Catholic Answers Clips

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

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

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

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

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

Thursday afternoon edition Won't be another dividing line for another week and the reason for that to be found on the main page at Aomin .org

Which I really don't generally have to tell you a whole lot about because if you're listening live You already know about am in dot org.

In fact, if you're not listening live, you already know about am in dot org, too. So That's pretty much showing a way really to to be listening at all

But anyways on the main page you have the banner ad the very very pretty banner ad Except for the few of you who haven't figured out there's not supposed to be a black box

Between the navigation thing and everything else. I wrote so awesome a channel go. Yeah, I like the new website but what's with the big black box and that's actually a banner ad section and Very pretty banner ads there.

You need to turn ad blocker off to be able to see it But some people are just I never figured out why that's there.

Well Generally that might indicate that you're you're not seeing something you need to be saying but anyway

Have a debate in I guess it's Hayward, California once I get up there,

I'll have to get directions as to where in the world I'm going but Hayward, California next Tuesday and If anyone is in the area who is a believer and Who is especially over six feet tall about 250?

I And you can get the day off or lunchtime or something and would like to come by and Say hello

Sit in the front row Have a nice chat with me on the way out of the car, whatever it might be, you know

Something along those lines that would be good Because I other than other than syzygous

I don't know of anyone who's gonna be there and the last time I saw syzygous if you blew at him

He would he would break He ain't give you a whole lot of unless there's a kung -fu guy in there someplace that I've never really seen

He wouldn't be a whole lot of help. So The subject of course is going to be gay marriage, which is why it would be nice to have a few

Oh, yeah Bart Bartimaeus is saying he'll come out to be my body From bad to worse.

Yeah As I recall it you might recall the last time we ran into a group called act up Oh, yes was up in Salt Lake City, and they were very

Colorful colorful colorful. Yes. Yes something tells me you're gonna see a lot of Possible people

I hope I hope it's nice and calm and Respectful, but I am going to San Francisco.

What in the world can I say? So who knows who knows I make sure Golden Gate has a lot of people there to represent.

Yeah, I hope I Just don't know. I just I just don't know

I did write and started jokingly today and asked if there any former NFL linebackers in the student body

That said might have the day to Drive across the bay and be with me. But anyways, that's why we won't be doing the dividing line next

Next Tuesday morning, but Lord willing. We'll be back again on Thursday Afternoon, the number here is eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Yet, you know, I just don't know that I have it in me to discuss the blog article I posted earlier today is undoubtedly one of the most troubling in the sense of absolutely

Disgusting demonstrations of the depravity of man or in this case female That I've I've ever ever seen and I do warn folks before reading it

And if you're listening to this on archive, this would be the blog for April 17th 2008

I Just talk about a demonstration of of the depth of the depravity of man

III Just don't know where to go with that. But if you haven't seen that then

I Honestly would not suggest If you are weak of stomach or Constitution reading it to be perfectly honest with you but if you are and you need to keep up on the

Developments in our society Demonstrating that God's wrath is most definitely coming upon this society and coming upon the society with clarity and force

Then you might want to might want to take a look at that a couple things

I have a couple of Catholic answers clips that we can play and Some folks are just now in channel reading what

I was talking about they hadn't seen it yet And then I've also got some interesting commentary posted yesterday

By Steve Gregg in regards to our debate last week. I haven't had a lot to say really about that I think it sort of speaks for itself, but it is always interesting to note that a similar theme is developing

Amongst those on Steve's Greg's board that I heard enunciated by Jalal Abu Alrub in regards to our debate in both debates

I Mentioned and made reference to the Greek language now I did so for different reasons in the debate with Steve Gregg.

Obviously the reason I raised the issue was because Steve Gregg has raised the issue.

I'm not sure why he gets to mention Greek and I don't but that does seem to be the standard The difference being that I can evaluate

Greek arguments and mr. Gregg cannot evaluate Greek arguments, but Despite his inability to evaluate

Greek arguments. He presents them anyways from Robert Schenk and people like that and So to respond to the

Errors that he had made in the mp3s. I had listened to a year ago and that he says he posts

I believe in 1999. So they've been floating around for almost a decade now I Had to point out and I have yet to see a meaningful response.

I actually did see someone Trying to play with X 1348 on his forums earlier today

But all they did was demonstrate that they still just do not understand what the issues are there's been no meaningful response to the fact that we have a

Paraphrastic instruction there or anything else. It's just it's unfair of you to use

Greek, etc. Etc. And That's very different than the situation with Jalal Abu al -rub because obviously

He too, I guess it isn't totally different now. I think about he too is presenting false

Translations on a much deeper level and a much more obvious Level on of something very very important in the sense of the deity of Christ though I would argue that the nature of the gospel is important as well, obviously

But anyway, both have you know, there is this odd statement on Jalal's Blog, I guess or website wherever I call it

About the Greek geek or the Greek Greek or something. I have I couldn't even begin to follow it. It was it was very odd But obviously, you know when he puts into his books

That John one one is the word was a God and this is a different God than the other God and blah blah blah

You've got to address these things and demonstrate where the errors are and and so on and so forth

And so I I did so well anyway Yesterday mr.

Gregg posted some materials on his Board that I thought would be since most of the folks listening now listens to the debate would be

Worthwhile looking at he said there was a fellow named Paul T.

I don't know who Paul T is. It's interesting There's somebody Turretin fan informed me this morning.

There was someone who was accusing me of accusing me saying that I was posting on the

Puritan board using somebody else's name and I responded and said that's that's false

You need to withdraw this and I either suggest an apology at least to the person Who you said is making a fool of himself who you thought was me, which it isn't me

You need to apologize them too. And then later looking at the the blog I start I noticed a small

CT and I started thinking back about two and a half years ago

To someone who was on the Puritan board who was King James only Another one of the King James only wackos.

I mean just totally imbalanced and if I recall correctly that person ended up being a woman Not even a man remember that just I and And my initial response was

I don't even know who who in the world you are Then as I've been looking at the website I saw that CT and it started ringing a real faint bell because I honestly folks

I do not Generally invest a whole lot of energy in remembering weird people like that that just are just completely off the beam so You know if it's same person then okay that that explains that there there's you know

No interest in truth there whatsoever. And so but it was interesting to be accused of to be accused of that but Here someone named

Paul T Has been on Steve Gregg's board and asking some questions and Steve Gregg responds to him and says what you are doing is the same thing that Dwight did which led to the

Controversial interruption the debate on Tuesday's broadcast. I asked a simple question. It could be answered honestly and simply but dr

White apparently was concerned about what I might Do with his answer and where I might be going with line of questioning because these concerns dominated his mind

He was not able or willing question mark to even to give the obvious correct answer to the question

With which any person reading the passage would have had no difficulty Doing and that of course is again just not true

My objection was to both being interrupted being spoken over Given the nature of the encounter that would mean that half the audience would be hearing him and half the odds would be hearing me

Which is not a good thing in the context of the debate We needed to have rules for interaction, which is what we did the next day.

I'm the one who suggested that even at the end of the program I suggested that and so it was it was the kind of questioning and the lack of integrity in the kinds of questions that was the concern for me and So then he goes on in talking with this

Paul T to say similarly if dr. White had said okay, perhaps Romans 118 does not state that Paul has all men in view

But I think there are other verses that teach my position that would have been the honest and direct answer

Well, what was my answer? my answer was that Romans 1 is part of Romans 1 2 & 3 and it has to be interpreted that way and Therefore.

Yes, I do believe that Romans 1 is in reference to all of mankind and it's it's interesting

We didn't get again because of the nature of that kind of exchange. We didn't actually get into it

But I I haven't seen any discussion About something really obvious, you know,

I made my case that this Romans 3 10 through 18 is a summary statement

Gathering up both Jews and Greeks together and I based that primarily from the conclusion

He draws by when he says that all the world May become accountable before God, but I haven't heard much discussion about the fact that it's stated directly in verse 9 when when

Paul introduces Verses 10 through 18. What does he say? Let me read it for you

What then are we better than they not at all for we have already charged that both?

Jews and Greeks are all under sin That's the introduction to the long list of passages and so How can you?

Come up with the idea that what Paul is saying here is no what I'm really saying is there are certain groups that these descriptive of but there are other people this isn't descriptive of Because this says we have already charged that means before you get the verses 10 through 18

Paul's own interpretation of his own words is that he has already made the charge that all

Both Jews and Greeks are under sin Now the it's interesting there's a difference here between the

ESV and the NASB Because the NASB has we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin

ESV has we have already charged that all both Jews and Greeks are under sin I don't think there's any difference in the meaning but the point is

Jews and Greeks exhausts the categories that are available to Paul to begin with and They're all

Under sin, so that's how he introduces it and then he concludes it by saying the whole world's responsible for God What part of that is unclear?

now having listened to that I Got the impression that Greg was trying to make a delineation.

I didn't get the impression He was denying that everybody was under sin I thought he was he was making a separation of those who suppress the truth and unrighteousness

Yeah, I know that that totally threw me. Well see I don't I've not found anyone who really has a

An ability to say no he specifically means this because he keeps it's a moving target and moving targets are very difficult

To nail down well that day Part of the argument and and this came up when when he took calls the next day, you know

He points to Job Job's a righteous man. And so Somewhere in there. There is this idea

That that there are people who are not included in this universal condemnation of sin And I say

I don't believe so because for the obvious reason not only is the direct statement of the text but then this becomes after you've proclaimed the bad news and you've made all the world accountable before God then and only then does the

Apostle Paul raise the issue of justification by grace through faith and Everybody Jew or Greek having been put in the same position of condemnation

Now has to have the exact same way of salvation and that is being justified freely as a gift through His grace in Christ Jesus, so that just struck me as a

As an odd thing then he goes on to say and this is this is what really what I wanted to look at exegesis of a

Greek document requires adequate consideration of the Greek vocabulary and grammar of Course though in a large majority of cases such considerations require a little or nothing beyond the reading of a competent translation

The translators of say the NASB or the NKJV I do not include the NIV which you thought

I quoted from but which I do not respect enough to cite This is again referring to a guy named

Paul T Have done a competent job of translating the Greek and well over 90 % of the verses of the

New Testament my estimate But I would be surprised to see it challenged. I think it's far more than 90 %

That's not the question The reason you refer to Greek is because sometimes in English Phrases can have certain meanings that are not found in the original language

For example in the book of Hebrews, it says Christ died once for all now in English There's two ways to take that You could say he died once for all people extensively

Or you could take it merely temporarily temporarily. He died one time never to die again

Now in Greek there is no confusion between the two in Greek it is a temporal passage.

It is speaking about one time. It is not speaking about extent but in English if you don't have

Recourse to the original language you could interpret it either way and believe me. I have heard entire sermons that were based upon someone who didn't know that and They misunderstood an

English phrase and built their entire case Upon a misunderstanding the English phrase that mere reference to the original language would have demonstrated was not a possibility so That is why you need to be able to do that.

And what's more than that? It's not just Greek vocabulary and grammar It's also something called syntax.

That's where the argument that Steve Gregg is presented in Acts 13 48 collapses

Because you you can sit there and you can go in your computer program and you can run your cursor down a line of words

And that program can tell you that particular word, but it's not going to tell you about Phrases and that's what syntax is about and that's what a paraphrased a construction is about and that's where Steve Gregg is wrong and Robert Chang is wrong and when you present wrong

Ideas you might expect to get refuted once again exercising my prerogative to step in front of the collars

Now something that I Wasn't real clear on where he was coming from when he's criticizing your

Greek abilities Does he see this like Dave Hunt does that you're an elitist that those who?

Who have the level of education in Greek that you have that you can you know? you're doing the as he's

He made a reference to his interlinear That about made me fall out of my chair when he made the reference

I don't know if you picked up on it that I think he had to he couldn't find his inner linear He was it was it was out of his reach or something at the moment

And I heard you in the past talk about inner linears actually I think this I think it comes up in this next paragraph the second paragraph

I was gonna. I was gonna read. I think this answers the question because here's what he says only Occasionally is it necessary to discuss the niceties of syntax in order to learn more about the meaning than can be seen in a good

Translation for example dr. White's emphasis in the fact that the verbs in acts 1348 are active verbs

Well at the word us if he's the one for is used as a direct object not an indirect object

We're not only irrelevant to his point But also quite discernible from the

English translations no special considerations the Greek tenses etc was called for Since such did not bring any more light than the

English versions provide however Reference to the Greek or the relevant or not will always impress a certain element in the audience

That some kind of valid valid argument has just been made if they don't understand what it is I'm sorry what it was it's an effective debate tactic for those wishing to sound like they have an argument where they have none

But not a very honest one I'll let you read into that what you want to read into that but I've often wondered does he even understand what the point of my argument is because Evidently from that still doesn't still doesn't get it

I mean if you can just easily flip flop back and forth between Christ as the chosen one and us as the chosen one without recognizing

The weight of the argument that I've made then you haven't understood the argument, and I can't force you to understand it

I think most of the folks listening at least from quote -unquote our side understood it

But to to basically say that well, yes, you know so they're they're active verbs so what?

You know or it's that's that's direct object. So what well, maybe it's because Mr.. Greg's interpretation

Doesn't fit that and the difference between us I really honestly believe is that one side is deriving its theology from the text and the other side isn't now

He that's what he says about us He says we have our traditions if you just read the Bible you'd buy be by default be an

Arminian blah blah blah which of course from my perspective The only reason anyone by default

Arminian is because the unregenerate man puts man in the center instead of God in the center so But We obviously disagree with one another and I leave it to others to determine

Who actually was deriving their theology from the text and and who was not I I don't think that we ever got a meaningful answer

To Romans 8. I think that was just you know blown right past And and saying well,

I just feel this or I just feel that really isn't I think adequate Responses to those those particular things, but it was interesting that Jalal abu al -rub likewise

Made the argument well who cares about all this Greek and blah blah blah even though His argument was extremely not convincing because in the previous debate he had spent

Some time or at least rather forcefully Asserting that unless you can translate

Arabic you have no right to criticize the Quran You really don't have any right to engage in in in Islamic studies at all if you cannot translate

Arabic And there is a certain point at which he is. He's right I mean To to do any kind of serious work

In that field you do need to learn Arabic eventually I mean if you're gonna You know study the

Quran or the manuscripts of the Quran or whatever else it might be you better do your homework There's no two ways about that I ain't arguing about that because let's see we get out of here five o 'clock an hour and a half after this program ends my

Arabic tutor shows up and I spend a few hours beating my brains against Arabic, so I accept that but then to turn around and to criticize the

New Testament while abysmally ignorant of its original languages and Claim that this is the best translation of this and that's the best translation of that while abysmally ignorant of the languages and completely

Incapable of even beginning to offer a defense of your assertions. That's where the wheels fell off of Jalal Abu Alrub's argument at that particular point in time eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number and That's the number that Pierre called.

Hi, let's talk with Pierre. Hi Pierre. Hey, dr. White. What's wrong? Listen nine in view of your upcoming debate with About gay marriage just be thankful that you're not debating here and in Canada.

Oh, no kidding No kidding bad, well, it's and and San Francisco is awful close.

So yeah, I you know, who knows maybe this will be one of the last Debates can be held there by law.

But yeah, it's I'm well aware of that. It's it is amazing the the totalitarian

Perspective of secularists when it comes to a controlling free speech Yeah, I wanted to just discuss briefly a situation that I encountered years ago when

I was doing pro -life minute law engaging in some pro -life work and that is

We were allowed to defend pro -life at upon at university campuses and But we couldn't use the

Bible we couldn't bring in the Word of God or the gospel At all in in the discussion or the defense of pro -life and What I found about that was it was a little distant ingenuous as a

Christian for me to Take the discussion on purely Neutral terms.

Yeah, there are no neutral terms And I just found that if I couldn't

Use scripture that I was being inconsistent as a Christian and later on And this by the way was yeah, this was an event organized by Scott Klusendorf and when

I talked to him later on about Where in the gospel in the gospel mandate?

Talking about pro -life and other social issues comes in he told me that it's inherently part of the gospel call but that therein

I think lies the contradiction because If it's inherently part of the gospel call well the name of Jesus and the truth

Becomes the basis for discussing these things. I just want to get your opinion on that Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by when when you when you

Had the discussion. What do you mean inherently a part of what what is inherently a part of the gospel?

Well the the The gospel call and Preaching the gospel to people goes right along with Preaching or teaching and defending issues like pro -life

Pro marriage these these sorts of issues. It's just part of it Not that when you're talking about Jesus that you have to mention those things, but if you're going to talk about if you as a

Christian Yeah, I think he was saying that when you're preaching the as a

Christian, it's just part of the mandate that goes along with Preaching the name of Jesus Well, I Guess if what if what's being said is that a

Christian really Is there a danger of Compromise if one does not bring the

Word of God to bear against That which is a violation of God's law that which is sinful.

Yes And so the minor prophets for example raise that very issue and and talk about that very thing and and the need for Justice to be done within society and things like that Does that mean that a a person living under a totalitarian regime must of necessity

Forfeit his or her freedom By going out and speaking about the very things that the government says they can go out

They cannot go out and speak against in regards to social issues Or is the only thing that really is central to the gospel proclamation the proclamation of the gospel

Well, I don't see any evidence that the Apostles got themselves

Arrested in in the Roman Empire for protesting the abandonment of babies

I'm sure they and the history tells us that they did something about they'd go out and get them.

They'd go out and rescue them But as far as actually ending up You know making the decision as to as to fulfilling that Acts 5 passage whether is more important to obey

God or man you decide as for us. We're gonna obey God It's obeying God about the proclamation of the gospel.

I would have a hard time Extending that beyond that by saying there is a mandate that a person has to you know

Stay outside the the abortion clinic. I've done that. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that but but you know

I think there is a consistency between the two But I also think there's a recognition that when living under a totalitarian regime

And I would certainly say that in some aspects of things The Roman Empire was quite totalitarian in the way it dealt with things for example in Palestine or something like that or there are

Places today where Christians have to have to make a choice as to where they are going to you know what they're going to suffer for and I would say the the thing that we are called to suffer for is is the gospel obviously within the teaching of the church and things like that you have to apply the the whole realm of the law of God and I think if if the government were to come into a a church

And given my upcoming debate subject here if the government would come into the church and say you have to do you you must recognize gay marriage

You have to you have to say this is a valid marriage. That's a place. We say can't do it

It's your authority versus Jesus Christ. You are forcing me to Reject the authority of Jesus Christ not a possibility so, you know, what does that lead to well good question, but Those are some of the things

I think that we're that we're facing I think when when I mentioned About not mentioning the

Bible in this endeavor I think the reasoning behind it was to appear in to appear objective and and defensible intellectually defensible that we weren't just religious people that were coming from a

Religious perspective and imposing our morality, but rather we had objective truth to present, right?

And I think that that's what I got from it why we couldn't Use scripture and speak from a

Christian platform well, rather just from a moral and a scientific platform and and I would say that That there is no moral or scientific platform that exists separately from the revelation of God in Scripture There is there is no meaningful

Christian worldview that you can build Outside of that scriptural foundation that is a point that I'm gonna have to make even though I only have a 15 -minute opening statement

That there is no neutrality when it comes these things this is a clash of worldviews one is a worldview of life and one is a worldview of death and That's the same an abortion or gay marriage there.

It's the exact same issue. That's there. Hey Pierre got a run for the break Thank you very much your call. God bless Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

We're gonna take our break and be right back right after this It's not an easy way, it's a journey to the

Sun Following Jesus More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together

They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many

Evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing

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

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

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

James White points out the crucial differences that remain in regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored

Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us

James White's book the Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters

It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike highly recommend it

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org 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 a omen org

And we'll go back to the dividing line, let's go ahead and go back to our phones here and talk with Mike Hey, dr.

White, how are you today? Oh, all right. All right Well as many things I'd like to bring up but I'm gonna zero in on one thing in particular here

Obviously keeping with X 1340 and by the way, I'd appreciated your dialogues there with Steve on that All right, and I think it was patently obvious who really did their homework

But I think you've done enough elaborating on that Anywho, what I wanted to do is put forward to you a perspective

From chapter 10 entitled the saving work of Christ and this is the systematic theology systematic theology textbook from the assemblies of God a

Pentecostal perspective a Pentecostal perspective well You know, there's always an advantage

You know, I've just learned I had to study Greek if you just get it from the Holy Spirit Then it doesn't take nearly as much time

Well, okay, we'll see where this goes down on that note anyway, what I'll do is I'll shorten this thing down a bit But I'll do it.

I'll just read the sentence which precedes the footnote to kind of set the set the basis a little bit

Anyway, it goes like this. They have to your predestination The bottom side of the coin looks toward human beings and shows the sovereign working out of God's will

Then at least the footnote that says this Acts 13 and 48 says quote when the

Gentiles heard this they were glad and honored the word of the Lord and all who were appointed for eternal life believed

This verse makes a strong statement about some being appointed to eternal life.

Although it does not state it God did the appointing those of us who are not of a strong Calvinistic I'm sorry a strong Calvinist persuasion must not weaken the statement to make it more cordial to our theological position

A couple of things could be said Luke gives no basis for the appointing but perhaps it is similar to Luke and ideas elsewhere to see

Christ's death and resurrection as the result of God's purpose and for knowledge acts 2 and 23

Then to the possibility exists that the Greek that the verb and the Greek to tag them annoy

I think that's how you say it from Tasso Could be middle voice and not passive In acts 13 and 46

Paul says to the Jews and this is man This is from the NIV since you dot -dot -dot do not consider yourselves worthy worthy of eternal life

We now turn to the Gentiles end quote They did not put themselves into a position that brought them eternal life

The verb Tasso basically means to place or station in a fixed spot

If this were middle It could then be translated. They believed ie

Those who placed themselves in a position to receive eternal life the

Jews refused to the Gentiles did in reference to acts 13 and 48

Arden Gingrich say about this verb as a passive that conveys the idea of quote belong to Be classed among those possessing end quote that comes close to the idea of the middle voice

And that's the footnote on that. I want to share that with you. See what you future thought on that. Well again the the key thing that I listen for when

I read any of this and when I saw some people attempting on Steve Gregg's forum to Say, oh, you know, there's just so much confusion about this

Ted talking mannoy is In a paraphrastic construction. It says ha soy a son

Ted talk mannoy ice is a wane I only on as many as were what well if you take

Tasso and you start discussing that that word by itself without Recognizing that there is a verb in front of it and that therefore this becomes a unit

You cannot break up it is it is a phrase that has a particular meaning in and of itself

This is called a plew perfect Translation it's the imperfect form of I me plus the perfect participle

You can't break it up. And when I read shank when I hear this I hear all this and they're all borrowing from each other

But it amazes me that that no one sees this and recognizes

Well, you know everything that I'm doing here looking at, you know running over to first Corinthians 16 15 running up to 13 46 in both of those places you have what's called a reflexive pronoun

Right there. That's where the middle concept comes from is the fact there's a reflexive pronoun

There is no reflexive pronoun in Acts 13 48 And so when when you know to me it should be really obvious To someone that when you have to render a verse

Differently than all Committee translated translations that might be something to you know, put up a red flag and go you're missing something here

What are you missing? Well the committee translated translations know enough about Greek to recognize what's called a paraphrased a construction

The singular ones don't the ones done by one particular individual You don't have that committee to come up and say hey, what were you getting this stuff?

You need to let the text say what it says. So That's what I was listening for was instead of Trying to play around with TASO.

Are they going to say now this is a paraphrased a construction It has the blue perfect concept to it and then deal with it as the text would deal with it and they didn't

Yeah, so once again, you've got another one of those situations where you just go Well, at least they were honest enough to recognize the role of their of tradition

But they didn't go far enough to actually then filter it out Yeah, I just thought that might be a bit interesting sort of went because of this whole thing as of late with Steve Gregg Yeah, well, there you go.

I guess everybody in the listening audience certainly knows what a paraphrased a construction Oh, is this we got a good tutorial on there you go.

Hey, right quick I said since you probably a couple weeks ago a little package on some materials

From that EMOM that I have been dealing with dealing. Yes. Uh -huh. Yeah. Sure if you got that.

Yes, I did Thank you very much. All right Looking for the cough button couldn't get to it fast enough.

I got a little a little dryness going on there. It's nothing much but every once in a while Gotta hit that cough button.

It's very useful. Chris Chris had Chris Arnson had one for like two weeks and somebody stole it

He just has to cough on the air which we hear once in a while anyways Yeah, I was just looking in channel, yes turrets and fans right paraphrastic, that's correct

I 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 let's listen to a

Clip here move on from the X 1348 subject, which I think we've pretty well established a position on that and Turn to Roman Catholicism toward the end of the program here

Let's I'm actually gonna start off with a a Well, actually this this is a good transition because we're talking about Calvinism from the this side of the

Tiber Let's see how many parallels there are to Roman Catholic arguments against Calvinism, you know,

I mean historically when Arminian ism raised its ugly little head amongst of the

Reformed The first thing the Reforms said about it was that it was it was a philosophical form of Roman Catholicism at least as far as the emphasis that placed upon synergism over against God glorifying monergism and So here is a fellow by the name of Martin Yoni who appears on Catholic answers live every once in a while We have played some of his stuff before and here comes a question on the subject of Calvinism I wonder how many parallels will be able to draw to other things.

We've heard. Let's listen My question is I have recently been debating with some

Calvinist on various issues and they keep bringing up predestination which seems to cover almost every other

Theology that they have right it's all stems back to predestination and they bring up the scriptural references

Supposed scriptural references to that What scriptural references can I use to counter?

that theology All right. Here you go What scriptural references can

I use to fight with the Calvinists from a Catholic perspective now, this is a Catholic perspective I enjoy doing this.

I remember I remember a while back. I played Carl Keating and Dave Hunt making the exact same arguments against Calvinists.

I Can imagine there is there is there is weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth up at the brain call and I did it

But that's because they come from the same perspective that I always go to and I've never gotten an answer

I don't deal with very many Strict Calvinist and those are the ones who say well, it doesn't really matter what we do because we're predestined to do it

And before we were born it was decided whether or not we're going to heaven or hell and we we've got no say in this

Well, the Catholic Church believes we are predestined in the sense that God Created us to be with him, you know, so we're predestined in that sense

But he gives us free will to choose whether or not to be with him, you know, it's just in passing

It's fascinating because I was just reading one of Robertson Genesis former associates has written some stuff in response to me and He takes a very

Well, let's just put this way. I think most Roman Catholics certainly Martin Yoni Would look at him like you just landed from what planet?

It would have no idea what in the world he was talking about because his representation is made They're totally different to what this other fellow is, but you know again,

I only point that out to point out There's a lot of different viewpoints over there And so when they say well, you know Once you follow the

Pope you get all this unanimity and you don't have to have all these differences in right? So even though he knows beforehand what we're gonna do we still have the free will to do it with strict

Calvinist I use two passages and if you get an answer to these from them, it makes any sense

Let me know because I've never gotten an answer. Okay, here we go folks. He's never Gotten an answer to these two texts.

Maybe we can help Mr. Martin Yoni out and and let's let's pull our resources because I'm sure

I've never heard of these passages either, right? I mean if he's never got an answer then these must be real stumpers here.

I'm getting a little nervous here. Here we go We might have to just have to pull the plug on the program here. Once we get these two pastors 7 verse 30

Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves not having been baptized by him and they're talking about their baptism of John So right here.

It says the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for them And it reworded different ways in different translations

But it's basically saying the same thing God wanted them to be baptized by John. He wants them to repent They refused and so again

They rejected the purpose of God for themselves. Well under strict Calvinism. That's not possible.

Oh I've never heard that one before I mean it has never crossed my mind to think about the role of God's law and the commandments of God as a means of God Restricting evil and I've never thought about these things before Wouldn't the better way to handle this be you know what

I don't know anything about those crazy Calvinists So it'd probably be best not for me to comment. How many times do people call this program up?

Hey, could you tell me about the you know, third chakra of Buddhism or something like that and I go

Don't even pretend To know anything about that so I'm not going to you know Make something up as I go along that might have been the best the best way to handle this.

But so the idea that God has a command and Which would have included things like do not lie to your father

Or your mother and do not try to kill your brother and sell him into slavery and yet way back in Genesis What happened with Joseph?

Well anyways That is not you can't reject God's will for your life because God's will

Rules trump your will and you have no free will when God's will says you're going to do this

So that can't happen. The other one I use. Okay, here comes the second one first one

Well, but here comes this one. Oh, this one certainly will be really good is

First Timothy chapter 2 verse 4 was 3 and 4.

This is good. Don't don't Of course one of the big three In the father's freedom.

That's right. He 37 % to do for and second Peter 3 9 Respectful. This is good

And it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth

So right there it says that the will of God is that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth

Strict Calvinists believe there are people in hell Well, if God's will trumps our will in every instance if he doesn't give us free will

To choose him or to choose against him then

If God wants all men to be saved then all men are saved The Muslims are saved the

Buddhists are saved. Hey, don't even go to the Muslims, buddy You're the one with the Universal Catholic Catechism That talks about how the

Muslims adore and worship the same God you do you you're the one with the Muslim problem. Not me

Yeah Everybody's saved because God's will trumps all and we can't go against God's will for our lives

So everybody's saved because it says right there God wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth

Yeah, and of course Evidently, you know, I guess he was telling the truth is you know,

I really haven't dealt with many of those folks Of course, those are the heirs of the Reformation So what he's saying is he really hasn't had much interaction with the actual heirs of the

Reformation who would have pointed out to him That the next verse talks about how Jesus Christ's one mediator between God and man and they would have asked him questions like well

Does that mean that Christ mediates for those the father has not ordained to save? Oh, well, but he wouldn't even say that the father would not do that.

But does this Christ me? well Then again, he doesn't have a finished sacrifice to actually present before the father because they're only Catholic doctrine the mass

But I don't go back into context and and you know prayers be made for all men and then Paul defines

Kings and those in authority so he's type talking about kinds of men not a universal type of situation there, but Oh, well, those are the two stumpers

Luke 7 and 1st Timothy 2 So I think we can probably scratch.

Mr. Martin Yoni off of the future debate opponent on the subject of Calvinism list

Because that just obviously ain't his his area He does have another one.

Let's go ahead and listen to this one as we wrap things up here He's discussing the stations of the cross.

I remember this is his ministry. I think it's called biblical apologetics Or something like that.

And so this is supposed to be a biblical answers. So we're talking about the stations of the cross in a biblical answers section

And that can get a little bit where that leaves us with Veronica, you know Where'd you guys get this

Veronica person from? Well, the the story of Veronica grows out of an early

Account in one of the Gospels that's not really it's not a true gospel.

It's uh, oh One of the apocryphal writings the I believe it's called the acts of pilot

Talks about a woman named Veronica and it's this was written. It's thought maybe early second century so, you know sometime between 100 and 125

AD somewhere in there and The acts of pilot report that there's this woman named

Veronica who was the woman that Jesus cured of the blood disorder, you know This woman who had been had a hemorrhage of blood for 12 years or so, right?

That's who they think this Veronica is. Well It and that's what the early tradition small tea tradition says from this

Apocryphal writing the acts of pilot and so, you know, and if that is the case and you know

We can say well, it's an apocryphal writing. So it didn't happen. Well that you can't really say well

Just because it's an apocryphal writing means that everything in it is false. That's probably not the case apocryphal writings

Were some quite often accepted as being true by many people around it by early

Christians For one reason or another because they contained a good deal of truth, right?

Maybe there was some error in it here or there or you couldn't trace it back to an original source and app

That also happens to be where most of the Marian stuff came from to the stoic source So the church did not include it in the official canon and does not considered it consider it inspired scripture

But that doesn't mean you can't get some true facts out of these things and we think you know that this thing about Veronica is very possibly a true fact and Then I think after the and you wonder why solo scriptura is so Important stations of the cross started to develop.

They you know, this tradition of Veronica with the cloth Putting it on or the veil and putting it on Jesus's face kind of developed from that So so that's where we get the station of the cross.

So even though not all of them are directly mentioned in the Bible There's a very high

Probability that they occurred or at the very least that they're very plausible that they did occur

Fantastic our show on the second hour is scriptural apologetics with John Mardoni Don't we talk about this end?

So our Protestant brothers and sisters will say there you go you Catholics you're adding stuff to the Bible again

You're here you go again I mean, what do we say that you could say that it's coming from historical documents and even though it's not traditionally from Scripture well, exactly and and the fact of the matter is is it's a

Small -t tradition. It is not a doctrinal matter, right? so no Catholic ever has to as a matter of following doctrine believe that these

Stations of the cross that are not directly mentioned in the Bible actually happened. What this is is a devotion and You can't tell me that there's no benefit of from someone

Contemplating the passion of Christ and no benefit from someone contemplating these 14 stations of the cross

And of course, I would say that the real benefit comes from contemplating the finished work of Christ actually perfects those for whom it is made rather than an

Unfinished work that never perfects anyone and you can go back and approach it in the mass 20 ,000 times in your life and still die impure

Well, that's if one or two of them maybe didn't happen. Well, so what it

You can't tell you can't prove that they did not happen, right? And the fact that we have a tradition that dates back almost 2 ,000 years.

I mean it leads to the early second century That to me is more proof that it did happen

Then anyone can put out there that it didn't happen By the way, the idea of Veronica being that early is just just ridiculous and you say well it but it's not in the

Bible Well, so what altar calls are not in the

Bible, but many many churches Protestant churches Baptist churches evangelical churches a lot of non -denominational church have altar calls

You know the the moderator of the debates this weekend started each debate by saying there are certain logical errors need to be watching out for and I think

I've heard all of them so far so far in this presentation Well, I've never read of a single altar call in the

Bible, but does that mean it's a bad thing? Well, no altar calls. I mean I personally

Know see nothing wrong with it someone coming up and committing themselves to Christ now

Obviously we have doctrinal differences with Protestants and about salvation issues and so forth but within the

Protestant tradition There's nothing wrong with having an altar call with having someone come up and commit themselves commit their lives to Jesus Christ Where's the harm in that?

Well, it's not in the Bible, right? but where's the harm in it and that's the exact same reasoning I would say with Veronica or You know

Jesus meeting his mother's one of the stations or the three falls Basically the same thing.

Well, there you go Compelling argumentation to me

Very I have a very fast question Is there somewhere in the Catholic catechism where they have the small tea?

Tradition as opposed to the big tea tradition and the definition of the two sort of in the sense that yeah

It's it is a recognized distinction Very very convenient one to where Tradition always functions in Rome is this very very pliable malleable stuff that That when it when you need it to be the capital

T tradition to substantiate your unbiblical dogmas, then it becomes capital T tradition

But when yeah with the T on the chest, oh, yeah But then when when you're just talking about stuff like stations of the cross or which direction you face in prayer in fact, the current blog article from James Swan addresses this very issue and I'd go into a little addition to that story if I had time to right now, but unfortunately, we don't have time for that So anyway, take a look at the blog.

There's some good information That's a lengthy blog article that James Swan put up on the subject reading the early church fathers

All right, as I said before no dividing line on Tuesday Just pray for us if you're up in the

San Francisco area and as I said, you're over 6 feet 1 inch tall and 250 pounds or if you have a black belt in karate, you are invited to attend the debate as well and That is on the subject of gay marriage.

The information is on the website ailman org We'll see you Lord willing next

Thursday. God bless We need

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at PO box 37106

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