The Dividing Line, September 9, 2008

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 602 -973 -4602 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 Hey, welcome to the dividing line Tuesday morning going to continue with our review of the 1993

Sols Criptura debate today Just a quick note those of you in the

New Mexico area One of the more heavily populated areas in the United States Well, Santa Fe's got a few folks there and we will be in Santa Fe this weekend.

I will be speaking Three at least three times I will be doing

Presentation on Sunday morning on the reliability of the New Testament. I spent all day yesterday from morning till night on a brand new presentation on that using

The ever -advanced technology of the Mac I gotta admit keynote is a tremendous program and had a lot of fun putting together a presentation on the reliability of the text

New Testament That I'll be using for the very first time there in Santa Fe and we'll also be speaking of Islam and the

Marian dogmas So I am currently Updating those presentations as well as I was doing before I came in here

So that'll be this Saturday and then of course Please note you in the Southern California area always get

California people know when you go about California, man I'm over there all the time. I think they're gonna start charging me taxes.

I'm over there so often but We will be in the LA area The following Saturday and then down in San Diego the following Sunday three debates against Farhan Qureshi and Osama Abdullah are the two gentlemen that I'll be debating and we will be discussing the crucifixion and the reliability of the

Testament and the deity of Christ all those key issues to deal with When you deal with the subject of Islam, and so we would highly encourage you to be there

It's one thing to listen to those debates It's something else to be there and get to hear for example some of the audience comments that do not make it

You So you you definitely will want to be there especially my friends out at Westminster Seminary in Escondido I hope some of you can come out as well for the

Sunday afternoon Encounter at that particular point in time. So that's what's coming up.

And then the week after that is the Ligonier conference here in Phoenix and yeah This year is just flying by isn't it and then only got to October and Six days into November headed off for London I'm very very appreciative of those you have given sacrificially and specially to make that trip work

Continue to pray for that and we certainly could continue to use your support for that effort

Need to get hold of the folks in the television channel They aren't responding to my emails and I'm a little bit concerned

Especially this time of year people go on holiday in in England and we call them vacations they call them holidays, and I'm a little concerned that the person whose email address

I have is on holiday and So I just sent an email to somebody else Could we try another way to get through here because I want to have all this stuff

Lined up and I will be putting up. I know some of you have asked we I think didn't you get a call from London?

Someone asking I want to know exactly where he's gonna be and when and so on so forth I'll be trying to put that together as best.

I can it's not always easy to do and some people know how well

I did before the new format of the website in keeping up on the calendar page and It's more of a historical thing, but it's a bit of a joke, but anyhow, so we'll try to let you know about that and of course

Still need to let everybody know we're doing a cruise at a conference at the end of January Sometimes I think because it's in January.

It just seems like it's forever away because For us there's like this is wall between December and January and then you get

January and start thinking about the rest of year well doesn't work that way and I Really encourage you to be looking forward to the conference that we'll be having the debate that I'll be having with Bart Ehrman I honestly think that'll be one of the most important debates.

We've ever done Bart Ehrman is Undoubtedly considered the leading critic of the

New Testament critic in a negative sense of the New Testament today His materials are utilized by every community college philosophy professor out there to attempt to convert our young people away from faith in Christ and So the subject the topic everything is exactly what we would want it to be and so I'm very much looking forward to that debate

And so I would encourage you to be making plans to be there register for the conference There'll be some great speakers as well as the debate itself and then of course a wonderful time of fellowship on the cruise

That follows thereafter. It's only a four -day. So it's not one of those big huge things. We have to burn every bit of Vacation that you have ever built up and so I would encourage you to look at the website and to join us on that It's also exceptionally

Cost -friendly, I dare you to look at our costs and compare them to pretty much anybody else and when you do you'll go.

Oh Okay. All right. That's me. Yeah. All right We do this as a relief as a perspective of ministry and so I would encourage you to take a look at that so with that having been said before we start listening to Patrick Madrid again,

I Want to read a portion? From my response to Patrick Madrid's hit article called the white man's burden and In essence

I'm addressing here some conversations that took place between myself and Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid after the debate and in essence,

I pointed out that The definition that Patrick Madrid attempted to force me to defend is not the definition of soul scripture

Found in historical documents in the Westminster Confession of Faith in the

London Baptist Confession of Faith. It is a straw man and his response was fascinating And I reproduced it in in the material notice what he says quote

Assume this is an accurate statement that Pat used the definition different from yours So what he wasn't debating

James White's definition? He was debating what he and I and many others consider to be the real world definition of soul scripture as found among Bible Christians Please note that the resolution of the debate didn't define soul scripture

That was up to the debaters if they wanted to use slightly different definitions. They had a right to do so Whether or not your definition agree with Pat's and I don't think they were far apart at all

The debate wasn't about fixing a definition It was mainly about arguing whether particular verses supported soul scriptura that argument can be carried out

Even if the debaters differ a bit on their definitions, by the way Pat wasn't supposed to deal with your affirmative proposition both the affirmative proposition found the resolution

That's what he did debate propositions are framed in the resolution itself. Not in the first speaker's opening statement to which

I responded at the time Try to imagine how mr. Keating would respond if the roles reversed.

