Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday just quickly very excited to point out if you hadn't already noticed that our Team Apollo Guion has expanded and I just a few moments ago got The next blog article posted the two new folks who have joined our team.
Actually write blogs in other words they use words. That's for the about three of you who whined and complained when I started doing video logs to one one two something. Hey, I can read faster and you can talk so you need to just you need to type out Everything you say in your video blogs just for me.
There was there was at least one person that literally Said I should be posting everything as well as what I say. It's like what talk about the fate and the purpose. Yes, there you go. But anyway turrets and fan and my daughter's summer have joined team Apollo Guion.
But both of the there's the student the studio audience is going crazy. Please please Wow I tell you that that audience out there. We just you have to sell tickets and we got a higher security and You're gonna get an email about that, too.
I can't believe you're wasting the large money to do that. No, it's it. That's why you're laughing. Is it someone would actually seriously think that that would happen. That's the scary part. Oh That's mmm.
Anyway Turreted fan and summer have both posted their first articles. I just got turrets of fans up, which is an excellent article by the way. I Know it inside and out because I had He wrote it in word.
Ah and word doesn't Blogger does not like it loses apostrophes random letters went random spaces. So I know this article like the back of my hand because I just got done Editing it to the nth degree not because he wrote it poorly.
It's just we haven't gotten him set up on the appropriate software is yet. To avoid that and believe me I've gone through the same thing with my own stuff so many times. All that stuff remember last year when I was doing the stuff on Mormonism.
Every time I dump because I wrote it in word every time I dump it in there I had to go through over every single word because Word is word and that's just that's just life. So that's how it happens, but anyhow.
Excellent article on once again demonstrating the Council of Nicaea did not decide the can of scripture and Then doing what I don't have time to do chasing down some fascinating leads as to where these ideas came from and so that's one of the reasons I asked her it's and fan to join up is I was very impressed with the depths of the gentleman's research and.
So I think it's going to make a number of you very very happy. That so you will have nice long 1 ,700 word blog entries to read keep you happy, and I think that's just that's awesome. And of course I couldn't be prouder of my own offspring as well.
And the article that she posted so hopefully that will be a great blessing to everyone we continue on the program today. As we did last program listening to the debate between myself and Patrick Madrid I noticed Algo told me this morning that Patrick had posted about.
He had posted an article on the envoy forums this morning. I went and looked believe it or not. Some of you this hasn't appeared on the blog yet, but it has appeared on my youtube page I put together a humorous video.
I don't think you've even seen it. Where I go over some of the weird stuff, you know calcium boy, and then Tom the box's Satire of calcium boy. Have you ever seen that? Oh, man. I it had only been seen a hundred and eighty four times.
So I put it on mine. That way it'll be seen many more than 184 times. But also there was this fellow true one true church a young Catholic fellow. Who was strung together a little portion of cross-examination with matitix and then Madrid's closing statement on solo scriptura?
See we so much for the false doctrine of solo scriptura. Ha ha ha stuff and I just put the end of his video on this because it was so I don't know. It's just like well so much for the false doctrine of solo scriptura type.
And believe it or not Madrid posts that video on the on the forum. He actually posted that video on the forum. I don't know if it's because somebody saw it on my youtube page and that's how they tracked it down or what?
He'll probably get more hits because I I put that there than than anything else, even though I didn't link to it, but. So anyway, I don't don't get any evidence from that that he's actually heard what we're doing here.
But we're we are playing the debate between myself and Patrick Madrid because as he said last time it Presented such a painfully obvious painfully obviously clear example of how unbiblical. And how bad the arguments are against the communion of saints the concept of veneration of saints and angels and so on and so forth and so we heard his opening statement and I have started my response and I've rolled it back about 30 seconds or so so we could pick up the context but We've we've heard the arguments from Patrick Madrid and now we're hearing my opening statement.
So we will press on obviously, I don't have quite as many comments to make about myself as I do Patrick Madrid, but who knows once while I might jump in anyways. So let's continue the opening statement 2002 the great debate number seven Long Island myself versus Patrick Madrid.
I the Greek Septuagint doesn't translate it by one particular word because the Hebrew word is richer than that and what God Said in the Ten Commandments you shall not do this is the whole concept of adoring and serving for Samuel 7 3 then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel saying if returned to Lord with all your heart remove the foreign gods and the ashtaroth from among you and direct your hearts to the Lord and serve him alone.
Julia.
Serve him alone. Well, how does that fit when the Roman Catholic praise those prayers? To Mary. And gives her hyper duly a hyper veneration says into your hands. I commit my spirit.
Deliver me.
From my sins the devil's and from the wrath of Jesus. You know which prayer I'm referring to. How is that consistent with what is found here? First Kings 9 6. But if you or your sons indeed turn away from following me and do not keep my commandments and my statutes.
Which I have set before you and go and serve other gods and worship them. Folks when we get into the historical section, we're going to discover that there were writers Half a millennium after the time of Jesus Christ five hundred years removed from the Apostles who said it's okay to worship Saints and they use the term prosecute net.
Oh Prosecute no, which means to bow down before and their arguments. Became the foundation of the second Nicene Council considered the seventh ecumenical council that dogmatically defined that it's okay to have statues and images and to venerate them and that council Based its decision very clearly on what it called unwritten traditions.
