Slick/Sungenis Discussion

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 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning Just letting you know right now that I'm gonna be a little distracted today.

I will be looking over frequently to my left Where I have a video feed

I do not attempt to sneak up on our offices we have cameras every there and I Am only looking at one right now.

However, it does happen to include my car in it which is always a good thing in this neighborhood, but I am watching for the

FedEx van and When mr. FedEx arrives if he arrives

During the program we are going to have programmicus interruptus

Which is Which is Latin for what's coming? I don't know, but I'm really excited about it

And so we're gonna bring it in here and we're going to very gently open well, actually, I know one of the two things that's coming, but one of the things

I don't know what's coming and It could be extremely exciting and you will get to join with us in the excitement of Of opening that package when it arrives if it arrives during the dividing line if it is not

Then I just wasted the first 90 seconds of the program, but that will explain some of my distraction

Some people have asked that I Know I'm not alone the rookies out there.

He's got things under control He'll be the one that has to go get it and bring it in here so I'm never alone like royalty.

Yeah, right Brother That that deserves that deserves this right here.

There we go. Okay now Some people have asked that I address the fascinating discussion that took place between the mayor of Dearborn and David Wood on Sunday afternoon, however,

David has put up such a fine article on his blog That I don't see any reason to do so I would just direct you to David Woods Response to the dialogue they had it was quite honestly extremely disturbing

To hear an elected official lecturing people on the appropriate and proper ways of doing evangelism

That was that was As long as there is justice as long as there's a judge that can see clearly

Dearborn's in big trouble big big trouble But you can't anymore assume that that's gonna happen.

You just you just can't One of the greatest evidences of judgment upon a people is unrighteous judges and So I just I don't know what's gonna happen

I I know what's right and what's wrong in the matter, but I I don't know what's gonna Happen in the in the long run on that so I'm not gonna

I'm not gonna I didn't queue it up or anything like that There would have been some very interesting quotes But like I said, David did a fine job in the blog article

He posted and so I would direct you to that instead where you get back to a

Matt slick and Roberts a Janice One of the main reason I want to get through this particular section is I want to get to James chapter 2 and I want to Get to some of the argumentation on justification

We'll we'll try to make some progress along those lines. The only way to do that is to really press forward

So if we are ready to listen once again to this is still the first encounter

I guess there's going to be a fourth or something in the future but the first encounter between Roberts and Janice and Matt slick you may recall that We're right around the point in time where Mistress and Janice is going to make that kind of argument the argument that I Struggle to keep my temper about because I consider it to be one of the most blasphemous arguments that Rome makes and that is that the biblical doctrine the

Trinity the the divine revelation of the relationship of the Father Son Holy Spirit Which is the very matrix and essence of the

New Testament writings? Can be seen with New Testament eyes in the

Old Testament writings is somehow given to us that the scriptures are not sufficient to Reveal these things to us the church is what gives these things to us the

Roman Catholic Church the very Roman Catholic Church that remember the alleged subject of the conversation at the moment is the bodily assumption of Mary has defined as part of the gospel this myth that developed long after the time of Christ and after the

Apostles and So with that we continue with the dialogue, you know, that's not what it says

You know, it doesn't say exactly those words what you're redoing what you're doing is rearranging the sentence to make it say what

I never said I'm not gonna play that game. You're better than that use the word final authority in contrast to my word only

I'm asking it where the Bible uses the word finally you don't have a verse for that No, we don't have the word that you the

Bible that uses the word Trinity either We don't have the Bible to use in the word Trinity either or hypostatic

Union Yeah, and who gave you the Trinity who was the first one to teach you the Trinity God?

Yeah, and who did God give it to you give it to the kids regenerate people Excuse me his regenerate people the elect.

Let's call the Council of Ephesus in the count. No, no, no, no No, no, it wasn't that's where the doctrine came from.

No. No, no it does. That's wrong Yes, the doctor can you prove that I can prove it because I can go to the document

Really Yeah, I can go to the documents called the New Testament and demonstrate that this doctrine was revealed to Well anyone with ears to hear long before there was a

Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon and it you know What is so? Reprehensible about Rome's defenders is that when you if you take that kind of argumentation seriously and Then you learn something about those councils and You learn about the politics and you learn about all the behavior

Attending those councils it becomes so surface level to Glom on to the excuse that well, you know all that stuff that happened and and Roving bands of monks beating each other up in the streets from different sides of arguments and and All the rest of stuff that took place at these councils

All of that's just secondary because you see that the church was being guided

Anyway, and blah, but you know, it's the same thing that we get these arguments that well, you know

The the exegetical arguments that were used to come up with some of these these beliefs can be fallible but the results aren't the results are infallible, but the arguments used to get there are fallible and it's it's just it is

It's so easy to understand why if someone really thinks That the only reason we believe in the

Doctrine of Trinity is this kind of argumentation. I understand why they leave the faith. I understand why liberalism is is the the modus operandi of the day in The Roman Catholic Magisterium, I understand that makes perfect sense to me because if that's what you got then

There's there's no really no reason to believe these things at all I remember years and years ago.