Let's say that I debated. Mr Keating on the Immaculate Conception and by the way, I'd be more than happy to do so, but mr

Keating doesn't debate anymore and after his opening statements decide to present my own definition of that doctrine or Let's say we were debating people infallibility and I said to mr.

Keating now I believe this doctrine means that popes are supposed to be sinless. So how do you explain Alexander the sixth or John the twelfth?

Would mr. Keating feel it was okay for me to redefine his doctrines and then insist that he defend my redefinitions

Well, of course not he would rightly protest it to be fair. I must accurately and honestly portray the

Roman doctrines as they're defined by Rome yet seemingly the men of Catholic answers do not extend this treatment to others here the president of Catholic answers seemingly says hey sure

Patrick is different definition, but so what who said he had to debate your definition a fascinating admission

Indeed, and so I I do find that quite interesting and quite representative of the fact that in essence

Catholic answers Feel they can determine What our doctrines are use their definitions and even when we say that's a straw man

Well doesn't matter we can I've met people that believe that well, I've met Roman Catholics to believe almost anything

I've met Roman Catholics who present all sorts of things that the men of Catholic answers to say Oh, no, no, no, no, that's that's not

Catholic. No, no, no Yeah, okay, I see a little bit of a double standard here and Most indeed.

All right, let's go back and pick up right where we left off on the subject of Sola Scriptura of Patrick Madrid is just beginning his opening statement

So my task is to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical

I don't have to prove the case for tradition Mr. White claims that I must be able to prove every point from Scriptura itself

Now once again, I just want to mention I have many times challenged these individuals to Positively defend their claims to ultimate authority.

That's not what I like to do like they like to attack Sola Scriptura That's that's their thing and they don't want to have to apply the same standards to their own claims that they apply to the claims of others

But if you are going to use if you're going to assume the correctness of the

Roman Catholic Concept of tradition as Part of your argument against Sola Scriptura, then

I insist that you do need to prove it If you're not going to prove it if you are going to just let it, you know

You know stand on its on its own assertion But use it as a part of your argument, which

I assert is exactly what they do then you do have to defend it But that's exactly what they don't want to do

To stand firm and hold fast to But what is the truth about Sola Scriptura? Did they teach it?

Did the Apostles teach it? Did Jesus teach it? Many approach scripture with the predetermined conviction that the

Catholic Church must be wrong So they search to find verses which they can cobble together in an attempt to refute a given

Catholic teaching Their hostility to the Catholic Church often makes it very difficult for them to view the

Catholic case objectively I would ask you to please tonight put aside any

Predetermined ideas you may have about Sola Scriptura, pro or con. Let the Lord speak to you tonight through scripture

You'll see I believe that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura The Apostles did not teach

Sola Scriptura Jesus did not teach Sola Scriptura And I believe that if you want to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus you must reject

Sola Scriptura as a tradition of men If you don't reject it, God will hold you accountable

Protestant apologists commonly make several mistakes in their zeal to vindicate Sola Scriptura My opponent tonight may not make all of these mistakes

But you need to know about them so that you can know how to handle them when you encounter them Mistake number one if you have your notepads out,

I'd ask you to write these down mistake number one Confusing formal and material sufficiency.

This is a crucial point in tonight's debate Now by the way this I believe was the first time that mr.

Madrid ever raised this distinction in fact I I haven't taken time to do it, but I scanned through it once and I'd be happy to be shown my error

But I do not believe that this distinction appears in Carl Keating's book at least as it existed in 1993

It may have been added at a point after that but this was the first time that they attempted to use this kind of discussion

Unfortunately they do so seemingly without recognizing the Evolutionary nature of the

Roman Catholic position in regards to this issue and since it doesn't get a whole lot of definition during the debate

I've been mentioned to you now and that is You have those who say that the scriptures are materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient

They're materially sufficient in that all the divine revelation is at least Implicitly found in the written scriptures now realize that for Rome implicitly means that you can look at Revelation 12 and the woman and that's

Mary and you can look at Luke 128 and build a Colossus of theology out of an angelic greeting so saying something is implicitly found in Scripture from the

Roman Catholic Perspective basically means that there are enough words in Scripture that we can crowbar anything

Into what the Bible says all right and anybody could use that the Mormon could say oh, I believe it's materially sufficient.

You know Yeah, we don't have clear statements of the exaltation of Godhood But you look over here what

Jesus said to your God just like you know you can anybody can can make the implicit claim Where well okay the grammar doesn't say in the syntax of the man in the original context that wouldn't necessarily

But you see the church's tradition allows us to see this blah blah blah blah blah

That was not the perspective of the majority of people to counsel of Trent Number put in the majority of people accounts trail when they first wrote their first definition of the issue of The relationship of Scripture and tradition used phraseology called partum partum

Latin for partly and partly That is God's Revelation is given partly in the written tradition

Scripture and partly in the oral tradition now Anybody who adopts the material sufficiency thing the material sufficiency position

You should not hear them quoting 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 15 Why because second

Thessalonians 2 15 which speaks of the traditions which were passed on to us whether by word of mouth or by letter?