Well folks what someone said five hundred years after Christ who probably couldn't read either Hebrew or Greek. Did not deal with the biblical text and in fact violates biblical text if that becomes the foundation of a dogmatic decree.
Then we are left with the choice of choosing between what God has said in his word and what men say in their decrees. That term Latrua's use of a vaad just to give you a few more passages and like an exodus 423.
Exodus 1231 just listen to some of these how they're put together exodus 23 24. You shall not worship their gods nor serve them. See how they're they're together. They are put together to explain to us.
That you cannot make the very distinction. That is at the heart of the Roman Catholic dogmatic definition of these issues. Dear on me 419 and beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the Sun and the moon the stars all the hosts of heaven and be drawn away and worship them and serve them.
Is Anyone going to suggest as long as you don't do the first it's okay to do the second of course not. These are not two separate things. They refer to two separate concepts. They go together to express one.
Attitude.
Now.
There is simply no way to say that any of these passages Hold to or teach the Latria Julia distinction. And of course from my perspective, I Want to believe what God's Word tells me and if the God's Word does not teach it then I'm not going to believe it and it Does not present this distinction.
But some might say well, that's just your solo scriptura. Part speaking and and but where does the Bible contradict it? Well, I think we've seen that as well. Because by putting these two terms together and then using them interchangeably These passages obliterate any such anachronistic distinction.
The New Testament likewise shows no hint of the Latria Julia distinction that is created by Rome. Let me look at a few passages in the New Testament. Romans 14 18. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
Would anyone suggest that service to Christ does not involve worship? It's somehow a lesser thing that you can also give to Mary or give to Saints. That's the term Julia in the verbal form. Listen, this is especially important because John Calvin was brought up.
John Calvin hammered in the Institutes upon this very issue of The lack of distinction between Latria and Julia and here's one of the passages he used. Galatians 4 8. However at that time when you did not know God you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
That phrase you were slaves translates do you oh you served them you were enslaved to them. That was anyone gonna suggest that what Paul was saying here is that these People in the churches in Galatia were not involved in idolatrous worship.
That it was somehow better that they at least just served idols rather than worship them. Of course not. What he's saying is you were engaged in idolatry. And he uses. Do you Oh Colossians 324 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance?
It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. Is that less than Latria? It is not. Finally first Thessalonians 1 9 for they themselves report about us. What kind of reception we had with you and how you turn to God from idols to serve a living and true God.
You turned to God from idols to do what? To give Julia. To a living and true God. Is he not saying you turn from idolatry to true and proper worship. Of course and. So the first point that I would like to make is that it's very heart the concept of praying to Saints venerating Saints honoring Saints.
Building statues of Saints icons of Saints bowing before them lighting candles. To say well, I'm not. I'm not violating The command of Scripture because I'm only giving Julia not Latria.
That.
Distinction does not stand up to biblical examination and in Mark chapter 7 in Matthew chapter 15 the Lord Jesus gave every one of his followers and Hence everyone here this evening who claims to be his follower needs to hear this.
Gave every one of his followers a clear and abiding example of How we determine the difference? Between what is true and false in matters of tradition because in that passage He's dealing with individuals who claim to have a tradition that comes directly from Moses.
God gave it to Moses and it was passed down orally in an unwritten form outside the new the writings of the Old Testament called the Corban rule. They these Pharisees and first come to Jesus and say you're disciples.
They don't they don't wash their hands properly and Jesus says well look at you. You've got this Corban rule and You nullify you make void the very Word of God for the sake of your Traditions through your Corban rule.
Now they claim that came from Moses. They claimed it was divine in origin and Jesus rebuked them. Because they made the Word of God of no effect for the sake of their Traditions passed down to them and Jesus said many other things like this you do.
We need to test whatever is handed on to us no matter what it is the way Jesus taught us to and when we test the very heart of the Distinction that is offered by Rome in regards to what the difference between worship and veneration is we find that it is Unbiblical.
Isaiah 820 tells us to the law and to the testimony if they do not speak in harmony with this word. There is no light in them. So I unashamedly direct you To what the Word of God says on these issues.
Now before moving to the issue of the concept of Christian tradition, and maybe it'll work out best this way. Because it will sort of stay on the same topic as we're going back and forth. It's probably a bit easier for the audience.
Before moving to that issue allow me a moment to address a common fallacy regarding First Timothy 2 5 which did come up, but I was going to address that anyways. Jesus' work of mediation the Roman Catholic Church tells us that having Mary as an Mediatrix as Vatican to referred to her the movements in The world today centered at the University of Steubenville Franciscan University of Steubenville dr. Mark Miravalli and those people who are pushing to have the fifth Marian dogma defined for example Mary is co-redemptrix and mediatrix and so on so forth.
That this in no way violates the teaching of first Timothy 2 5 that Jesus Christ is The only mediator between God and men. Very frequently the idea as well Jesus is sharing his mediation with us. He asks us to intercede and pray for one another.
That obviously is not a violation in fact in this very context He's saying prayers to be offered for for Kings and those in authority. What that should tell us is that the work of Jesus Christ in mediation is significantly different Than our privilege of by prayer interceding for our brothers and sisters because you see when the Sun as Mediator intercedes as high priest before the father and behalf of his people he does so on the basis of his finished work in their behalf on the cross of Calvary.
No one else has That foundation. His is a unique work of mediation. Because of his unique character his unique work upon the cross and his unique role as high priest. That is why Paul says there is one Mediator and he's just said there is one God.
He uses the exact same Greek term. Many Roman Catholic apologists they will say actually the term heist is used there. It doesn't necessarily mean unique. It just means first or primary. That's actually found and by such Mariologist as O 'Carroll and and Miravalli uses the same argumentation.
Think of what that results in. There is one God that means first or primary God and one mediator first or primary mediator. I'm sure I know a bunch of folks up in Salt Lake City that would like it if that were the case.
But that's not what it means does it? Context defines meanings of words and just that there is only one unique God. There is only one unique mediator and that is Jesus Christ. The New Testament does not present to us any examples of The Apostles would be Paul or Peter anyone else.
Saying to us Pray to the Saints that there were already individuals who had gone on at the time. They're writing a New Testament where they're not Stephen gone on. No one ever prays to Stephen. No one ever seeks Stephen's intercession.
Of course the very distinction between the idea of Saints who have excess merit and Who end up directly in the presence of God and others who go into purgatory is unknown in the New Testament? It's an unbiblical concept.
That was our debate topic last year. But there is nothing in the New Testament That would begin to suggest to us that the Apostles as they taught the church what it means to sojourn here upon the earth.
That they taught believers. That the communion of Saints meant that when Saints die You can still communicate with them. How would they know if it's the Holy Spirit who searches the hearts of men and communicates?
The intents of our heart to God the Father is the Holy Spirit also involved in communicating the intentions of our heart to Saints. You say well first Corinthians 12 says that that no one could say I have no need of you or I have no need of you.
That's quite true. But notice Paul does not apply that to those who have left this world. He never makes an application to saying now that means that we believe in the community of Saints that includes those who've gone into heaven.
He never says that he's talking about the people have different gifts within the functioning of the local body of the church. That's the context first Corinthians chapter 12, but isn't it fascinating?
We all recognize that something's changed when someone passes away. Do we pray if you if I pray for someone? I if I pray for for brother Aronson and boy, so I need to pray for brother Aronson if I pray for brother Aronson.
That God would help him to to strive against sin. Let me ask you something. Once Chris is in the presence of Christ. Do I keep praying that for him? Of course not.
Why?
Because his status has changed death does not Divide the body of Christ up, but it does divide us from those who are described as being asleep in Christ. I wonder why they use that term asleep in Christ.
Maybe it's because they're resting. The New Testament does not give us any hint. Even Revelation 5 8 the 24 elders have the bowls of the prayers the Saints. There's nothing there. It says they were the objects of those prayers.
There is nothing in the New Testament That leads us to believe this and there's much to lead us away from it. And that is of course the fact that prayer is an act of worship. When I pray I am acknowledging God's sovereignty over me.
As A creature I'm acknowledging. He's my creator. I Cannot do that with anyone but the one who gave me life and breath. Thank you very much. Okay, so there's the end of my opening statement. So now we've had the two opening statements and Let me let me go back here.
Let's.
Let's remember what Patrick said and I recommend it primarily because it shows so painfully obviously how Really unbiblical the arguments were that were raised against the Catholic Church's teaching. I mean there were many Bible verses cited but they were in no way coherent or cohesive in terms of any type of a.
Meaningful argument against the community of Saints, so there's there's the assertion. We've we've just heard this last week on Catholic answers live from Patrick Madrid painfully obviously. An Incoherent, so you've now heard the first two opening statements.
Leave it up to you to determine who was focused on biblical material. Who provide a wider range of biblical material. Who argued more. Effectively, but clearly now that the arguments have been presented in the next.
You know over this next as we go back and forth it will become painfully obviously.
Clear.
That these arguments are just completely bogus, so that means you're gonna hear a devastatingly strong clear rebuttal of the passages I presented. That plainly show that Latria and Dulia come from the one Hebrew term that they they had they are connected together.
You're gonna. That's what that's what's coming up is. What must be what's coming up that has to be the next section? And and so that must be what we're gonna hear next from Patrick Madrid. Actually the next gonna be the historical section.
So maybe not immediately. But as we go into the historical section listen very carefully. Listen very very carefully to how many times Patrick Madrid talks about the universal.
Always.
Listen those two universal always he's gonna make the claim over and over again that from the very start. Everybody's always had the same view of this. Keep that in mind, that's that's pretty big claim when it comes to the early church.
I've said many times about the only thing I could possibly think that you could actually Seriously said about might be monotheism and even then yeah. But that's what he's gonna say. Keep keep it in mind.
Listen as we listen to Patrick Madrid now.
There is far too much ground to cover even though we have all this time tonight. It's it's frustrating I think for all of us that we can't get deeper if we had more time. We would but let me try to cover a few points that were left undone in my last remarks, and then also try to Talk about a few of the things that Jim mentioned a few minutes ago.
First of all we have to set the record straight on the question of equivocation. Jim is equivocating on the term prey and I realized that as a Protestant He is has he is entitled to using terms that apply to Protestant theology in that vein.
But the Catholic Church has always distinguished between prayer Which is the the worship and glory and honor that's due to God alone and the word prayer with a small P. If we can say it that way that refers to communication.
Now now catch that folks. I Do briefly refute this later on but now we have capital P prayer and small P prayer.
So.
So yeah when you're when when you really really pray or when you really don't have time to pray. You know you just sort of yeah, just just communicating. You know. What does this illustrate. The vast chasm that separates biblical theology that has a?
Biblical foundation and says what is prayer in the Bible and an unbiblical theology that says well. You know yeah, you know what the Bible says about prayer, but then the Catholic Church has all. Did you catch that all?
Ways distinguished between capital P prayer and. Just plain old communication. See. So I'm the one equivocating here. Not him. I'm the one equivocating here when I use prayer in its biblical form and.
And then well, but but we've we make a distinction. That's the whole point. Is the distinction biblical or is the distinction unbiblical? That's the point all the way along not worship now.
You can accept that or not accept it. But that is the official way in which the Catholic Church has always used the word pray now.
We're using to catch. I I wish I I wish the sounds still worked in in IRC for some reason if I had a little ding-ding Sound I would be playing it each time. He says always always Catholic Church always Catholic Church always because and when we get into the The historical material here, that's just not true.
I mean it's so common. They repeat it so often we even had a young 19 year old Catholic guy coming into channel past few days. And he repeats this stuff because he's heard it over and over again, and even when we show him.
Oh Always. How about this quote oh? Well that just can't be right because we've always believed like that's it's like oh Man, it is so sad to hear in English of course.
But the fact is that when a Catholic prays to a saint for example Mary or one of the Saints we met Jim mentioned Stephen earlier. We'll talk a little bit about what st. Augustine had to say about praying to st. Stephen in particular.
St. Augustine was not referring to worshipping or adoring st. Stephen. When the early church celebrated the feast day of st Stephen it was invoking the prayers from st. Stephen who reigns in glory with God.
So for a Protestant okay sure. I agree Jim that when you pray you're worshipping God. But for a Catholic there is prayer that is worship, but we also use the word pray in a different way. The second thing we have to remember too is that this is not about sola scriptura tonight.
This is not a debate on whether or not the Bible is sufficient to teach us these things Jim. And I had that debate nine years ago.
And I never want to do it again is what it was. He didn't say there, but yeah, we had had that that debate and Had that debate with a number of different people, but once again. And this is what I'm going to emphasize when I have my opportunity.
Where does God get to define his own worship?
In.
Scripture or is God's worship left up to Men to determine in councils or something along those lines. Has God really left himself without a clear witness as to what is pleasing worship before him. Well I Could go off on the tangent there.
I think I'll avoid and if anybody would like to see just how Definitively we settled the issue that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura. I refer you to the debate tapes that are out on the table. We're not talking about whether or not the debate is sufficient tonight or the whether scripture is sufficient.
We're talking about whether or not the early Christians understood.
Scripture.
To mean that we can venerate and ask the intercession of the saints in heaven that.
Actually, that wasn't the thesis topic the thesis. Specifically said is it biblical and so it's not a matter of well. It's not really that it's what the dealer Church understand that to mean that. That's Obviously not why we decide to get together and do a debate on long.
I was going to be the key tonight because James can stand here all night and tell us his interpretation of scripture. And he will I of course can tell you mine. But I think it's very beneficial if we consider what the original Christians themselves had to say on the subject.
Notice how all Interpretations of the Bible are equal with one another in that that thought that he's very good at throwing these little things in there that again. If you listen carefully, and you examine it carefully this stuff doesn't hold up.
Well. He can give his to read I can give mine. Oh, you mean the original text is so unclear that there is no way of knowing which one Was intended. That's what's behind all this. But it's not stated clearly.
And that's why people who don't listen carefully can be carried away by that kind of stuff.
And I want to watch my time so I don't have I don't leave them out. Another thing that we have to remember is that the the question of a distinction between D 'Elia and Latria, this is certainly a very interesting point.
But one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that the words D 'Elia and Latria are used in Scripture. Sometimes to refer to human beings other times to refer in the case of Latria to God.
Okay, now here comes. I mean this is where you know if we're gonna get. We haven't gotten to the painfully obviously stuff yet. Have we. I certainly sort of haven't heard it so He just said Here's where it's gonna.
Be we're gonna demonstrate that you can give.
Do you oh?
D 'Elia to humans here if you're if you sort of gotten lost it's at least zoom in here. Let's see what examples he gives to us. Does he go back to and look at the Hebrew. Does he look at a vaad? Does he.
Does he do that what I presented. Let's let's find out. And of course D 'Elia is used with regard to God as well.
And I picked out a couple of. Actually I picked out quite a few passages to look at this. But we see for example that in in Acts chapter 7 verse 7. Which is the only passage in Scripture in the New Testament at least that I'm aware of.
We see that the verbal forms of Latria and D 'Elia are used here in the same.
Phrase in the same sentence, okay, this is really good. You've got again if the idea is That my arguments were biblically incoherent then. When you come to the issue of doing exegesis when you come to Accurately handling the Word of God.
What did I present. I went to the Old Testament? I looked at the Hebrew then I looked at the translation of the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint. I followed that through the Old Testament to the New Testament because the New Testament quotes in the Greek Septuagint.
This is how you do scholarly exegesis now. Where is mr.. Madrid starting at?
Acts.
Does it go back to the Old Testament to the Hebrew. And well and then listen. Listen to the text he uses here we see.
St. Luke saying and the nation to whom they shall be in bondage I will judge says God and after that shall they they shall come forth and serve me in this place. So here we have referring to the Egyptians.
We have Dulia being referenced to their Egyptian overlords to human beings.
To catch that They were in bondage to the Egyptians and That is being presented as evidence that Dulia can be given to human beings because the term was used of the Israelites being slaves.
To the Egyptians Can you believe it.
When I heard this again, and like I said, I you know I don't sit down listen to these things. I I'm not. I'll go listening to these things over and over and over again memorizing them. When I heard this I was going.
You've got to be kidding me. This is not in a religious context. Just think for a second of the chasm that separates. Being in bondage to the Egyptians and a Catholic bowing down in front of a statue and lighting candles and saying prayers.
My.
Goodness talk about painfully obviously. What's painfully obvious is the vast chasm that separates these two but that's what is.
Presented to us and of course that was a very bad situation that they were in. But there they were referring to human beings and then of course God is saying you're going to serve me. Catholics agree.
As Jim pointed out Latria is always an only service that is due to God alone. It is never rendered to human beings. Dulia is also a service that we render to God. But at times it can be rendered to human beings.
Listen to what st.
Augustine said in this that not know before we go to Augusta a man who? Did not know the Hebrew language and whose Greek was not overly good. Did Patrick Madrid Even begin to address avad and how avad is translated the Greek septuagint answer.
No.
Would Patrick Madrid have to have to provide an insightful?
Full.
Lexical discussion of that very term for his own description of the debate on Catholic answers live last week. To have any meaning at all yes. Does he do so in this debate?
Case.
Closed. We could start taking calls and move on from there if we wanted to but there's so much more to listen of God.
He said for this is the worship which is due to the divinity or to speak more accurately to the deity and to express this worship in a single word as As there does not occur to me any Latin terms sufficiently exact I shall avail myself whenever necessary of a Greek word Latria.
Whenever it occurs in Scripture it is rendered the word service, but that service which is due to men and In reference to which the Apostle writes that the servants must be subject to their own masters is usually designated by another word He's referring to Julia in Greek whereas the service, which is paid to God alone by worship is always Latria in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracle oracles,.
And then he goes now. I stopped right there.
Did you catch that? What's probably being represented here in Augustine's words is? The same controversy that existed between Augustine and Jerome. Augustine and others like him Viewed a They held that there was a special divine providential action in bringing about the Greek Septuagint and Jerome when he translated the Latin Vulgate Went to the original Hebrew.
Jerome was one of a very few of the early fathers who could actually read both of the biblical languages origin was another and There was a conflict between Augustine and Jerome on this very point and this led to the canonical differences between the two this led to Carthage and Hippo and their views of the apocryphal books.
And Augustine was simply in error on a number of these issues, but again Madrid doesn't have the excuse that Augustine had. That is there would be no reason why Madrid could not Take the time to deal with the Hebrew now.
I don't know that Patrick Madrid knows Hebrew. I've got no evidence. He does. I've certainly never heard him claim that he does. I've never heard him claim that he actually can read or translate the Greek on any functional level.
Maybe he does. I don't know but if he can then this would be the time why you go to a An early church writer who makes a distinction you're making yeah. But upon what basis I've already presented a Biblical case that's gone back to a vaad.
I've demonstrated that if I was translated by multiple Greek words that these Greek words are relevant to Eventually the Latin words Lottery and Julia. Isn't that where he needs to go? Now by the way, some of my say yeah, but come on How do you expect Patrick to do that?
He's he's never heard this before. Untrue. I Made all these arguments in books that were written ten years before this debate. Go to answers to Catholic claims if you can find an old copy of it and You will find almost everything that I presented there in the book.
So there was unless you're saying a decade isn't long enough to get the argument straight. He had all the time in the world To be addressing these things and.
Didn't dawn a little bit further to describe how this this term is often misunderstood. But he really gets to the heart of the matter in his letter against fathers. Give me against Faustus the Manichaean.
He says it is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs. Both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr but to the God of the martyrs.
Although it is to the memory of the martyrs is to the God of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar of the Saints burying place ever says we bring an offering to thee Oh Peter or Oh Paul or Ocyprian.
The offering is made to God who gave them the crown of martyrdom. While it is in memory of those thus crowned the emotion is increased by the associations of the place. Love is excited both toward those who are our examples referring to the Saints and the martyrs with the same affection Intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life.
So what he's saying there is we revere great Christians in this world. So much more so do we revere the great Christians when they are finally in heaven perfected in righteousness? He says what is properly called divine worship.
Which the Greeks call Latria and for which there is no word in Latin both in doctrine and in practice we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices as we see the word idolatry, which means the giving of the worship to idols.
Accordingly, we never offer or require anyone to offer sacrifice to a martyr or to a holy soul or to any angel. Anyone falling into this error is instructed by doctrine either in the way of correction or caution.
For holy beings themselves whether saints or angels refuse to accept what they know to be due to God alone. Now he goes on and on and on. I want you to to listen to a couple of points here with regard to this issue of honoring the Saints.
If we We take a look at the writings of the early church. I know that a minute ago Jim was. He was Disparaging the writings of the the church fathers in let's say the 5th century, but we can go much earlier than that.
But more. What was I actually saying? Was I just disparaging all writings of all church fathers? What I was saying is someone in the 5th century who does not know Hebrew or Greek. Their opinions must be subjugated to the correction of the inspired Word of God and I would repeat that again now.
And if mr. Madrid wants to say oh, no, no, no Someone who didn't know Hebrew Greek in the 5th century is a greater religious authority than the scriptures themselves, please say so.
Importantly, I want you to listen to what Jim has also said himself on the subject on his website in now.
Here we go. I love when someone I don't know when they're gonna learn not to do this. But when you you want to try to do the hey, he's inconsistent quote him thing. My suggestion to any future debate opponents is everyone who's tried this in the past they forgot one little thing it's called context and Generally, I remember what the context of what I've written is and that's why this ain't gonna work.
Very well the section dealing with the pre-existence of Christ. He says the body of writing of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers is large indeed. The series edited by Schaaf takes up 28 large volumes alone.
Hence to overview all the literature would be far beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore the three main the three main exegetes of the century after Nicaea Chrysostom Athanasius and Augustine will be examined briefly to determine how they understood the focal passages.
Listed above now. This is in his section dealing with Scripture and he's appealing to these men Chrysostom Athanasius and Augustine to support his contention. That his understanding of scripture is consistent with theirs.
You see what's going on here now look at what some of these men say a god st John Chrysostom, and he lived around the year three. He was writing between the year 347 and 407. He says calling to remembrance all our holy immaculate and most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary.
With all the Saints let us commend ourselves in each other and all our life under Christ our God. We give thanks unto thee O Lord who lovest mankind. Benefactor of our souls and bodies for that thou has vouchsafed this day to feed us with thy heavenly and immortal mysteries.
Make straight our path establish all in thy fear. Guard our life make firm our footsteps through the prayers and intercessions of the glorious Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary and of all thy Saints. We read in Athanasius homily on the papyrus of Turin he says O Noble Virgin truly you are greater than any other greatness.
For who is your equal in greatness. So dwelling place of God the word to whom among all the creatures shall I compare you O Virgin. You are greater than them all O Covenant clothed with purity instead of gold.
You are the ark in which is found the golden vessels containing the true manna that is the flesh in which divinity resides. So Athanasius is honoring Mary not improperly, but he's honoring her and the Saints by extension are nobious.
He writes we by no means adore the martyrs, but we honor them as the true adorers of God. He also says in a in an earlier statement He says we keep through every age their bodies decently enshrined as most precious pledges vessels and benedictions of Benediction.
The martyrs defend the church as soldiers guard a citadel. The people flock in crowds from all quarters and keep great festivals to Honor their tombs. He goes on and on Describing how the early church understood the scriptures.
That's that that Jim was referring to later st Cyril of Alexandria st. Ambrose st Gregory of Nyssa all of these different Saints say these things to us and We see st.
Augustine saying in by the way just very quickly notice. He just said how they understand the text that I cited earlier none of these are Exegeting the actual text that I cited and if he's gonna say they are then he needs to demonstrate that just to throw it out.
And say well, this is how they understood it assumes that they are even aware of The for example of odd Latria Dulia connections in the Greek Septuagint in the Old Testament. If you're gonna throw that out there prove it document it his in his letter.
Sermon 3 13 referring to the martyr Cyprian what after all other praises of such a great martyr. But the praises of God. Or to whose credit is it that Cyprian was converted to God with his whole heart.
But the one whom it was said God of powers convert us. So st Augustine is telling us that the early Christians did in fact praise the martyrs. He says the justice of the martyrs is perfect because they have been perfected by their sufferings.
That's why they aren't prayed for in the church. The other faithful departed are prayed for not the martyrs they have left the world. So you see they have perfected themselves that they are not our dependents.
But our advocates. And this is then this to not in themselves. But in the one to who the one whom as their head they have stuck as close as his members. You see indeed He is the one advocate who intercedes for us seated at the right hand of the father.
We go on and we read many different passages from Augustine, but keep in mind. What what Jim has written? He's saying that these men chrysostom Athanasius and Augustine should be examined to see how they understood.
Scripture and.
If you go through and read chrysostom Athanasius Augustine not to mention the host of other early church fathers You'll find that universally the early Christian Church understood scripture universally a prohibition against idolatry Which is the worship of any false God and yet it included the fact that we are able to honor Venerate and seek the intercession of those blessed in heaven who are members of the one body of Christ.
Now earlier Jim said that the members of the body of Christ are separated from us. That is not true. Romans 8 says that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ and that includes all the members of the body of Christ.
We're not separated by death Jim.
Yes, and everyone's catching this. And yes, I was offended by the constant familiarity. Using a name that's only my wife uses of me. That that was purposeful on his part. That's part of his debating style is to.
It's a constant put-down type thing. But that that that aside Romans 8 as I've pointed out has Nothing to do with the application being made. It does not say nothing shall separate us from one another.
It says nothing will separate us from the love of Christ. To extend that to this application is simply without merit.
We're not separated by the fact that we can't see them. They are in heaven united with Christ. They love us still as they always have. They're praying for us still as they were on earth. Another section here in in on James's Website, he has an article referring to what he calls whitewash.
And he says it does not seem that any discussion of ancient theology can be pursued without invoking the great name of Augustine. But surely by now Roman controversialists should be aware that Augustine is no friend of their cause.
Well a moment ago We were told that we should look to Augustine and Chrysostom and Athanasius to see how they understood scripture. And we see repeatedly that they invoke the intercession. They honor the Saints.
That is how they interpreted scripture. We see some other passages from st. Augustine that tell us the same thing. But the key to all of this is to remember that the early Christians made a distinction between Dullia and Latria.
In scripture Dullia and Latria appear. Latria appears only with regard to worship of God never to human beings. Dullia appear appears all over the place in its verbal forms and in its noun forms. Over 200 times in fact by my count and Some of those instances refer to service to human beings.
Some refer to service to God, but now have you noticed if he had an argument against my position? This is where he would demonstrate that in Religious context not being a servant to someone not being a slave to the Egyptians, but in a religious context you can give service.
To human beings. Has he given us one example just one. No he has not. Why can you not do so? Why can you not address of odd? Why can I go back there because he has no counter argument. Now of course five six years later.
Now it's painfully obviously. That I'm the one with the incoherent biblical argument the early church understood.
That we should never Cross the line into idolatry by giving worship and honor to a saint a mere creature. That we would be rendering only to God our creator. And so all of the emphasis upon those two words as interesting as it is it really doesn't Solve the problem for Jim tonight because he has to explain to us how the thesis statement in the debate tonight Goes against me and for him.
How is it that the early Christians? Believed in and taught universally the veneration of universe Saints if in fact They were the true followers of Christ. Thank you.
All right keep that in mind universally. Now my opportunity to talk about Church history. I Would like to correct very quickly the misapprehension that anywhere on Alpha Omega Ministries website did I in any way shape or form set up Augustin Athanasius and John Chrysostom as?
Extra biblical authorities if you'll actually read the reference that is given what I was saying is let's look at what they taught about Scripture and see if it's consistent with what Rome teaches that is a very different thing to saying.
Oh, we should look at them and then Give them a special status to where we should believe what they have to say. I don't do that with anyone today. I don't do that with reformers in fact. I don't do that with any uninspired person.
It doesn't matter who's writing about Christian truth. I hold them to the standard of God's Word, and that's what all of us should in fact be doing now. Mr. Madrid Speaks about the early church. Let me give you just a couple quotations while I'm at it because we were just told there is this universal perspective.
Well, why did? Why did these words appear as early as the middle of the fourth century. Here we have someone traveling Epiphanius he's the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. And he says asking what place it was and learning it to be a church.
I went in to pray and found there a certain. Hanging on the doors of the said church died and embroidered it bore an image either of Christ or of one of the Saints. They do not rightly remember whose the image was.
Seeing this and being loathed that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ Church contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. I tore it asunder and advised the custodians the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person.
I Don't think he appreciated its presence there. But Tantius said these the demons are they who taught men to make images and statues? Who in order that they might turn away the minds of men from the worship of the true God?
Caused the countenances of dead Kings fashioned and adorned with exquisite beauty to be erected and consecrated and Assumed themselves their names as though they were assuming some characters. Why aren't these?
The containers of the alleged Christian tradition. Indeed let me point out that the Council of Elvira in the year 300 in Spain. Specifically for bad the use of pictures and churches. Saying so that that which is worshipped and adored shall not be painted on the walls and quote.
That's before the Council of Nicaea. That's almost five centuries prior to the second Nicene Council. Where the veneration of images was defined as being proper? Why isn't that? Definitional of Christian tradition.
The historical picture is clear in History as we look at the surviving writings first comes prayer to martyrs then saints in general. Then angels and finally veneration of images. There is of course no Universally agreed-upon belief in the first centuries of the church many Fathers passed without ever making mention of such things.
It is just assumed that the day believed such things. Scholarly Catholic sources clearly recognize that various early fathers spoke Against for example the use of images in worship. That is not something that is denied in fact at the second Nicene Council.
Where the veneration of images was defined on the basis of tradition in the fourth session? The bishops read passages that allegedly promoted from the Bible. The veneration of images and then quotations from early fathers that supported this.
They then presented the dogmatic decree two sessions later. No reading of the Bible. A list of early church fathers who opposed this Began to be read, but they didn't even finish reading the list. They just rejected it and then placed an anathema upon anyone.
Who would write against the veneration of images which I guess would include the early church fathers whose list they didn't finish reading? Now that is the the thinking and the activity that went into the providing of the dogmatic teaching in an allegedly infallible Council.
I'd like to point out that I'm not aware of anyone. I'd like to ask Patrick if he knows. Was there anyone? At the second Nicene Council 787 years after the birth of Christ. Eight centuries removed from the Apostles.
Who could even read the Hebrew language. Who could even read the New Testament Greek with proficiency and Compare it with the Greek Septuagint or the Old Testament. So that they could know whether this was consistent with what the Bible said, which we've already seen in so many passages.
What about that? Now we have been told.
Well.
Augustine who by the way knew no Hebrew Could not read the Hebrew language. Would have been completely unaware of the fact That avad the very word used in the Ten Commandments is translated by both Lottery and Dulia.
He quotes Augustine whose Greek wasn't very good either. Seeing he had an argument with Jerome on the subject of the canon of Scripture. Jerome who was cited earlier. Who if he is a container of tradition?
Why wasn't his rejection of the Apocrypha tradition? I mean once we start asking this issue of tradition. Going to the early church fathers is like going to the Christian bookstore today. Are you gonna find one single thing?
One single teaching. At your Christian bookstore today I sure hope none of you walk in there and think these are all equally good books. There's a few good books in there. But there's a whole lot of bad books in there and there's books written by people who are very ignorant in there.
And if you actually read the fathers not just selections But actually read the fathers you'll find all sorts of statements that quite simply are very ignorant. Are we supposed to just simply bow down to that as if that's somehow a Binding authority upon us and in the citation quoted from Augustine Augustine was wrong in regards to Galatians 4 8 Where there Paul clearly utilizes the term Dulia in regards to what can only be understood as A word that would have been translated Latria in the Septuagint.
It's clearly worship Augustine or Athanasius or anyone else me Reformers. It's Meyer Brown. It doesn't matter who they are. Men stand corrected by the Word of God. Now as I said, I did not Establish Athanasius Augustine and Chrysostom as some sort of standard in the citation that was provided.
I Assertion of a universal tradition on the part of Roman Catholics is fallacious. There are the three volumes that were shown to you earlier 1100 plus pages by Bill Webster and David King demonstrating without any question that a fair and full reading and those books are fully documented frequently giving you both the Greek and Latin and The references where you can look them up for yourself a full reading of those patristic sources Will not give you the universal perspective of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to the authority of Scripture and its sufficiency.
Instead when I cite from the early church fathers I can see them just like I see men whose writings I respect today. You accept what is in harmony with the Word of God and that which is not simply comes from the heart of man that is the nature of What we experience in this life as believers when we look at what Christian tradition is.
Why is? Why are the citations mr. Madrid has read? Tradition and the citations that I read are not tradition. Fundamentally because Rome says so. Fundamentally because Rome says so sola ecclesia. Rome defines what the Bible is.
Rome defines what the Bible says. Rome defines what tradition is. Rome defines what tradition says that Makes the Roman Catholic Church the ultimate authority in all things and so fundamentally the second assertion in this particular thesis.
For the Roman Catholic is a given. It must be believed by definition because if Rome has said this is the tradition then it is the problem is a Person who wants to believe truth and Understand truth would have to come to the conclusion that the only way to do that is first and foremost as your first act to accept the ultimate authority of the Roman Catholic Church and There's all sorts of reasons not to do that first and foremost being that the Lord Jesus and the Apostles never told us to do it.
When Paul told Timothy you turn to that which is they are new stars as your source. He did not in the next breath say oh and once the Bishop of Rome has been established. Then you can go there to determine what is right and what is wrong?
That is not a biblical teaching and so when we ask well Rome has said this is tradition. Well, why why aren't these other citations tradition? Why isn't the Council of Elvira 500 years earlier? Why doesn't that represent?
Apostolic tradition. There is only one answer for the Roman Catholic and that is because Rome says so. Very similar to the debate that I had with the fellow by name of Jerry Maddox at Boston College. In 1993 same year that the Patrick and I last debated in San Diego and at least is cooler in here than it was then a Lot cooler.
That was on the Apocrypha and the fundamental argument there was the Old Testament. Can the Roman Catholic Church is right because the Catholic Church says so. Well, that's an argument from authority and that's a circular argument once you start diagramming it out.
It really does not hold any rational weight. The same thing is true here when we talk about The use for example the word prayer. Mr.. Madrid got up, and he said You're equivocating on the word prayer.
I would actually say the equivocation is going the other direction. I'm very consistent my use the word prayer. My use the word prayer is the biblical use. Prayer is communication. Can it be it's communication between the creature and his creator?
It is communication that is brought about. Because God's Spirit communicates to the father The thoughts and intentions of my heart. I can simply bow my head right here. I don't have to say a word and I can pray.
How does a saint know what we're praying here on earth and if I pray to a saint? If I walk up to a person say I'd like you to pray for me. I'm using normal human communication. But you see to pray to a saint.
Who's going to communicate that to them do they somehow? Gain some special ability to be able to read the hearts of my and minds of men which by the way is only a divine Capacity or does the Holy Spirit somehow not only become the comforter who?
Intercedes For us with groanings that cannot be uttered in his in his work of communicating that deepest desires of our heart. Does that somehow he now somehow becomes the one who communicates these to Saints as well?
You see Saints in the New Testament described as those who ventured into rest in Jesus Christ. Oh what a tragedy it would be if any of those Saints Had any idea of the woes? That are constantly laid upon their doorstep by so many people today, how could they be at rest?
How could they be at peace? When constantly the diseases and sicknesses of the life from which they have been Delivered are laid upon their doorstep. I'm very thankful my Lord Jesus hears those prayers.
We have seen The assertion that we are equivocating when we talk about prayer. No, I'm being very consistent. It's the Roman Catholic that equivocates by saying when I pray to pray to God. That's one thing, but I pray to a saint.
It's something else. I'm just communicating to the Saint, but I'm communicating adoring God if you are acknowledging that that Saint has some means of In some way aiding you and you well know the prayers that are out there.
I even mentioned them To you I commit my spirits prayed to Mary. That is not just communication that is worship and Biblically as we have seen that is wrong. Thank you. We will continue with the debate between myself and Patrick Madrid on the subject of veneration.
Remember painfully obviously clear that there are no coherent biblical arguments against the Roman Catholic position. That's a Patrick Madrid claim last week. We're letting you find out for yourself. We'll do it again on dividing line next week.
See you then. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries.
If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O. Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona 85069. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. For the dividing line.