I Sent Robertson Jenison email It was during the pontificate of Pope John Paul the second which well for most people there's only been two popes

These days he reigned for so long and it was one of those situations where The if you look at John Paul the second's reign, you will see that about every year

He would put out something conservative that would keep the conservatives happy and the next year He'd put out something liberal that would keep the liberals happy than the next year something conservative and then something liberal

It's how you keep a a very disparate Non -unified group unified at least on a surface level

And He had just made some statement that was was nigh unto universalistic at least inclusive istik similar to what we have in the universal

Catholic Catechism and stuff like that and I sent it to St.

Genes along with the contrast from you know The 15th century the Council of Constance things like that that made such clear statements about Ecclesiastes outside of the church.

There is no salvation and things like them and his response was His his response was well, who are you to interpret?

What the church meant back then? Now just because everybody at that time interpreted the same way

Just because all the commentators interpret that way that doesn't matter The only thing that matters is what the church

Says the modern church the church today now the church 30 years from now could say something different and you just have to believe

What the church says then too? even if it's contradicting what it said now and this kind of abject abandonment of objective truth

Well, I I just can't help but believe it's one of the reasons that when I was in Italy in 2005 that as I would

Drive from city to city I would see boarded -up church after boarded -up church after boarded -up church

So many churches just sitting there abandoned in Italy. I was struck with how sickly

Roman Catholicism is in its home country Now I was admittedly

Rome and North and South of Rome southern Italy would probably not be in quite as bad a shape but the fact remains this kind of view of truth is just simply untenable and Yet, it's really forced upon the

Roman Catholic God gave it to us The church recognizes the voice of the church That's what the church says to the God gave it to the church the

God The church isn't the Roman Catholic Church through God gave it to the church through the scriptures

That which is the Anustos the church believes the believing Church hears the voice of her

Lord in the scripture and is obedient thereto You see Rome changes the order to where Rome gets to determine what is the voice of Christ and what the voice of Christ is saying whether it's a scripture or tradition and Once you have an infallible church, you have a group in monologue with itself

There can be no corrective there can be no there's no external standard that can correct Error when it enters in there can be no

Semper Reformanda Always reforming not possible When you make the church infallible, okay

It's not some organizational structure the Mormons say that the job is witness say you say that what's the the true church?

It's the church that I belong to with its authoritative system We have the true tradition and they have all variations of the same kind of claim

Up in your own mind, I made it up. Yeah, what do I make up because you have no pedigree you have no

My pedigree comes from Jesus and I you woke up one morning and you say well I think God talked to me and now let me stop right there because this is getting sort of silly

These guys are just sort of insulting each other here and playing games The reality is of course that what you're seeing here again is the standard

Roman Catholic a Argumentation that does not allow for the fact

That we have a a high view of the church. See that if you have a high view of the church in the church must be infallible, that's what they want to try to present and The idea of holding to a high ecclesiology and I would hold to a high ecclesiology.

I am a churchman The idea that the church has authority as the body of Christ and yet is not infallible and is subject to the

Word of Christ and yet I can look back and I can learn from the early church writers.

I Can learn good and bad from the early church writers. There's there are people in the early church.

You're just We're really disconnected from Scripture Just like there are today,

I Mean you can go into a Christian bookstore today and you'll find pretty much the same wide range of really goofy stuff

Theologically speaking you're not gonna find much word -faith stuff Didn't live in a world that you can get away with making yourself rich off this stuff.