Shouldn't be relevant to them because everything that's in the written is What's revelation at least implicitly, but you see everybody knows that Everything that Rome has defined solely on the basis of tradition is not actually found in Scripture You cannot find papal infallibility in Scripture Just listen to these people try to come up with a means of defending papal infallibility in Scripture.

It is Ridiculous, it's so easy to demonstrate that they are grossly misusing the text that it's ridiculous uh the

Marian dogmas again, you know going off to Solomon's Solomon and his mother and Trying to build some type of queenly coronation silliness out of this

I love when they do that kind of stuff because only the most starry -eyed Romanist is

Sitting there going. Wow, that's great Everybody else who has it has any sense whatsoever of reading something in context that his historical context of Scripture blah blah blah

They they're sitting there going you're you're seriously suggesting this is a meaningful use of the text

So I love when they go that direction. It's it's it's amazing as to how that works so anyway

What you'll hear is you'll hear them and this is what Madrid's gonna do in this debate He's going to talk about Oh material sufficiency material sufficiency

So he does not have to defend the idea that in the oral tradition you find Paul actually teaching the stuff

Rome teaches Because that's what second Thessalonians 215 would mean

If you're gonna cite that passage Then what it means is that Paul had already delivered to the

Thessalonians in his first epistle and in his preaching all these doctrines and dogmas

So he had already taught the Thessalonians about papal infallibility even though there wasn't a polka and he had already taught them about the

Marian dogmas Even though history is silent has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anybody back then believed what

Rome teaches today is dogma about Mary and so They don't want to have to defend that because they can't it's not possible.

It's impossible But they still need to find a way of defending this up.

So what they do is they'll assert material sufficiency But then they'll quote these texts about tradition in their attacks on the soul scripture

And when you start to refute them, then they back off to the material sufficiency I don't I believe material sufficiency.

You're just confusing people. I believe material sufficiency. Then why you're quoting second Thessalonians 2 Why are you talking about this tradition? Well, it's just an interpretive tradition

Oh So what you're telling us is that what Paul taught the Thessalonians to do was to interpret scripture not all but she actually had been written yet in such a way that they would see in Luke 1 28 all the

Marian dogmas and They would understand papal infallibility through the interpretive methodology delivered to the

Thessalonians Is that what you're saying? And they don't want to go there their people. Don't don't force them to go there

Only we do and so they don't want to go there. So they'll take two different positions and At one point though, they'll push the part and part of idea

But then as soon as you challenge them to demonstrate hey show me that what you have in in those oral traditions

Substantiates the dogmas that you have defined in the basis that oh, no, no, no We don't have to do that because I believe material sufficiency

See and so you'll hear him do this back and forth back and forth a number of times Use one argument and then back off to a position that doesn't make as much of a claim

But then go back out to it later on and say oh you're just misunderstanding here You don't understand what's going on here, etc.

So you're making errors. That's exactly how Roman Catholic controversialists are functioning in our our modern context

Now do you notice he said allows for later on he's going to say something else

He's going to say the Catholic position is and it isn't Where has

Rome dogmatically defined material sufficiency as the dogmatic position of the church? It's it's just you know, all you gotta do

I would love to see I personally think Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid and Jimmy Akin Absolutely Have a moral responsibility to debate

Jerry Maddix. I really do I Think they put him out there.

They put his pictures in this rock They're the ones that gave this guy his start and I think they've got a more responsibility to debate that guy

I would love to listen to them crossing Roman swords Swinging at each other with with swords all forged out of the dogmatic documents of the

Roman Catholic Church And that's exactly why they won't do it because they know that would be the greatest refutation of their own arguments that's ever been put on Video and they know it and that's why they stay away from him

Assiduously I would love to see it happen. I really really would but ain't gonna be happening anytime soon

All doctrines can be found there implicitly or explicitly, but they're all there

Formal sufficiency on the other hand is the position that mr. White is attempting to prove formal sufficiency means that scripture contains all necessary Christian truth and And it's a very important and that scriptures meaning is so clear that the church and tradition are not necessary to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the meaning of Scripture That's not true

Let's let's try to correct that what he's going to try to do later on is he is going to go directly against the actual statements of the

Westminster Confession of Faith that demon that specifically says not all portions of scripture are alike clear and He's going to try to do the divide -and -conquer thing

This this review is going to be really helpful in going through all the different errors that Roman Catholics make and trying to attack

Sol Scriptura, I really think it will be he's gonna go through all that stuff the idea of material sufficiency is that the scriptures are

Meant to function as the sole infallible rule of faith the church without the addition of any kind of Likewise infallible teaching authority that they contain within themselves the ability upon due application

Upon due application of effort of study To function as the sole infallible rule of faith the church

Is not and this is you're gonna hear him do this. It's cheap shot. He's wrong demonstrate He can't win this argument against the actual document of Sol Scriptura but he's going to later on say look the fact there's all these different perspectives the fact that the

Point the surface meaning of the text is not enough No one's saying the surface meaning the text is enough

No one is saying that someone who's completely ignorant of the Bible completely ignorant of the people of Israel Can just pick the thing up and read a few pages ago.

