Tim Staples and Dave Hunt

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 at 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 Hey, good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning.

Just letting you know right up front I have my cell phone in the studio today

Some of you may recall old additions the dividing line were since we were doing it in my office

Rather than having a little studio like we have now My cell phone would go off and I'd have a little conversations with my wife

I guess Rudy Giuliani has been doing that recently I saw I saw a thing on TV about how he was in the middle of giving a speech and this

Massive loud cell phone goes off and he pulls it out and hi, honey I'm talking to it happened to the

NRA which would be a tough place for him to be in the first place I think it was almost like it was meant to sort of endear him type thing

It didn't go over very well at all. Most people like turn it off, you know But anyway, it used to go off all the time during the program

But it hasn't for a long time because I don't bring it into the studio But I have it today and the reason

I have it today is that summers class started exactly one hour ago

With dr. Lee Carter, and I have not heard a word back from dr. Carter. I sent an email to him

I contained a link to my open letter the email was CC'd to The entire board of the

Maricopa County Community College District. I have not heard from any of them either Not even so much as a thank you for your note.

It's been received blah blah nothing, but Absolute positive silence.

So I've been sort of wondering, you know, what's what's gonna happen today in class started an hour ago and Gets out in 13 minutes and so far

I have received only one cryptic text message from my daughter, which doesn't tell me a whole lot yet So and the cell phone will ring in 14 minutes.

Ah, it's possible. It's possible But if it's if it's just text message, okay, then

I'll just be somewhat distracted But if she actually gives me a call, hey We can do the

Rush Limbaugh thing and you can just sit here and listen to a half of a conversation I'd have her call in But yeah,

I'd have her call in but she has a class right after this So I suppose she could call while walking from one class to another but that probably wouldn't be a good idea

So that may happen. We will find out anyway Moving on to a completely different subject since I have nothing new to report

I mean other than the fact that a number of people have written to me former students who basically saying this is nothing new

One person wrote to me and said hey, you know the first day of class he said if you have leanings toward Christianity, you might as well drop this now and You know, can you imagine anybody getting up and saying in a public school?

College paid for by the public class if you have leanings toward Islam, you might as well drop this class now, you know

Ain't ain't gonna happen. But hey, whatever Christians are fair game and then you know

Download a bunch of his papers and and things like that and it's just it's it's

Dennis McKinsey 101 It really is nothing new Bart Ehrman's grade Lane Lane Pagels knows all

Jesus is a Gnostic Blah blah blah and nothing nothing new there for certain

So instead of worrying about that since there's really not much more to say about that until we get some sort of response if we

Get any response at all instead Have some clips to play for you today first from Catholic answers actually have two

Catholic answers clips and then Prepare yourselves. We have a clip from the

Berean call. Yes indeed and amazingly enough there's only slight differences in some of the assertions made but anyway first one here is

Tim Staples and What's going on is is James Swan's been listening to Catholic answers recently and has been kind enough to send me mp3s of these things which saves me a lot of time and As you

I've mentioned many times I would love to arrange to debate with Tim Staples on the Marian dogmas

He talks about them constantly. He puts out CD sets and and books and and so on so forth

But it's it's really tough to get Catholic apologists to try to defend the Marian dogmas. They have no problem doing the monologue thing

But it's the debate dialogue thing. That's a little bit tougher because then you have to answer some questions that aren't so comfortable and So here is a clip that that James Swan sent me and it has first of all a portion of a commercial for some of His Marian stuff

Tim Staples Marian stuff and then a call Now give you a background. I have often said that the

Marian dogmas as a body of Beliefs are

Thoroughly completely and totally unbiblical they do not come they do not flow from a biblical view of God the world womanhood marriage

Sexuality they flow from a completely non -christian worldview specifically they flow from a

Gnostic worldview primarily But they also flow from from an ascetic type of worldview that that devalues marriage it devalues human beings quite honestly and we see that in a number of the

Marian dogmas and specifically in the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary the first place you find this belief is in Gnostic sources and These Gnostic sources have no problem since Jesus is a

Gnostic Jesus when when he is born He just basically beams out of Mary That's why

Mary can remain perpetually a virgin even remain as a virgin Physically having given birth to Jesus because Jesus doesn't even go down the birth canal

He is sort of more as well as a Star Trek type thing and he beams out and that's all there is that and that's where There's no pain and the first sources in the doc the first documented sources that say this in all of history

This is not a question. No one can debate it. No one can deny it our Gnostic sources They are not

Christian sources. No, we can call them Christians to call them Christian Gnostics That's like talking about Christian Muslims and Christian Buddhists and so on and so forth

Which people do they certainly do in academia Bart Ehrman loves to I talked about Christian Gnostics all the time

But they are not Christians unless you just don't allow for the definition the term Christian to any level.

So With that as the background listen to the commercial and then the call with Tim Staples on the subject of Mary For most non

Catholics and even some Catholics the church's teachings about Mary can be the most difficult ones to understand and believe

But as Tim Staples will show you it doesn't have to be that way Call triple eight two nine one eight thousand or go to Catholic comm to order his brand new audio set the gospel truth about Mary part two in this new collection

Tim brilliantly shows the overwhelming biblical and historical support for Mary's perpetual virginity and her assumption into heaven

In the gospel truth about Mary part two You'll discover why church teachings on Mary are so important eight reasons the church teaches

Mary's perpetual virginity Now scholarly advances help make the case for her assumption where to go in the

Bible to prove these ancient teachings and much more Call Catholic answers today or log on to Catholic comm to add the gospel

Wait, we got to order this where to go in the Bible to prove these teachings, even though Most Roman Catholic scholars admit that Explicit biblical proofs are lacking

Tim Staples has got it. He's got it down They we need to get this because never have found those those scriptural proofs unless it's maybe something like, you know

Solomon bringing out a throne and putting Bathsheba on it And then when she makes requests he kills a guy who got her to make the request and things like that The truth about Mary part two by Tim Staples to your audio library by the way

Somebody needs to go over there and help these folks with something called background music for commercial

Did you hear that? Oh my goodness. That's sound like some Ronco commercial or something like that.

We'll go to Eric calling from Shrewsbury Massachusetts listening on podcast.

Hello Eric. How are you? Thank you for taking my call. It's great to have you with us. What's your question?

Well, I'm following up from last week and you had a comment or discussion on Mary's birthgiving and how it was without pain possibly

Possibly never been defined by the church But yeah exactly now another teaching that was almost universally held by the father's

Was that Mary's virginal integrity remained intact during the birth giving process, right?

I Just stop it for just a moment universally held That is such a crock of a statement

I mean You've got to understand what these people are talking about They're talking about the very few people who actually address this in later years and we want to extend fathers down to you know

Through Thomas Aquinas and like that So you go hundreds of years down the road and those who eventually started talking about these things

These are the things they said but people hear that and they go. Oh, you're an ass I don't remember finding in Irenaeus a discussion of this or Ignatius or that's cuz the doctrine didn't exist at that time

So they didn't talk about it, but they can still talk about universally held to it's it's the the weasel words are incredible what this reminded me of was an idea or Legend or whatever you want to call it, but I heard from some very pious and traditionalist using traditional monks

That said that when Jesus was born He didn't go through the birth canal He just kind of popped through Mary the wall of Mary's womb sort of like a supernatural c -section

Now to me this sounds rather not right. Oh, I don't really like the idea

And I wondered if you could comment on it right well Eric again this this was in fact held by Some of the fathers of the church and and the idea of Mary remaining intact as a virgin in part two is very much steeped in the writings of the fathers and you do have and I'm trying to think of particular.

I believe it was st. John Damascene Who And there were others as well.

I don't want to misquote them, but there were there were some others I believe at least one of the

Cappadocian fathers, but Who taught that yes as as the old the old saying was as light goes through?

stained -glass windows without affecting the window whatsoever so was the birth of our

Lord from the Blessed Virgin Mary and I know the argument is is given that this is a holdover from from Gnosticism and such

But I argue that it's not I While I have to be clear here that the church does not teach this certainly not definitively it is an acceptable

Opinion that you can hold as a Catholic that that Mary would have you know given birth to Jesus without any effect to her virginal integrity it is

It held by the fathers as you said almost universally and that gets into a pretty heavy

Topic there as far as the specifics of you know Christ not even going through the birth canal and that sort of thing you'll find a lesser numbers of Fathers, but there are a few that that teach that now some would argue that you know

Why would that be did Christ really sanctify childbirth if he didn't? Go through the the birth canal and all these sorts of arguments have really not been answered by the church and I think there's there's valid arguments to be made on both sides, but but the key is you're not

You know necessarily if you hold that to be true obviously we've had fathers of the church that that hold to it

And it gets back to you know our understanding that Mary giving birth to Jesus.

This was a unique event Mary uniquely Was was by a unique privilege and grace

Preserved free of all stain of original sin as Pope Blessed Pius and Knight said when he defined the dogma and So there's certainly going to be a number of unique things surrounding

The birth of our Lord and this may well be one of them But again the church hasn't defined that the only thing

I would warn is That you don't go down the road of saying that this is Gnostic because it was in fact held to By fathers of the church, and it is an opinion that you can hold as a

Catholic does that make sense Yeah, I guess it made sense you explained it pretty well

All right, well Eric. I appreciate your call great question. Hope to hear from you again in the future.

Oh No How do I? Just Just had a professional comedian in channel

And he truly is a professional a professional comedian just broke up everybody in channel all at the same time

And we're just trying to recover from that you know I Don't know you got a laugh or cry.

I when when Roman Catholics say that they honor Mary and stuff like that You know what the historical

Mary is not honored by people in 21st century having discussions like this Okay, I mean, let's just let's just put it out there that just absolutely ridiculous now.

It's interesting Jerry Matta ticks would be very unhappy with that phone call because any of you remember

When Jerry Matta ticks had his debate with Eric Svensson on the perpetual virginity of Mary there was no question even allowed

About whether that was true or not I mean from from Matta ticks his perspective that was an essential element of the dogma itself and So he he doesn't say it's an allowable opinion.

He defended it as a revealed truth and once again We know why the

Gnostics Raised this issue we know why they came up with this idea

Jesus doesn't have a real physical body So if you don't have a real physical body you don't come through a birth canal if you come to a birth count

It means you have a real physical body, and that's not the Gnostic Jesus, and so the docetics You know rejected that we understand all that what on earth is there in Scripture that would lead us to such a such a conclusion nothing

Absolutely nothing is there any kind of historical evidence you can give at all in the first century or the second century for that matter

Anyone out that there was even semi -orthodox you can come up with the early

Gnostic Gospels, but to anyone Presenting this kind of a belief no and yet Roman Catholics sit around discuss this kind of stuff.

Why? Well because they deny soul scriptura and once you deny soul scriptura once you wander outside the realm of God's revelation and allow other things to come in well.

Here's the result is Where do you go in the Bible to prove these things and and here is this all of this stuff is

Just absolutely unbelievable to listen to so Anyway, let's go from there to yet another concept

Represented to me in In written form and I'm sorry in audio form and that is once again

We had another question asked of brother Dave brother

Tom And the question was a semi decent question The question in essence was that Obviously one of the problems we have is that Calvinists and non -Calvinists disagree over the definition of the term elect and That's true, and so you would expect if someone asked this question that you'd have a discussion election now

Please remember something go back with me a little ways if you can sort of get rid of Tim stables for a moment

We'll actually come back to him in a moment with another comment, but go back with me a few years to when we were talking a lot about Dave Hunt much more than we do these days and I Pointed out the

Dave Hunt and I played sermons from his from various Calvary chapels and things like that Kept saying over and over and he said in what love is this and I would be willing to bet it still says this and What love is this even with new editions coming out and things like that?

That Election is never to salvation. It is only to particular blessings

That election is never to salvation it is only to particular blessings and I've played him saying this we've we've we've talked about it a

Number of times and so what happened is in our book when we did the debate book

I Again he makes that he made that statement and in my response to one of his his portions

I pointed out that I looked all the way through what love is this I looked through the scripture index to what love is this and never had

Dave Hunt to my knowledge addressed 2nd Thessalonians 2 13 and 2nd

Thessalonians 2 13 says but we should always give thanks to God for you brother and beloved by the Lord because God has

Chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the

Spirit and faith in the truth So here you have election you have choosing for salvation the very thing that Dave Hunt said over and over And over and over the

Bible never ever teaches and he wrote an entire book which he considered to be the really the final word on all things

What love is this where he repeated that statement over and over again, but but?

Never addressing those ladies to their team, and he didn't Really provide any meaningful response to it in his rebuttal either because exegesis isn't isn't

Dave's thing and so I sort of assumed that once someone you know if I had been going around and repeatedly on tape on video

Had said the Bible never says X and someone comes up and shows you the

Bible, and it says X Not only would I be rather embarrassed and would have to retract that But I would never repeat it again

But you see that's not how Dave Hunt works because Well listen to the

Bree and call here's this week's question dear Dave and Tom I have a friend who was a

Calvinist and I have had many discussions with him I believe a major issue that divides us is the definition of the term election

Could you give us what you believe is the biblical definition of? Election I think that may be helpful even for those who know nothing about Calvinism Tom Peter in chapter 1 of his first epistle

Says elect according to the foreknowledge of God Let me just turn there quickly so we can see exactly what he says

Election is never to salvation But it is to certain blessings

Well there you go less than one minute in While he's turning to attempt to do the old foreknowledge thing and and of course he has been challenged on this he has had to read supposedly anyway

Material demonstrating that he is confusing Foreknowledge in the verbal form and in the noun form and things like that, but as he's going there.

What did he just say? Election is never to salvation. It is only to particular particular blessings there.

He goes again Even though he's been shown second Thessalonians 2 13, and he's not gonna even mention the text

He's going to repeat what he has to say that's just the way it is

Wow okay We have at 1122 a text message

He just went on and on about how intelligent design and the infallibility of scripture should never be allowed in academia

And how dangerous it is and people try to debate I think it's him all the time, and he'll never allow it because it's such a waste of time and on and on That's the text message that I just just received so evidently

Dr. Dr.. Lee Carter does view his I'm sorry well, he does view his his classroom as his private kingdom and Only viewpoints that are his own will be expressed there despite the fact.

He says he wants people to express other viewpoints it not the case, but and Christians need not apply and that's just sort of how things are so I Will be interested in hearing this because I will get to hear it

Maybe while writing and who knows maybe we'll get to play some sections of it here on the dividing line. Why not so Anyhow yeah as people are saying a channel typical professor.

I will say what I say do not challenge me I will not defend what I say. I can't document what

I say. I can't back up what I say And that's that's that's the left in academia, that's that's the left just way it is and So there you go

Won't waste time you know it's waste time debate those folks don't listen to what they have to say just listen to me

You know that's the clearest sign of someone who clearly has nothing meaningful to say whatsoever, so there you go

So we we can see we go back from from that To Dave hunt as he continues on to demonstrate that he hasn't learned anything

Honestly, I don't you know from the very first time we dialogued on this subject I don't see that there's any willingness on his part to learn anything about the position that he is he is addressing

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the spirit. This is verse 2 unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ So we're elected

Unto a life of obedience Now it's elect according to foreknowledge so Election is not like God says any meaning anymore.

I'll elect you to salvation, and I won't elect you But it's according to his foreknowledge

What would foreknowledge have to do with the election? It means

God must have known something ahead of time About these people that he's going to elect.

What would God have to know if he's just favoring? One person over another he doesn't have to know anything

So it is always if we went to Romans chapter 8 predestined

Is the same thing? Now I just note in passing. I realized none of these things are really new along those lines but He is he is confusing and And Predestination and election similar terms, but they're not the same term.

Remember what question was he asked here? We differ on the meaning of election. What's the first thing you have to do in answering a question like that?

You have to define it Not well, it's according to foreknowledge I interpret foreknowledge this way and I'm not going to deal with everything that's been shown to me that I'm misdefining what foreknowledge is and And then

I'm gonna go over here and I'm gonna talk about predestination I'm gonna assume that that's exact same thing and then This is this is not how you do meaningful biblical exegesis

But it's it's definitely the Berean call way elect means you've been predestined to something

And let's see what it says For whom he did foreknow He also did predestined

Predestined what to salvation? Predestined to be conformed to the image of his son that he might be the firstborn

Among many brethren God didn't have to make us his children. He could have put us on a planet out there somewhere delivered us from hell

So we're predestined for certain blessings if we went to Now, of course if those blessings happen to be salvation or require salvation then that would have to come first Right, but no what these people are saying is that God's choice definition of his his his choice in election

Is just that those who believe will experience these things But who will believe is not a part of that by the way, just so you all know further text messages coming in Someone is very good at texting.

I won't tell you all the different ways that she can text but The same girl who said she'd be good on his money remember in the thing

He had said a hundred bucks to anybody who can tell me who wrote Matthew Mark. Look at him Listen to this had a copy of your letter that a teacher at GCC.

She knows had read and told her about so that means other teachers at Glendale are aware of the letter and hence have been

Passing it around and there's some discussion of it. And so I found that that quite interesting

So anyway, I just thought you you all would know want to know about that so those of you who have been reading the blog those of you who

Don't read the blog have no idea what I'm talking about and don't really worry yourself about regions chapter one

We get the same Teaching once again, that's what it says

According as he has chosen us unto him chosen us in him before the foundation of the world

So whether it's elect chosen Predestined foreknown, they're all basically talking about the same thing

Let's just throw them all in the same box certain people that God knew would respond to the gospel

Not where has he established that there are certain people that God knew would respond the gospel. How do you know that? Well, cuz he can see future events.

So they they didn't there's nothing they could do about it He just knew that was gonna happen, right? I mean again

Just like when dealing with George Bryson you want to be able to ask these questions you want to be able to force them to come up with a meaningful consistent doctrine of God and his knowledge of the future and Whether God changes and whether God's knowledge of future events is perfect and complete

But you can't do it because they just won't expose themselves those things now I'll give George Bryson credit some of you been wondering have been asking questions.

By the way, I'll mention this as well in passing a George Bryson wrote to me about a month and a half two months ago now.

I'd have to go look I wanted to do six Debates in 2008 six debates.

It's one every the month now. I know who's supposed to be paying for this And and you know where it's supposed to happen and facilities and all the rest of stuff wants to six debates with me in 2008

I said dude up. That's that's a lot. How about a two -nighter instead of instead of doing six debates?

how about we do a two -nighter and You know that way you can get set up and you only take one trip and so on I haven't heard back from but it took me a long time to get back to him.

So You know, he travels a lot. I travel a lot we'll see I might drop another line and see if he if he got my note or whatever, but so that's up in there then

I Get a phone call. Was that yesterday? what did the church call yesterday a church called and We have

What's the vintage of the of the internal phone system late 70s early 80s Remember you got it.

No, no, no, you got it at the you got it at the at the yellow front place. Remember? You're like two generations of phone systems behind here

The vintage of the one we're using now is in the mid 90s Okay, I thought you got these at the old through that way.

We gave that one to a small church. Yeah, you're right That's right. That's right. That's right. So anyways it but it eBay has come along since then and I was able to Alright, so that's good.

That's good. You are boy time. Oh boy Wait for it wasn't dad about to turn in a 19

Wind it up. But anyway, I don't like using voicemail. Okay, I Don't like using voice me unless it's on my cell phone.

My cell phone tells me it's there. I can get to it easy I don't I don't like this internal so this internal stuff. So I come into my office and there's this annoying blinking light

Okay, and I think I've actually let that light blink as long as like six months in the past before I bothered to get rid of the stupid thing

But so I went right for it and here it's a voicemail from a church in Northern, California somewhere

I Only heard part of it. I started listening to it and they want to they were talking about possibly hosting

Debate with Steve Gregg up there on Calvinism great fine. Wonderful. Someone had mentioned that to me

I think it may be the church. I even looked up online at one point But you see on my cell phone and every cell phone

I've ever owned if you want to fast -forward so you can save a message you hit three Well on our phone system if you hit three it's gone.

It is deleted its history It doesn't fast -forward doesn't say are you sure it's just It's gone

So I hit three and I don't know who called. I don't know what the church was. I have no way of contacting them

Nothing. I'm no way of getting hold of so what I did is

I wrote to Steve Gregg and I said, um the church called and I don't know who it was and Could you tell me what was so I can get back in touch with them so that we can follow up on this?

Because they were talking about at least through the part of the messages I heard the possibility of you and I doing a debate there

But I accidentally erased it and I haven't a clue what church it was don't remember names

Nothing have no way of following up at all So I haven't heard back from him yet, but so there might might come something

We've wanted to do that and people keep asking. Hey, when was you know, when was

When you could debate Steve Gregg and blah blah blah and so maybe that will That'll be yes, someone's saying

Twin Lakes Baptist Church. I Maybe I don't remember. I I didn't even listen to the whole thing so it was you know,

I was just trying to fast -forward it to save it and it's gone and So we're not going to be sending me any more voicemails in the internal system

Because it's it's not gonna work. We have but multiple people calling it at the same time

Maybe they all know who it is now. That's possibility, but Anyhow Yeah, that that sounds like someone who's calling to do an interview with me rich That'll be at one o 'clock it's supposed to be at one o 'clock my time not 1130 so I'm doing a

Interview for somebody else and they're probably calling right now and think that's the radio program or doesn't realize it's radio program

So anyhow, we will see what happens with with all of that So maybe something will happen with George Bryce and maybe someone happened

Steve Gregg yet here in in 2008 we can certainly hope so and he knew that beforehand and It's dependent upon their

Reaction whether they believe in Jesus or they reject him. So let me read it from Ephesians chapter 1

According as he have chosen us in him Before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

Having pre -destined and what's the direct object of choosing? It's us not the believers

Those who by their own free will believe and therefore he can do these things for them and so on and so forth

But anyway, they did us up to the adoption of children So it's the same thought

Why would God choose Certain people now we have to remember that when he chooses

It doesn't mean That's not enough because we get that in John chapter 6

Jesus says have not I chosen you 12 and one of you is a devil.

He chose Judas in other words Chose him for what? In John 17, it makes a very clear distinction.

He is the son of perdition So, how can anyone read that and go see that's the word choose and so God can only choose for one thing

He can't choose some for salvation You can't choose Judas for apostleship and then to be used the son of perdition and no no

No choose has to always have the same meaning. It's just like love, you know I mean if God loves you, then he just loves you and and there can't be redemptive love and there can't be common grace

No, no, no, no as God loves you then he just he just loves everybody in hell just as much as he loves everybody in heaven

He will for eternity. He's gonna be schizophrenic for all of eternity He's gonna love everybody who stand on the parapets of hell screaming out their hatred toward him

Just as much as he loves those bowing and adoration his feet Yes, cuz there's only one meaning of love just there's only one meaning of choose to he's giving them the opportunity

To be what he wants them to be but it is still Up to their choice.

They have a choice. Yeah, just let me interject this I was gonna get to that and I'm glad you got to it right away

Could you say that Judas was one of God's elect? He had a purpose for him see at the beginning you said it was just unto blessings

But if God has a purpose, for example, aren't the Jews God's elect not all of them are saved

But he did have a purpose for the in the Jewish people. Yeah, and the purpose was to bless them That's what

I said, it's under a blessing the adoption of children and so forth now when

Jesus said in John 15 You didn't choose me. I chose you Calvinist was that See you didn't choose me.

I chose you Well, Tom, actually that's about being chosen to point into apostleship.

Anyways, so I but again, you know, I Feel like going back and playing the

I know more about Calvinism. Most Calvinists do quote, but we won't do that You're the owner of some business and I respond to an ad in the paper and For a job offer

And I take my test or whatever and and you you hire me

You could say to me You didn't choose me. I chose you but that doesn't mean

I as your employee didn't have some say in this You didn't force me to work for you what it means is you have the last word

I can't force myself on you Jesus is saying you didn't choose me.

I chose you I Initiated this but it still is up to you whether you want to be what

I have chosen you to be The glories of man -centered exegesis

Since we have a good phone call coming up and there's really nothing more good to say whatsoever about what

Dave Hunt has to say Let's let's go ahead and take the phone call and then we'll go back to Tim Staples.

Let's talk with Mike. Hi Mike How you doing? Hey, dr. White. How are you today? Doing good. Excellent.

Hey, I just want to thank you for a couple of things You're obviously the the most recent thing dealing with Steve Ray. Yeah.

Oh good old Steve Well, I'm not sure how much more time

I'm gonna have before the debate To do so and it's pretty obvious in light of the last response that he's not going to respond to anything

Anyway, and you know, there's an amazing parallel I just realized you know who

Steve Ray is just like Lee Carter They both they both responded in the exact same way though Interestingly enough

Lee Carter was not quite as mean and nasty as Steve Reyes But but both are just I want to be able to say whatever

I jolly well want to say and don't you dare challenge me And I will not back up what I have to say because I'm so special.

So anyway There there there you go so well we will continue with that because I think it is important to respond to some of the assertions that are made about the concept of queenship and and so on so forth, but We'll press on.

So anyway, yeah, secondly the did you happen to catch the Dirty home program last night.

I did not. Okay. Well, of course as you know, well, I'm not sure. No, I did not know I heard I did not know

I don't watch EWTN. So unless someone lets me know something's gonna be on I Don't know anything about it.

Well Francis Beck Francis Beth Beckwith was not was the guest last night Okay, and I only caught the last half an hour

So I have to follow through with the I think the encore program is aired I think come this Friday or Saturday.

Don't they don't isn't that something you can click on and watch online? You know, you're right. I think you're right.

Yeah Ability. Yeah, you're right about that. Yeah, I didn't think about that. But yeah, you might have a point

Well at any rate it was somewhat along the lines substance wise as to his dialogue with Gregory Kugel and I was kind of disappointing

He didn't really get into anything Real deep it was somewhat vague. I think it had many many points.

Well, did you hear him on Catholic answers? I did and it was there was nothing there. It was that's true.

It was Very very surface level Yeah, well, this is pretty much along the same lines and I think the thing that really

Blew me away with the just totally I don't know was when he matter of fact, he mentioned this

I think in the Not sure if it was on Catholic answers or in his

Discussion with Gregory Kugel, but he brought up the time that his his nephew is being confirmed

Right, and at that point he knew that he had to join the Catholic Church That was because he couldn't he couldn't wait.

He couldn't be a sponsor if he wasn't actually a Catholic himself So yeah, right. Uh -huh. And when when he just just to see him live and to see him express

Things the way he did I was just like man, what an absolute shame. Mm -hmm absolute shame I was just you know, and the thing that troubled me

I'm thinking, you know, here's the guy How long how long was he the the president of the VPS?

only a matter of months Not not a long period of time. I mean, he's I think he's been in other leadership positions

He's certainly been well known for a number of years But he was had only been the president of ETS for for I think

I think the meeting was in November So and this was in well, actually if his may is about half and half his term,

I guess I say You know the thing that really struck me was, you know during this time That he was president of ETS and you know

He was supposedly soul -searching with regard to looking at the issues that you know

Within Protestantism historic Protestantism, of course Roman Catholicism He never discussed anything or never brought anything up saying hey, you know

I consulted a couple of brothers at ETS on this there was no mention of that at all, right? I don't think that happened and and that is is not unusual in Conversion stories that the majority of the conversation that takes place is with people in the group to which you're moving not

Individuals that you know are going to give you a negative response. And so I have never heard him in his articles

I have never heard him with with Greg Koukl. In fact, this didn't come up But a question

I would ask is was there any communication? Between Beckwith and Koukl prior to his actual conversion or was

Greg Koukl just as blindsided By this as everybody else was and and and if if so, why

I mean if if if the position is so strong and so So strident and powerful.

Why why can't Why can't withstand that kind of dialogue and discussion?

I don't know right right in the meantime He didn't mention, you know, he didn't mention to Marcus as far as any

Books and materials that he had read outside of he had grabbed a copy of something He had available in the early

Church Fathers that he had purchased many many many moons ago right and decided and decided to reconsult that and basically, that was at least the way

I understood that was the the initial a Material that got him on track so to speak, you know delving through the issues and so forth, but he didn't mention anything

Of course any of your published works or any other, you know writer within historic

Protestantism that really is Who really knows the issues? No He gave lists of some of the resources that he looked at With with Greg Koukl and in one of the interviews and and it was all

Roman Catholic material This other convert and he were talking and he was directing him to materials and and that's why

I think he could make some of The amazing statements it did like saying that the Council of Nicaea in Canon 13

In essence was promoting an ancient belief in indulgences I mean that a meaningful

Roman Catholic apologist is not going to make that assertion because it just it just can't be backed up it's it's it's just too wide -eyed to to to accept and and so That given the time period involved and how busy he would have been during that time period

I'm sorry This is not the result of a an extensive Careful investigation he himself admits it took place over about 90 days, right?

That's not a long that's not long period of time. Sorry It just isn't yeah, and I think that thing was when

I had first happened across that I was just stunned I said gee 90 days, you know,

I remember studying the doctrines of grace and it probably took me a good You know three four years right, you know initially, you know as far as when

I started listening to you and some other guys And you know, it was a very slow process and you know Plus I was still on the Armenian camp and there's a lot of things going on Right, and you know, but when

I hate when this whole 90 -day, you know research Research period was conducted.

I thought man 90 days a guy has all the answers. That's amazing Well, and especially I think and I tried to emphasize this when

I played the the discussion between Greg Koukl and and Frank Beckwith that when

Koukl was was really pushing in the second hour at the beginning to say look

We're talking here about indulgences we're talking about the merit of Christ we're talking about justification and When when

Beckwith said hey, you know, I thought this was going to be a safe place for me to share my journey One of the things that he said,

I think a lot of people missed I think it's very very important He started off when he was getting angry. He started off by saying well, okay but none of that stuff had anything to do with why

I became a Catholic and That I think was one of the most Exposing Statements that could be made is that's exactly right.

That isn't why he became a Catholic There are all sorts of other issues, but it wasn't the gospel it wasn't those issues of the gospel and as I go back and and I would just challenge folks if you go back into his

Writings and look at what he wrote and and make sure that it's not a co -authored book But something he himself wrote you're not going to find any you know in his background any type of soul felt

Strong Affirmation of the key issues of the Reformation over against Rome He himself admits he he always had a view of grace and of man

That was consistent with Roman Catholicism because that's what he was raised with his PhD was from a Catholic a

Roman Catholic Institution and that's what he'd be getting there. His philosophy was still very much a natural law philosophy

So there's nothing shocking or surprising. I think for people here They need to recognize this is

This is not some huge conversion situation where you had somebody who who was was deeply committed to the doctrines of grace and the

Reformation and Knowledgeable and had studied the Council of Trent and really knew where it had gone wrong and all the rest that stuff

No, this was a philosopher who was an evangelical Former Roman Catholic, but there was no there was no soul shattering conversion

There was just well, you know, I like what these folks are doing better And hey, you know certainly Rome post -vatican too is a pretty boring place to be anyways

And so hey, you know and now I've got more friends going this direction so, you know, and I like what the

Pope had to say and so I'm going home, you know, it's it's Honestly, it's just no big deal

Along those lines and and I think I think the Roman Catholic apologetics community

Certainly especially the Catholic answers program when the lady says have you learned to love Mary yet? Yeah, and his response is um,

No Don't even pray the rosary, you know at that point. It's like oops We need to let this guy go write some scholarly papers someplace

But we are our audience is not going to be buying into this one. Well, you know the thing that was a little bit

Disturbing is when he talked about the fact that he's a philosopher. That's what his discipline is That's what he was trained in and so forth and how we even that one of the one of the aspects of being a philosophy major and or Teacher is you evaluate arguments?

Right. I thought BG. I thought to myself. How do you evade evaluate all the arguments historically in 90 days?

How do you do this? I don't know, you know, and you know, I have a couple of his books and one of them is dealing with I See the

God's fall I'm not sure if you have that book Hello, yeah, it's a four models to Christianity.

Okay, and what he does he critiques Mormonism Baha 'i

Secular humanism and the New Age movement And I thought the book was pretty good and I thought would you why didn't he approach this subject dealing with Catholicism?

The same way that he did when he put this work together, you know, and I that's one thing

I was trying to get through last night, but it didn't I couldn't get across. So my question just Yeah, well part of part of that honestly is that in the

Academy today? it is it is almost an unspoken rule that you in essence need to accept the validity of Of Roman Catholic profession as being as being

Christian you can disagree and and not be a part of that communion, but the the idea that that is actually in any way shape or form of The idea that the gospel is definitive of the faith has fallen on very hard times and there's only a small

Handful of people still active in in the external Academy who will actually live in light of that If you dare try to for example witness to a

Roman Catholic within the context of the Academy That's just considered a complete breach of all political correctness and and so on and so forth.

And so Yeah, yeah, of course, of course, yeah, it's very reflective of that.

Yeah, no two ways about it. So yeah well, I'll have to look and see if If you WTN has that as a viewable program online and and see if I can track that And I'll leave you

I won't let the cat out of the bag But one of the last questions that were asked was directly by Marcus on the issue of sola scriptura

But I'll you check that out and you evaluate, you know, you do what you got to do on that. Okay.

All right All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Take care. Thanks for calling. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye All right. Well, yeah, well,

I had no idea no one had reminded me of that I knew he was supposed to be on but I I've got way too much going on to keep track of stuff like that So I'll have to I'll have to look that up so anyway

I mentioned that we had a clip from from Tim Staples on the doctrine of salvation, which is interesting

So let's sneak that one in here before we wind things up. My question is

I would like to hear your version of What's your plan of salvation

Okay, well it's not mine But of course the plan of salvation from a

Catholic and a biblical biblical perspective Is that the second person the Blessed Trinity became incarnate 2 ,000 years ago?

Live died was resurrected from the dead in order to take away our sins

So he is as first John 2 2 says the propitiation for our sins and not only our sins

But the sins of the whole world so we see the plan of salvation That God the

Father sent the Son to save us from our sins as being for the entire world

Okay, so what do I need to be to do what do I need to do to be safe You have to believe in Jesus and obey his church

Catch that okay So the plan of salvation is believe that he was sent by God the

Father that he died for our sins that he rose again mm -hmm and Obey his commandment.

That's right He established a church and he said for example in Matthew chapter 18 verses 15 through 18

If your brother shall offend against the ego tell him his fault between you and him alone if he hears you You've gained your brother if he will not you take two or three with you that in the mouth of two or three

Witnesses every word may be established if he will not hear them Tell it to the church and the one who fails to hear the church is to be as a

Heathen and a publican for whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven's now.

I just stop right here I know you all are catching this but in case you started to doze off or something like that Here's somebody asking about the nature of the gospel and where is

Staples? He's on a discussion in Matthew 18 of how to handle interpersonal issues in regards to the church

And what is what is Jim Swan been saying a number of times in some of his blog articles recently is that Roman Catholics?

When they talk about conversion are primarily thinking about that in the context of conversion to the church conversion to Rome I mean with someone talks to me about the gospel.

I Haven't heard anything. I heard him say the second verse the Trinity became incarnate died upon the cross take away our sins great

There is so much that can be said about the person of Christ His high priesthood the nature of his sacrifice and of course on all these things

Rome's gonna be wrong Because Rome doesn't have a finished sacrifice because Rome has her own sacerdotal priests

Rome doesn't have a Savior who can actually save but there's all these things we could discuss in relationship to the union of the elect to Christ and His work as as as their representative and and Our his death being our death and his resurrection our resident all these things

But we're off in Matthew 18 a text about how to handle interpersonal problems in the church

And this is this is the first place you end up going why because That's Romanism.

That's how it is. So Jesus Who came lived died was resurrected for our sins

Established a church to continue his work of salvation so that to continue his work of salvation

How's that work through the sacramental justice when Jesus walked this earth and you and I would agree

Carlos People were not free to come up to Jesus and say Jesus, you know, I love you

But I'm gonna reject what you say. No if you love him, you must also obey what he says.

Well Jesus Says for example in Luke 10 16 concerning the church if they hear you they hear me if they reject you

They reject me and you see that again in Matthew 18 And so we as Catholics believe that that plan of salvation in Includes not only believing in Jesus, but also obeying what he teaches

Well, that's wonderful. But what you what you're hearing there because no one would question that you are to obey

What the Lord Jesus Christ says that is a given What you're hearing here is a substitution of that truth

With you are to obey what the Roman Catholic Church tells you to obey because we now become the voice of Christ and of course those of us outside of that communion say excuse me, but You say all sorts of things that Jesus never ever ever ever ever said and so why should

I believe that That Jesus is speaking when you're speaking. I never forget asking Mitch Pacwa and our debate on sola scriptura in San Diego in 1999

Do you know of a single word that Jesus or the Apostles? Ever said that has been dogmatically defined by the

Roman Catholic Church outside of Scripture Is there anything that you believe Jesus ever said any word from Jesus Jesus ever said that you do not know of from Scripture itself that Rome has defined for you from the basis of tradition

Whatever and of course man's a scholar. He knows no Rome has never defined a single word that Jesus or Paul or the

Apostles as a whole ever said that is not found in Scripture and So all this other stuff

Well, it's apostolic well, they taught somebody else, but we don't really know what words were used no and Yet you have to somehow believe that this is the words of Christ.

Okay, so and And I guess you have heard my version or or my interpretation.

I'm gonna say it's not my version but I guess what I understand is that once we're born again, we are made new creatures and The result of our transformation

It's willing to do good works. Mm -hmm And we agree and and we agree if any man be in Christ 2nd

Corinthians 5 17 says he is a new creation all things older passed away behold all things have become new we

Agree that when we enter into Christ, we are born again through baptism

No, no work that we can perform, but it's entirely the grace of God that transforms us

No work that we can perform it's entirely the grace of God that transforms us but but It might or might not work because though that grace transforms us and this gets us back to the old infused grace versus imputed righteousness and All the differences between Rome and quite simply

Paul's Gospel that we have discussed so many times before well, thanks for listening to the dividing line today

I don't know if I'll have any further updates for you come Thursday this program we'll find out after I get a chance to talk to my daughter a little bit more and And see if I'm just not to get even the the courtesy of a short email

Responding saying thank you for your notes your concerns have been noted. I'm not interested in debate.

Thank you very much Maybe I'm not even worthy of that. Who knows we'll find out. We'll let you know on Thursday. Talk to you then.

God bless Let this moment

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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

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