But anyway, I Can learn from all those things

I can appreciate men of the past and Yet I do not have to invest in them infallibility or religious authority beyond that which the

Scriptures give to them We are to recognize that God has worked in his people down through the ages and there is a modern hubris

On the part of evangelicals that we don't care about What God has done in preceding generations in general not all obviously we've produced some very good work on church history

But one of the reasons I really enjoyed teaching church history Back in the early 90s on the undergraduate level

Was I could? You know a lot of people walked into that class thinking home and another history class

Just gotta get out of the way blah blah blah, and I enjoyed Exciting them about church history and making them feel like they were a part of this

Really enjoyed you and I've missed doing that for a long time now But I can do all of that and some

Genesis in life. He has made up in your mind got no pedigree. I Can find all sorts of folks in your early church you believe like I believe you're the one they cannot find people

New Church believe like you believe Remember this is about the bodily assumption of Mary show me some of the

Council of Nicaea show me one Single person at the Council of Nicaea the believe what

Roberts is as believes about the bodily assumption of Mary Nobody zip zero nada. No one not possible can't be done, and he knows it

He knows it. That's where the challenge needs to be made Don't talk to me about your pedigree when you're defending a belief

That has no pedigree That demonstrates you don't believe in scripture and tradition

That's where you go on something like this At least that's where you should have gone and Jesus is doing this and he's giving me the authority because I'm a

Christian That's what you have. That's not what I said. You don't have an authority Why do you why there's there's 10 ,000 different denominations out there and lots of different There there you get the 10 ,000 at least he only said 10 ,000 later on he does go to a higher number, but He obviously knows that the those numbers are extremely inflated and but this is what you get from Rome's apologists

They don't have anything else We keep faulting them for not coming up with new stuff And I said at least a little bit later on Bob's gonna throw something out that it's you know

He does try to find some things But I think he probably does so because he's still very much a

Protestant at heart And that's what he is criticized for by fellow Roman Catholics is that he is very very much still

A Protestant at heart at least in his methodology section set of Roman Catholicism Why do you keep adding to the words what

I'm saying adding to the world? I'm not adding to the you are you keep doing what I wanted I'm the one who told you that the

Holy Spirit taught our revelation by inspiring the people he taught And it wasn't you weren't even sure that that was the case

And We went through that last time if you're just now catching up you need to go realize we've been working on this for I don't know how many programs now you need to go back and listen to the discussion we had on that, but We addressed 1st

Thessalonians 2 13 and other issues regarding Alleged oral revelation and once again what has to be done here is you have to challenge the assumption being made

That this alleged or revelation during the apostolic period is the same thing as modern

Rome's use of that term and that's where they they just have to admit they cannot

Establish that kind of argumentation. No. I wanted to understand what it is You're saying I understand the Roman Catholic position on Roman on that tradition and the oral aspect the way

You're saying that it's inspired. I've done this enough to know I need to make sure of what you're saying Which is why

I'm asking you to define your terms repeatedly You got any scriptures to show the assumption of Mary?

I don't need any scriptures You don't need the Word of God to make your position valid now again that that kind of approach a

Lot of the Roman Catholic apologists that have made some progress over the past number of decades is because they they finally gave up on that kind of Presentation like like Bob just made

I need a scriptures Now the arguments they come up with are bogus But at least they recognize that if they actually want to to make any progress the

Protestant You don't just simply go I don't need any scriptures. The church tells me it's all it's all I need

That kind of argumentation just is so grating and Is is so arrogant on the part of Rome that it's really repulsive it it drives people away it repels

People thinking people who go wait a minute You're telling me this is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ and yet the

Apostles never said a word about it except through Your alleged traditions that you can't even begin to trace back to the Apostles at all

That's your position. That's what you're presenting to me But the reality is that He's at least being honest

Because fundamentally the only reason a Roman Catholic believes in bodily assumption Mary's because Rome tells him so That's the only reason

No meaningful examination of either scripture or tradition is going to lead you to the bodily assumption

Mary. It's just not It's just not possible so at least he's being honest and It should it should repel a person who believes

That when Jesus said sanctify them in the truth thy word is truth

That that would mean that it might be a good idea that you find in the word

Those things which define the Christian faith, but not for Rome nah and here What have

I said so many times sola ecclesia the church as the final rule of authority there you have it

Where does the Bible say that I have to have a verse of scripture for every doctrine that's believed in the Christian? There you go.

There you go. Where does it say that doesn't say those exact words, right? Well, I see at this point.

I just go Matt quit playing the Socratic game. It doesn't use those exact words answer the question

Give a positive defense of the fact that you need to root

Christian belief in that which is they honest us to the law under the testimony if they speak not according to these things there is

No light in them Go to 2nd Timothy chapter 3 and say look The scriptures say that Timothy would be equipped for every good work

By going that which is they honest us is teaching the bodily assumption of Mary a good work.

