Bible Answer Man Discussion with Jimmy Akin

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

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

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

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

Here is James white And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon continuing with our examination of the Bible answer man discussion between myself and Jimmy Akin, I hope all of you took the time to listen to the

Discussion about it. How do you listen to a discussion to read the article? Let's put that way that I posted yesterday on the subject of the 33 ,000 denominations anyone who has ever listened to EWTN radio

EWTN television has listened to almost any convert on Any of the various programs the journey home

Catholic answers live whatever it might be has heard the 20 ,000 23 ,000 25 ,000 27 ,000 29 ,000 30 ,000 33 ,000

I think I actually ran to someone who did 40 once 40 ,000 denominations and it's always in the context of this is the result of solo scriptura.

It is Patrick Madrid's outline I believe That he came up with years ago about solo scriptura the blueprint for anarchy and Likewise, then his is assertion.

One of the points that he raises is that solo scriptura is unworkable and within that context you have

The Barrett citation that I examined yesterday Put the information on the blog in regards to what it actually says

You are truly left wondering if any of these individuals have ever even looked at the citation that they that they make available

Which likewise makes you wonder about a lot of the citations they give I know for me one of the most amazing things

I've ever experienced was sitting in a Presbyterian Church In I think it was

Aurora as Aurora one of the suburbs of Denver In the in the very

Presbyterian Church where a few years later John Denver's funeral would be held Not sure what the connection is, but I just a small little point of trivia

But it was in that very church That I had the second part of the debate with Jerry Matitix on the subject of papacy during the papal visit in 1993 and I will never forget sitting there because I can still see you know in this

Aging mind of mine. I can still see The the perspective on the church from where I was sitting

And there was a pulpit a podium and then there were two Were those six or eight foot tables and they get probably about eight foot

They were they were the long six foot there were the long tables That you'd find in a you know cafeterias type type situation you've got them all over the place and we have them at Phoenix Performed and and I was from the audience's perspective.

I was on the right -hand side of the podium from my perspective of course I was on the left -hand side of the podium and Jerry was on the on the other side of the podium and I've told part of this story before Part of the story

I've told is in reference to Jerry's complete inability to be organized at all The man is the single most disorganized human being

I have ever encountered in my entire life and This was illustrated by the fact that rich and I were standing back behind it was a fairly decent -sized church and there was a

Choir loft behind where the podium was And at one point after the debate was all over rich and I were staying back there and we were looking past the podium toward where where the congregation be seated and on my side of the podium on my table was a

Book bag and I had all my volumes the early church fathers and stuff in that book bag

I still got it the the silver metal one from years and years ago, and it's under my desk in the other room right now

That's all was left There's just I everything had been put into might have been two book bags And I think about maybe the the really really cheesy cheap brown one that I also still have some place you know covered in dust, but Anyway, I had all my books put away and they're in these two little bags

That's it. You know that the chair is pushed in underneath the desk. You look over at Jerry's side and it is looks like a tornado has come through there and That the you cannot see any wood on the top of the table and The amazing thing was underneath the table on the carpet the only place where you could see the carpet was where his feet had bent and He's still standing there.

He's still sitting there saying they've been talking to somebody or whatever and he happens to turn around He sees rich and I looking at this rather stark contrast and that was when he said, okay okay,

I concede I I you you win the organization part or something like that and So that one that one's one

I have remembered for a long time But what was more amazing was what I observed during the debate

Was at one point and I realized that people in the audience probably don't know this and this wasn't videotaped.

Unfortunately, I wish they had been But this was 1993. We hadn't gotten to the point of doing videotaping yet.

And I I still remember this in my mind looking up toward Jerry as he is speaking now things weren't going well for Jerry in this debate and That's generally how it happens on the subject of papacy with Roman Catholic apologists, you know, they liked

To talk it up and oh, it's wonderful to have the papacy But the fact matter is you get into a debate with someone who really knows they're doing and the facts aren't on your side

I mean, it's real easy for them to spin things as long as you don't have to answer questions You don't have counter documentation

But things were going well In fact during the break I went out and I'm mingling with the people to book tables and talking with people

Jerry retreated back into the choir loft to write notes the second half of the debate during the break

Okay, it just gives you an idea of course He might say it's just because you know He had just driven there while drinking a diet coke and only had all those books were packed away and blah blah blah

Which we've heard many many times before and would hear again in 1996 when when he showed up, you know 10 minutes for the debate started on Long Island, but You know,

I was trying to write my notes Well, the stop signs the stoplights and all I've had today drinks diet coke and it's just the same old same old all the time

Well, he didn't do that the next year because I faxed him a note and I told him Jerry show up prepared

Stop with the whining about David and Goliath and how unprepared you are and how all your books are packed away and blah blah blah and just just do the

Debate and he did and that made it one of our better debates. So anyway Point of all this was

I remember looking up the man during that second half of debate and there he's standing at the podium And he has it was the first volume of the

Jurgen set How do I know which volume was because if you have that set as it existed back then there were there's three colors

There's a red one. There's a green one. There's a blue one and it was the red one and He has it open to the index in the back the subject index

And he is reading from the subject index and what he's doing is he's telling people here are the early church fathers who supported the papacy and He's reading from the index of the

Jurgens work now Again, if you've never seen this work, it's a Roman Catholic quote book okay, and you know, it has its uses but it's it's not unbiased and Just reading from an index

Obviously from a scholarly perspective means absolutely positively nothing But that's what he was doing.