Oh, I've got the whole thing No one is saying that But that's what they want us to try to defend is that well that this is exactly what we are saying it is not

And this goes back to what I read to you at the beginning. Hey, we don't need to use your definition We don't need to go after what you actually are saying

That's that's where again when I debate the

Marian dogmas What source do I use to define them Rome's infallible dogmatic

Definitions why can't Patrick Madrid and Carl Keating and these guys do the same thing reverse?

Well, they just can't What it does reject is the error of the formal sufficiency of Scripture and the

Catholic I contend that all Christian doctrines are at least implicitly present in Scripture But that doesn't mean

Scripture is always sufficiently clear so that every Christian doctrine is explicitly and conclusively evidence

For example, the Bible does not say the Christians should baptize infants in order to say that only adults must be baptized

Now notice what he's doing run an orthodox Presbyterian Church And he is beginning to divide and conquer and you know

They sat down in the offices of Catholic answers said let's do this. Let's do this. You know, the difference isn't it?

It could come up a number of times You know the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants at this point is that I can get together and I did in 1995 about Two years after this had the first debate we had in this subject one of the people

I was debating and dr. Robert Strimble very well -known Presbyterian professor and scholar and Most of you know that I debated

Bill Shishko on this subject a couple years ago right around this time Two years ago now and that was followed with a by Skype debate with Greg Strawbridge Every single one of them by the way, just to mention it again in passing everything one of them

I was responding to the challenge to debate those issues. I did not issue those challenges to debate and What did each one of them?

demonstrate that we as Brothers in Christ who share the same gospel who share a commitment to sola scriptura

Can go to the inspired text of Scripture to debate that very issue

We don't have to go to the code of canon law and we don't have to go to this council and to that council

Because the fact the matter is folks you can't go to those councils because they don't speak with one voice on so many issues

They don't clarify they confuse they don't clarify the biblical text in any way shape or form and So we can confess that we together as brothers can go to the biblical text to address these issues

That's where the difference lies and that's where we have demonstrated the consistency of our position in Approaching it in exactly that way

Paul and the other writers of the New Testament assumed their readers are some people such as Lutherans Methodists and Presbyterians Say the biblical evidence that baptized that babies were baptized in the

New Testament is good So therefore we should baptize babies Others such as Baptists Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses say the biblical evidence shows that babies were not and should not be baptized

Scholars on both sides of the debate admit that the biblical evidence is simply inconclusive but if the evidence is inconclusive on this or any other doctrine and scripture is

Manifestly not sufficient to give us a conclusive interpretation of everything that it teaches

In fact scripture itself Denied that its doctrines are always clear to all readers in 2nd

Peter 3 verses 15 and 16 now here is one of the key text now listen and see if Mr.

Madrid will give you a meaningful exegesis of this text or whether he will simply use it and then avoid its actual meaning

Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him He writes the same way in all his letters speaking in them of these matters

His letters contain some things that are hard to understand which the ignorant and the unstable

People distort as they do other scriptures to their own destruction So we see here that the

Bible warns us that if doctrines can be misunderstood They can be unclear and it can be distorted now

Can Roman Catholic doctrines be unclear misunderstood and distorted of Course anything can be

Anything can be the most simple truths are all liable to distortion by those who desire to distort truth big deal

But does the text teach what Roman Catholic controversialist would have us to teach Have us to believe it teaches no of course it doesn't notice

What's that notice he says in his letter there are some things if it's some things that means that there are other things that are what patently clear and obvious right and Then it says that certain untaught and unstable individuals distort their own destruction if there are untaught and unstable individuals

What does that mean? That means that there are taught and stable individuals who do not

Distort God's truth to their own destruction instead they handle the Word of God a right to the benefit of the people of God and So it amazes me it shouldn't because Roman Catholics don't do exegesis

I mean, let's let's let's be honest with ourselves Roman Catholic apologists don't do exegesis

That's not their forte there. They need to be exegete in a whole big body of stuff called the dogmatic teaching the

Roman Catholic Church And they they you know you gotta feel sorry for these folks that they're conservatives in a very liberal modern

Roman Catholic Church They they gotta be trying to make Rome look like something that really isn't anymore They know that the majority of their bishops and their cardinals and their prelates are way to their left and their theological perspectives

It must be a really weird thing to be trying to defend a church like that But hey, you know that's their their road to to hoe in essence

Their row to hoe I know row to hoe means Anyway But they're not doing exegesis, and they're not going to look at this text and now

I realize that by quoting this I'm actually saying that there are certain taught and stable men who

Can handle the Word of God a right and that there are things in Scripture that are self -evidently clear But instead they want to turn around say see be afraid of Scripture.