Yes or no If it's not a good work Then it can't be part of the gospel if it is a good work

Then the Bible has to equip you to do it But the Bible can't equip you to do it and he just admitted the Bible will not equip him to do that There you go

That's how you do it take it back to the important element and that is what

Roberts and Genesis saying about the nature of Scripture and its capacities and abilities.

That's what you gotta do. I know it doesn't so you can make up anything I think maybe No, we go by the tradition as I told you at the beginning of the show.

No, you don't There is no tradition of the bodily assumption of Mary having any apostolic origination at all

You can't find anybody in the 2nd century. You can't find anybody in the 3rd century can't find anybody in the 4th century It's not there

There's no sermon think of all of the sermons especially after the end of the 3rd century you the the

Marian devotion connected to the rise of a celibate priesthood concept and Celibacy amongst the the anchorites.

Yeah, there is so much emphasis upon Mary at that time and yet in all of that literature

Not a whisper of this as dogma How can that be? It's impossible

There is no tradition. I Mean you have to completely redefine the word

To come up with this idea that that there's anything in tradition whatsoever on this subject

And yet that's what the Roman Catholic is is left with we go by Scripture And we have a magisterium to decide if there's any discrepancies or ambiguities or whatever.

We have a final authority to decide and Of course the final authority is just simply sola ecclesia magisterium because scripture and traditions say nothing about this

So the magisterium defines this as a dogma. There's sola ecclesia Proven right there what tradition the scripture is saying?

It's very simple. You have a Roman Catholic tradition Roman Catholic That's what started 2 ,000 years ago started.

That's what started 2 ,000 years ago We will admit that we have nothing for the first 500 years and Even then when it appears, it's it's in literature

It's considered heretical and condemned by by Pope Galatius in Rome itself, but it's been around for 2 ,000 years this kind of absolute abject

Manhandling of history is so common. I mean, it's not just Bob's and Jenna's turn on any

EWTN broadcast They've got a radio station here in Phoenix now and every once in a while my hand just involuntarily, you know

I have a muscle spasm and it's 1310 and and I start listening and It just unless it's one of the constant programs on abortion, which is just which 24 -7 wall -to -wall, but unless it's one of those you're just always going to hear and this is the way it's been for 2 ,000 years and this is how we've believed for 2 ,000 years and so often they're talking about stuff.

That is just so clearly Not a part of the faith of the early church

But they just say it so often they convince themselves of it, I guess They just become convinced.

Yes. Well, this is you know, this is what everybody else is saying So it must be broken. No, that's that's what the

Roman Catholic Church says Give me scripture. Give me the inspired Word of God I don't have to give you don't have any your inspired

Word of God for the assumption of Mary unless you can prove from your Scripture what you hold is your final authority that that's what

I have to do. The Bible says don't exceed what's written Let me see you some happen scripture The Bible also says a second

Timothy 316 that the scriptures worthy of reproof and correction and teaching So the

Bible points to itself as being the thing of what you are to trust in inspiration and teaching I'm asking you and it says in 1st

Peter you 15 now quite true. I'm glad we finally got to a good text on the subject

But the emphasis needs to be made upon the equipping of the man of God and the nature of scripture to contrast that with the sources

Roberts and Genesis using and in if we have a an article on the website,

I wrote it for a journal a number of years ago and when the journal folded up I went ahead and posted it on our site and it's a dialogue on solo scriptura and I really think it is would be extremely helpful if you are engaging these individuals you need

To read through it's in the Roman Catholic section a dialogue on solo scriptura. You need to read through it to see you've got to be dealing with foundational issues or this is just gonna spin around in circles all the time and The foundational issue has to do with that which is they honest us that which is

God breathed over against that which is not When we're talking about issues of epistemology here of knowledge, this is extremely important It's not stuff.

Unfortunately that we think about a lot in our churches, but we need to we we have to and You need to think these things through before engaging these apologetic encounters not afterwards

That's that's for everybody everybody this this should be part and parcel of our preparation for being

Believing Christians in our day first Peter 315 to give an answer to everyone who would ask you I'm asking you do it from Scripture I'm not gonna believe

Roman Catholic theology I'm just gonna be Roman Catholic tradition when it gives me the stuff that does about Mary You gotta be kidding me

Let's deal with the verses that you pointed out Matt first Timothy 316 doesn't say that scripture is the final authority

Scripture is self -sufficient. It says scripture is profitable for truth. Okay, that's all it says.