That was the level of presentation was being made was reading from the index of Jurgens as if somehow this is an argument and So I think that's directly relevant to what we saw with Steve Ray and Tim Staples who have been repeating this 33 ,000 denominations thing and claiming that's how many

Protestant dominant and this source says it you know a source says nothing of the kind in any way shape or form and It just is amazing to hear

These folks repeating the same Exploded miss and it really the question is will they stop now?

I Mean, I checked the Catholic answers forums today and it just so happens that someone had just asked a question

He had made the claim to a non -catholic about the 20 ,000 denominations at least there's only 20 rather than 33 and the guy had challenged him and said that's not what that source says that source says this and This person had posted.

Hey, what about this? And It just so happens. Someone said wow, how ironic that's exactly what

James White addressed it addressed And at least when he put the link in the Catholic answers forums the

Catholic answers forums do not Actually delete the link unlike certain other people whose whose forums do automatically delete the link because they don't want you going over to a omin org and so Anyway, I hope you'll read that because that 33 ,000 number includes

Roman Catholics Eastern Orthodox Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses and When you actually start reading the list it is absolutely laughable that anyone has ever cited it at all

I mean even if you just go to Protestant denominations It's just under 9 ,000 that are listed there.

And when you start looking at them you start going. Oh, wait a minute This is such a huge wide category that this is this is an irrelevant number and it is it's it's and it is totally irrelevant, but that's

That's what people do and so anyway, that's that's That's there and we're gonna need to take that and make it a an article that you can link to From the side.

I there are so many things I would like to link to from the side But I don't really have any reason to do that right now because I'm hoping the side will disappear someday

Someday over there anyway When Did we start on that project again rich when when when did the 2003

For that. No, that would have been two years ago to July July Two years ago last

July. Okay. Yeah so, you know if my My website team is listening.

Mm -hmm. It would be two years ago two years ago two years ago. Okay All right, appreciate that so we're really kind of hoping to maybe have a new website up there by by Christmas of 2010 and Maybe Yes, I better go okay, bye

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you know We really really really really really really really need what we really really really really really need is a search engine on the blog

That provides a context for the quote. I Can't find anything on my own blog

Because all it gives you is the URL and that means it gives you the archive and the article but no context to know whether That's actually relevant to what you're doing or not

We've got to have that because the blog is what I do now I mean as far as information goes that's that that's got to be there.

I'll go ahead and give that to my team. Yeah Yeah Okay, so anyway,

I hope you'll go read the 33 ,000 denominations article and Did we get any really nasty notes about the

Dave hunt Steve Ray? Picture not a one. Isn't that amazing? I was really shocked by that No, who knows, you know

Borean call maybe it's just a little bit behind the curve here But I I would think that once those folks kind of pick up, you know

You know get a little pick up on the uptake there They will they will be rather upset.

I just take September somewhere in there. I just really expected

Just some some real loud howls at that point be only for people who didn't read what

I said because I'm starting to get that idea that I can post a graphic and People only see visual things

They don't read words and make an association between what the words say and what the graphic says they just see the graphic come up with their own conclusions and start writing and I'm that's what they did with the

Roman Catholic pictures the the they didn't read what was actually commented on Next to it and if they would actually read what

I said yesterday They would see the parallel I was drawing between Steve Ray and Dave Hunt because they do Behave in a very similar fashion to criticism and they're both fundamentalists.

They're both in the bad sense of that term they are non -historical fundamentalists in that sense they both are and Amazingly defending two completely different systems.

So anyway, that's that's interesting except in one area what they're both synergists

Well, that's well, of course No, and and Ray always was obviously, so Isn't that so who's really gone to the roots

All right, let's continue on with Jimmy Akin we are listening to the Bible answer man broadcast from 1995 this is the very broadcast that is presented by Catholic answers as a debate it is not debate and is presented as this great wonderful awesome opportunity

Where Jimmy Akin did so well and we have been listening very carefully have documented some problems already and we will continue that right now material the position of material sufficiency claims that all

Theology all the material you need to do for the you need to use for theology is either contained or implied in Scripture and The difference between that and the soul of Scripture a position is that it says that even though Scripture is materially

Sufficient it has all the material you need it contains or implies at all. It's not formally sufficient

The material isn't in the form you need to do theology in all cases And so you need to use tradition as an interpretive grid to help you understand like which passages gain primacy

Does does Jesus saying before Abraham was I am gain primacy or does Jesus saying why call us down me good?

there's none good, but God game game primacy, which you know, and that sound that sounds really good until you actually put it into practice and recognize that Rome has defined on the basis of tradition certain dogmas that could not be could not be derived

By any meaningful fair process of exegesis no matter what you say about primacy of texts

That you know these discussions may sound really interesting

But the fact the matter is you have to look at Rome and you have to go Okay, what has

Rome defined on the basis of tradition? What is her teaching?

How does she use this and you will find very few Roman Catholic apologists?