It can be misused That's Again why they won't debate gerrymantics because they'll then you can turn on say

I from your perspective isn't Jerry doing exactly what you say your magisterium keeps from happening

I Mean if you have this happening in your own fellowship in your own communion

He's using the same sources. You say are sufficient to answer all these questions

Hmm sounds like your arguments somewhat self -refuting isn't it? Yeah, that's exactly about speaking of gerrymantics just in passing.

How'd you like that segway which is a pretty good? we have a a new debate format available to you and A couple of you have found out about it

But we need to put a big advertising banner up we are starting to make the move

Into making our stuff available in downloadable form in video formats Obviously the fact that I do so much on YouTube and You know we've got over 720 ,000 video views now on the

YouTube account coming up on a million. It's pretty pretty good pretty great The fact that we're doing all that stuff starts making you go.

Well. You know it sure would be nice to be able to put this debate On on my iPod because that's how people watch a lot of stuff anymore watch on the computer watch on the iPod

Well, we have the first one done, and it is the Marion doc dogmas debate I think that was one of the best debates is the very first one on Long Island, and I thought it was it went very very well and So it's available.

I think it's number 574 on 572 on the website and And you download that baby and sticker and iTunes and There you go.

You can it looks really really sharp and nice. It's playable under QuickTime and also Yes, it does.

Yeah, it really does I won't mention the specific program, but a couple years ago

I was following a particular weekly program And I was traveling so I couldn't see it and so it was really cool to be able to download that and watch it on My iPod and the guy that met

It's not difficult to to follow along. You know it's even that tiny little screen and the resolutions quite high so Speaking of gerrymantics back when gerrymantics was still considered

Orthodox Roman Catholic And he of course is still considering himself that just hey, that's an argument for their side to take care of We'll let them do that kind of thing, but that is available on the website now

So you might want to be looking for that and of course we are going to be continuing to offer more and more of that material putting the great debates and the others that we're doing on that format and making them available to you, so Avail yourself of the opportunities, okay, so we come back to We don't have this one on video unfortunately.

It wasn't videotaped, but it would have been interesting so hey You know maybe Patrick would like to do it again since he's to know

Maybe we could do it again and put it on video this time And then he could make it available to people on iPod because if he's doing oh,

I mean he's gonna win again, right? There's no way that I can win a debate on soul scriptura Well wait a minute actually

Patrick told me that I beat gerrymantics in a debate on soul scriptura in that odd But anyway we continue on mistake number two using a hermeneutic of anachronism

Protestant apologists read back into scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers the particular doctrines they wish to find

And they ignore or explain away what they don't wish to see That is one of the best descriptions ever heard of exactly what

Roman Catholicism does the Church Fathers my goodness How many times we demonstrated the anachronistic reading of early

Church Fathers by Roman Catholic controversialists? I mean, it's constant It's all the time and they have to do it because their ultimate authority says

This has been the constant teaching of the church We are infallible therefore if you put those glasses on and start reading nearly

Church Fathers What are you gonna find? You're gonna find that kind of stuff all through the text, and what are you gonna do listen?

It'll be the Which one will it be it'll be actually be should be the next one that rich would be digitizing and making available as my debate on soul scriptura with gerrymantics and And Every time that I throw out something that is from an early

Church Father that disagrees this position well That's just his personal opinion Mr.. White, that's just his person.

That was just to him with speaking as a private theologian That the magical circularity of Romanism is so amazing to watch you know we are having a conversation with a

Catholic convert in channel recently and we were talking about papal infallibility and we brought the issue of an aureus again, and it if you want to see circularity if you want to see how tightly a person can spin in a circle

Then get a Roman Catholic talking about papal infallibility because what they'll do is they well The Pope everything the

Pope says isn't infallible well that that's true. Okay, so how do you know? What is infallible and what is not infallible and the only way they can do it is by?

Looking back over succeeding generations because we point out look in the days when on aureus writes his letter and in these centuries after on aureus where on aureus himself is anathematized by a general counsel and every bishop of Rome that takes the chair of Peter and Anathematizes on aureus in taking the chair of Peter in all those centuries

Where they hadn't developed this idea of papal infallibility where they hadn't come up with these wonderful definitions that makes everything go away

How could you have known at that time? How could you have known in the days of an aureus that what an aureus was writing as the bishop of Rome was not in?

fact Infallible truth, and they have no way of answering that they can't answer that it's not possible and So the definition is just so wonderful in that.

It's it's you can't disprove it. It's impossible disprove it It is it is not subject to being disproven

Because basically it boils down to this the Pope's infallible and when he makes a mistake he wasn't speaking

Wonderful definition and you can you can bring that out and show that to people and see and show them

Did you realize that what you're saying is the Pope's infallible except when he's not do you realize that's what you're saying and?