Okay, that's all it says What an amazing statement

I? Think I I let let that stand on its own

That's all it says I mean just because the Apostle knows that he's about to leave this world and He has great love in his heart for Timothy and for all who would walk in Timothy's shoes in ministry and Just because this is the last communication.

He's gonna have with him That doesn't mean that it's overly important and all all

Paul really says there is It scriptures profitable. That's all he says

If you can actually read that text come up with that conclusion. Well That is that is the most amazing

Denial of fundamental Christian truth. You're gonna hear today That's not all it says

It says that all scripture is the honest us nothing else is the honest us mr. Dr.

St. Janice. Can you show us? Where your tradition is the honest stuff No, you can't all scripture is the honest us and then there is the discussion of what it is profitable for and It's Instruction and teaching discipline

Correction. In other words everything the man of God not a priest by the way The man of God needs to be doing amongst the people of God.

The man of God doesn't have to look anyplace else He can look that which is the honest us and If teaching the bodily assumption of Mary is a good work and it is something the man of God should be doing then

According to Paul it should be something you should be able to do on the basis of Scripture But Robertson Janice can't do that and he knows it

Because it's unknown to Scripture. It's unknown to those early generations of believers as well It doesn't say it's just profitable

It says that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped prepared for every good work

That's not what Rome believes and that's why Romans apologists cannot handle this text.

We're gonna take a break and Continue on with the dividing line and we'll continue listening this encounter between Matt slick and Robertson Janice We'll be getting out of this and into some other elements of the discussion here in just a few minutes.

Be right back Answering those who claim that only the

King James Version is the Word of God James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators

Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith in a readable and responsible style author

James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a

Omin org more than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together

They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic Church appealing This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book the

Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine

James White points out the crucial differences that remain in regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself

They cannot be ignored Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org.

Hello everyone. This is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior We are to come before the

Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace

Thank you. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45

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

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix You can call for further information at 602 -26 grace

If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day

Which which now means That you can go to PRBC org and find a link to sermon audio where the archives will will exist

Well, eventually we will it'll be there. It'll be there soon. But yes, we have moved moved our streaming to to sermon audio now from PRBC, so Yes, yes, well, let's let's let's wait till it's all ready to rock and roll and people be very confused about all the

Latin if we went there anyways, we listening to Robert's Janice and Matt slick.

Let's continue on Yeah, sure it is. That's why I use it Use it. I want you to use it to demonstrate your position from those scriptures

I don't have to because that's not what the Bible demands of me. The Bible says scripture is profitable

It doesn't say it is self -sufficient. It doesn't say it's a final authority. So then you can believe whatever you want.

No. Yes. Let's see. I I I that's not the way to respond to that Yeah, obviously once you knock down the walls of Sola Scriptura, then

Rome has defined things that are you know Getting farther and farther and farther away from anything.

It's even remotely Christian. There's no question about that But you challenge this on the basis of his manhandling of of the text

He's not handling that correctly You you you had

I did, you know, maybe it's just a an approach difference But when I listen to someone manhandling the text,

I'm going to correct their misapprehension of it I'm not gonna just sort of Socratic Lee say well, let's illustrate the the contradiction that comes that if you go

No, I I I just don't think that people listening to that are going to be catching that part.

They they need to hear a correction of the misuse of the text because so many people can't handle the text well

Yes, you can leave in tradition Scripture and the magisterium you'll believe whatever the

Catholic Church tells you well because that's the authority that God put in place there now there

Was the correct argument you will believe whatever the Roman Catholic Church that Sola Ecclesia Draw out the antithesis draw out the contrast you believe in Sola Ecclesia I believe in Sola Scriptura Which one gives us a basis for having a true knowledge of what the

Apostles of Jesus Christ taught and challenge this belief

Challenge them to provide the evidence that this is some tradition that was passed down from the

Apostles that's the claim that's being made and If he's gonna go ahead and admit, well,

I can't give you any claim. I can't give you any evidence of this then that Illustrates even more clearly for the audience

Where the problem really lies that's what the Roman Catholic Church told you No, that's give me a break

Petros and Petros, you know this stuff I read why would you do that? What?

Petros and Petros even even Syngenis didn't get that one I have no earthly idea what

Petros and Petros is. I know what Petros is. I know Petra is I know it's not really a good argument

About Matthew 16 But there's no such difference as Petros and Petros There's Petros and Petra Maybe that's what he's referring to.

I don't know but that's not the direction to go in Matthew 16 anyway So Lost me at that point in lost in Genesis as well as you will hear right here

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just telling you what the scripture says It says that the church is the authority and the church which church 2 ,000 years ago

But the scripture does not say that the church is the authority. Where does it say that?

Where does it say that well? Matthew 18 well actually Matthew 18 doesn't say the church is the authority says when there is personal sin

Then the church has authority to deal with matters of personal sin But that's not the same thing as defining something like the bodily assumption of Mary Well the church the pillar foundation of truth

The local church and it's the church that holds up the truth that doesn't mean that it's not subject to the truth

So where is this at? There's got to be challenges made at these points have to deal with these things

You know, you know, I'm gonna use term presupposition Lee here and I'm not just meaning that in the sense of just constantly repeating the transcendental argument of the existence of God What I mean is you have to see what the foundations of arguments are and expose them otherwise, you just simply go around and around in circles and to do that you must be making positive biblical presentation in Contrast to the errors that the other side is making which church

So if anybody comes and tells me that they're the church when I know that They're not teaching the same thing as the church of 2 ,000 years ago, then

I know it's false bingo bingo There you go. Show me anybody at the

Council of Nicaea. Dr. St. Janice Anyone who believed what you believe is the gospel today just one one one name, please of Anybody at the

Council of Nicaea they believe in the bodily assumption of Mary that it was a dogma the Christian faith just one Anybody how about the believe in papal infallibility?

Not even the papal legates at Nicaea believe in papal infallibility See, there you go.

I mean there use that standard. There's the standard bingo. It's over It's over Debates finished.

So I'm I Am assuming I am hoping the bobs to Janice is listening to all this and I'm hoping that when we debate this subject in September That he's not gonna go this direction

I mean not only I'm ready for that but for the people in the audience if You really believe that the bodily assumption of Mary is

Found in Scripture and tradition then show it and it better be something more than well, you know

Augustine and Ambrose said something that you know, we don't know that Mary died. That's not the bodily assumption of Mary.

Okay? Let's really deal with the issue and I think the only

The only honest thing to say on the part of the Roman Catholic is this is a tradition that that arose

Hundreds of years after the Apostles there is no evidence that it's apostolic Generations of people live for hundreds of years without ever thinking this had anything to do with the biblical gospel

Augustine lived and died without ever calling this a dogma in any way shape or form and yet today you can't do that And the only reason you can't do this because Rome says so at least that would be honest

At least that would be honest You know if that's the only place they got to go well then go there

How you would you know if anything's true or false because it contradicts Roman Catholicism? No, because the church was put in place by God as more authority

So if the scriptures say one thing the church says another which do we go with never happens? Even even that loss of the random, you know

But but you see the vicious circle there's sola ecclesiae every time I hear Roman Catholics and and this will end up in the in the

Catholic answers web forums. I can guarantee you The same people who will never call in here.

They'll never deal with the facts They're very brave behind keyboards, but they can't debate these issues

We'll say the same things. Oh that white he talks about sola ecclesiae folks.

You are listening to sola ecclesiae You are having sola ecclesiae Absolutely verified for you right in front of your eyes

Or in this case ears unless you're watching your computer screen while listening this

I suppose There it is. It is there is sola ecclesiae never happens

Okay, that's why you can't have Reformation you can't have Semper Reformanda because of that Luke 128

I have no earthly idea why when you have a plethora of places that you could go to demonstrate that Rome has defined things utterly outside a

Scripture that you would go to something like a car to many at Luke 128 But it leads to some interesting discussions and at least it has something to do with Mary So, let's go to kakar to many at Luke 128, yeah, okay,

Mary's full of grace, right? Yeah, that's not what it says in the Greek. Oh Really? Uh -huh.

You know what? Kerry told me they mean. Yeah, it's highly favored one No mean that oh

Boy, here we go It's time to get out our original language swords and take a few swipes at each other

Uh, yeah Kekar to many is the term that is translated

Luke 128 It is it is the greeting of the angel in describing

Mary and Rome says as full of grace It's an angelic

Greeting it's not a forensic description of her nature It means someone who has been highly favored by God It's an angelic greeting.

It's not in teaching. It's it's a description in an angelic

Greek and yet Rome has built an edifice on top of this term now if You want to know what the term means?

then you look at the root karatah Oh and You see how it's used in first in the

New Testament and then if it has Old Testament backgrounds for primarily in the Greek Septuagint and then you look at the form it's found here and You proceed from there that's obviously not how

Rome functions Rome has an overriding issue to prove and that becomes determinative as To how it's to be understood, let's listen and see how that plays out can be translated highly favored one it can also be translated full of grace full of grace is used twice specifically of Jesus and of Stephen Stephen, I'm just telling you what the

Greek word care carry tolman a can mean and it can mean so back to the Septuagint you can look at all the usages of Septuagint all the derivatives of carry tolman a now, let's let's stop it.

I don't know why Bob is talking about care at home in a It's karatah

Oh Why is he why is he using it in that form? I have no earthly idea, but we'll leave that to the side for the moment

Playwrights Caritas is used twice Matt was correct about this

It's used twice once John 1 14 of Jesus joined with truth. He's full of grace and truth and Once of Stephen where it talks about full of grace and power

It is not used of Mary Even though Roman Catholics run about identifying her as full of grace

It's never used of Mary and it is not a synonym for car to many Which is a angelic greeting

The verb of how much is built car a tau is used of all Christian believers. Every Christian believer is

Described by car a tau in Ephesians 1 6 Now those would be the facts

That you would need to bring up now. He's he's gonna say now if you look at care to many in the

Septuagint Well again, you don't look up care to many you look up car a tau Oh, you look up the lexical form, which

I'm not sure that he is aware of I mean, I mean where that's how you look it up, but seems to be confused this point and the only reference

He seems that he makes it you listen I'm about to play it here and you you listen and determine whether it's the case for you in your mind

Makes it sound like it's used a bunch of times. It's used once in the Greek Septuagint The only reference

I can find a car tau is once in the Greek Septuagint it's Sirach 1817 which of course we would not even believe is a canonical book.

It's in the apocryphal books but in Sirach 1817 it says indeed does not a word surpass a good gift both that we found in a gracious person a

Gracious person there's the use of car a tau in the Greek Septuagint So is he arguing that this term in and of itself has as all the meanings that Rome has to find in cacare too many at Luke 128 based on that I Can't tell but Again when you check out

Rome's apologist against the original language. It's always rather interesting to see how

Shallow the argumentation really is and you will see that it can be translated either way I do not know of any play race car toss translation of the play race car toss is of course

Latin I mean say Greek and then you translate that as full of grace that is plenty gratia is the

Latin But there's gonna be some confusion because listen to this

So you cannot make a case that it has to be translated highly favorite Paras caritas occurs only two places literally it is full paras caritas grace

That's it. It doesn't say that of Mary in 128 and Luke 128. I carry Toma There's a perfect passive participle.

It's not going to have the same form that you just mm -hmm. You're exactly right Which is why it's not used of Mary Which is why?

Full of grace is not used in Mary cacare too many is used of Mary that that was confusing It's not used of Mary It is not used of Mary the phrase full of grace

Now there are several ways to say full of grace and in Greece You don't have to have cacare

Toma day You can have plan a gratia if you want to now He just said there are many ways of saying full of grace in Greek and then gave us a

Latin phrase Plenty gratia is not Greek.

That's Latin. So Lots of confusion here and that's used in many places in the

New Testament um No, it's not Plenty gratia in the

Latin Vulgate is used once in the New Testament at Luke 128. That's the only one

If he says it's use our altar where I Did a search couldn't find it in the

Clementine Vulgate maybe in some other Vulgate edition. I don't know But that's the only one

I can find so no one can find this to one specific phrase. You can't do that Well, I'm just telling you that the phrase is used

Plaros caritas full of grace. Yeah, that's what it literally is Mary Toma day does not have to be translated as highly favored doesn't have to be it has to have the

Greek root word Kari's in there. Yeah blessed one Finally favoring grace to one because that's where the word comes from And so you're gonna derive from that that she was sinless and therefore worthy of an assumption

I want to have that as support for the doctrine. I'm not going to now here here Get used to it

When you deal with Rome's apologists when you push them against the wall

They will make a distinction. They will back off from the text that in their presentations.

They will cite them as evidence But then when you push well, it's it's not proof.

