism anymore They had gone off and so Rome turned its wrath upon the

Christian Church along with the Jewish leaders who and you know pointing their wrath toward these poor

Hebrew Christians all along and As a result a lot of the Hebrew Christians were saying, you know what?

I would let's just go back to the sacrificial system I mean that was set up by God, but you know, and if we go to the temple we do our sacrificial system

We don't get all this grief, you know Certainly God doesn't want us to go through this much suffering when there's this other system over here that we know was ordained by God and Moses set it up and And so we're going to go back to that and that you see that if you read the book you see that tension in there

It's not talking about the mass It's talking about the Old Testament sacrifices the bloody

Sacrifices that Christ replaced and he did he replaced those but he instituted the mass That's what bring me up means notice that Well, mr.

Curry just doesn't quite Understand the argumentation that has been used for a long time

In regards this particular issue No one is saying that the sacrifices that they were talking about at In the book of Hebrews was the

Roman Catholic Mass In fact, it's our argument that that concept didn't even develop for centuries upon centuries

So obviously that's not what we're saying. What we're saying is first of all that you cannot make the leap that he does that an

Bloody sacrifice is the same as the bloody sacrifice because that's not the point of the book of Hebrews the book of Hebrews contrasts the repetitive sacrifices of the

Old Covenant with the one -time sacrifice of Jesus Christ and That one time sacrifice was a bloody sacrifice

Rome does say it's the same sacrifice. We say it can't be Because a it's unbloody and be and this is where only

Reformed folks Say this Be it doesn't accomplish what the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes so There you have the issue now.

Mr. Curry was not reformed and so it's not it's it's Understandable that he wouldn't understand the strongest argumentation

I'm not gonna go into all the stuff in Hebrews because we did that a few weeks ago when we played Scott Hahn's presentation, which is a much more polished presentation.

Mr. Curry was basically giving the exact same Argument just not with the the flowery language that Scott Hahn gave a few weeks ago.

And if you want to hear about what was said At that particular time the archives are available straight gate got a straight gate calm

But it is fascinating to hear a Roman Catholic saying now you you've got to watch those

Those those fundamentalist those Protestants because they'll take Hebrews out of context

We're not taking Hebrews out of context. Yes, there was pressure being put upon Hebrew Christians to go back to the old ways

But mr. Curry, you're the one presenting a system that's built upon the old ways

You're the one presenting the system that has the repetitive sacrifices that perfect no one

So the the problem is the application is that when we look at what the book of Hebrews says concerning the sacrifice of Christ it contradicts the results of The Roman Catholic teaching and therefore the

Roman Catholic teaching must be rejected. That's how you test it by the scriptures and So we see again the importance of being consistent in The argumentation that we use consistent in the theology that we hold because when we do not

Hold to consistent theology. We end up with lots of problems eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three

Let's go ahead and take our first caller and I believe we have Johnny back with us again.

Hello, Johnny Yeah, you're doing James doing pretty good. Good good Bo I got three questions for you if you will allow me to do so We'll see what they're about.

All right the first one has to do with justification and in connection with the Point that drop

Robertson Jenna made in his debate against you on justification He said that in in the book of James chapter 2

He talks you made the point that it was the demonstration of righteousness that was referred to when when when when

Abraham took his son Isaac of To the mountain to sacrifice him that that was works

And then that that's what the word justification meant that it was a demonstration of righteousness But then he said that in I remember which verse it was, but I don't have my

Bible in front of me It says that in as it is said in Scripture Abraham believed on and he was reckoned to him as righteousness and he says that the word the word for justification

Because sooner or something like that that it has the meaning of demonstration and then it has the meaning of Declaration the forensic declaration and then he says for the

Protestant position to hold water of course it has to go from forensic from from demonstration to forensic and then to demonstration again, and he said that the the the term justification

Never has that meaning in any of the secular literature or in the New Testament in General now,

I don't think if I remember right? I don't think that you got to respond to that particular point Well, mr.

Syngenis makes lots of claims and rarely is able to back up his claims there is a 24 page chapter on James chapter 2 in the book of the

God who justifies and the issue of Demonstration was laid out. I think almost

Too painfully in the exegesis that I provided there from the very beginning so The problem is mr.

Syngenis focuses upon words like mr. Aiken rather than upon phrases and uses That is one of the major faults that would have with all of his material mr.

Syngenis is is not a Greek scholar and he focuses upon single words rather than their relationship to others and The simple fact the matter is

James talks about the demonstration in verse 18 He uses these terms himself and therefore to say well, it can't it never has that meaning

Well, wait a minute words have meanings in context and since Dykes on appears in the context

Then the entire assertion is absurd to begin with I was not saying that the word outside of its context

Includes the concept of demonstration. I'm saying James uses it in the context The word

Dykes on is there you have to deal with that and it it's somewhat frustrating because This is very similar to what he's doing in this current a response that he's written to the stuff in first Corinthians 3

I provide exegesis and and I'm just gonna give you my personal opinion

I think anyone who's who's dealt with this area will will back me up and that is Mr.

Syngenis doesn't do exegesis. I don't think a faithful Roman Catholic can Who's trying to substantiate infallible magisterial

Magisterial proclamations because the conclusion that you have to come to has already been decided But what

I've already told you so the idea of of actually exegeting the text to some just as simply there, right?

As I read the passage, that's the interpretation. I got when I was younger myself But is he right in saying that in none of the secular literature?

Contain a verb like justification or whatever it is I don't know Greek words and all that stuff but a word that can have can be repeatedly used in one particular paragraph and have

Two different meanings where you'll have one meaning in that in one occurrence then another meaning in another occurrence and then go back to The original meaning in the in the following occurrence again again, mr

Syngenis doesn't know what he's talking about John uses single words like here in two different ways within three words of each other.

That is absolutely absurd Again, the meanings of terms are derived from phrases and not merely from well

Here's a word. It means this no, here's a word and this is its semantic domain You can then use it in context with other words to communicate

Many different things that can draw from different elements of its semantic domain. So no, that's a that's a completely false assertion

All right. What about the term if I can get this, right? I think it was the term Yes to eat right there.

Excellent example He says see this has the literal meaning of chew and so on so forth

Wonderful, but a word has a meaning in Context and when you allow

Jesus and John chapter 6 to determine his own Context he started in John 6 35 told us exactly what he's talking about.

He's talking about coming to him believing in him to assuage hunger and thirst and These individuals reject that they do not want that they want the only hunger and thirst they have is

Physical and Jesus is saying you're missing the whole point. You don't understand what I have done

You have not seen the signs with faith. You are Unbelievers, you must have a vital relationship with me

And so he uses a very strong term But to think that that means well since since it means to mash with the teeth that's somehow different than drinking well drinking means drinking and Jesus used that in the context of what of Believing in him coming to him

Jesus defined his terms beginning at John 6 35 even before then really you simply are again

Missing the the very forms and functions of language to say well This is a term that means to chew fine

I Can I if I say to you Johnny want you to on that am I asking you to put your phone in your mouth and start?

Crunching right well of course not So are you saying that there would be no there no single

Greek scholar even from the Roman Catholic side? Agree with his assertion that the term trogon or the term for drink has to be taken literally well first of all you will find

A scholar who will believe anything so let's let's you know there are scholars the Jesus seminar the world will say absolutely positively anything

So let's let's demythologize scholarship the point is Does the literal meaning of trogon?

require us in John chapter 6 when used in Context to believe that what

Jesus is saying is you need to gnaw on Transubstantiated flesh a concept that no one came up with for a thousand years and the answer that is no

Greek and Hebrew scholars will have to admit if they even want to be called a scholar that a term has meaning

When it is used with other terms, so it's not a lot of it. Oh of course not you can't there is

There is no such thing as saying well a word has meaning X and Therefore I'm going to insist that no matter what context using him

Choo means chew and therefore it is improper for you to tell Johnny to chew on this

Because that violates my use that term now of course not that's not how we speak He's wrong in negating the figurative meaning obviously okay my third question

Do you have any college waiting? I honestly don't know okay? This has to do with the tape series, which

I'm sure you've listened to by Tim staples It's called twisted scripture sola scriptura exposed

Not sure if I have or not okay, it's a three tape series In I believe it one.

I think it's tape three and I think it's I too much sure though He mentions the issue of what we've as Protestants I have commonly called the 400 silent years in which the apocryphal was actually written mm -hmm

And he says that Protestants have this tradition That they get from Josephus that we get from Josephus Which is that the

Spirit of God was lifted from Israel in in the sense of no getting no prophets like Moses or Elijah, etc

Right actually that comes from the mission our their act well Josephus says it, but the mission also

The mission ah well the mission is the codification of Jewish tradition 250 years after Christ But the tradition that it codifies would go back into the same period as Josephus, okay?

Well the thing is Tim mentioned something that he I guess was supposed to refute Protestant theology or something

And that's why I'm asking you being that you know about textual scholarship and all that He says that Josephus contradicts himself where he quotes from Josephus And I wish

I had the the writing in front of me and also from Philo where he says that the dating of those books

Because they give listings of Kings in Philo and and Josephus where the dating of those books would leave

Ezra and Nehemiah or for them first and second Ezra in the year 300 BC what's your take on that I?

Have the foggiest idea what you're asking or what he's saying Okay, that's the

Josephus in antiquities book 2 chapter 8 Gives those datings and gives datings for what for the date for the

The Kings that I guess the Kings that are mentioned in Nehemiah and Ezra Would land under the period of 300

BC rather than before the for in other words He's saying that if Ezra and Nehemiah are written in 300

BC Then the tradition that there were 400 silent years is out the door well a who would care

What's that got to do with anything and be if he's trying if he's trying to argue that Ezra and Nehemiah were written a hundred years later

So what let's let's not even argue about that. I don't I don't see how that's relevant, but so what?

The fact the matter is when the the apocryphal books are written the books themselves recognize the spirit of prophecy has left since Malachi and Unless he's trying to do that Basically, it sounds like he's trying to throw throw sand here

Try to try to impress an audience and not really make any particularly meaningful points to anyone who's actually listening to what he's saying

But if he's trying to say that that apocryphal books are written The only thing

I could possibly see is going on here is he's saying that apocryphal books are written concurrently with canonical books

And that's somehow there therefore negates the argument that the Holy Spirit Of prophecy had left or something along those lines

I don't know it would seem to me a whole lot easier for him Just simply to say that who cares what the

Jews said because basically that's what I discovered when I When I talked to Roman Catholics, in fact just this past week and channel an individual

Came in we were in fact, I think he I'm not sure if he's still there here. Let me scroll down here He keeps changing names.

I don't see a particular. I don't think he's there right now, but we were pointing out that the scriptures say that these scriptures were given to the

Jews and Therefore their view of the canon should be relevant. He's like who cares what the

Jews believe you the Jews rejected Christ Well, that's the normal response.

Hence. I'm not really sure why why mr Staples would go this way other than to simply sound like wow

He's really done research into history if he does research into history Then he knows those same sources such as Josephus give us a 22 book

Old Testament canon That does not include his books that Philo does not quote them as being canonical either.

So, you know is what what does that mean? Well, I don't

I have seen nothing that would again Liberal scholarship would put a large portion of the

Old Testament into the intertestamental period that's it's real easy to find folks Especially, you know Daniel must be it must be

Way past the events that talks about because They don't believe in prophecy.

So there's no end to stuff that you can quote that would allegedly say well This is an individual.

This is a book that was written, you know much later than Than Malachi or much later than 400 BC or whatever, but I don't see how that's relevant outside of the fact that if you push

It too far Then you've got a problem with the historical fact that the canonical books were laid up in the temple as early as 200

BC Yeah, the issue of the dating thing because as you know, I was some months back

I was in an email discussion with Tim and one of the things that That I asked him and was for the dating or concerning the book of Baruch because I had told him that he had said in the tape series that the book of Baruch is that was written during the time period when

Daniel was alive or when Jeremiah was alive and he said I don't remember ever saying that So I had to go back into the tape series give him the actual quotation

And show him where he could hear it himself. And then he was like, oh, I didn't realize that I had said that So, you know, he was back to the original position where it seemed like he was shying away from it that's that's the danger of his job and my job and that is

When you when you open your mouth as frequently as as as we do So, I'm not gonna pick on him for that because somebody could pick on pick on me about it

I can guarantee you that and the older I get the the more I Recognize Dangerous that all is but anyways, well, hey, you're still you're still out there in the thick of things

Johnny And I don't know how you do that and still serve up those hot fresh cheeseburgers

I don't know how you do it itself It's a do do you sort of sneak some, you know tracks into the the rappers or something like that?

Oh, wait a minute. Isn't isn't there verses on the bottoms of the cups or something? John 14 6 and John 3 16 that I know when you can start putting

John 6 44 Looks looks looks clear to hear normally as all those as normal The the folks in the chat channel are all sitting there and they're you know

They're actually somebody was was saying you call in a lot and as someone pointed out Well, actually

I can't repeat exactly what what wonky said The rest of us are too scared and I'll just use the term chicken for what he said, so, you know

No, I have not threatened to sing whatsoever There has been no singing and there will be no singing because I've still got

I don't know how many cuts here to play I've got I've got another programs worth already sitting here.

So anyways, all right My question has to do with this isn't on Roman Catholic. Oh Okay. Okay.

It has to do with a discussion that I got from rich that you had with What was that name

Gail Rippinger on the New Age Bible version? Yes. Good old

Gail. Well, the thing is You hadn't she had meant you were talking about the

Johan in comma And how it the Greek manuscripts prior to that one with the issue of the

Sedaris Erasmus, etc That none of the Greek manuscripts prior to that one had contained the Johan in comma

But she mentioned something that of course the show was any so you weren't able to respond or anything like that but she was mentioning that many church fathers such as Athanasius and many others had quoted from the comma

Johan. Right? That's what they that's what they claim Of course when you think about that, there is one God that is a very common

Summary statement and so there's two issues. They generally they say Cyprian is the first to quote -unquote quote from it that that assumes a certain interpretation of what he said a

B that also assumes a certain textual state of Cyprian's writings that have come down to us and the study of patristic

Citations and their textual transmission is still in its infancy there's just there's not a whole lot of money to be found to submit to support the study of the textual state of patristic citations and all of those would exist primarily in Latin and if you've ever looked at for example, the earliest church fathers, for example

Ignatius, there's a tremendous difference between the Latin version of Ignatius and the

Greek version of Ignatius and even then there are variations in a few manuscripts we have of Ignatius and so to attempt to correct the the

New Testament manuscript tradition on the basis of Patristic citations is an extremely questionable thing to be get to get into in the first place because when you say well

Cyprian said this Well, what manuscript of Cyprian and how old is it? Most the time those types of questions are not even asked let alone does anyone have the information to answer it

So really that that becomes the issue if the Kamiohanian and even Dean Burgon said this and there of course

Dean Burgon is their big their big favorite I don't think Burgon would have supported their position had he lived to this day

But they love to quote Dean Burgon Dean Burgon said regarding the Kamiohanian that if the

Kamiohanian is original Then there is absolutely no science of textual criticism left

Because if that passage could disappear completely From the

Greek manuscript tradition, then we have no idea what the original Greek manuscript tradition was

Now they won't quote him on that you will never find them You won't find the people you won't find da wait

And these other people who are constantly quoting Burgon as if he is the be -all and end -all of all things you won't find them quoting

Them on that one because that goes against their position, but that's exactly what he said How did he get into the

Latin? well Probably the same way that John chapter 5 verse 4 did first John 5 7 is a is a commentary on first John 5 6 and So probably the same way that John 5 4 did it was probably a column or note

That is a note that someone had had put in the side of a column explaining what the three witnesses of first John 5 6 was and What happened with both that and John 5 4 in the gospel is

John 5 4 is where the angel would come down stir the waters Oh, yeah, and it's very easy to understand how someone listening to a sermon that Had no idea why these people were laying around this pool in the first place

Well, why are they laying around the pool? Well, the preacher happens to know so a person puts a note in the side column is oh

They that that was because An angel they thought an angel would come down stir the waters

That's how stuff like that got into the text now notice it was the tendency of scribes to be conservative that is they they would

Make sure to include anything. They didn't excluding and that's a good thing What that means is we know we have the originals

We just simply need to recognize that there are things such as that that Accrued over time and when the oldest manuscripts do not have them then we're able to to recognize those things

But it's better than the scribes being non -conservative and cutting things out It's just that they had told a

Mormon had told me that they had added it in there because of the Aryan controversies No, I don't think that that's the case at all.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. Thanks for your call, Johnny All right. God bless Well another fast 90 plus minutes

Minute or two long today, but I'm sure you all appreciated that and I know Johnny did Thanks for listening in today, and we'll be back again next week here on the dividing line

Thank you very much for participating both in the chat room and of course on the telephone calls and Also for giving us an opportunity to respond to what's being said out there

We truly hope that giving an answer with the hope that's within us is encouraging to you that you'll take this information

Go out there share the gospel with those who've been deceived. Thanks for listening in 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 6029730318 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org.

That's a o M -i -n dot o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and press