Who actually want to defend the fully? developed concept of Tradition as it has function not as a theoretically theoretically exists

But as it has functioned in Roman Catholicism to give rise to entire dogmas

Unknown to the early church It sounds real good to throw this type of thing out because let's face it most most

Protestants Especially who have converted from Roman Catholicism, but didn't know anything about it. I hear a Jimmy Akin.

They go. Wow my priest never talked like that and So they they automatically go anybody who could listen to listen to gerrymantics.

Listen that man rip off all those Bible verses I didn't know there were any Catholics who knew the Bible and So you automatically have three strikes or two strikes against you because the very idea that that that Catholic is standing there and he's not acting like most priests who don't know the

Bible all they know is philosophy and They can't discuss these things

Just the very fact that they're not drooling is a big argument in their favor in the minds of many people

That's that's something people don't really think passage. Do you use as the foundation of your interpretation?

Which do you then harmonize with it? That's the role tradition plays for you in the material sufficiency view

So when mr White says that Catholics have to come up with some extra biblical revelation in order to validate their view of tradition

He's simply wrong because some Catholics say there are no extra biblical traditions in that sense

There are no extra biblical revelations that have been passed down and everything's either contained or implied in the Bible Now I wanted to touch just for a minute on the passage you read from the council now

I would love at that point to be able to break in and go well, okay, let's isn't as fascinating basically

Rome's telling you that you can have multiple views of its own tradition and they can't even tell you which one's right because Obviously the part and part of you

That it is that the God's revelation is found partly in these scriptures and partly in the in the written traditions and the oral traditions

Or whether it's material sufficiency. It's all found in one at least implicitly Is gonna have a major impact as to how you do exegesis if Rome can't tell you it's this or not that what good is

Her infallibility. I mean it sort of takes us back to the eight verses that he says Rome is infallibly interpreted

Well, if that's all your tradition has managed to come up with Then put these two statements together

Put this put this statement that he made earlier Well, there's only eight verses that have been infallibly defined and now well tradition tells you which ones to give primacy to anything

How does that function? Where does that where does that come up in? How do you determine that who determines that it's been eight verses there are other

Roman Catholics say it's none There's other room Catholics say it's dozens and dozens. How do you know? Well Rome Rome should speak clearly shouldn't she shouldn't she be able to give us a very very clear answer here

But that's the one place she can't answer very clearly at all of Trent This is often misunderstood in Protestant circles

The teaching of that passage is not that we can't interpret the Bible for ourselves and we can and we must that's why

God gave us intellect you know this was something that Thomas Aquinas with his big emphasis on natural law and the divine gift of the human intellect that separates us from animals and so forth the rational soul that separates us from the sensitive souls that animals have

Is Is is something that requires us to read and study God's Word what

Trent is saying? Is that when the father's unanimously interpret a passage one way that's when you can't go against it

So unless if you haven't a case where every church father has said this is this is what this passage means

That's when you can't go against them But if there's disagreement among the fathers if there's not a unanimous consent

Then you can go against it just to give an example of the passage where there is unanimous agreement among the fathers

I would point to John 3 5 Every single early church father. Okay. Now here it comes here.

Here comes remember. I didn't like cue that up. I Knew there was something I was supposed to queue up and I I apologize.

I forgot remember a couple weeks ago, I played on the air a

Discussion from the Catholic answers live program from just a couple weeks ago and it was

Tim Staples and Jerry Usher talking about a new offer. They have his debate was with Steve Gregg and the

Bible answer man discussion came up and of course are calling it a debate and it's not and Specifically you have in that context

Tim Staples talking about how Wonderfully well Jimmy Akin did and he raises as the example what you're about to hear that Jimmy Akin Just you know, he talks about baptism and and there's nothing that white could say and this is the thing

I've heard over and over again was well, you know, he just he just blew you away on this. Here it is Listen to it for yourself folks here's

Jimmy Akin and my utter failure In responding to Jimmy Akin There is from the second century on said that when

Jesus said you must be born of water and spirit. He was talking about baptism water baptism a unitary

Baptism involving both water and the spirit every single church father from the second century on said that it that Is something that I have searched

Diligently trying to find references to early church fathers who didn't say that and I can't there aren't any Every single one

I've checked says that and that is a tradition that was accepted by all Christians up until the time of the

Reformation at least all mainstream ones. You had Augustine saying that you had Aquinas saying that you had

John Wycliffe saying that you had Martin Luther himself Saying that the first person to really deny that as far as mainstream theologians would go would be

John Calvin Everyone before him said that that is talking about baptism

And so that would be a passage where a Catholic would say well know the father's unanimous on this I can't go against this a couple things just really quick.

Okay, that's going to be 30 seconds I'm going to wrap up and then we're going to come back The last segment of this broadcast we're going to take calls, but I want to give both of you an opportunity just to summarize

The importance of the issue that we're dealing with go ahead just 30 seconds Well the issue that he brought up in regards to the open question

Roman Catholic theology right now I would just invite anyone to read the Council of Trent in the fourth session read the background of what they were talking about the it's an issue called partly partly some some in tradition some in Scripture and Just be warned of one thing the many of the modern

Roman Catholic theologians who are who are affirming material sufficiency their view of Scripture Is far removed from what a conservative

Protestants and view of Scripture would be and in fact They are farther away from us in many of their views of what revelation is

Than the conservative Roman Catholic would be and we're coming up to a station break We're going to be back in just a few moments with more of the

Bible instrument broadcast don't touch that dial Okay, 30 seconds we go into a commercial.

Let me see if I can Is this the whole commercial here perspective? No and James Aiken of Catholic we cut it out

So okay, so here's we come back from the commercial representing the Protestant perspective and James Aiken of Catholic answers

Representing the Roman Catholic perspective, and I do before we go on want to commend both you guys now immediately

I Can't tell Hank what to do. I can't say all right look Here's all these things were brought up You only gave me 30 seconds to respond to how many different issues were brought up entire discussions of formal material sufficiency the meaning of Pardon pardon in the

Council of Trent And then he wants to bring up this issue of baptism and make the assertion here is unanimous consent now.

I immediately Unanimous consent has been used of Rome to defend what?

well all sorts of things, but especially the issue of the papacy and It is an invalid argument.

Let's let's grant the argument for a moment That's even though you know well you know

I'm not even granted because the fact the matter is you notice he's had to say well after the second century because the doctrine of baptism in the early church is a vast subject and it is facile from my perspective

To say well here is this biblical text now How you would first have to identify how many people actually used the biblical text how many people did not use the biblical text?

What did those individuals believe about baptism infant baptism adult baptism?

Is there only one baptism, and that's what cleanses you from your sins and then? You don't have recourse that after that There's all sorts of differences because the fact that the transition between adult and infant baptism is taking place for hundreds of years

It's fascinating that the baptistry is found for example the baptistry in which Augustine himself is baptized in the fourth century is

Large enough to stand in in other words. It was done by immersion It wasn't it wasn't done by Sprinkling or fusion or anything like that so there's all sorts of issues of mode and all these things are taking place at this time

So just throw it out there and say well Here's something that's unanimous Assumes everybody addressed it which they didn't so you've got people that you can't address at that point because there's nothing in our excellent writings

That even addresses the interpretation they had of John chapter 3 verse 5 But you throw that out there and and even at that The the what

I had pointed out was the claims of Rome in regards to unanimous consent of fathers about Rome's own

Authority claims this is a completely different subject and so what you've done is you've thrown one out there

You go well I think I can get really close on this does that mean that on the actual subject that I raised

Matthew 16 the papacy and Things like that that that's somehow relevant. I mean I could say well

You know what I think actually the better thing that you could find you might be able to get close on Unanimous consent of the fathers at least as a doctrine is monotheism, but I'm not a hundred percent certain even there that you could actually assert that all the early church fathers were on the exact same page at that point too and So but but again the point is how can you throw that one out and say it's somehow relevant to these other things where Rome?

Has made these massive claims about her own authority and interpretation authority in the papacy and everything else on the basis unanimous consent the fathers

When there isn't any such thing as unanimous consent the fathers on those issues I mean, it's it's really smoke and mirrors this bait -and -switch to go well, okay

I can't give you an answer consent on what we actually claim, but I'll give it to you on something else How good an argument is that so anyway?

He's throwing all these things out and when Hank comes back from Breaks, and I've been on the

Bible answer man program. I don't know what 12 14 times I've forgotten forgotten how many hours have done Over the years when he comes back from a break.

He doesn't just want to allow the conversation to keep going he wants to himself

Interject something to move the conversation along because if it stays on the same subjects

You know he's steering, and that's just doing good radio That's that the way it should be done, and so that's exactly what takes place here

You can hear him doing that knowing he knows that we want to continue that but he also knows that there's only so many

Minutes in a particular hour for the fact that you are able to communicate with one another

In a respectful manner you are modeling. What ought to be happening in this very

Essential debate the differences between you we can't minimize. They are profound and yet you are

A great examples of how we ought to treat one another in this kind of debate

I am kind of interested James Aiken in your perspective now.

What did he do I? Had been given 30 seconds what he's saying is we are moving on.

I am NOT even given an opportunity to Continue on and to respond to the claim about John 3 5 on this program

So how anybody can do what Tim Staples did

In light of the fact that I was given actually less than 30 seconds because Hank then made another statement

So and by the way in the studio and Jimmy Aiken would have to be able to confirm this

In the studio you can see you can see the the clock you can see the the countdown clock

You can see when the next break was coming up Jimmy I can notice that or not. I don't know but I grew up doing radio.

So I'm trying to be a good guest So I'm watching this. I know how much time I have and I know that in less than 30 seconds

I mean how much can you say about all these topics in 30 seconds? You can't hardly say anything at all and you certainly could not it's sort of like how

Catholic answers how it has for years decide to throw out the can of Scripture in Question and answer periods rather than during actual formal debate the actual formal presentation part

Just simply because they know that it's absolutely impossible to give a meaningful answer to the issue of the can of Scripture in a question in a

Q &A So they use that and it's just cheap debating tricks is what it is. It's it's smoke and mirrors, but You just can't do that in 30 seconds.