It's just you know, it might be translated this way Again I was listening last week to Jerrymatics on the

Marian dogmas and they all of them have to do this because there's so little in the New Testament upon which to base all this stuff

But they they will they will throw out texts as if they are supportive of a concept and then when you challenge it

Well, well, I'm not driving it from that It could mean that and so what they do is they take well

It could mean that here and it could mean something like this over here and we could understand this over here

String them together and all of a sudden at the conclusion you have dogma Not something that you might believe but something you have to believe folks

Dogma is not produced by diminishing probabilities

Well, it probably means as it might mean that Diminishing Possibilities and probabilities being added to one another only give you less and less certainty not the certainty of dogma and Yet, that's all

Rome have to say that Luke 21 8 Luke 20 Luke 1 28 teaches the

Immaculate Conception No ands ifs or buts about it. I'm not saying that you're the one who's saying that I didn't say it

No, I didn't say Luke Tradition scripture and the Magisterium makes a decision and she did so in 1854

Yeah The church did the Roman Catholic Church didn't expect the church to because that's what Peter did in Acts 15

Well stood up for the church and made the decision Peter was rebuked as well. We know that I what

Peter was not rebuked in Acts 15 So Matt's confused here He's confusing what happened with Paul and Peter and I guess he's going well because Paul rebuked

Peter Then that means that clearly Peter wasn't in considered to be an infallible Pope, which is obvious I mean it's such a gross historical anachronism to think anybody was viewing

Peter in that way at that time period that it I Don't know any serious historian. It would actually substantiate such thing.

But anyway But again, you have sola ecclesia being presented

Peter did not stand up and make the decision in Acts 15 That's where the challenge has to be made

Peter is there. So is Paul who's in charge of the council?

James is not Peter There is no evidence that Peter is the head of this council

That Peter is making the decision or anything else James is the local bishop not

Peter and Peter ain't the bishop of Rome yet either He's just not viewed in the way that Rome anachronistically does at a later time

That's where the challenge has to be made He was also for a private mishandling of Gentiles in Galatians chapter 2 which is now that's interesting because And there is a

FedEx van out on the street, I hope it pulls into the parking lot here That's interesting because on his website there is an article where he takes on Pope Benedict on that very issue on that very subject and Basically says that this does have something to do with the

Gospels I I found that interesting there seemed to be somewhat of a conflict between the two presentations by St.

Genes at this point so Found that very very different totally different story and in Matthew 18

We know that the same keys were added to the Apostles as well It wasn't just him the church were given to Peter alone the keys were not given to the

Apostles So there you have St. Genes saying the keys are not given to the

Apostles in Matthew 18 So while the Apostles are given the ability to bind and loose, they're not given what you need to bind and loose

What's what do you need to bind loose keys? That's how you open and close things So they're given the authority to bind loose, but then they're not given what they need

That of course is not even how the early church understood let me give you a quotation

This is Jerome's writing against Jovinius book 1 Paragraph 26 if you want to look it up.

It's in the NPNF to a second set volume 6 You can find this

Jerome writing says but you say the church was founded upon Peter although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the

Apostles and they all Receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the strength of the church depends upon them all alike yet one among the twelve is chosen

So when a head has been appointed there be no occasion for schism so here 400 years after the time of Christ Jerome is saying they all

Receive the keys the kingdom of heaven and that Peter's if you're going to use the term primacy is

One of headship not of possessing the keys alone You can find a number of writers in the early church understood this now this then raises a very important question every time we go to the early church and We Demonstrate that the alleged 2 ,000 year unanimous view blah blah blah blah is anything but The response we get from when

Catholic apologists, well, that was his private opinion as a theologian

Well, how do we know that Well, because if you agree with Rome Then anything any early church father said becomes a part of tradition

But if you don't agree with Rome Then anything they said is their private opinion

Sola Ecclesia It's circular folks.

It's irrational well, we believe in scripture and tradition, but we get to define what scripture says and What scripture is and we get to define what tradition is?

And what it means and says? So what is your ultimate authority?

It's just the magisterium and Since you only have access to the current magisterium

Anything that the magisterium has said in the past has to be interpreted by the magisterium today and so what that means is if you go to magisterial statements from only a couple hundred years ago and Read what they have to say now you have to read that through the filter of the modern

Roman Church's Understanding of those things even if what that means is you're not going to be able to utilize meaningful rules of exegesis

He drove past us, didn't he? I'm looking at the at the

FedEx van out at the corner and I want to run out and say I'm here Man he's barely missed that car.

Yeesh. That was close We've seen some humdingers on those cameras, haven't we? Well anyway

We're out of time for the dividing line today. Thanks for listening. We're gonna continue. We're gonna finally getting down to where we get into James Chapter 2 and justification stuff, but yeah,

I hope this stuff is useful to you going through this type of argumentation Since you're running into it out there.

Hopefully doing that here is edifying to you encouraging to you pray for us We'll be back on Thursday Lord willing.

See you then. God bless We must contend for the faith of fathers fought for we need a new

Reformation The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at P.

O. Box 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 RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks