April 29, 2004

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 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

I love that song. It's so cool. I'm never going to tell the story that Steve told about on the air, though. I got to leave that to Steve. There's some things you just don't do, and that's one of the things you don't do.

Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. It is 4 p .m. in the only place where it matters what time it really is on a Thursday afternoon. And you are there, and I am here. And the phone lines are open, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

Tex Presby and Channel just went off to get a Dr. Pepper, which I just, I'm sorry. For those of you who love Dr. Pepper, I'm just like, why don't you just drink medicine or something? It's the same thing.

But then he comes back and says, saddle up your horses. And I thought for a second as I saw it scrolling by, he was talking about that country song where you get something for your men and beer for your horses or something.

I don't think that that would be a good thing to do, though. I don't think horses probably really handle that kind of thing too well. Yeah, we've got all the interesting folks in Channel, as normal, and a few others.

We have 48 in Channel at the moment, and sometimes that gets much bigger, especially if we announce we're going to do something really wild and crazy. Then we get lots of folks in Channel. But otherwise, it's just the normal list of suspects, and they are there.

Oh, there's an alert on Weather Bug. Let's see what it is. I bet you it's a, yes, it's a wind advisory. In effect, until 5 p .m. Mountain Standard Time this evening, only one more hour of wind, according to the National Weather Service, and it's going to be perfectly calm at that point.

It's one of those days where you can go outside.

And do you think it's a coincidence that that's right about the time the dividing line started? I think not.

Oh, wind. Oh, ha-ha, ha-ha. Rich, remember what Rush says. Leave the humor to the professionals, okay? It's really embarrassing when other people try to do those things. Please remember that the wind advisory has been up since last night, and they just keep sending it out.

So it has been wind. It's one of those kind of days you open your mouth outside and you get crunch, crunch, crunch afterwards. In Arizona, what happens in a valley like this is you just get all this dust in the air, and so the whole sky sort of like starts to glow.

And the light, instead of, you know, when the air is really clear, the light's very plainly coming from one particular direction. But now the light's coming from all over the sky because there's so much dust and stuff, you know, and it just makes things, it's a weird thing.

It's odd to see. Anyway, 877 -753 -3341. Looking at the blog, there's some interesting things on the front page at the moment. Just notice that, I don't know why it is, but Mozilla Firebird, Firefox, whatever they call this thing.

Firefox, there it is. We have to be very careful with the term Fox and channel because we have someone who's writing something and is very sensitive, in fact, overly sensitive to that particular term, and we have to be very, very careful about how we do things.

But anyway, Firefox messes up at the bottom of our page. It doesn't, you have to refresh it. When you refresh it, it does everything fine. It's just really odd. Anyway, there is an entry from the 25th, just a few days ago, on the new Vatican document that was released by the Vatican, of course.

And it really is focused upon the issue of the sacraments. Did I link? I didn't link to it. I should have linked to it. That's what's nice about Mozilla Firefox is I go to RCC links, and there is the link, and I click the button, and that knocks us right off the air.

Poof, it's gone. And, you know, this tan, blah background on the Vatican webpage has got to go. I mean, they've just got to start getting some good-looking stuff here because this is just bad. But anyway, if you scroll up to the top of this thing, you can find it on the Vatican webpage, which, for those of you who don't know, is www .vatican .va, and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

It is an instructional work broken into eight major sections with a conclusion, all sorts of interesting stuff in here. In the Most Holy Eucharist, Mother Church, with steadfast faith, acknowledges the sacrament of redemption, joyfully takes it to herself, celebrates it and reviews it in adoration, proclaiming the death of Jesus Christ, and confessing his resurrection until he comes in glory, to hand over as unconquered Lord and ruler, eternal priest and king of the universe, a kingdom of truth and life to the immense majesty of the Almighty Father is how it begins.

It's primarily focused upon the Eucharist, and that is the sacrifice of the Mass, if you're not familiar with Roman Catholic theology and teaching. The Church's doctrine regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, in which the whole spiritual wealth of the Church is contained, namely Christ, our Paschal Lamb, the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of the whole Christian life, and which lies as a causative force behind the very origins of the Church, has been expounded with thoughtful care and with great authority over the course of the centuries in the writings of the councils and the supreme pontiffs.

Most recently, in fact, the supreme pontiff John Paul II, in the encyclical letter Ecclesia Dei Eucharistia, set forth afresh certain elements of great importance on this subject in view of the ecclesial circumstances of our times.

And it basically goes through, and again, this is something I addressed a number of weeks ago, I fully support the right of Rome to define her own theology. And in fact, given that this is somewhat related to the fact that there are those in Rome saying, look, if a Roman Catholic constantly rejects, by their actions in their lives, the teachings of the Church, then it is the responsibility of the Church not to allow them to come to the sacraments.

And they have every right to do that. If you for a second say they don't have the right to do that, then in essence what you're saying is government or somebody else has the right to tell churches how they are to believe and how they are to practice, and you just don't do that.

And I wish that there were more people in the United States who would stand up and at least believe what they believe. You know, it's a lot easier, it is really a lot easier to talk to somebody who actually believes firmly than to someone who is so wrapped up in post-modernism that's, well, you know, you have your view, and I have my view, and you have your truth, and I have my truth.

Those folks are next to impossible to deal with, to talk to. It's extremely frustrating to try to deal with someone who has such a completely messed-up view of truth. So I wish there were more Roman Catholic bishops who would have the guts to stand up and say, you know what, this is what we believe, and this is why we believe it, and if you don't believe it, then we're not going to give you the sacraments, and you're not going to be called Roman Catholic, and we're going to send you your way.

At least I can be consistent there, because I can guarantee you, if there was someone in our church who came along and said, you know what, I like what the Roman Catholics are saying about the Mass, I think it's a good thing to believe that we can, you know, that this is an ongoing sacrifice, there's the one-time sacrifice, but then it's actually a re-presentation of that one sacrifice, and all the rest of this stuff, I can guarantee you the elders would attempt to deal with such a person, but then eventually such a person would be dismissed if they remained obstinate in their heresy, and they would no longer be a part of the fellowship of our church, I can guarantee you that.

So anyway, this contains instructions to local priests and so on and so forth, regarding not only the theology of the Mass, but also in regards to such things as who it's to be given to, and how, and so on and so forth.

I quoted two of the sections from this particular instruction on the website, and it really does, again, indicate to us the fact that Rome's doctrine on these issues has not changed, and that the issues have not gone away, and that the fact of the matter is, unfortunately, there are many who have, in essence, given up the battle just because they are so enamored with Rome's, the attraction of Rome's liturgy and all the rest of this stuff.

But I quoted sections 129 and 134, if you're looking at the document itself, you want to look at them, and it says, that the celebration of the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass is truly the origin and end of the worship given to the Eucharist outside the Mass.

Furthermore, the sacred species are reserved after Mass, principally so that the faithful, who cannot be present at Mass, above all the sick and those advanced in age, may be united by sacramental communion to Christ and His sacrifice, which is offered in the Mass.

In addition, this reservation also permits the practice of adoring this great sacrament and offering it, please notice that that's what it says, offering it, the worship due to God. Accordingly, forms of adoration that are not only private but also public and communitarian in nature, as established or approved by the Church herself, must be greatly promoted.

So, what we're talking about here, the reservation of consecrated hosts, in the monstrance, the pyx, the ciborium, the individuals who, I saw someone kicked out of the channel, I was like, hmm, what happened there?

The places where these consecrated hosts are kept for the purpose of worship. For the purpose of worship. And that's what it says. In addition, this reservation, this placing the consecrated hosts in a tabernacle, in a monstrance, and so on and so forth, this reservation also permits the practice of adoring this great sacrament and offering it, the worship due to God.

And so, I'll never forget years and years ago when I was studying to write my very first book, The Fatal Flaw, I don't know why, who was I waiting for? I was waiting for somebody, I remember I was sitting in the parking lot, I remember exactly which parking lot it was, and for some reason I was not going to, I wasn't going to leave there for a while, I was waiting for somebody to come out, I don't know why.

But anyway, I remember sitting there reading one of the first books I purchased from a Roman Catholic perspective, explaining Roman Catholic theology from a Catholic priest. And I remember reading the section all about how through the Eucharistic offering, through transubstantiation, the reservation of the consecrated hosts, that was the way in which we can visit with Jesus.

And that people should plan to visit with Jesus regularly. But this is how Jesus is with the church, is in the form of the consecrated host, and hence that's why there is to be the worship given to this consecrated host that is given to God.

Because of transubstantiation, this host has become the body, soul, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ. And so, I'll never forget, it's right toward the end of a chapter, many people like to go and visit with Jesus daily.

And I just remember sitting there, staring at the page, going, Visit with Jesus daily. Hmm, I thought that's what prayer and reading the Bible by the Holy Spirit was. I didn't know that I needed to get into a car and drive over to a church and find a monstrance tabernacle, a saboreum, that had consecrated hosts in it.

And I don't remember that in the New Testament either. In fact, that's so far removed from anything that's even relevant to the New Testament that it's amazing. In fact, at the time, I was unaware of the fact that historically, that is completely, for a thousand years, no one dreamed of this stuff.

I mean, you don't find the first tabernacles that are designed to allow this very thing, this kind of worship, until after the turn of the millennium. The millennium. So what were these people doing for all that time?

And I keep asking Roman Catholics about that. I cannot tell you how many times I've asked Roman Catholic apologists in debate. Why is it that your own materials admit that they didn't start building these tabernacles, these places for reserved hosts to be worshipped and carried about in procession and people bow down and worship as God goes by.

Why doesn't that happen in the first thousand years? Why does it just happen to actually coincide with the beginning of the use of the term transubstantiation in a physical sense? Maybe they go together, but don't you think if this was what the church had always believed, that they would have always worshipped the host?

That they would have always had a place to put it so they could come visit Jesus? And I don't get answers. I get all sorts of, well, certainly they did that. Well, where is the physical evidence of the construction of these things, the tabernacle?

Why don't we find these things? Well, we don't find these things, and so you eventually just go off and start talking about other things. But anyway, so there you have the offering it, the worship due to God.

That's section 129. In section 134, section 134 says,. The worship of the Eucharist outside the sacrifice of the Mass is a tribute of inestimable value in the life of the church. Such worship is closely linked to the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Therefore, both public and private devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist, even outside Mass, should be vigorously promoted. For by means of it, the faithful give adoration to Christ, truly and really present, the High Priest, the Good Things to Come, and Redeemer of the whole world.

It is the responsibility of sacred pastors, even by the witness of their life, to support the practice of Eucharistic worship, and especially exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, as well as prayer of adoration before Christ, present under the Eucharistic species.

Of course, one of the reasons I like to provide this kind of information, aside from the fact that most evangelicals never see it, is just by listening to the language and recognizing what it means, you can go, wow, that is really different.

There's a whole fundamental foundational difference in worldview and viewpoint here, huh? And the answer to that is yes, there most certainly is. And so I made some comments about that, and then that led to many other comments over on Jimmy Akin's weblog, and then I responded to that, and I really haven't seen if there's been any response to that.

That's what's on the web right now, and I guess that's what got some folks thinking, and hence some phone calls going. At 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. And so I actually need to scroll back here, because I hadn't opened my thing up.

And da-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee, and I ah, there, is that the first one? Which one's first? I can't find your nick in the channel any longer, and it was in the channel someplace, and there's too much discussion going on there, and I finally opened it.

Ah, there it is. Mark in Houston. Let's talk with Mark. Hi, Mark. Huh? Jeff in Seattle?

Okay, how about Jeff in Seattle? Hi, Dr. Weiss. Hi, how are you? Not too bad. I had a quick exegesis question for you, and then one that's more practical related to talking with Roman Catholics. All righty.

The first question is just on 1 John 5 -1, which in my mind seems to be such a strong passage supporting God's acting and dealing with people to bring about faith. In reading your book, the way that the Potter's Freedom and dealing with the exegesis of the Greek and how the being born of God is a completed action of the past prior to believing, when I see something like that and I see how it seems to be so clear, one of the first things that I guess pops into my head is, you know, how do people try to get around this then?

You know, something that appears that obvious, is there some trick in the Greek that you can use or something like that that people avoid that when it seems so clear, and if the grammar is that explicit then?

Well, two things. The reason that most people never even address it is because most people have never heard it explained that way, and hence they read it, and it is like Dave Hunt in his book What Love Is This?

He just simply looked at it. He interprets it within the context in which he is operating, and as a result he just goes, Oh, well, you know, this is very clear. Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ, as a result of believing, has been born of God.

And most people are looking at those particular passages from within their traditional mindset, and since the thinking in most evangelical churches is, let's not rock the boat, let's just focus on what we all can agree on, da-da-da-da-da-da-da, then it hardly ever gets addressed.

As far as from the Greek perspective, about the only thing that you could try to pull on 1 John 5 -1 would be to say, well, it is syntactically possible for the action of Pestuo and the action of Gegeneitai to be concurrent, to be coincidental, to take place at the same time.

That is an allowable syntactical understanding of the relationship between the two. The problem is, A, it makes no sense in 1 John 5 -1, and secondly, you then would have to apply that to all the other passages, like 1 John 2 -29, 1 John 4 -7, and it wouldn't make any sense there either.

But it's at least a syntactical possibility, and I've actually had folks get down to the point where that's all they were throwing out was, well, it could be this, maybe. But I just, to be honest with you, I've never had...

And that's why, a couple weeks ago, I pulled out, ordered... Let's see what I did. There it is. I grabbed the Why I'm Not a Calvinist book. In fact, let me roll back here with the... I'm sure you can see me doing this.

There it is. It was under a towel back there for some reason. Let me see. 1 John 5 -1, let's see if... Oh, drat. No reference to 1 John 5 -1 in the entirety of Why I'm Not a Calvinist. That's why I buy these books, is I...

Well, I have to, because everybody's going to call up and say, hey, why haven't you reviewed such and such book yet? But the other reason is, I want to see what they say about John 6, I want to see what they say about Romans 9, I want to see what they say about Ephesians 1, and basically what I'm discovering after a number of years is they pretty much just retread the same old arguments without any meaningful interaction with what has been... with the holes that have been blown through it.

It's sort of like when I go shooting. I'll take these targets, and they've got really neat targets these days. You shoot them, and the hole turns bright yellow where the bullet goes through. So from a long ways off, you can see exactly where you hit.

And so when you go out to the target, you just take these little patches, these little round sticky things, and you just stick them on top of the holes, and you don't have to replace your target. That's sort of what they do with their arguments.

It's just, we blow holes through them, and they just put the little sticky things on them and put another book out. And so I don't find exegetical... I've never honestly had a meaningful, fair dialogue on that verse in Arminian.

I just haven't. As soon as you throw it out there, the 99 of the time which goes, oh, you elitist, do you think that people have to be able to read the Greek to understand the Gospel? And you're off on all sorts of emotional tangents, and you never actually settle anything.

And so I can't... That's the best I can give you. I wish I could tell you, oh, they've got this really good argument, you do this. But that's not what I experience. Thank you.

With regarding with... When you're speaking with Roman Catholics, and not necessarily the kind that are particularly wrapped up in their theology. In other words, they're like a lot of evangelicals. They're very ecumenical.

They're not necessarily very particularly attached to anything in the Roman Catholic Church. It might just be that that's where they feel comfortable or... Right. It's nothing in particular. So they're not militant about any particular dogma or anything like that.

But at the same time, they feel no need to move, obviously. Right. Or anything along those lines. So there's nothing really you can pick or discuss because it's hardly of importance.

All right. Now, you're talking about a nominal Catholic who only goes twice a year, or are you talking about a Catholic who may be a little bit more involved but really isn't... but is more influenced by post-modernism than they are by the Vatican?

Probably more of the latter. Somebody who is a consistent church-goer, expresses their faith, but at the same time does not deal with particular issues or doesn't feel a need to get into that kind of depth of theology like you run into with a lot of evangelicals if you start talking too much in particular.

So not a nominal Catholic, but definitely somebody who is consistent and going but just doesn't really care about those particular issues but doesn't feel a need to go anywhere. Okay.

So you're asking, where do you start? Yeah, kind of. Well, you know, in a situation like that, you start with the gospel in the sense that the only real difference that I think you would see in your presentation is this individual... you've got to keep in mind the fact that they may be very deeply influenced by the concepts of merit that are part and parcel of the Roman Catholic teaching.

So depending on how conservative the church is, depending on how well they listen, depending on whether their priest is more of a universalist than he is consistent with Roman Catholic teaching, they're going to be more or less impacted by that kind of a teaching.

And hence, when you start talking about grace and things like that, you need to be ever more clear than maybe somebody else exactly what you mean by that, that it's not just simply a force that helps you to do something, that we're talking about something here that is quite different than that.

But in essence, you present the gospel and you do so like you do with any other postmodern, and you're going to expect to hear all the standard, hey, we have our beliefs, you have your beliefs, we don't pick on you, you don't pick on us type of stuff.

And there's really no difference there. I mean, you could sit there and prove to them that they're being inconsistent with their own church. That's probably not really going to accomplish a whole lot.

You're going to be dealing with them the way you do with almost any postmodern, and that is dealing with their own inconsistency in their own life between saying that there's multiple truths in every other area and the fact they don't live their lives in light of that.

They don't just decide that their truth is they're going to drive down the left side of the road. Their truth is going to run into reality very, very quickly. So they don't live consistently with the worldview that they're operating on, and you have to deal with them pretty much like any other postmodern person that you're dealing with, just with the possibility that given their exposure to the teachings of the church, that those meritorious teachings have indeed impacted their particular perspective.

All right, well, I appreciate the suggestion. Thank you very much. Most welcome. Thanks a lot. God bless.

877 -753 -3341. I should have mentioned this right at the top of the hour. Let me mention it before we go into our break. I haven't absolutely nailed this down yet, but I think, and I need to make a phone call and double-check on this stuff.

I think that we are going to be able to have a special guest on Tuesday on the program. I need to call him to double-check on this, but I remember, I'm not sure if it was just last summer. Maybe it was the year before.

I think it was just last summer. Nope, actually it was the year before right now. Anyway, Scott Klusendorf is with Stand to Reason in California. He travels about giving talks on how to deal with the abortion issue from a Christian perspective.

I heard him on the Bible Answer Man broadcast, and I was just so impressed with the presentation and had never had any contact, at least directly, to my recollection anyway, with Scott until just a few weeks ago when I got an email from him and I responded and he was there.

So we went back and forth. I don't know how many times. Late, late, late one night as well after midnight my time. And so I just sort of floated the idea if he would be willing to join us just for a program.

In essence to help us to know how to effectively address the issue of abortion given that it's that time of the year, the election cycle, when we as Christians have an opportunity to address that topic.

It's a hot topic. I mean, just last weekend you had over half a million people gathered in Washington. And it's funny. They say it's not a religious issue. And yet as I was listening to and reading about, listening to the clips and reading about the gathering, I heard people talking, just ripping on Christianity and fundamentalism and all the rest of this stuff.

I guess it's okay for them to do that. But if anybody responds, it's a separation of church and state. You can't talk about that. So anyway, I asked Scott if he would be with us possibly a Tuesday morning.

And possibly he and I talk for about half an hour and then open up the phone lines and just in essence encouraging our audience to be quick to give an answer for the hope that's within us in regards to that issue because I believe it is a theological issue.

It's a moral issue. It's an ethical issue. And anybody who thinks that the founding fathers of this nation intended that we not be able to speak concerning such issues is obviously a revolutionary, an individual who is rewriting history on the level of Stalin, rewriting the history of Russia.

And therefore we need to be prepared to give an answer on those issues and to do so effectively. And Scott Klusendorf does a great job in helping folks to do that. He had an article in the most recent CRI Journal, as I did, on the same subjects of abortion and the pro-life movement.

So Tuesday, I can't say there's going to be an absolute commitment there. But hopefully next Tuesday we'll be joined by Scott Klusendorf. So that's what we'll try to do. All right, 877 -753 -3341. We're going to take our break and be back with Mark and also I see a Catholic channel trying to play around First John 5 -1.

We will correct his errors when we return as well.

Many stars, strong and true, quickly fall away.

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same-Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same-Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co-redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic. He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived, bodily assumed Queen of Heaven, viewed as co-mediator with Christ, and now recognized as co-redeemer by many in the Roman Catholic Church.

Mary, Another Redeemer, is fresh insight into the woman the Bible calls blessed among women, and an invitation to single-minded devotion to God's truth. You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at aomin .org.

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

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Now the pilgrim's progress is not an easy way. It's a journey to the same. It's a walk of grace.

It's a pilgrim's... What are you trying to do? Catch me singing or something? I know what you're doing. That wasn't supposed to happen. That wasn't supposed to happen, was it? I could sort of tell because I heard you go whoop!

I think some of my bailing wire might have slipped off there.

Yeah, okay, alrighty. You were just trying to catch me singing. That's what you were trying to do. I know that's what you were doing. There is a Roman Catholic channel and as a result of the discussion of 1 John 5 -1 has skipped down to verses 16 -17 and has done the standard.

Oh, 1 John 5 -16 -17 thing is about venial and mortal sins and I would like to direct this fellow who was only confirmed just recently in the Catholic faith to the commentary the Gospel and Epistles of John a concise commentary by Raymond E. Brown and Raymond Brown is he is the first person to have been president of all three major biblical societies the Catholic Biblical Association the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Society of New Testament Studies.

From 1972 -1978. He was the only American on the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission an appointment Pope Paul VI stated according to 20 scholars outstanding for their learning, prudence and Catholic regard for the magisterium of the Church and granted to Father Brown after consultation with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

And in his commentary on 1 John chapter 5 he specifically says the early church soon discovered that private requests were not always granted. One praiseworthy object of this Christian power of prayer is for brethren who have fallen into sin.

Here however, 1 John is cautious for most sins. The prayer will be heard. But there is a sin so serious that John does not encourage prayer for it. Evidently the readers of the letter knew all about this sin.

We are not well informed except that we should avoid identifying sin unto death with mortal sin and a sin not unto death with venial sin. Probably the sin for 1 John was joining the secession which was a form of apostasy a sin elsewhere judged harshly.

So here you have Raymond Brown one of the leading Roman Catholic exegetes saying that the very interpretation offered in Channel by Mr. Osho is his name or however he wants to pronounce it is the one that we should avoid and do not utilize.

Let's go back to our phone calls and talk with Jeff in Seattle. Or did we already get Jeff? No, Mark in Houston and all messed up.

Hi Mark. Hey Dr. White How are you doing? I'm just thrilled to find out that there's only one mortal sin that leads unto death that's good to know. What's up? Well I just wanted to start out. I had a comment I wanted to make about transubstantiation but I wanted to give you kudos too for taking on the subject of the Eucharist.

When I was a Catholic that was my biggest problem with the Catholic Church and coming out of it there wasn't a whole lot of contemporary writing on the issue so it's good to see that you're dealing with that subject.

There's not a whole lot of contemporary evangelical writing on the ordinances of the Church at all. Unfortunately let's face it so it's not surprising then that there's not a whole lot.

Written in response that's really meaningful and strong to the Roman Catholic position and unfortunately that seems to be one of the drawing points of the people that convert over there. I've had an experience with the Eucharist and it's not being addressed while meditating on the Eucharist.

A few weeks back I was thinking about the fact that in some of your writings you pointed out that the Catholic Church says that that's the body, blood, and divinity of Jesus after the host is consecrated and that that is the same body and blood and divinity of Jesus that was crucified.

Is that accurate? Yes. So in the same mass they're also saying in the Apostles' Creed that Jesus was buried he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Obviously there's an intervening fact there being the resurrection.

Now the body of Christ is an eternal body. The same kind of body that Adam had that was going to go to the grave. You've got an eternal resurrection body so just looking at that there seems to be a major problem in that they're claiming that during the mass they're going back to the pre-resurrection body of Jesus there and somehow or another they're going from a Jesus who's in a resurrected body sitting at the right hand of the Father back to a pre-resurrected body that was crucified.

Well, the argumentation I've heard especially Scott Hahn in a series that he did on EWTN actually it's Catholic Answers Live was to in essence say that the body of Christ as it is found in the Eucharist because he is a divine person and is timeless is therefore not bound in the same way as a fallen body.

And of course when you start dealing with this issue what I find to be most useful and again not a lot of folks make reference to this Bill Webster has pointed out that it is very very clear that the single most influential early church writer of the first well I'd say 1500 years of church history was a man by the name of Augustine and Augustine's doctrine on this very issue is easily discernible.