They'll just sit there and oh, isn't it wonderful. I just love the liturgy.

It's so beautiful and you're like wow You you don't see that. Oh, yeah, just the blinds go down like that.

Nope didn't notice that one So it is amazing Mormons do this in their attempt to prove many

God Since the time the devil used scripture to tempt Jesus in the desert doctrinal error has always been advanced under the guise of Bible verses

Jesus said in Matthew 7 verse 15 beware of false prophets who will come to you in sheep's clothing

But underneath they are ravenous wolves Error comes packaged under the wrapping paper of Bible verses

Yeah, including excluding Patrick Madrid's Attempts to defend the papacy and the

Marian dogmas, and yeah, no one's going to disagree with that But does that mean that those

Bible verses are being rightly used That they are being rightly exegeted well, of course not

Y 'all begin State number three

Thinking of the phrase word of God a place now by the way I cannot tell you how many Roman Catholics have expressed such anger and have accused me of being mean -spirited and nasty and heartless and harsh

Whenever I have even for a moment made a connection in Methodology between Roman Catholicism and anybody especially

Mormonism. Oh You're so nasty. You're so hate -filled and Yet didn't

Patrick Madrid just link me to Joe was witnesses and Mormons and so on so forth. I think he just did

But I never hear anybody complaining about that for some reason In John 1 verses 1 through 14

The Bible speaks of God's sovereign blessings that he speaks on his people as his word in Isaiah 55 verses 10 through 11

And the Bible calls the oral proclamation of the gospel the Word of God such as in 1st

Thessalonians 2 13 Where Paul says and for this reason we to give thanks to God unceasingly that in receiving the

Word of God from hearing us You have received not a human word, but as it truly is the

Word of God now again, I think one of the problems that Catholic answers had at least initially and I don't think they've outgrown it is that Carl Keating started it and the kind of people

That Keating was trying to respond to Could be very

And I want to use this term carefully, but very Fundamentalist in their perspective in the sense that a

Lot of people they're responding, you know, like the Alamos or something. I mean Jack Chick, okay

We're not talking about people who you know do a whole lot of study in church history. You know,

I remember when I I sent the debate tapes from the third

Debate that I did which was with Jerry Madetik's on the papacy out in Tempe, Arizona in December of 1990 yeah

December of 90 and I sent those Cassette tapes yes cassettes tapes

We needed to find that for the younger people in the audience. Sadly. I sent those cassette tapes to Dave Hunt This was back before Dave Hunt had gone off on his anti -calvinism harangues and Dave scribbled me a note back to basically said

I don't worry about church history stuff. I just go with the Bible Now it's not quite true. He did eventually try to do church history stuff

Not very well, but he tried and that's one of the really bad things is I recently was watching portions

That wasn't the whole thing yet, but I was watching portions as I was recording it of his debate with Shabir Ali and Hmm As bad as I expected to be but anyway, that's kind of attitude.

I don't worry about church history. Don't worry about that kind of thing Reformed apologists

Do not argue the way that a King James only fundamentalist would

We do understand history and we do understand the role of history and the importance of history and and we understand what tradition is we

Recognize that we have traditions and we recognize the necessity of subjugating those traditions to the higher authority of that Which is the honest awesome scripture so we present a completely different perspective in essence than they do and Yet they just don't seem to be able to grow past that fundamentalism

Response and stage and so when they talk about well look first Thessalonians chapter 2 says that you

That the Word of God was spoken to them Yeah, okay No problem with that whatsoever

Don't have any issues that well, then where is that now? See that that's the implicit assertion is that you see the the oral word was spoken now

They believe material sufficiency. It shouldn't be overly relevant should be This is where the pardon pardon stuff comes in but even at that This is why

I asked and and I said a couple weeks ago I hope I have improved in my understanding both the

Roman Catholic position soil scriptura since 1993 What I should have asked Patrick at some point

And it was a fairly short debate so there wasn't a lot of time But I should have asked the same question of Patrick that I did six years later when

I debated Mitchell Pacwa in San Diego again on this subject and I asked

Mitch Pacwa an honest question that I think is very important for people to hear I Asked them

I asked him this question Can you name a single word?

Phrase sentence Spoken by Jesus Christ or by any of the

Apostles That has been dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church that is not found in Scripture Because see

I've listened to these Catholic converts They write their conversion stories and the surprised by truth thing and they all say the same thing.

Oh My eyes were opened when I realized soul scriptura was wrong

Because the Word of God was orally preached and so there must be more.

I Just want to go. Um, excuse me but What one word of Paul just one word one syllable?

That Paul ever spoke as Rome ever dogmatically defined that does not exist in Scripture What did he say that Rome's tradition gives you that Scripture does not dogmatically, where is it a

Word of Jesus a worthy Apostles and their silence

Because Mitch Pacwa Was very honest. He sat there and said well, there's nothing

We've never know nope, and Yet people write entire tomes

Based upon the assumption at all. I'm just so glad to have access to all this stuff. I didn't have before What do you mean you didn't have before you had

Scripture and Rome isn't giving you anything. All she's giving you is her perversions of Scripture I mean, that's a strong word.

But hey look at look at indulgences and go read Hebrews. Okay, that's that's a good good example

So remember when you see tonight or here tonight the phrase Word of God It doesn't always mean the

Bible. Oh By the way, you know why he's doing this. I always found this to be interesting

And I know you have to do it up to a certain point but He's debating my presentation from 1990 in August 1990 against gerrymanitics, which by the way does exist on video

I would love to see it, but no one ever has It again is held by Scott Butler and Scott Butler got in an argument

Catholic answers and no one ended up with videotape of that Debate, I'd love to see it. It would have at least historical interest in value now

I have to wonder if the tapes even still exist But that initial debate

August 1990. We don't have it We wish we did but we we don't have it and the two debates of Mitch Pacwa in a

January of 1991 San Diego tapes exist professionally recorded never made available

Scott Butler has them at least I think he had most definitely Scott Butler hasn't and I've called upon Scott Butler many times do the right thing

Scott we have how many debates we have to sit down sometime and figure out how many debates

Alvin Omega ministries has done where we have handed to the Roman Catholic debater at the end of the night or shipped within a few weeks depending on whether we did it there that evening or whether it the

Videotapes to distribute as they pleased of that debate for Absolutely positively nothing in fact many of them got honorariums for being there that night anyways

They got paid to be there to do the debate and they got the video for nothing We paid the shipping

Scott Butler do the right thing anybody who knows Scott Butler contact and say Scott do the right thing

Send master copies of the initial debate with Jerry Manitics on soul scriptura and the two debates of Mitch Pacwa in San Diego to Alvin Omega ministries and give them full rights of distribution

Do the right thing if you don't you're admitting they lost all those debates That that's what you're admitting that they lost it of it and Scott Butler admitted that to me

So he said that to me a private conversation that you well You know father Pacwa isn't as good a debater is you know

Scott Hahn well We can't get Scott Hahn the debate anyways, so do the right thing mr.

Butler and let let the videotapes go free the tapes free to pick we show up outside his office with signs free the tapes

Let let people see Context of this mr.

White will only beg the question if he tries to use verses such as psalm 119 89

When first and the other verses like it which which describe the attributes of the

Word of God all they prove Is that there is a certain attribute that the

Word of God has and again? We have to know whether it's the written Word of God or the oral Word of God or the Word of God in flesh

Bible uses in various ways mistake number four confusing testimony with authority

Some Protestants argue that if the Catholic Church were the official witness to God's Word it would be over God's Word This is false just because one person serves as one as a witness to another person doesn't mean that he has an authority over that person now

Here we we we enter into a particular area of real of a real problem

In regards to his position and that is the very issue that the caller brought

I remember what started all this was I played a call where someone called in asked Patrick Madrid about this debate

He promoted as you know this great beyond and all of all things demonstrating souls for tourism true And now we're demonstrating that what it is a straw man attack in souls return

And one of the questions that the caller had was what about ultimate authorities what about ultimate authorities?

He didn't really answer that question And I have said many times and I repeat it right now

And this would be my closing statement on this because we're gonna take a phone call in on the subject But I repeat it right now There is no way for a

Roman Catholic to defend the idea that they are simply Presenting the authority of the church as a witness to Scripture Rome gets to define

What is and what is not Scripture? He's going to use the canon argument later on he's going to wait the second rebuttal period to do

It but he's going to use the canon argument later on that means he's saying Rome defines the canon

Then Rome defines infallible teaching of Scripture So what Scripture is and what

Scripture says is determined by whom Rome? When it comes the idea of tradition who defines what is and what is not tradition

Rome? When it comes to the issue of what tradition teaches or means who defines it

Rome Don't tell me Rome is under the authority of anything or is equal in authority with anything else

When you cannot define what Scripture is and what it means outside of the truth outside of Romans authority when you can't define what tradition

Is or what it means outside of Rome's authority folks. That's sola ecclesia they don't like us pointing that out, but that's the way it is and If you can demonstrate how that's different if you can demonstrate that's not the case now

There are there are less conservative Roman Catholics who aren't Catholic apologists who will who won't argue like a

Madrid does or won't argue like an like like Jerry Manatee's used to argue or something like that and They'll they'll say well, you know

We don't make quite that strident Assertion yes you do If and when they come out and start saying the

Patrick Madrid's and Tim Staples the world's are all washed up They're all wrong that all we're talking about okay fine until they're willing to do that then that situation

We're facing now. We're gonna step aside of that just a moment and Take phone call from Cape Coral, Florida, let's talk with Mike.

Hi Mike How you doing, I understand let me let me bring the audience up to speed here real quick I don't even know how long ago.

It was What was it about a month month and a half two months ago? I don't remember what it was I put up a very brief blog post

Because I think someone in channel or something in the email. I forget how it was, but I ran across Joel Hemphill's book or an advertisement for his book

That basically presents an Aryan denial of the deity of Christ now

Joel Hemphill has pretty much a oneness type background, so that's a rather interesting transition from Jesus only to the father only but That's even terminology that I understand even he's utilized and so I just mentioned this and mentioned once again the irony of the fact

That someone who is anti Trinitarian Would be singing in Baptist churches and and and things like that just as an illustration of something

I've pointed out with Phillips Craig and Dean and others that there just doesn't seem to be any theological discernment when it comes to this this issue of worship and theology in the church and things like that, so Last week we got a phone call here at the office

From Joel Hemphill, and he and Rich went round ground and my understanding is you've had a few conversations, too

And you're calling in to sort of fill us in on what those conversations were about Yeah Shocking admission facing the truth regarding the doctor the prophets police because last night my discussion with him.

He did not at all He did not at all The position of being called the prophet because I have mentioned to him

I said well you're acting in a prophetical role and in terms of a prophet you say God spoke to you back in 1986

Did basically straighten out this whole matter so you as a prophet are telling us basically? The whole kitten caboodle as to why the

Trinity doctrine is wrong, and he didn't and he never denied The issue of being called the prophet hmm, and I even said hey look

I'm gonna call the program tomorrow James has already invited you to do it. I encourage you to do it

He said he wouldn't do it. He said he would rather have you call him But I say look if I fly standing on a radio tomorrow that you take issue with please call in and set me right

I have no problem with that So I'm calling in I wanted to be made to make it know that I talked to him last night

Very Ron Robin Basically he got into his preaching mode for a while So I stats are patiently to listen to him, and he was highly offended with rich Because of their their discussion and obviously he did take issue with some of your comments regarding his

His stance on Arianism and of course agreeing with most loans that to their version of Christ And you know basically went to the people went to the point to our halo.

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness I'm not a Muslim. I don't know why James has said that I don't know why you're saying it

Well, we're not saying it and James had never accused you that he's saying regarding some Some of your comments they line up with their thinking right that doesn't make you them in terms of your overall theology

That that history that just requires very fundamental ability to think in categories properly

And it doesn't sound like like he's exercising that fundamental like opacity I know in his conversation with rich rich kept asking him.

What did James say that was wrong well? He said you like me to Muslims and over and over again the same type of category errors rather than actually dealing with The fact that in reality he is saying he is denying the deity of Christ and in so doing

That's the only issue. That's the only thing to really address now. Just it's interesting something You just said let me see if I can address this so we got a couple minutes, but does

Does he say that he? He received revelation on this subject

Yes, that's correct that God personally spoke to him about this So this is the 28th book of the New Testament now called

Pampylions well you know hey you mentioned our Roman Catholic friends just moments ago You know with how Rome get to define.

What is yes, not scripture. Well. I think we have some Unapplicable situation here with Joel. Yeah, yeah, and then you did summary man.

I'm saying so As you would say do the right thing and hey Joel. You know I even asked him

I know cuz he was very very clear. Hey look. I have converted thousands over my position thousands

I said name five No, I don't need to do that.

Yeah, I told you look if you're a prophet And you want to straighten out this entire matter. You're loving enough

Okay, why can't you simply suggest? Hey look call so -and -so I converted him from this position

He can fill you in you're not even willing to do that to me That's very suspicious, and so he said in turn he said are you calling me a liar?

I said well you are alive You are and he wanted basically to end the conversation at that point hmm

One other thing that rich really challenged him on was what are you doing singing in Trinitarian churches?

and and taking their money and You know it would be one thing you know

I would speak at a Edelweiss church as long as I was debating and defending the Trinity And I was defending justification by faith or something like that.

I've told I've told The heads of the

UPC I thought I'll go to their school and debate right in front of students That's that's no problem, but I'm not going to go there and pretend to quote -unquote lead them in worship and not speak to the very fact that I believe that they have been grossly deceived and That's the issue that I have here is there needs to be some discernment on the part of the church

This man is going into churches and singing and they don't know that he believes

They're offering false worship, and I consider that quite hypocritical and in turn on that point I even had mentioned him.

I said are you sitting down with the pastor beforehand?

Yeah, really or or or you have leads prior to your singing making it known making it known to the congregation that You find this position of Trinitarianism utterly false that you have received revelation

Okay, as to this You found or this new this new tangled Idea of God are you making that known before you know you're taking a moment to explain this to them

What do you say? No, that's good. He's not doing it because he knows you wouldn't be singing and getting his honorarium check that night well

Mike I really appreciate that I will be very interested to see if mr.. Hemphill. Hey if he'd like to be on the program

I'd be glad to defend the deity of Christ against a quote -unquote prophet because I know what the Word of God teaches

So let's see if we can arrange it. Thanks a lot Mike. All right. God bless be listening next time