So for anyone to be going on there You've just hurt yourself get the tapes for yourself. Listen for yourself he had right up to 30 seconds for a break

Hank says you got 30 seconds and That's all the time that I'm given and when we come back as you're listening

You'd go another direction and you don't I suppose if you're

In some situations if for example, I was on a secular talk show And very clearly was being mistreated by the host who wasn't allowing me to get anything said you could

Take this whatever question he's gonna ask me the direction he wants to go and ignore him and just start giving the

Continue with your answer and now all that's gonna do is probably make him cut you off even all the more

So you're probably get even less time down the road and the audience certainly recognizes that and can see when that's happening

But you're certain I could do that in the situation I was in where I'm attempting to work with Hank and make this whole thing

Go as best on some of the literature that comes out from Protestant Publishers like like even a book that just came out.

Ah, and here we go. And At this point I wasn't behind this

I don't really know what brought this out, but here comes a little Dave Hunt Discussion here and and I didn't feel especially given how foundational the authority issues are that this was overly helpful

But again, you roll with the punches punches you do it you do what you gotta do by Dave Hunt How do you react to that kind of literature well concerning Dave Hunt's book

I'd have to say it's a joke. I mean the man's the man's Scholarship is appalling

And in fact, I learned an interesting term from William F Buckley that I think aptly describes the kind of writing Dave Hunt does the term is silenced as CIO LIST and a silenced is a person who has the affectations of scholarship without the substance and People have the idea that if you just have a lot of footnotes to your book it makes you a scholar

But the problem is if you're footnoting idiots, then then it doesn't improve it doesn't make your book scholarly that that didn't sound

Charitable to me and Dave Hunt's Dave Hunt's book. I thought was just a joke in terms of scholarship There was one just to name one example in it.

I He made the claim at one point that Pope John the 22nd back in the 1300s had had dogmatically defined

That Jesus and the Apostles were wealthy men and thus you had the Pope teaching the health and wealth gospel and so forth and I said

That's nuts. And so I reached across my bed and grabbed my book of you know, official papal statements, and I've looked up Across my bed for the encyclical he referenced and what

John the 22nd actually said Was that Jesus and the Apostles possessed some property at least in common?

so he was dealing with a controversy in his day where there was a group of radical spiritualists who were going around saying that that the

Epitome of spirituality was not owning any property at all. Not even communal property. No private property.

No communal property No property and therefore since that's the epitome of spirituality Jesus and the Apostles must have not had any property even in common from his scripture says they did

I mean Peter had a boat. He had nets they had houses, you know You know, they had a common money purse that Judas stole from you know they clearly had property at least communally and so the

Pope what he actually said was that it that Jesus and the Apostles did have some property at least in common scripture repeatedly says so and Mr.

Hunt either didn't read the source very closely or more likely just read an account of it in a secondary source

Didn't check the original source Now who in the world would ever say that Dave Like maybe

Talking about Charles Hatton's virgin maybe and how he denied limited atonement in a sermon where he was actually preaching it maybe

Throwing out stuff about the Hebrew original of Hebrew of Acts 1 through 15 something like that Then trying to defend that by quoting a website that was actually a

Yaoist cult I Mean Sorry, but fact matter is the folks up to bring call the

Dave Hunt have a long history of really really really Messing things up along those lines, but you know what?

so does Tim Staples and Steve Ray and I wonder if Jimmy Akin would hold them the same standard

I Or is it possible that as long it's in as it's in defense of mama

Rome then all as well I wonder I wonder if that's why the really bad

Roman Catholic apologists don't get called out by the Roman Catholic apologists who seek to be more serious and Scholarly in their own efforts.

Is it because as long as it serves Rome, it's okay I mean I get attacked all the time

For demanding that someone like Dave Hunt be serious When they when they say that they're representing

Christ and his truth. I Mean, I'm consistent if you're on I don't care if you're on quote -unquote my side of the

Tiber or not I'm consistent. Why aren't why aren't Roman Catholics consistent on that?

I there does seem to be something to this as long as it's in service of mother Rome Then then we'll we'll let it pass

Does seem to be something to that and he garbled it into the idea that the Pope was teaching that they were wealthy and that He was teaching the health and wealth gospel your perspective

James White on on some of the literature that has been written By Protestants, which which which may be less than helpful.

Well, first of all, it's on both sides I would look at a book like the Catholic controversies as being similar from the other direction that it's sometimes ugly

Irresponsible in its in its representation of Protestant beliefs, but my concern is and I This is going to reiterate something that I said when we were on on the

King James only issue My concern is that a lot of really bad argumentation

People who are not careful about citations are not careful about accuracy or not careful about backgrounds and I care about logic

That's the type of book that's going to sell and it's going to have the largest impact sadly in our nation today

I'm that that may be a very pessimistic at Assertion on my part, but it just seems to me that for most people see this is why we need the index of forbidden books

Well, I think I've written a few that you'd want on there too, so Probably, you know that exactly but the problem is

I think that a lot of Protestants today I think one of the reasons and and and James is sitting far enough away from me that he can't smack me outside the head for saying this but I believe that one of the reasons that Catholic answers has been able to get as large as it has and have the impact that it has is that the vast majority of Protestants no longer know why they're

Protestants and Sadly a large number who have converted from Roman Catholicism did so for reasons that were not

Biblically sound or you know this priest I didn't like him. He was a meanie so on and so forth I think we have a real problem amongst

Protestant churches We don't know why we were Protestants in the first place and the simple fact matter is issues like sola scriptura or sola fide justification by faith

Don't sell books. They're not at the top of the priority list and most people would not list them as Being definitional of what it is to be a

Protestant in the first place They'd be way down the totem pole if even anyone knew what they were there for in the first place So what did

I do there? Well? Didn't join in and the folks over the brink all need to hear that I didn't join in on the

Dave Hunt fest Of course Dave Hunt hadn't at this point

I've never actually read Dave stuff on Roman Catholicism because I was never overly impressed by it heard about what he'd said, but Certainly never utilized his materials

It's funny when I hear people thinking They they say that I've just been using their materials and stuff.

I can think of a number of folks I've never even read their books who think that I've just borrowed their stuff, but I'll keep who that might refer to other than Dave hunt out of the subject moment

But I didn't jump into that I want to try to make the point That the reason bad books sell is mainly because most evangelicals don't really know what they believe

They don't really know anything about Sola Fide and Sola Gratia and these issues And and that's why the sensationalistic books sell while the more serious books the books actually require them to think about what they're saying

And about why they're saying it don't I tried to bring it back to something. I thought was a little more useful

I think you would agree with that statement unfortunately a trash sells. Yeah. Yeah, there's no two ways about it

Can you summarize very quickly the importance of the issue of solo scriptura?

As well as tradition as opposed to solo scriptura. Oh, I guess that's a contradiction Now notice he had gotten a bunch of time.

I got 30 seconds going into break and Then we've talked about Dave hunt and now he's given now

Aiken's getting more time the end and Aiken Actually, you know

I didn't sit down the first hour and and count the time up It would be interesting to do so I think it's fairly close actually

I Think I mentioned I've mentioned a number of times for it in the second hour. It's not even close but Just just so you know that might explain why?

Catholic answers wants to try to put that out there and avoid putting a can the position of actually having to debate really in a meaningful fashion in In the modern context the

Bible and tradition as opposed to solo scriptura Can you summarize the the importance of that issue in in just a minute or so James Aiken?

Then we're gonna go to some phone calls sure no problem One of the the problems that you have when you have cults come along whenever a cult starts

They always take one or two or a small set of verses and absolutize them Okay, they will say these verses have to be taken in this sense

They have to be and all other verses pertaining this subject have to be warped to this understanding for example you know you have the the

JW's picking out verses that Sound at least if you take them out of context like Jesus might be denying his divinity and therefore they warp all of the verses

In the New Testament that affirm his divinity Similarly you have the Mormons taking verses like in John for example you are all gods and so forth and they absolutize that and then warp all of the numerous citations of The fact that there's only one guidance now

Let me stop right there and address this because you know in case someone's going. Yeah, you know that bothers me How do you respond to that?

Do you respond to that by saying that's why? the source that they are warping is insufficient in and of itself you need to have the teaching magisterium of Rome you need to have the

The first presidency of the church Jesus Christ light of Saints you need to have the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses Need to have this inspired leader you need to have this extra book of commentary inspired commentary

What how do you how do you answer that? I mean if they are warping these things, how do you know?

they're warping these things because The text does speak to these issues

There is a meaning that is communicated and if you would allow it to speak now of course if you don't believe in the inspiration and text of Scripture, or if you do not allow it to speak with a harmonious voice and Sadly there are so many

Protestants today so many of the ministers who are coming into the church today have been taught in seminaries

To believe that there is no harmonious revelation in Scripture that you have

Paul contradicting Paul And then you have Peter's theology and in fact

We can't even figure out what Peter's theology is because Peter didn't write most of anything It's under his name and and then you've got

James And he's and he's arguing with Paul and and there's nothing a New Testament has almost anything to do with the Old Testament at all

And and it's all this mishmash of conflicting contradictory stuff If I believe that If that's where I was coming from and believe me.

I you know I went to Fuller Theological Seminary. I heard all that but if I actually Accepted that and believed that I wouldn't have any reason to engage in apologetics at all because I wouldn't have any basis for saying

I actually know what in the world I believe and if they're coming from that perspective if that's what you've

Accepted if that's what you've bought into I can fully understand why you would want to be thrashing about for some other source of Authority, but just thrashing about for it doesn't mean that once you grab something that it's actually meaningful

Just because you decide well, you know what I'm gonna. I'm gonna invest my my faith in the current modern

Roman Catholic Church Okay, what have you just accomplished? What really have you accomplished as far as knowing

God's truth all you've done is decide you know what I don't think I'm fine from the Bible so with with no

Foundation whatsoever. I'm just gonna. I'm gonna put my faith here, and I'm just gonna accept whatever

I'm told from that point onward have you actually accomplished anything by doing that I submit to you have not

If anything you have you have cut off any opportunity for? Meaningful Enrichment of your studies at that point because you've you've now accepted an authority.

It's supposed to tell you what you're supposed to believe And you haven't accomplished anything in the process at all so You know

I certainly understand if people don't really believe and if you don't have the same view of Scripture that Jesus had

Then That book ain't gonna help you much. You know what

I mean if you don't have Jesus view of Scripture Yeah, that that that's not much of a

Much of a help is it you're not really gonna hear the voice of God I just want to have

Jesus picture what tradition does for you if you're listening to the apostolic tradition remember

I'm not talking traditions of men But if you're looking at the teachings that have come down to us from the Apostles it tells you which verses are primary and which verses have to be harmonized with them and so it enables you to obtain a

Doctrinal balance and get at the true sense of Scripture in that way that is what tradition does for you That's its primary function now.

It may or may not have some additional revelation Outside that's not mentioned in the Bible, but its primary function is to tell us the meaning of the

Bible That is what it does. It's a mirror for Scripture that gives us a different perspective on the same teachings

James White summarize your perspective on this issue. I'll try to keep it very very short. I would submit to you that Matthew 16 18 and why did

I try to keep it very very short because I see the clock over there and So in a sense

I was voluntarily cutting myself off again to try to Help do things the way they need to be done

I don't want Hank to have to rush through his closing for the hour Because he has a closing he's supposed to do I know all these things and so I'm just trying to be of assistance

But it always causes a bit of a problem to in the papacy Luke 128 and the huge edifice of doctrinal

Beliefs have been hung upon that passage Roman Catholicism is an excellent example of what happens when you have

One passage and everything else has to be twisted to it, so I would say again

It's real nice to be able to say well, we have an ultimate authority It's gonna give you that doctrinal balance simple fact matter is

Roman Catholicism over its history has demonstrated that doesn't work for them either That doesn't work for them.

It still results in the twisting of scriptures You're just simply moving the ultimate question of authority back one step.

It doesn't really answer the question Moving it back one step I remember many many moons ago

A certain at that time young man by the name of Phil Provost Nick was calling our two six six two

RCC phone line and We used to have these recorded messages first we record them on these answering these old clunky answering machines a little teeny tiny tapes remember those things and then we

Started recording them on computer. I remember that was a real big thing we could start actually recording on the computer and man were those things clunky and slow and But you know you could do lots of stuff with it

And what was that system called that we used to have what super voice super voice yeah?

Not super boys super voice. That's what it's still around. Oh, yeah, I'm sure it is, but anyway

And poor Vosnick was calling from Florida and He was really being very dismissive as he frequently would be he was sort of mocking us because we're just silly fundamentalists

And he even left his phone number, and I remember I think it was a

Saturday night After he left some long rambling ha ha you people just don't know what you're talking about Message, and here's this here's his phone number

I Went ahead and just called him back And I remember this discussion you're talking about someone who's absolutely shocked and One of the discussions one of the things

I remember talking to him about was look You you keep talking about how wonderful it is to have this ultimate authority

You know Rome tells you what the canon of scripture is and Rome gives you all this certainty and stuff like that All you've done is you have you have

Moved the question of ultimate authority back one step But then what you've done is you've you sort of even though your footprints there you've you've wiped the footprint out so no one can see it and You're you're just whistling innocently hoping that no one will realize that you really haven't answered the question

How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? How many times you heard Roman Catholics say I I remember

Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid throwing that out in the debate that they won horribly in in Denver in 1993 on the subject the soul of scriptura against two non -catholic debaters just wiped him out and of course they

Didn't schedule that debate until I had already scheduled my debate with Jerry Matta ticks they knew

I couldn't be there which I was always found to be just fascinating because I challenged them first Oh, you don't want to do any debates while the

Holy Father is here And then as soon as they found out I was scheduled to debate Jerry Matta ticks all of a sudden They're doing debates with the

Holy Father's there And they make sure to do that debate on a night when they know that I'm not going to be able to be there because of course had

I been there Not much could have done because I wasn't involved the debate But they would have

I think at least felt really guilty throwing out so many arguments. They knew that were really bogus, but anyway

I heard them. How do you know Matthew Matthew now those non -catholics just exploded? When they respond by saying well says here right in my

Bible the gospel according to Matthew. Oh great wonderful But I turn that around first of all the funny thing is the pontifical biblical

Institute since like the 1950s have Left the authorship of the gospel of Matthew up to we don't know so Roman Catholic scholarship actually goes oh, we don't know who wrote

Matthew The Catholic apologists going on we know because the authority of the church and the Catholic theologians are going um no actually we

It's called Matthew But you're pushing it to say at the Rome act that the Roman Church is actually to find that because actually we don't

We don't know But but even at that let's let's leave the Roman Catholic scholars out for a moment

You ask the same question well How do you know that Matthew because Rome tells me so and how do you know Rome has that information?

And at that point then they've got to start and of course they call them not circular arguments

But spiral arguments, but what you're going to get is some form of the well

Jesus gave a certain authority to the church or to Peter or whatever and then you put together with this and Peter goes to Rome, and then you got succession and and you're gonna get this what's actually a very complex argument that They want to say is spiral rather than circular fine.

Whatever, but the point is They've got to put up some sort of an argument at that point and when we go and when we answer questions like canon issues

By looking at the theological nature of the can and looking at the history well See you've got you don't have any certainty you've got a fallible fallible list of infallible books

Ha ha ha ha we don't have that oh really and what makes your list of the canon fallible well because we made it

In fact I remember that's how I finished the debate on The Apocrypha at Boston College, I hadn't planned on doing this

But as I walked as I walked up the podium. I remember this It all of a sudden struck me what

I needed to do and I got the podium for my closing remark And I said the Book of Mormon is the

Word of God, and then I just paused Which you normally don't do in debates because especially against gerrymatid ticks

I mean after you know that that just rapid -fire Don't take a breath types thing if you pause

Everybody in the audience thinks you just passed out you're about to die whatever you know And I paused so people could hear what

I just said the Book of Mormon is the Word of God That's what Mormons tell you based upon the authority of the prophet in Salt Lake City and what we've heard this evening is mr.

Matic saying the Old Testament can of the Roman Catholic Church is correct because we tell you so it's an argument from authority and That's what you get from Rome that doesn't answer the question

Saying well, it's right because we say it's right means that you have to invest in the church that kind of absolutely supreme authority in the first place and then you have to defend that and say and so That's a longer explanation of basically what

I was trying to say there Is that hey you can say that you've got your tradition, but you then you have to identify it

You can't identify in multiple ways and when we actually get down to saying all right

How has this function Rome's tradition doesn't do what Jimmy Akin said? Well, how does

Rome's tradition? Well, you know we we prioritize scripture versus that way

Okay, then why can't Rome answer basic simple questions about like God's knowledge and predestination election, but But she can answer with dogmatic certainty things like the immaculate conception the bodily assumption of Mary that obviously the scripture says

Absolutely positively nothing about in any meaningful fashion at all It talks all it talks a bunch of stuff about predestination election, but Rome can't tell you what it actually means

But stuff that the Bible doesn't talk about Rome can dogmatically tell you about what does that tell you about tradition?

There what does that tell you about the Roman Catholic Church? couple of other issues That I want to clarify before we go to our callers number one

I'm going to stay in studio with both these gentlemen for an hour once we go off the air

So it actually ended up being two hours since we went off there It's supposed to be a two -hour program ended up being a three -hour program That was normally how if you want to ask questions you can do that off air as well

We're going to play that on a subsequent later date right here On the

Bible answer van broadcast will air it nationwide so your questions will be heard you can call the u .s.

Or Canada toll -free eight hundred eight two one four four nine We're also going to be dealing with the issue of Justification in an off -air hour that again will be broadcast as well

And for those of you who have not picked up the book by Norman L Geisler and Ralph McKenzie on Roman Catholics and evangelicals

Agreements and desert differences. I would highly recommend that you do that And you could of course do that by writing the

Christian Research Institute box 500 San Juan Capistrano, California Zip code ninety two six ninety three the telephone number seven one four eight five five nine nine two six

Or if you're ordering using Visa MasterCard or DiscoverCard the number eight hundred four four three

Ninety -seven ninety -seven want to go to Vincent in Fresno listening on KC IV Vincent you're on No they're not

James White brought a couple of kids with them. They're not even in here either They're just making faces at us through the glass

I had forgotten that Josh and summer had gone with me, but now that I think about it. Yeah, I think

You know I I had forgotten that I mean I knew there a number of times. I took Josh and summer over there

Some once it was just Josh. I think and then I guess Josh somewhere, but I don't remember

Them making faces as to the window that deals with the Apocrypha, and I don't think anyone's going to agree with my opinion

But it seems to me that where you have instances such as Matthew 12 where in rebuking the

Pharisees Jesus makes what seems to be a direct reference to Ecclesiasticus 277 almost a word -for -word quote you've got him submitting to a festival that's established in the book of the

Maccabees You have a magnificent property of Jesus Christ in wisdom chapter 2 is Does the

Eastern Orthodox Church maybe have the most balanced view of considering these books deuterocanonical since there are obviously some problems?

So it just seems that they don't seem to come up to the standard of fully full scripture

But it seems like it doesn't seem correct to throw them out at the same time That is true that the

Eastern Orthodox Church considers them due to canonical But on the sense of being on a lower footing well

I would I think the caller may be a little confused about the meaning of the term deuterocanonical

It doesn't exclude them from the canon Mm -hmm Yeah, well or or secondarily included in the canon.

They are not as primary as some of the other books I mean there's obvious differences in the primacy of different books of Scripture I mean

Matthew is more important than third John Genesis is more important than Esther. You know and so forth now even at that at that point

I You see what's coming here? You you see what what Aiken's going to be doing here is in essence trying to say well

There's a canon within a canon so when we make this kind of distinction Certainly Matthew and third

John okay Matthew's a gospel third John is a small number of verses

To say that it's more important Okay, you know if what you mean by that is well

Matthew contains You know the entire gospel and the story of the crucifixion things like that Okay, it's it's how many times the size

But that seems to be introducing a sort of a sliding scale here so that you can you can start trying to get

Some room in for the for the apocryphal books, and we're out of time for the program today, but take a look

Hello, oh, thank you very thank you rich, and when I said we're out of time. That's it folks I That's it

I can't say anything more because the microphones going off as soon as I say that so that's

Which button was that yeah fingers getting a little thick there rich toward the end of the day yeah

Listen to the apocrypha debate if you want to know a little bit more about that That's all I was trying to say but anyway all right we will

Continue with with adventures and professional webcasting next time The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 460 to or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks