Papal Infallibility (White vs Sungenis)

I'm Bob Stongenis. I'm happy to be here to defend the Catholic position on this very important topic.

Just to let you know a little bit about myself, I was born and raised a Catholic for 19 years, and after that I was a

Protestant for 18 years. And eight years ago I came back to the

Catholic Church, and I'm happy to represent the Catholic Church's teachings, and I can safely say that I know both sides of the issue, having spent equal time on both sides.

I do run an organization, and it's called Catholic Apologetics International, and we teach and defend the

Catholic faith across the country and internationally, with books and tapes and lectures and debates like this and all kinds of things.

We have an internet site, and you can call us up anytime, day or night, and we'll answer your questions about the

Catholic faith, and feel free to do that if after tonight you have any questions about what's debated. So with that, as far as my education,

I was educated more as a Protestant than I was as a Catholic. So I went to a Protestant seminary,

I graduated from there, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and so I'm very familiar with Protestant doctrines, how you think, what you believe, and why you believe them.

And I hope tonight to maybe give you the other side of the story. Thank you. It is good to be with you this evening.

My name is James White. I'm the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I teach for the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

I'm an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and author of a number of books, two of which are relevant here,

The Roman Catholic Controversy and Mary, Another Redeemer. And our work with Alpha and Omega Ministries has given us the opportunity of engaging in, and I believe this is about the 28th or 29th moderated debate like this, on the subjects of Roman Catholicism and giving an answer.

And so I really do appreciate the hard work that has gone into making this evening an opportunity for us to address this very important issue.

In 1870, Pope Pius IX said in Pastor Aeternus, It is a divinely revealed dogma that the

Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all

Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed

Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals, and that such definitions of the

Roman pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the church.

Now, there are certain criterion for papal infallibility that are listed here. Let me go through them for you.

Number one, the pope must be speaking in his recognized role as teacher for all Christians. Number two, that he precisely defines a doctrine, not merely give general teaching.

Number three, that the definition concerns only matters of faith or morality.

Number four, that the definition is commanded to be believed and obeyed by the whole church.

And number five, that such teachings are irreformable and not subject to denial from the church.

Without these criterion fulfilled, the Roman pontiff does not speak infallibly. If only a percentage of them are fulfilled, then the

Roman pontiff is not speaking infallibly. Does this infer that when the pope does speak infallibly, that he can and has taught error?

Well, this is one of those have you stopped beating your wife questions that takes a little more than a yes or no answer to answer.

God gives each man a measure of wisdom. Moses, for example, was a great man and had a great amount of wisdom from God.

With that wisdom, Moses made many great decisions for the people of Israel. He commissioned 70 elders with a proportionate amount of wisdom to help in making these judgments.

Solomon, too, had great wisdom. He saved a baby's life from the treacherous hands of a barren woman by using his wisdom.

Yet, no one would say that Solomon or his decisions were infallible. In the end, although things are a little different today, we still go by the same principle.

In his ordinary teaching, the pope will use his God -given wisdom to lead the church. John Paul, too, for example, has written many encyclicals and letters and has spoken about the faith on countless occasions to the world.

Like Moses, his judgments are trustworthy and demand the assent of God's people. When he writes, he writes with authority.

When he speaks, he speaks with authority. Yet, not every sentence of an encyclical, for example, if diagrammed and analyzed, would show that everything the pope said was absolutely without the slightest tinge of error.

But in such teachings, not every word or phrase has to be infallible in order for the general teaching to be in line with the general truth of the

Christian faith, which was passed down through the fathers and the previous popes and councils. But things are very different when the pope speaks infallibly.

Speaking infallibly means that not only is the general teaching correct, but every word, every phrase, every sentence used to arrive at that truth is without error, for it is a precise definition of a specific issue.

To give you an idea of this in a conciliar document, the Nicene Creed is infallible in every word, every phrase, every sentence it proclaims.

There is not a single item that is subject to error. Christ is begotten, not made, one in being with the

Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and so on and so on.

In the same way, when Pope Pius XII defined the assumption of Mary in 1950, all his words were without error, for they defined a specific issue and bound people to that issue under threat of anathema.

In cases like these, similar to God's other intrusions into human history, the Holy Spirit miraculously protects the

Church from producing any error. In my next section, I will explain the biblical basis for this

Catholic teaching. Why are we here this evening?

Why would someone such as myself desire to debate the subject of papal infallibility?

Quite simply, it's because of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And you may ask, what do you mean?

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the reason why we have this debate this evening. Fundamentally, the differences that exist between what

I believe is biblical Christianity and the Roman Catholic system of belief comes to the issue of authority in defining what the gospel is.

It was only a few years ago that I debated another Roman Catholic apologist by the name of Jerry Matitix.

And in the course of our debate on the doctrine of Mary, Mr. Matitix very boldly proclaimed that the bodily assumption of Mary, which is based upon the dogma we debate this evening, the infallibility of the

Pope, as Mr. St. Genes just said in making reference to those things, that the bodily assumption of Mary is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And so who has the authority to define the gospel of Jesus Christ? Has the gospel once for all been delivered to the saints?

Or is the gospel subject to addition? Now, Rome does not say that the bodily assumption is an addition, that in fact it is an apostolic tradition.

But when we examine those teachings, whether it be the Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption, the

Mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice, the infallibility of the Pope himself, when we examine these dogmas and we find them to be ahistorical, to be things that the apostles and the

Lord Jesus never taught, fundamentally we come down to the conclusion that we have two differing views of authority.

And the ultimate authority of the Church in the Roman Catholic system results in the proclamation of dogmas that I believe violate the command of the

Apostle Paul in Galatians 1 .6 -8. Therefore, if I love people, including those who are a part of the

Roman Catholic communion, then the greatest act of love that I can give to them is to point out to them the errors of the system that would take from them the gospel of grace and add anything to the gospel that brings men into a right relationship with God.

And so ultimately, the only reason that we address this issue this evening, the only reason that we address

Bishop Honorius and Bishop Zosimus and we get into the historical details, is to come back to being able to say, what is the gospel, where do we go to find out what the gospel is?

Do we go to that which is the anustos, the scriptures, and do we confess that they are sufficient to act as the sole infallible rule of faith of the

Church, or is there something more, is there an infallible magisterium that we must follow to know what the gospel is?

That's why we're here this evening. And so I invite every one of you, whether you are Catholic or non -Catholic, whatever your background is, to listen carefully to what is said this evening, because remember, ultimately the system that is being defended this evening claims to have the authority to define the gospel by which you will either stand before God or by which you will not be able to stand before God.

The issues this evening are eternal. The issues this evening are vital.

And I'm so thankful that you're here to share in this experience with us. Thank you. I will cover two passages in this eight -minute section.

The first passage is Matthew 16, verses 18 to 19. Here Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom.

This giving of the keys is, in itself, very important, since the keys to the kingdom are given to no other single person of the apostolic band.

Although in Matthew 18, verse 18, the other apostles are also given the power to bind and loose, they are not given that power in connection with the keys of the kingdom.

In fact, right after Jesus gives Peter the keys, in Matthew 16, verse 19, the words for you in the clauses you shall bind or you shall loose are

Greek singulars which refer only to Peter. There are several distinguishing features of Matthew 16 from which we derive the teaching of the infallibility of the

Pope. First, if we back up a few sentences to verses 13 to 17, we see that Peter is given a direct revelation from the

Father that none of the other apostles receive. What he receives is the knowledge that Jesus is the

Messiah. At Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus says,

Blessed are you some in Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven.

In other words, no flesh and blood human taught this to him. It came directly from the Father. Second, still speaking to Peter in verse 18,

Jesus says that he will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against the church. This shows that Jesus will be continually active in protecting the church throughout its existence.

Thus it is no surprise to read in John 14, verse 16, Jesus saying these words, And I will ask the

Father, and he will give you another counselor to be with you until the end of the age, the spirit of truth.

And again in John 16, verse 13, When he, the spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

Hence the protection of the church is not merely referred to its physical existence, but to its possessing of truth given to it by the

Holy Spirit. By declaring that Jesus is the Messiah in verse 13, Peter has already shown us how the

Father will reveal truth to him through the Holy Spirit. Third, the parameters of what the church will receive are detailed in the statement of verse 19.

Jesus says, Whatever you bind, and whatever you loose.

The word whatever comes from the Greek words ho -ay -on and means precisely what our translations render it.

Jesus says that whatever Peter decides to bind or loose, then that is bound or loosed.

This is the same Greek singular we find in Luke 22, verses 31 to 32, when Jesus says,

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you, singular, like weak, but I have prayed for you, singular, that your faith may not fail, and you, singular, when you, once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.

Whatever one's interpretation of Matthew 16, it must be admitted that in verse 19,

Peter is given the sole prerogative to decide what shall be bound and what shall be loosed.

Hence, if we as Catholics state that the Pope, who has succeeded the office Jesus gave to Peter when he gave him the keys of the kingdom, has the power to decide what will be bound and what will be loosed, we derive it right from this passage.

If, for example, the Pope decides that in order to establish infallible teaching, all

Peter's successors must fulfill the five criterion of infallibility I listed earlier from Pastor Aeternus, in order for their teaching to be considered infallible, then that teaching stands and all

Pontiffs will be subject to it. No, the Pope is not being audacious here. He is merely following Jesus' declaration that whatever you,

Peter, decide to bind, it shall be bound in heaven. Notice that Jesus does not say whatever

Scripture says you can bind, you shall bind, but whatever you, Peter, shall bind, shall be bound.

This is why Paul also, in 1 Timothy 3 .15, says, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not

Scripture. Fourth, and most important, is how, in Matthew 16, verse 19,

Jesus uniquely constructs the reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth. Not only does

Jesus give Peter full prerogative to decide precisely what will be bound or loosed, Jesus says that whatever

Peter decides the binding or loosing will be, then that binding or loosing will also be bound or loosed in heaven.

Now here is the fascinating and absolutely overwhelming truth that emanates from this reciprocal relationship

Jesus established. God is in heaven. Thus the binding or loosing of Peter is sent to God in heaven.

We know from Titus 1 .2, in the very nature of God, that he cannot lie. He cannot tell a lie.

He cannot sanction a lie. He cannot condone a lie. He cannot confirm a lie. Thus, it is an axiomatic theological truth that God cannot bind or loose a lie.

Yet we are told clearly in Matthew 16, verse 19, by Jesus himself, that whatever

Peter binds or looses, God will bind or loose in heaven. If, since he cannot lie,

God can only bind truth, then this must mean that whatever Peter decides to bind or loose cannot be a lie.

Otherwise, this would make God a liar, for he committed himself to bind whatever

Peter bound. The next passage is Acts 15, verses 1 to 28.

I don't have time to read all that I have written on this, but let me begin. This is the precedent for papal infallibility because in Acts 15 it opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved.

There was much discussion about this. One Pharisee stood up and said, it is necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved.

There was a lot of discussion. No one came to a conclusion. This was especially difficult because Scripture did not predict or even allow the rescission of circumcision.

In fact, circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years prior to Moses, and the

Mosaic law. And one might think that it had a special place in the economy of God because it was outside the

Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on.

The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral tradition never suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.

But in the midst of this confusion, Acts 15, 7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders.

Three times in his speech, he invokes the name of God to back up his singular authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole church.

In verse 7, he says that God chose him singly to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15, 10, he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting

God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation, that men are saved by grace, not works of law.

This was an unprecedented moment for the church. Without reference to either scripture or tradition, Peter makes an irreformable doctrine for the church that will bind the church from then till the end of time.

We know this to be the case since the church, from Peter onwards, has never required circumcision for its converts.

When we consider the claim of biblical evidence for papal infallibility, we have to recognize a number of things.

The argument for the idea that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter is the result of a very long chain of propositions.

You heard a few of those assertions made in regards to Matthew chapter 16. But what we need to recognize is the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in scripture.

Even though there is a letter to the church at Rome, there was no singular bishop of Rome at the time, and in point of fact, church historians,

Catholic and Protestant, recognized that the church at Rome continued to function under the auspices of a multitude, a plurality of elders, well into the second century.

So the idea that the apostles and the writers of the New Testament had in mind a singular successor to Peter, even if all the arguments of Peter were valid, which we do not believe they were, somewhat begs the question of how, then, that becomes transferred specifically to the bishop of Rome.

Now, I would like to point out, in responding to what Mistress of Genesis says later, first and foremost to you what the

New Testament teaches about what our ultimate authority is. When the Lord Jesus taught, the ultimate authority, when he would quote from scripture, was the very words of God.

Jesus did bind men to scripture. He never bound them to Peter, nor did he bind them to anyone else but the scriptures.

He held men accountable to those scriptures. He called them hypocrites when they had the scriptures and denied what the scriptures said.

The apostles likewise. One quotation from the scriptures was sufficient to settle the case in their words as well.

But it's highly significant. Think with me briefly, and time is fleeting, so just write these passages down.

When Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3, he warns

Timothy that evil men would be coming into the church. He warns Timothy there's going to be difficulties.

And in Acts 20, the apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that there would be those who would come up within the ranks of the eldership itself that would teach false doctrine.

Now, in light of these issues, and here we're specifically talking about false teaching, how to respond to false teaching and false doctrine, in the light of the fact that the church is going to experience false teachers, what does the

Bible tell us to do about false teaching? Does it say, look to the successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome?

It never says anything of the kind. Does it set up a hierarchy based upon Peter as the bishop of Rome?

No, it never does. What do we see in both Acts 20 and in 2 Timothy 3?

We see in both instances, the apostle Paul directs the church to the

Scriptures. He says to Timothy, if you want to be a man of God who is able to reprove and rebuke, you go to that which is theanoustos, you go to the

Scriptures. He says to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, even when men arise from among yourselves speaking perverse things, what does he say to the church in Acts 20, verse 32?

And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

There is no word of a bishop of Rome. There is no word of a pope or a papacy or an infallible authority outside of what

God himself speaks in Scripture. Now, if there is going to be anywhere where we find the apostle

Paul directing us to what modern Roman Catholicism teaches, this is where it would be.

We're not talking about binding and loosing. Binding and loosing has to do with the proclamation of the

Gospel and the forgiveness of sins. All the apostles were given equal authority. And the early church fathers all believed that the apostles were given this, the keys and the power of binding and loosing are the same thing.

That was the early church's view. So that was in the proclamation of the Gospel. But what about doctrine?

What about theology? Where do we go for that? And when we find the Scriptures talking about doctrine and theology, what do they direct us to?

They direct us solely and only to God's holy Word. That needs to be remembered when we think about the biblical evidence concerning this doctrine that I submit to you was unknown in the early church.

It was unknown to the apostles, and it was unknown to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. And so if we follow the apostolic example and the apostolic command, then we do not look to Peter.

In Luke 22, when the Lord Jesus reestablishes Peter and says, when you've been turned, strengthen the brethren.

The reason in that passage that's singularly addressed to Peter is because Peter is the only one who publicly denied his

Lord and had to be reestablished in his place of leadership. He made a public denial of Christ, and he needs a public reinstatement to that position of leadership.

And aren't we all thankful that God doesn't discard us when we have failures as Peter did because we would all be out of an opportunity of ministry.

I am reminded when we think of the biblical evidence on this subject of the words of Augustine, who will come up later on.

He was talking about Scripture, and he said these words when he talked about reading from the holy

Scriptures in order for our instruction and salvation. He says, A thing which you ought especially to observe and to commit to your memory, because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors

God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures against which no man dares to speak who in any sort wishes to seem a

Christian. I agree with Augustine. God has committed to us in the

Scriptures that which makes us strong in refuting the heresies and errors that the church will have to deal with throughout her existence.

And we need to recognize that one of the main arguments that other Roman Catholic apologists are presenting today is that well, you know, if you only go with Scripture and you don't have the papacy, then you have no way of responding to all these false teachers out there.

You have all these false teachers teaching this, that, and the other thing, and if you have the Bible alone, you can't refute them.

I do not believe that that is the case at all. The Scriptures are sufficient for the refutation of false teaching.

It is not the Scriptures' fault that men like to have their ears tickled. In fact, the Scriptures warn us that there will be those who are like the sailboats that we saw out on the ocean today blown about by every wind of doctrine.

It is not an insufficiency in Scripture to recognize the impact of sin upon man himself.

And so when we think of these particular issues regarding the assertion that there is biblical evidence for the infallibility of Peter, I remind you that what

Peter did in Galatians 2, when he did not walk straight in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, but had to be rebuked by the

Apostle Paul for his not walking in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, it was after all these words had been said to him.

And upon what basis was he to be corrected? He was to be corrected on the basis of the fact that the

Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is not something that is up for modification over time.

It has been once for all delivered to the saints. And it is that Gospel that we stand for and that we love.

Thank you. Dr. White has said that the

Bishop of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture. Well, the Bishop of no city is ever mentioned in Scripture, so it really makes no difference whether the

Bishop of Rome is not mentioned. Scripture doesn't mention a lot of things, but we can't make arguments based on its silence.

And he tried to divert the discussion to one of succession, but we really aren't here to talk about succession. If we were, we would have to set aside another debate to do that.

That's kind of hard to do, but I would be willing to come back to do another debate on that very topic. He said that Jesus never bound the truths of the

Gospel to Peter, but that's exactly what Matthew 16, verse 18 says. It says, Whatever you,

Peter, shall bind shall be bound. He didn't say that about Scripture anywhere in the

New Testament. Although Scripture is extolled and glorified for the beauty and the truth that it holds, it is never put in a position of being the determiner of truth singly.

That was given to Peter in Matthew 16, which he did not address. Bound to Scripture?

Yes, we believe that we are bound to Scripture, but who is the interpreter of Scripture? Everyone's bound to Scripture, but that is the key issue, is who has the authority to interpret what it says?

He says that the New Testament does not set up a hierarchy to determine truth.

Well, I suggest that you turn to Matthew 18, verse 18, and it says, If you have a conflict with your brother, take it to your brother.

If he doesn't listen to you, you take it to the church. Does it say, take it to Scripture? No, it does not. It says, take it to the church.

In 2 Timothy 3 .16, which he alluded to, Noah doesn't talk about controversy there, and that's why the command to Timothy is not dealing with the church in that passage, because Paul is not talking about controversy in 2

Timothy 3 .16. He's talking about teaching people. When it comes to controversy, that's when the church is brought into the picture, as we see in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18.

And where does it direct us for doctrine and theology? Mr. White said it only directed us to the

Scripture. Well, that's not what 1 Timothy 3 .15 says. 1 Timothy 3 .15 says that the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth.

He said that Peter denied his Lord. Well, we acknowledge that, but as I stated earlier, that's not a criterion for infallibility.

Infallibility does not mean that the man himself is impeccable. It means only under certain conditions, and guided by the

Holy Spirit, he can give us truth. So that example will not demote infallibility. He said

Augustine said that that which makes us strong is the Scripture. Well, we agree with that in Catholicism, but the extolling of Scripture is not sola scriptura.

The extolling of Scripture does not demote papal authority. We extol Scripture all the time, and Augustine, you will never find in his writings ever once opposing the church's teachings to Scripture.

Not once. Well, this is our opportunity for rebuttal, so let me respond to some of the things that have been said.

If you look back at Acts chapter 15, you'll discover that the people came to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, not to Peter the

Pope in Jerusalem. Secondly, it was just said that the bishop of no city is ever mentioned.

That's incorrect. Timothy was the bishop at Ephesus, Titus, the bishop at the church at Crete. Acts chapter 17 tells us that Scripture does determine the truth, and in fact, if you look at what happened with the

Bereans, the Scriptures determine the truth even of the apostolic proclamation of the gospel. In fact, the

Bereans are commended for comparing what the apostles taught with what the Scriptures to see whether those things were so.

So the Scriptures are put in that position. We are told that Matthew chapter 18 establishes this hierarchy of the church.

Matthew chapter 18 tells us you have something with your brother. It's talking about interpersonal matters of sin, and I never said that there is no quote -unquote hierarchy in the church.

There are elders and there are deacons in the church. There is just not a bishop of Rome that is the pastor of all

Christians. 2 Timothy 3 .16 does refer to matters of dispute, especially about doctrine.

The words that Paul uses there, especially when he speaks of reproving and rebuking and exhorting in sound doctrine are exactly about that very issue, and 2

Timothy makes it very clear that the bishop in the church is to be able to refute those who contradict. 1

Timothy 3 .15 does say that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but we need to recognize something.

There are pillars and there is a foundation in this building right now, and all of those under the balcony are very thankful that they are sound.

Are you not? Because that pillar and foundation is holding something else up. The church holds something else up.

The church does not become the truth because she is the pillar and foundation of the truth. She holds the truth up and presents the truth.

She does not become the very definition thereof. When we look at what Augustine said, he said that what is in Scripture is what makes us strong against insidious errors.

You will not find Augustine saying that what is found in the papal encyclicals of the bishop of Rome is what makes us strong against insidious errors.

That was the reason that I cited that. And finally, in regards to Matthew chapter 16, we discover that the future tense is used in Matthew 16.

Jesus says I will give you the keys. If Matthew 18 is the fulfillment of that, then all the apostles got them together.

If Matthew 18 is not the fulfillment of that, then we do not even have the Scriptures recording for us the point in time when this allegedly most important and foundational event took place.

In reality, Matthew 18 is when Peter received this authority equally with all the other apostles, not separate from them.

And so we see that when we look at the Scriptures, we see that they are consistent with themselves and with the form and function of the

Church that is based upon the Holy Scriptures. Thank you. We only have one clock,

Mr. St. Janus. And we're now supposed to do cross -examination, so I'm not sure how we're going to do that.

Since you're asking the questions first, I'll give you the clock. Okay. Thank you. We need to get more than one of those.

Yeah. Dr. White, you said that the missionaries did not come in Acts 15 to see

Peter, but the apostles and the elders. I would direct you to Acts 15, which says that in the first verses that they are in discussion, and for the next verses, from verses 1 to 11,

Peter is addressing the Council of Jerusalem, and only he is speaking. And it was for the very purpose that the missionaries came to the

Council of Jerusalem to get a decision on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. And Peter gave that decision that they don't have to be circumcised.

So I would ask you why you insist that they didn't come to see Peter, they came to see the apostles and elders, and what distinction, that I would call distinction without a difference, really means.

Okay. 15 .2 says, Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue, which was the citation that I was quoting.

I think you just said Peter spoke from 1 to 11. He actually speaks from 7 through 11.

And then I would respond by saying that if he gave the decision, there was no reason why, beginning in verse 12, the people keep silent listening to Paul and Barnabas as they then relate their experiences in God sending the gospel to Gentiles, and why it is that then

James is the one who gives his judgment using the imperative voice and, in point of fact, this council is under his direction and not

Peter's direction. And so that is the brief biblical basis for the comment that I made, but specifically verse 2 is what

I was referring to just a few moments ago in my comments. All right. Let me follow up with that. Peter is not an apostle, is he not?

Yes, he is one of the apostles. Okay. So would you agree that they also came to see Peter? Yes, to all the apostles and elders, yes.

Okay. Would you agree that the subject material now changes in verse 12 when Peter or Paul and Barnabas start talking about their missionary activity and also that the subject has changed when

James starts to speak about something other than what Peter declared about circumcision? No, I do not believe that there is a change at all, only in the sense that the beginning of verse 12 when

Paul and Barnabas speak they are confirming the statements of Peter. There is a harmony that exists between all the apostles and when

James gives his judgment using the imperative voice in the Greek language,

I think he is the one who is summing up the information that has been presented from a number of sources, but we are only given two, and that is verses 7 through 11 where Peter speaks and verses 12 and following where Paul and Barnabas speak.

Two issues. One is you said that they confirmed Peter's declaration. What does that mean?

That means that they demonstrated through the retelling of their missionary efforts the fact that God had in fact poured out his blessing upon the ministry to the

Gentiles which is a confirmation of what Peter himself has said in those verses 7 through 11 that you have already looked at.

And does that not tell us that Peter made a declaration and they are agreeing to that? Certainly. He makes a declaration that the gospel is the gospel of grace and they are saying that they have themselves been declaring that gospel of grace and that God has blessed that gospel of grace by pouring his spirit out upon the

Gentiles who embraced it. Thank you. Embraced it. I'm sorry. In verse 13 you make an issue about the imperative voice when

James says listen to me. If I said to you James listen to me does that mean that I have authority over you?

Well I think it is the combination. I think many exegetes both Catholic and Protestant would see that both the statement brethren listen to me using the imperative and then verse 19 therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those that the two together is very indicative of the individual who is leading the council.

We know that James was in fact the one who was in leadership in the church in Jerusalem and I don't see any evidence whatsoever in Acts chapter 15 that Peter either led this council or that anyone treats him as anything other than an apostle of the

Lord Jesus Christ. Did anyone make the decision that circumcision was no longer to be required of the Gentiles other than Peter?

They all agreed with it no but he's the one who stated it. Okay. Did anybody raise an objection to the fact that he singly gave that dogma?

I don't know if anyone raised an objection because it's not recorded it's only until verse 12 that we hear all the people kept silent.

There does seem to be some discussion that was going on especially what Paul says in Galatians but it is not recorded for us.

Wouldn't it be rather audacious for Peter to assume this position if it was not expected of him to do so? No, since the apostle was simply proclaiming what had been revealed to him in the vision on the housetop.

Now, Mr. St. Janus going to your presentation drawn from Matthew chapter 16 you would agree with the statement that I made that when

Jesus says I will give you the keys this is in the future tense? Sure.

When did Peter receive these keys? It doesn't say and it's irrelevant. The point is in fact that he would receive the keys.

Okay. Do you believe he received the keys along with the other apostles in Matthew 18? Well, it doesn't say whether they received the keys then either.

Okay. So is it your position that the scripture never records for us the singular reception of these keys to Peter and Peter alone?

Well, it doesn't say it in Matthew 16 or Matthew 18. I would suggest that other passages like Acts chapter 2 and the whole book of Acts more or less basically tells us that these keys had indeed been distributed to the apostles by the descent of the

Holy Spirit. Now you mentioned Luke chapter 22 and you talked about the singular uses there.

Would you agree that in Luke chapter 22 that Peter had in a singular way denied

Christ publicly? Yes, but that's not the criterion for infallibility. Okay. Does the scripture ever refer to the word infallibility in regards to Peter?

Yes. I claim that Matthew chapter 16 does. If he binds and God says that he binds because Peter bound and God can't lie, well

God's infallible. So that must mean that what Peter binds and God binds, what Peter bound must be infallible because otherwise

God couldn't bind it. So binding and loosing in your perspective is synonymous with the teaching of a doctrine regarding faith and morals.

Yes, partly. Okay. Is it your position that the apostles, all of the apostles believed in the doctrine of the infallibility of Peter and his successors?

Yes. Okay. Is this then been the universal belief of the church from the days of the apostles?

Yes. Okay. When you indicated early on in your last response that scripture is never given as the standard upon which to which truth is to be determined, in Acts chapter 17 when

Paul preaches the gospel in Berea and the

Bereans are commended for their searching of the scriptures to see whether the proclamation of the apostles was true, was that a good action on their part or a bad action on their part?

If you stop beating your wife. That was a good action and I'll have to explain it to you because I'm not a

But when Paul introduces the whole subject to them, he's the one who's interpreting the scriptures for them.

And as a matter of fact, those various scriptures that he pointed to did not say that the Messiah was

Jesus. And that's the controversy that's happening here. The only way that they know that it's

Jesus is because Paul reveals it to them by a special revelation because it's nowhere in scripture. So they could have searched the scriptures until they were blue in the face.

They would never have found the name of the Messiah and that's the issue at stake here. So what does it mean in verse 11 when it says that they were examining the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so?

Because Paul just told them that the Messiah was Jesus whom they had crucified and they wanted to see if the very passages that Paul pointed to, namely

Isaiah 53, in fact did measure up to the crucifixion of Jesus and they found it to be true.

So what they did is confirm what Paul told them that Jesus was the Messiah by going back to the scriptures daily and finding that yes, he is exactly telling us the truth by the revelation

God gave them. How would someone today be able to apply this Berean test which is commended to a doctrine such as the bodily assumption of Mary?

Well, you can open up the Bible and look in Revelation chapter 12. That's where Pius the

Twelfth told us to look and that's where Paul's the sixth said that they got the teaching from. So there are very many allusions to the assumption of Mary.

I would grant you that it's not explicit but there's no teaching in scripture that it has to be explicit in order to be true.

So a person could turn to Revelation chapter 12 and the woman closed with the son.

Do you happen to know what the earliest interpretation of that passage in church history was? Earliest interpretation?

Yeah, there's many interpretations of that passage in early history. And it's not the earliest that this is representative of the church?

Yeah, it's one of them. There's another early one that said it was Eve. There's another one that said it was Mary. There's all kinds of interpretations.

So it is your position then that there is an equality between what the Bereans did in Acts 17 and what someone could do today in looking at Revelation chapter 12 and seeing the bodily assumption of Mary?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it's a very good parallel because scripture didn't tell the Bereans the identity of the

Messiah. And that was their problem. They didn't know who he was. And Revelation 12 doesn't tell us the identity of the woman, but the church does.

And Paul did the same thing to the Bereans. He told them that Jesus was the Messiah. In concluding,

I would say, just to address some of the issues that Dr. White had brought up before that I didn't get a chance to talk about.

In 2 Timothy 3 .16, he said it talks about disputes there and so therefore we need to go to 2

Timothy 3 .16, but it just talks in general language there about teaching, correction, training in righteousness and so forth.

And that's not dealing with an actual dispute. That's just preparing Timothy in case he has a dispute. What can he use?

He can use scripture. Why? Because scripture is profitable. Does he say there that scripture is the only source of truth?

No. Does he use a word in the Greek that means that it is absolute? No. He uses a fractional word, a word that means just profitable, not absolute.

You can look that up in your Greek dictionary and find that out. There are many words Paul could have used if he wanted to make it an absolute teaching, that scripture was our only place to go for disputes.

There are many Greek words he could have used, but he did not use them here. He said that Augustine did not go to the

Pope or say to go to the Pope, and I will refute that proposition very thoroughly in my next section because there are many statements in Augustine where he appeals precisely to the

Pope of Rome to settle disputes, and we'll cover those later. And he talked about 1

Timothy 3 .15 and he said that the church holds up the truth just like the pillars here are holding up the roof, and that's certainly true.

But unless the church has the authority to interpret the scripture that it holds up, then it basically has no authority.

That, when you hold up something up, you support it, not just supporting it to lift it up, but you determine what it says for the people who want to listen to you.

That's what Paul means when he says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not just that the scripture is held up, but it has the interpretive authority, just as Jesus gave to Peter in Matthew 16 .18

when he said, Whatever you bind shall be bound. If that doesn't mean he has the authority to determine what truth is, then

I really don't know what it means. When the

Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in that single passage in 2 Timothy chapter 3, it was in the context of the fact that he was about to die.

And Timothy is about to be left in a position of leading the church, that is to say, there in Ephesus. To what,

Timothy, are you going to turn after I am no longer here? He does not say you're going to turn to the bishop of Rome.

He does not say you're going to turn to Peter and his successors. He says, If you want to be the man of God, able to and be thoroughly equipped, not partially equipped, but thoroughly equipped for every good work as the man of God, you go to that which is theanoustos, you go to that which is inspired, and that is the holy scriptures.

Peter himself recognizing that Paul had been used by God to write scripture, said that there were many things in Paul's writings that were difficult to understand, which untaught and unstable men distorted to their own destruction.

There is a danger that God's truth will be misused by untaught and unstable men.

But please think with me for just a moment. If there is a danger of untaught and unstable men misusing the word of God, then what does that mean?

That means that taught and stable men are able to proclaim it and to proclaim it with clarity within the church.

That is why Paul tells Timothy, commit the things that you've heard me preach to men who are worthy, they're trustworthy to do so.

And that is why the form of the church in the New Testament is not a pope and cardinals and a magisterium.

It is elders in the church teaching the individuals in the church, the flock, caring for them on a daily basis.

And when the man of God in the church of God wants to know where he can turn to deal with any issue, including those doctrinal issues,

God has given us a sufficient revelation in his word for that man of God.

Thank you. Should we let folks know what we're going to do now?

Should I just sort of let us let you know? That was the end of round one. Round two is, round one, round two is a little bit longer.

We had eight minute statements there. What we're going to do now is we're going to start half of this round and then we're going to take a break.

This round is on a historical subject and I am going to go first in this round and in the next round.

And we're going to focus solely upon one historical issue so that we don't lose everybody. So I am going to have a fourteen minute opening statement.

Then Mr. St. Janus will have his opening statement for this round. We will have our rebuttals and then we will take a break.

So that is what is coming your direction. Alright.

Honorius was the Bishop of Rome from AD 625 to 638.

In the year 634, Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Honorius concerning Sergius' attempts to bring the monophysite, those who assert that there is only one nature in Christ, into the

Catholic fold. Now Sergius was a monoselite, that is, one who believed that while Christ was indeed one person with two natures, he had but one will, since the will, he believed, was a function of the one person, not a function of the two natures.

Now Honorius, Bishop of Rome, in responding to Sergius, provides the single clearest example of papal error.

Honorius agreed with Sergius clearly in his first letter. He wrote to Sergius as the

Bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. He responded as the Bishop of Rome to an official inquiry to the

See of Rome regarding a matter of faith and morals. He wrote to a fellow

Bishop of the Church, and in speaking of the very issue of whether Christ had one will or two, he wrote,

We confess one will in our Lord Jesus Christ. And make sure you note the use of the plural, we confess.

Honorius did not say, oh, I think maybe it's like this. He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the

Church as a whole. Now we surely can safely admit that Honorius was not the leading theologian of his day.

He made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved. The biblical standard of the elder or bishop in the

Church is not, thankfully, infallibility. And surely no one in that day believed in papal infallibility.

So to judge Honorius on the basis of modern standards is without merit. His case is famous for no other reason than the glaring and obvious anachronism of Rome's modern teaching.

Rome proclaims her bishop infallible when teaching as the pastor of all Christians on matters of faith and morals.

Obviously, it was the intention of the Vatican decree to say that the bishops of Rome have always had this charism of infallibility, which would mean it is the

Roman Catholic position that this teaching was valid in Honorius' day just as much as it is today.

So it is Rome that has placed the spotlight upon all the popes of history, not Protestants. Now there is absolutely positively no question that Honorius was, in fact, condemned as a heretic by the

Sixth Ecumenical Council, which met in Constantinople in 680 -681, for a teaching he promulgated in an official letter sent to Sergius as the bishop of Rome.

Here are the facts. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th session near the beginning.

His two letters, which he wrote to Sergius, were ordered to be burned at the same session as being hurtful to the soul.

This includes the letter that contains the phrase, We confess one will. In the 16th session, the bishops exclaimed,

Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.

In the Decree of Faith, published at the 18th session, it is stated that, quote, The originator of all evil found a fit tool for his will in Honorius, Pope of Old Rome.

Further, this ecumenical council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine. They said that Satan had actively employed them in raising up for the whole church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ, our true

God. Thus disseminating in novel terms amongst the Orthodox people a heresy.

The papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius as well as to the statement that Satan himself had used the

Bishop of Rome as a tool for his will. The report of the council to the emperor says that Honorius, formerly

Bishop of Rome, they had, quote, punished with exclusion and anathema, end quote, because he followed the monothelites.

In his letter to Pope Agatho, the council says, we have destroyed the four to the heretics and slain them with anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely,

Theodore of Perron, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc. Note that the council believed its actions to be in full accord with Agatho's wishes and Agatho's letter.

The imperial decree speaks of the unholy priests who infected the church and falsely governed and mentions among them

Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.

The emperor goes on to anathematize Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.

Pope Leo II confirms the decrees of the council and expressly says that he, too, anathematized

Honorius. So strong was Leo's confirmation that Baronius rejected it, saying it had to have been spurious, and even

Cardinal Bellarmine tried to say it had been corrupted. Neither saw in Leo's words any softening of the council's act, though some modern

Catholic apologists have attempted to find in Leo's sentence a ray of hope. Leo anathematized

Honorius, who did not illuminate this apostolic sea with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.

That Honorius was anathematized by the sixth council is mentioned in the canons of the Council of Trullo, which met less than two decades after Constantinople.

This shows that the condemnation of Honorius was accepted by the wider Church immediately after the council and amongst those who were familiar with Leo's letter.

So, too, the seventh council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith and in several places in the

Acts the same is said. Honorius's name was found in the Roman copy of the

Acts. This means that in Rome itself the condemnation with anathema as a heretic was embraced and accepted.

The papal oath is found in the Liber Dienus taken by each new pope up to the 11th century states in no uncertain words, quote, smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy,

Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics, end quote.

Every single pope who took to the chair of Peter for 300 years did so by anathematizing his predecessor

Honorius. In the lesson for the feast of Saint Leo II in the Roman breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the sixth synod and the name remains there until the 16th century.

Patrick Madrid in his book Pope Fiction erroneously asserts that Pope Leo redefined the language of the sixth excommunical council.

He writes that Leo, confirmed the council's decree but redefined its language regarding Pope Honorius making it clear that Honorius had not endorsed the monothelitism of Sergius but had failed in his duty to condemn it.

Officially, therefore, Honorius was condemned for his negligence but not for heresy, end quote. This is truly imaginative but it is also utterly untrue.

Leo did not alter any wording of the council. He never said that the council had erred in its condemnation nor did he dream he had the authority to overrule it even if it did.

Madrid is referring to the letter of Leo to the emperor that I cited above. He uses the anathema and says that Honorius permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.

It is self -evident that Madrid's forced reading is in error for two reasons. First, the sixth excommunical council specifically said that Honorius and the others taught the heresy.

Was the council wrong? Did Leo say it was wrong? No, he did not. Secondly, it was not

Leo's alleged correction that appears in the seventh and eighth excommunical councils but the words of the sixth where Honorius is condemned as a heretic.

Madrid follows this with a glorious example of anachronistic interpretation of ancient church history in the light of modern

Roman Catholic beliefs when he quotes Warren Carroll's statement quote, the fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the

Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning pope and only in the form that he confirms it.

There is no supreme law prescribing how the pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme church authority but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow when he should have denounced it end quote.

Such is utterly without historical merit. The universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome.

That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the pseudo -Isidorean decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the 6th

Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo. That a belief first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the 9th century would have to be read back into the context of the clear and obvious condemnation of Honorius in the 7th century in an attempt to save him as well as to rescue a dogma defined in the 19th century is clear evidence of the impossible task facing the defender of papal infallibility in Honorius.

Further, the fact that every possible defense has been offered for Honorius' condemnation proves one thing.

None of those offered are compelling. Thus we see why Newman feared the prospect of having to defend decisions which may quote be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts end quote.

Newman understood that the unbiased observer could not help but conclude that the definition of the Vatican Council was proclaimed without any concern for the truths of history itself.

It would be wise to consider as well that during the deliberations prior to the announcement of papal infallibility at the first Vatican Council the

Pope while excluding those who opposed the definition of infallibility from publishing in Rome allowed those who supported the definition to print their books and have access to the newspapers in the city itself.

One of those works that the Pope allowed to be printed in Rome and in fact had distributed among the members of the Council while all replies were disallowed was that of Professor Panacci.

Panacci firmly advanced the assertion that Honorius' letters were ex cathedra, that they were

Orthodox and that the Council erred being made up primarily of Orientals not Westerners. Bishop Hefala, a member of the

Vatican Council, a historian of whom Philip Schaff said Hefala has forgotten more about the history of councils than the infallible

Pope ever knew, an opponent of infallibility prior to the Council but one who submitted thereafter, not only refuted

Panacci fully but had to completely revise his own writings on Honorius after the decree came out much like Newman did.

I hardly recommend the narrative provided by Philip Schaff of how Pius IX utilized everything short of the barrel of a gun to obtain the definition of his own infallibility and how completely different was this allegedly ecumenical

Council in comparison with that of Nicaea. We should also realize that to expect the men of the past who manifestly did not believe in the modern formulation of this doctrine to conform to any kind of specific formula for a teaching to be infallible likewise is to completely gut history of its meaning.

It is a common defense to say, look, Honorius did not teach this ex cathedra so it does not violate the definition.

The problem is no one back then operated on such a modern platform therefore to act as if they did is to violate all logical standards of historical inquiry.

Further, it is likewise to render every single papal statement of the past safe from the allegation of error.

That is, if you insist that a certain formula be used, you can simply dismiss all papal errors as having not been pronounced ex cathedra and all is well.

The serious investigator, however, will look at the Vatican Council's declaration and ask, do the facts of history support this claim?

And finally, I remind us all, Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople.

For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical council.

No pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a pope teach heresy in 1960 and having to wait until this very year for there to be a correction and then only from a gathered council and not from the pope himself.

For forty years those letters existed and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years you would have been led into formal heresy thereby.

How then can we know that the recently promulgated papal statement Dominus Iesus will not twenty, forty, or a hundred years from now likewise be burned as hurtful to the soul at some future council?

The fact is we cannot. And hence the uselessness of the idea of papal infallibility.

What a contrast then between this and the unchanging and unchangeable infallibility of God's word, the

Bible. Thank you. That the church understood the pope to be the final authority, the unerring authority in matters of faith and morals is not hard to find in the course of Christian history.

In 325 AD Pope Sylvester, unable to come to the council of Nicaea due to old age, sent two legates,

Vito and Vincent, to represent him. A medieval Syriac manuscript, the Analecta Sacra, states that the legates signed the

Nicene creeds, quote, in place of the pope, unquote. In turn, the

Greek church celebrates the memory of Saint Sylvester with these words, God -bearing

Father Sylvester, you appeared as a pillar of fire in sacred fashion, leading the sacred college, and on every occasion leading them with unerring teachings.

The Greek word for unerring here is aplanesos. Around 445

AD, Saint Peter Chrysogolos, Archbishop of Vervina in the East, states, we exhort you, honorable brother, to listen obediently to what has been written by the blessed pope of the city of Rome, since blessed

Peter, who lives and presides in his own sea, grants the truth of faith to those who seek it.

Menia, PL 54, 743. Around 580, Patriarch John II of Jerusalem, after calling

Pope Sylvester the bishop of the first sea of the ecumenical church, cites to the

Catholicos, quote, as for us, that is, the holy church, we have the word of the

Lord, which he spoke to Peter, head of the apostles, giving him the primacy of faith for the strengthening of the churches that were

Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. To this same Peter he gave the keys of heaven and earth.

It is in following his faith that even to this day his disciples and the teachers of the Catholic church bind and loose.

This is in the first place the privilege of those who, on the first, most holy and venerable sea, are the successors of Peter, sound in faith, and according to the word of the

Lord, infallible. The Armenian echoes the Orient. Since 1854, the eastern and western churches have been separated due to controversy.

Finally, in 519, Pope Hormizdas issues a libellus and acquires the signatures of all the eastern bishops.

Part of the libellus states, quote, the first condition of salvation is to keep the faith, the rule of faith, and not to deviate in any way from the tradition of the fathers.

And because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be overlooked, which says, quote, thou art Peter and upon this rock

I will build my church, these things that have been said have been proven by the events because in this apostolic sea the

Catholic religion has been preserved in violet. The Roman deacon Rusticus in 550

A .D. says that at that time 2 ,500 eastern bishops signed this libellus of Pope Hormizdas and submitted themselves to his rule.

In 536, Emperor Justin and the Patriarch Justinian sign a new formula which says because in this apostolic sea the

Catholic religion is always preserved in violet. They knew what the definition of is is.

Now to Honorius. If the Pope is so esteemed, so powerful, held in such high regard for preserving the faith and morals of the church throughout the centuries of the first millennium, how then do we explain the case of poor

Honorius who erred in his statement on the two wills of Christ? Let us make no mistake about it.

Although some have tried to defend Honorius by saying that he was falsely accused of heresy by the sixth ecumenical council or that somehow

Pope Leo II had softened the words of the council so as to make Honorius guilty of negligence but not heresy, we submit here tonight that Honorius was indeed justly accused of heresy for in fact it is the teaching of Chalcedon that Christ had two wills, not one, no matter what qualification one gives to the phrase one will to try to smooth it over.

Does this then make the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility null and void? Not at all. For we saw in the opening of this debate that according to the papal definition of infallibility, which definition is her prerogative to formulate since Jesus said to Peter, whatever you bind or loose, there are five criteria that must be fulfilled for infallibility to occur.

Although Catholic historians such as Hefilo and Panacea had prior to the decision of Vatican I advanced the theory that Honorius spoke ex cathedra, they have been outweighed by the majority of Catholic scholars and the church herself.

Catholic scholar John Chapman says it best, quote, it is of course absurd to regard the letter of Honorius as a definition of ex cathedra as was done by Hefilo and Panacea and others.

It was natural at the time of the Vatican council to exaggerate, but today its decree is better understood.

If the letter of Honorius to Sergius is to be considered ex cathedra, then a fortiori, all papal encyclicals addressed to the whole church at the present day must be ex cathedra, which is absurd.

In this case, not even the first condition is certainly fulfilled, for Honorius addressed Sergius alone, and it is by no means evident that he intended his letter to be published as a decree.

Further, he does not appeal, as popes habitually appealed on solemn occasions, to his apostolic authority, to the promise to Peter, to the tradition of the church.

Lastly, he neither defines nor condemns, utters no anathema or warning, but merely approves a policy of silence.

Yet, before we delve deeper into Honorius, let us first see the profound respect and allegiances the church has had at this time to the papal office and its infallibility.

Listen to the words of the Synod of Cyprus in 643 to Pope Theodore, after Honorius had already passed on.

To the most holy and God -confirmed Father of Fathers, Christ our God has instituted your apostolic chair,

Pope Theodore, O holy head, as a God -fixed and immovable foundation. For thou hast truly spake the divine word,

Art Peter, and upon the foundation and the pillars of the church have been fixed. And to thee he committed the keys of the heavens.

He ordered thee to bind and to loose with authority on earth and in heaven. Thou art said as the destroyer of profane heresies, as the

Coriatheus and leader of the orthodox and unsullied faith. Mansi, Volume 10, page 914

The esteem of the papacy for its protection of doctrine was then seen again in regard for Pope Agathos' words to the

Sixth Ecumenical Council of November 7, 680, the very council that condemned Honorius and the other eastern bishops as heretics.

Agathos writes, This is the true and undefiled profession of the Christian religion which the

Holy Ghost taught by the Prince of the Apostles, which Peter has handed down. Resting on his protection, this apostolic church of his has never turned aside from the way of truth to any part of error.

And her authority has always been faithfully followed and embraced as that of the Prince of the

Apostles by the whole Catholic Church and all the councils and by all the venerable fathers who embraced her doctrine.

So she remains unspotted to the end, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior himself, which he spake to the

Prince of the Apostles and it is known to all men that the apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always done this with confidence.

Mansi, Volume 11, page 233 Here is the most important statement by Pope Agathos to the

Sixth Council concerning Honorius that should solve the issue once and for all. Agathos writes, quote,

The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one

Pope, and he's referring to Honorius, who made no appeal to papal authority, that is

Honorius, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this,

I put the repeated and continuous protest of Pope after Pope authoritative, grave, deliberate.

Their voice was intended to be and was the voice of the infallible Roman Catholic Church. Mansi, Volume 11, page 285

Notice that Pope Agathos says that Honorius made no appeal to his papal authority, nor to tradition, when he wrote the letter to Sergius.

Agathos thus confirms our thesis that Honorius' letter was not ex cathedra. But not only does

Agathos demote the letter of Honorius, but he appeals to all prior Popes who have given, authoritative, serious, and deliberate teachings as signs of the, quote, infallible

Roman Church. The Sixth Council made no protest, asked for no clarification, postulated no distinctions regarding the letter of Pope Agathos to them.

They accepted both his estimation of Honorius and the statement regarding the infallibility of the

Roman Church uncontested. The Council writes on September 16, 681, quote,

And this holy and ecumenical synod, faithfully and with uplifted hands, greeting the letter of the most holy and blessed

Pope of Elder Rome, Agatho, to our most faithful Emperor Constantine, which cast out by name those who have preached and taught, as we have said, one will or one operation.

The Council decree was signed by the whole Council, first by the papal legates and last by the Emperor himself.

In this next quote, the victory over the monothelite heresy is attributed to the Pope.

Moreover, Agathos' own claim to be the mouthpiece of Peter is adopted by the Council. The sixth

Council writes, But with us fought the prince of the apostles, Agatho. For to assist us, he had his imitator and the successor to his chair, who exhibited to us the mystery of theology in his letter.

And the ink shone, and by Agatho, Peter spoke. Our true

God has revealed your holiness as a wise physician, mightily driving away the disease of heresy by the medicine of orthodoxy.

We therefore leave to you, what is to be done, since you occupy the first sea of the universal church and stand on the firm rock of the faith, which also we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the apostles,

Peter, Mansi, Volume 11. And then the Emperor drafts an edict, which is signed by all the

Council's bishops, which confirms the infallibility of Pope Agatho on the issue of monothelitism and Honorius.

The Emperor writes, These are the teachings of the voices of the Gospels and the

Apostles. These, the doctrines of the Holy Synods and of the elect and patristic tongues, these have been preserved untainted by Peter, the rock of the faith, the head of the apostles, referring to Agatho.

The Emperor himself wrote a letter to Pope Agatho concerning the letter that Agatho wrote to the

Sixth Council about the heresy of Honorius. Concerning Agatho's letter, the Emperor states, We compared it with the voices of the

Gospels and of the Apostles and set beside it the decisions and definitions of the Holy Ecumenical Councils and compared the quotations in it with the precepts of the

Fathers. And with the eyes of our understanding, we saw it as it were the very ruler of the Apostolic Choir, the

Proto -Cathedrus Peter himself, declaring the mystery of the whole dispensation, addressing Christ by his word,

Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God. As Chapman says, These letters show us that the bishops of the

Sixth Ecumenical Council, the very council that condemned Honorius, and the whole mentality of the seventh century, despite the misstatement of Honorius, had much more than a rudimentary idea of papal infallibility.

The council accepted the letter of Pope Agatho, which defined the faith. It deposed those who refused to accept his letter.

It asked Agatho to confirm its decision. The bishops and the Emperor declared that Agatho's letter contains the doctrine of the

Fathers. Agatho claimed to speak with the voice of Peter, and the council and the Emperor affirmed it as the voice of Peter.

His dogma had gone forth to all the churches, both east and west. He kept the faith unaltered.

So, if anything, the heresy of Honorius affords us the great opportunity to show the true nature of papal infallibility by allowing us to contrast the undefined, non -binding, and unclaimed for infallibility or Petrine office kind of statement that Honorius issued with the defined, binding, traditional,

Petrine -based, and claimed to infallibility decree of Agatho.

Neither the sixth ecumenical council nor any other council has ever considered that Honorius had compromised the purity of the infallible papal office, for they knew that Honorius never claimed to represent his statement on the wills of Christ as infallible teaching.

Far from demoting papal infallibility, we see that the case of Honorius teaches the

Church the true nature of papal infallibility, its nature, and its limits, its usefulness, and its timeliness by contrasting non -binding heresy of Honorius against the binding truth of Agatho.

Just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and thus deny them to be ex cathedra, since they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole

Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the letters of Honorius by the custom of their own day and concluded that they did not claim what papal letters were supposed to claim in order to be considered infallible.

That they only attributed to Agatho's letters. In cases where no appeal is made to the tradition of the

Church, where there is no precise definition and where no penalties are threatened for noncompliance to the whole Church, there can be no instance of infallibility.

The seal on the whole affair is noted in the confirmation of Pope Leo on the sixth council in his letter of 682.

My predecessor, Pope Agatho, of apostolic memory together with his honorable council preached this norm of the right apostolic tradition.

This he sent by letter to your piety by his own legates. And now this holy and great council has accepted it and embraced it in all things.

Let me just mention that we now have three minute rebuttals each. When Mr. St.

Genes is done with his rebuttal, then Pastor, if you'll introduce the ten minute break.

That's ten. We need to keep it very tight. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It's a wonderful thing to be able to look back and say, well, that wasn't an infallible pronouncement. Interestingly enough,

Rome has never made an infallible pronouncement that that wasn't an infallible pronouncement. In fact, there is no infallible list of infallible pronouncements.

Chapman's theory is one of many theories. It wasn't one that Panacea or Hefla or Newman understood in their day and they were brilliant scholars.

So are we left with, well, this is one theory. Remember, folks, we're talking about a system that binds an infallible authority upon us and by that says that you must believe these things as part of the gospel.

Infallible authorities cannot be proven on the basis of theories and presuppositions.

Infallible authorities require infallible authority. Now, a reference was made to the

Council of Nicaea and it was, so see, you have the papal legates in charge of this.

Scholars recognize the papal legates were not in charge of Nicaea and in point of fact had nothing to do with what happened at Nicaea.

The reason they were allowed to sign first is they were some of the very few westerners who were even there and in point of fact the defense that the deity of Christ defined the

Council of Nicaea in the following generations fell not to the Bishop of Rome but to Athanasius in Alexandria.

Even when the Bishop of Rome collapsed on that issue, it was Athanasius who stood firm. So there's a vast difference between the

Christianity of the early 4th century and the much more developed papalism of the late 7th century.

No one questions that Pope Agatho used very highly exalted words of himself. In fact, he's the first to use

Luke 22 in the way that modern Roman Catholic apologists do. But the fact remains that if you had lived in those days and you had read the letters of Honorius how would you have known what

Agatho was going to say 40 years later? If you read a papal encyclical today, if you read

Humanae Vitae, if you read Dominus Iesus that just came out August 6th, how do you know that what it teaches will be considered infallible after the current

Pope has died and a new Pope takes his place? The simple fact of the matter is, friends, you don't know.

Church history proves over and over again you have no way of knowing. And so I'm going to ask Mr. St. Genes, can you give us infallible certainty from the

Bishop of Rome where he has specifically said that the theory that you've advanced, which isn't the theory that the last person

I debated in this subject advanced, why is your theory sufficient and the theories presented by other

Roman Catholic apologists and scholars are not? Because these issues, as I said, go to the

Gospel itself. Thank you. Dr.

White said that hindsight is wonderful, and yes it is, on very many occasions. He said that Rome never made an infallible announcement of the issue of Honorius.

Well, they did that in 1870, when the Pope gave us the criterion for infallibility. Now, logically, how could the

Pope give us a criterion for infallibility knowing that Honorius had made a misstatement and still declared the papacy to be infallible?

He must have known about the issue of Honorius and he must have studied it very well. That he did. And that's why he gave five criterion, not just one or two that Dr.

White has presented to us for Honorius. He says that these are just theories and presuppositions, but I don't think

Pope Agatho, who told the Sixth Council that they were indeed correct in condemning

Honorius, and says, I do this by my infallible authority, and the Sixth Council, in turn, praised

Agatho for doing that. Not only did the Sixth Council do that, but the emperor himself said that Agatho spoke for Peter.

I don't find much disagreement in the seventh century that Agatho had that power. The only one that's disagreeing with that right now is

Dr. White and the heretics who held to the Monothelite heresy. Agatho was the first to use

Luke 22 as Dr. White's claim, and that's not true. That was used many centuries prior. He said, why is my theory the best theory?

Well, let me turn the tables a little bit here. In the Bible, they found over a thousand alleged errors and discrepancies, and each of you has struggled to valiantly decide what is the best way to explain those.

Not all of those agree with each other. There are many different explanations how to explain the contradictions in the

Bible, and yet you all know that behind all that, that there is no contradiction in the

Bible, even though you have different explanations. Well, that's the same thing that we're doing here tonight. We are men.

We're fallible men, as a matter of fact, and we seek to know the truth, and some of us may have different solutions to the problem.

The point, in fact, is we're searching for the best solution, and I'm trying to explain that to you. The church has already decided that there is no problem.

It is my job to communicate that to you. So just as you have the same problem that we do, we're all in the same boat.

And he said, how would you know, unless it was 40 years hence, whether this doctrine was true or false?

Well, that's not a criteria for your salvation, number one. Whether you know whether Christ has one or two wills does not mean that you're going to go to hell, if you even hold that view.

As a matter of fact, those who did hold that view back in those times were not responsible for it, because that was not a defined dogma of the church.

And God does not condemn anybody for holding something that's not defined, that's not held up to be bound by the

Pope. The Pope never bound anybody to it. That's the whole issue here, that he never bound anybody to it. It was a letter he wrote to Sergius.

So that really affects us in no way. There's no problem here. Just to let you know, we're now going to do a cross -examination period, and according to schedule,

I will be asking first this time around, then we'll have three -minute closing statements when we're done with that, and that'll end the second round.

Are you ready, sir? Yeah. Mr. Genes, is it your assertion that Honorius is to be excused this error as far as a papal error, because he was not, in point of fact, speaking ex cathedra?

Yes. On the issue of the two wills, yes. Okay. Could you please list for us, sir, all the teachings that Honorius taught ex cathedra, using the exact formula that was used he would have to have followed to teach something ex cathedra?

I don't have to produce that, because it's not necessary to show that he wasn't speaking ex cathedra when he gave the statement on the two wills.

Are you aware of any ex cathedra teachings by Honorius at all? No, I'm not. Okay. Has the

Roman Catholic Magisterium ever infallibly proclaimed that Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra in this instance by name?

Not by name, no. Has it ever proclaimed, well, you said you weren't aware of any ex cathedra teachings, so there wouldn't be any reason to ask that.

Now, if Honorius did not teach anything ex cathedra, that is, as the pastor of all Christians, did he fail in his duty as a shepherd of the flock?

Was there no pressing matter upon which he needed to teach in his day? He failed on this issue of the two wills.

That's very obvious. And if he could fail on that issue, he could fail on some other issues. There are no issues that we know of that he failed in, but it's a theoretical possibility.

Did the popes who reigned after Honorius but before the Council of Constantinople correct Honorius' error?

Yes, they did. And how did they do that? They stated that Christ had two wills.

Did they say that Honorius was in error prior to the council saying so? Yes.

And you would say that Agathos' letter did that? Yes. And the sixth council did that, as the seventh and the eighth council did.

Is there, in light of your assertion that Honorius, his statements do not violate the doctrine of papal infallibility, does it follow them?

Well, let me change that. Is there a list of infallible pronouncements from the popes that you could provide to us so that we could go to a book and read?

No, there's not a list. The church could do that if it was to. The church could do a lot of things if it wanted to.

For example, the church could determine every single variant of the biblical record.

There's, you know, 5 ,000 Greek manuscripts, and many of them say different things, as you well know.

On some occasions, the church has said that one variant should be in the scripture, but it hasn't made a judgment on most of the variants in scripture, but it could theoretically do that.

And it could also give us a list of all the excatheter statements the popes have made.

It could list all the errors some popes have made in encyclicals or letters, but it hasn't seen fit to do that.

On some occasions, when the issue confronts the church on what is right or wrong, the church will go back and investigate when she has to and make a decision.

And implicitly, she did this with Honorius because everybody knows that Honorius sticks out like a sore thumb, so when the church makes her criterion for papal infallibility, she's going to take into account what

Honorius did without actually mentioning him by name, which she did do. And Honorius' name was passed around during the council.

If a person's very relationship with God through the gospel is affected by excathedra infallible teachings, wouldn't it make sense for the

Catholic Church to tell us what is an infallible teaching and what is not? Well, it has.

It's given you the criterion, and Pope Agathos' condemnation of Honorius and the affirmation of the six councils' decree against Honorius is one of those instances where the church tells you that this is what it says.

It is dogmatically decreeing that Honorius made an error. So, to answer your question, they have done that.

Are there not Roman Catholic scholars and apologists who would disagree with you on the number and scope of infallible teachings by the

Pope? There may be, but I'm sure there's a lot of Protestants who disagree with you about your doctrines on many issues.

That's true, and I don't claim to be infallible, so if there is infallible... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to throw that in there, but if there is this issue...

But we don't either. We don't claim to be infallible either. That's the issue. If there is anything in... If these issues of infallibility are so important to defining the

Gospel, and there is no list of infallible teachings, then isn't it being left up to individuals to apply some set of criteria and come to their own conclusions as to what is and what is not infallible?

No, because there is a partial list, and when issues come up, that people need to know about, the

Church will investigate them. That's, for example, why it took 1 ,800 years plus to determine the doctrine of the

Immaculate Conception, or the doctrine of the Assumption. It took 1 ,600 years plus to form the infallible dogma of the canon of Scripture.

There's all kinds of things that take time, and the Church addresses them when she can. Isn't it possible that further conditions beyond the five that you've listed could be added by the

Church in future years upon, shall we call, further reflection on tradition, which would even further limit the allegedly infallible pronouncements of popes, ones that you'd accept as infallible today, would be defined as not being infallible with the further addition of further criteria?

No. As a matter of fact, that's the issue at stake here, is when the dogma is defined, and that's the key word, that's the operative word here, is defined, that means that nothing can be added to that definition.

That means that that is the dogmatic definition that will stay in the history of time for now until all eternity comes.

So, what we have to understand is that up until that point that that definition is made, things can be added, things can be changed, things can be discussed, and they discussed this right up until Vatican One in 1870, but once that definition is made, it is solid and it will never change or be added to, just like Scripture will never be added to.

So, when Honorius spoke, is it your belief that the definition that you used today was understood by he and others around him?

Well, implicitly the Church says that that was the definition they were working with, and they say that because the Sixth Council knew that Honorius had made an error in his teaching, and yet they said, the same

Sixth Council said, that Pope Agatha was infallible in declaring Honorius a heretic. So, the

Sixth Council understood what the definition of infallibility was. They knew it was not going to be applied to Honorius because the didn't fulfill all the criteria, but Agatho did.

He bound the Church, he spoke from his Petrine office, he went back to Tradition, he got the Synod together, which is another thing that Honorius didn't do.

He didn't have any Synod backing him up. There was all kinds of things that Agatho did that Honorius didn't do, and that's why the

Church can make their definition of infallibility the way she did. And where was that definition of infallibility infallibly defined by a

Pope or by a Council prior to the days of Honorius? It wasn't. It doesn't have to be.

Okay. Now, so Honorius was personally a heretic? Personally a heretic?

What do you mean by personally? Did he teach monothelitism? He taught that Christ had one will.

So is that a heretical view? That's a heretical view. So the Pope can be heretical, but it is your position that by some means he will be prevented from teaching officially his heresy.

Right. So are all the Popes actually believers in this?

Are all the Popes? I don't know. Some could, some couldn't be. I don't know. So it's possible for the Vicar of Christ to be an unbeliever?

Possible, yeah. That's an interesting view. Now, in regards to Honorius' condemnation by the

Sixth Ecumenical Council, they did say, did they not, that Honorius taught the

Church this? Honorius taught the Church this? Taught monothelitism.

They said he wrote a letter to Sergius that Christ had one will, and that doctrine of one will was held by other people like Cyrus and Pyrus and a few other people that they condemned with Honorius.

Whether they said it was a teaching for the whole Church or not, no, they didn't say that. Did they not say, quote, that Satan had, quote, actively employed them in raising up for the whole

Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation? Yeah, but it doesn't say that he taught the whole

Church. It says that he was raised up, and if he wasn't taken out of the way, he could have taught the whole

Church. So, exactly how is it that the phrase actively employed them in raising up for the whole

Church, what does that mean if it doesn't mean they taught individuals this belief?

Because he didn't bind anybody to his teaching. So, because he didn't use a specific term saying, you are to be bound by this, then a person who read

Honorius' letter in that day could have been would notice the lack of these words and therefore go, oh, this is not really a binding teaching of the

Bishop of Rome? That's what the Sixth Council said to us. I read that for you, and that's what Agatha said. That's what the Emperor said.

That's what Leo II said. They said that Honorius did not have these criteria, and therefore they could condemn him.

So, Honorius could write that letter, and for 40 years, if you lived during the period of time between Honorius' death and that, and you read

Honorius' letter, by what means would you personally have to recognize that this was

A, not binding, and B, it was heretical? Well, number one, this is a very esoteric doctrine of the

Church, whether Christ has one will or two wills. So, it's not really a matter for the populace to decide for themselves, number one.

Number two, a doctrine like this really has, if it's not binding upon them, has no bearing on their salvation.

So, it's not that, you know, everybody's biting their nails, wondering when this doctrine is going to be clarified, because it really doesn't affect the

Church practically. There's many things that happen like that in the Church, where it takes time for the Church to sort all these things out, but the important thing that I think that you're missing is that they finally do have a time where they say, this was wrong, and we can live by that for the rest of the time, for the rest of the 2 ,000 years minus the 40 that it took them to get there.

So, that's the real issue at stake here. Well, but if you died in 660, what's happening today is not going to be overly relevant to you.

So, my question really is, again, if you lived in that day, what mechanism do you offer to us whereby an individual, upon encountering a papal encyclical teaching

Doctrine X, how can you determine whether that papal encyclical is,

A, meant to be a teaching of the Bishop of Rome, and, B, whether it is, in fact, infallible?

I wait for the Church to make a decision. Until then, it's not binding on me, so it really doesn't affect me. It's not going to affect whether I go to Heaven or Hell, so it's really not an issue.

So, in other words, you don't have any mechanism to know that until and if the

Church makes a special pronouncement on that particular issue. You may never know whether it's binding or not. Well, me, personally,

I don't claim, and I don't think anybody in the 7th century claimed to have a mechanism to determine whether the Church is true or false or not.

That's the premise you're working with because that's your religion. In that day, no one was that audacious in the 7th century.

They waited for the Church to make those decisions, and that's really the whole debate tonight is does the individual have that opportunity, and is he supposed to do it, or is the

Church supposed to do it for him? Now, we believe that the Church is the one that's supposed to do it for him. If it takes 40 years to do so, well, that's the way things go.

Hey, Dr. White, do you believe that Christ having one will is a heresy?

Yes. Do you believe that Christ having two wills is orthodox? Yes. Could you show us in Scripture where you know that to be true?

That comes from the fact that as the Council of Chalcedon itself taught, the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is both

God and man, that he is one person with two distinct yet whole natures.

And the Council of Chalcedon was perfectly biblical in teaching that because it recognized that the will arises from those natures, and therefore, all the passages of Scripture that refer to, for example, the

Lord Jesus and Paul's relationship as they crucified the Lord of Glory. Here is an indication of the fact that Christ is one person with two natures, that the crucifixion is a part that was done to his physical nature, and yet he is called the

Lord of Glory in regards to his divinity. So, I firmly believe the Chalcedonian definition is biblical in its foundation, and therefore, monothelitism is an error because it, in essence, undercuts that and results in someone saying that Jesus' human nature was not fully human.

He was not truly a man, and he was not truly united with us, and therefore, the entire concept of the atonement is threatened, and that is, in point of fact, what was so troubling to many of those who encountered that particular belief in the days of Honorius and Sergius and thereafter.

Okay, let me pursue this with you a little bit. I couldn't help but notice that you referred, first of all, to the

Council of Chalcedon, but you don't believe that they were infallible, do you? No, I certainly do not. I do not believe that any council is infallible.

I believe that a council's authority is always subordinate to the sources from which they derive their beliefs.

Okay, so then what the Council of Chalcedon said could be an error, is that correct? Yes, it could be, unless it is in line with Scripture.

For example, the second Nicene Council, which I believe is numbered the seventh ecumenical, if I'm recalling correctly, was very much in error in promoting the concept of monothelitism, and of the adoration and veneration of images.

And you can see this by examining their alleged Biblical argumentation. In that case, their Biblical argumentation on an exegetical level is utterly fallacious.

Okay, so you really have no reason to refer to the Council of Chalcedon because you don't know that they were infallible.

No, that wouldn't be true, sir, because as a person who honors the fact that God has been building

His church for 2 ,000 years, I am not one of those who believes you ignore those who believe

I honor the memory of those who came before me. I just simply do not invest them with the element of infallibility any more than I would look at someone like a

Calvin or a Warfield or someone else and say, well, unless I believe they're infallible, then

I'm going to ignore everything that they had to say. Well, I'm not saying you have to ignore them, but you said to me that you believed that two natures was orthodox, or I'm sorry, two wills was orthodox, and one will was not orthodox.

Right. You said to me that you really have no way of knowing that from the Council of Chalcedon was my point. All you can do is reference them and say that they believe this thing or that thing.

Now, going on, you refer to scriptures that talk about the two natures of Christ. Could you cite that scripture for me?

That was 1 Corinthians chapter 2, as I recall, off the top of my head, the passage that I was referring to, if they had known, they would not have crucified the

Lord of glory. Off the top of my head, as I recall, that was 1 Corinthians, yes, 1

Corinthians 2 .8. The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood, for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the

Lord of glory. And in the work that I've done, the Doctrine of the Trinity over the years, and dealing with oneness

Pentecostals, this passage and some others, for example, possibly Acts 20, 28, have been some of the key passages that are used to point out the fact that Christ is one person, a human being, a unified person, that he's not two people like many in the oneness movement present, that has two natures, hypostatic union, all those other things that come along with that.

I'm familiar with all those terminologies. What I would ask you to do is show us in 1 Corinthians 2 .8

where it teaches that Christ has two natures. Well, again, if you're asking for explicit creedal statements, or if you're asking for the revelation of God in Scripture, and any creedal statements authority comes from the

Bible. It comes from the accuracy with which it reflects God's words. And so any creedal statement where there is an answer to a specific question that we derive and put into the form of the language of the question, its authority comes from how true it is to the scriptural passage.

So I am not saying to you that 1 Corinthians 2 .8 specifically addresses the issue of two natures.

It teaches that they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, and when we think about who

Jesus Christ is in the context of Paul's teaching, we know that the Lord of Glory is a reference to his deity, and yet crucifixion is something that one does to a man.

And therefore, to distill that revelation into an answer to a question is what theology is all about.

Okay, well I submit that I don't see that teaching there. I think you're making an implication that it's there because of other ideas that you have, and if that's the strongest verse you have,

I'm having difficulty in seeing how that supports two natures. But the issue here is actually not really two natures, but the two wills.

As you know, in the New Testament, there was a formula of the sixth council. It said that two wills came from a source.

Okay, so it's different than two natures. Could you explain to us then, because you said you believed that Christ had two wills, not one will, where the teaching of two wills is in Scripture, as opposed to just two natures?

Well, again, it is an implication that is drawn from biblical facts. The biblical facts are that to be a person requires a will.

A human being who does not have a will is not a person. A human being who does And so to say that Jesus Christ was one person with two natures, and yet those natures are not full, would be to say that Jesus was, for example, a semi -God, but not truly

God. Or to say that he was semi -man, but not truly man. And this was the problem that was seen in that day.

And again, I would not invest any type of authority in a formulation outside of its faithfulness to its underlying biblical foundation.

Okay, so I gather you don't have a Scripture that points out that Christ had two wills.

You are getting there by using your logic. And I would submit this to you, that the civilians did the same thing.

They used logic when they were trying to define the Trinity. And the modalists did the same thing, too. They said, how can

God be one and three at the same time? That's an impossibility. And yet the church held that even though it sounds impossible, it is indeed true.

So what I'm asking you is, you seem to be using logic to arrive at your decision, rather than using some

Scripture that tells you that Christ had two wills. Do you find that contradictory? I read the

Bible, and I do not read it irrationally. I allow it to speak for itself. I allow it to speak as a whole.

I believe that Scripture is theanoustos, which means that every word speaks with the authority of God. And that is why we can do systematic theology, is because what

Paul writes to Timothy and what Isaiah wrote in his Revelation are not contradictory to one another.

And so when you say that the civilians and the modalists and Aryans and anybody else, quote unquote, used logic, what you're seemingly saying is that we're not to use logic in listening to what

Scripture says. I believe that since God is the God of truth, you listen to all that He says, and you do not interpret

Him in such ways to make Him contradictory to Himself. That is the glory and the wonder of Scripture, is that when you allow it to speak for itself, it does speak with one voice.

And in responding to the civilians and the modalists, they did not use logic on every passage, because they misinterpreted the passages in such a way as to make the authors contradictory to themselves.

I find it interesting that you grilled me on the issue of the two wills, and you said for 40 years no one knew whether that was true or not, so what's a person to do?

And yet I'm asking you for one Scripture that talks about two wills, and you haven't given me one yet. And yet you claim that Scripture is your final authority.

You went to 2 Timothy 3 .16 and you said it's profitable, it's theopneustos, it's the ultimate that you go to for any controversy at all.

And yet you still haven't given me a Scripture saying that Christ has two wills. You've given me a lot of verbiage that says we should do this, we should do that, we must think this way, we must think that way.

But the point, in fact, is, I'm going to ask you again, if someone's salvation depends on a doctrine of this sort, as you implied, and he can't find it explicitly in Scripture, what is a person to do,

Mr. White? Dr. White. Well, Mr. Stennis, you just made a number of statements, and I'm a very long question, and you said that I grilled you for quite some time on that period.

You're the one making the assertion that there is an infallible authority that we must embrace in the Bishop of Rome, and it has been my assertion that that very assertion itself is ahistorical, and I believe many scholars agree with me on that point.

And so it is not my assertion that the situation with Honorius, historically in his own day, demonstrated that Honorius was a rebel against what had come before.

The problem is that it is your assertion that they believed in papal infallibility in that day, that they had these criteria, and the simple fact of the matter is they did not.

And so if you're attempting to contrast the claim of Rome, that the Bishop of Rome is an infallible authority when teaching ex cathedra, with the clarity and the perspicuity of Scripture in regards to many issues that the

Bishop of Rome teaches on today, I personally don't see any parallel between the two at all. And I see nothing wrong in my challenging you to attempt to prove to me rather than just assuming it, that these individuals believed these things, and my saying that all those individuals in that day did believe that what we have in Holy Scripture today was

God -breathed and that it did contain the fullness of the gospel. Okay. You said that I'm making the assertion.

I did back it up for you because I went right to the writings of Agatho, Pope Leo II, the emperor of the period, and the sixth council, and they all said the same thing, that the

Pope Agatho spoke infallibly on this issue in one of his letters Now, the question is for you.

Is that a question? No, that's not a question. It's not a question. This is the question. On the other hand, you said

I was making an assertion. You were making the assertion that Scripture gives you the answers for your faith.

And I'm asking you again, show us a Scripture that says that Christ has two wills. Again, I have never made the assertion that the phrase

Christ has two wills is in Scripture. I have said that that is a logical and proper conclusion from the biblical evidence itself.

And even more important than that is the fact that those individuals that you are citing, you quote

Agatho, here is someone who, in his teaching, never taught the things that you as a

Roman Catholic today would teach as necessary for the gospel of Jesus Christ, such as the bodily assumption of Mary. And this is the entire point here, is that what we're supposed to be discussing is, did

Honorius teach in such a way as to violate the doctrine of papal infallibility, and how do we know?

It is an interesting question to ask whether we should have a debate on the issue of the natures of Christ on the basis of biblical evidence, and I suppose we could have a debate to discuss that.

I'm not sure anybody would show up for it, but I suppose we could do that, but I don't think that it's relevant to this particular issue at all.

Can you please change that? Three minutes. Now you've heard all about Honorius, and you've heard all about monothelitism, and now we've gotten into the natures of Christ and everything else.

Let's go back and think about this on a very basic issue. If we are told that the bishop of Rome is infallible in his teaching office,

I submit something to you. If you can't know that right here, right now, tonight, it's an irrelevant doctrine.

What good is it? But keep this in mind as well. It is on the basis of that same alleged authority that it is taught today that you must believe that at the end of her earthly life,

Mary was bodily assumed into heaven as part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's a little more central than monothelitism, isn't it?

You must believe the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice. You must believe in purgatory. You must believe in indulgences.

You see, now we bring it home to where it's a little bit more directly relevant, isn't it? Honorius demonstrates for us, and in a moment another fellow with an interesting name named

Zosimus will demonstrate for us, that only by hindsight can the

Church of Rome ever say, well, yes, that was an infallible teaching. Well, how do you know it was infallible? Because it's consistent with what we teach now.

If you can't know that now, then who can bind you to what is being taught now by that authority?

A hundred years from now, that may no longer be the case. And we've heard it said, well, it didn't really matter.

Until it's defined, it doesn't really matter. Okay, the bodily assumption of Mary has now been defined. Now it matters, doesn't it?

Now it matters. And so you see, these issues are vitally important. I think it is crystal clear that to many of those prior to Vatican 1, including

Hefala, including Newman, and others, they knew that Honorius had erred, that he had been condemned as a heretic by the

Sixth Ecumenical Council, and they were not comfortable with the idea of saying, sure, the

Pope can be a heretic, he just won't teach it. Is that papal infallibility?

Is it papal infallibility to say that the most recent encyclical of John Paul II might be heretical, but we might have to wait for 40 years to find out, but hey, it won't matter to us in our eternal salvation anyways.

Doesn't it matter in regards to the gospel that the man preaches? Is our theology so disjointed that you can have an absolute heresy over here and still be right over here, and well, that's enough because God only judged me on what

I know. Remember folks, we're talking about the claim of infallibility.

Takes a lot of weight and a lot of evidence to prove that. Mr. St.

Genes? I was wondering, when

Steve Camp was singing up here, I was singing along with him. I was wondering if you guys heard that, but I guess you turned my microphone off, didn't you?

Amen. Okay. I think the telling feature of this whole debate is the cross -examination we just had because I can show from my perspective, my

Roman Catholic perspective, why I believe that Christ had two wills, because I believe that there is an authority greater than me that said so, and I believe that that authority was put in place by Jesus Christ when he said to Peter, upon this rock that will build my church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And what you bind shall be bound. And they have followed that. As a matter of fact, Pope Agatho, the emperor, and the sixth council all referred to that verse of scripture

I just quoted to you when they gave their declaration that Christ had two wills. Now, if that's not believing in the succession of the papacy,

I don't know what is. Now, it's the very council that Dr. White depends upon. It's the very council upon to condemn

Penares as a heretic, yet it's that very council that says Agatho fills the seat of Peter in order to condemn

Penares as a heretic. So, on the one hand, he has to depend on them. On the other hand, he has to deny them, because they say that the pope is doing this based on his

Petrine office. So, I find that rather contradictory. But I think the real issue does still stand that I asked

Dr. White several times in 12 minutes where the scripture taught that Christ had two wills.

And you'll notice that he never produced a scripture. He gave me logic. He gave me reasoning.

He gave me history. He gave me even the Council of Chalcedon. But he gave me no scripture.

Now, this is the dilemma, folks. If this is such an important doctrine, if according to Dr.

White, this is a doctrine that hinges on whether you're saved or not, because if you believe heresy, you might stand before God's judgment seat and be condemned as a heretic yourself.

Well, indeed, then, how do you know that Christ had two wills? What's scripture? What chapter and verse can you point to to show me that as opposed to one will?

Now, you see, this is exactly the problem that we get into, not only with this area, but with many, many areas of theology, of morality, of all kinds of things.

And I'm going to list those in my closing statement for you. But if we don't have a clear answer from scripture on this, and we don't have a clear answer from scripture on a lot of things, a lot of things, and yet we don't have a clear answer from scripture.

And yet, what we give you, what we want you to understand is that we have a church that can give us the answers that scripture doesn't give us, because we're guided by the

Holy Spirit. That's what we can give you. And I think that's something to hang your hat on.

That's what will keep you from the fires of hell, because you will know the truth, because the church, as Paul said, is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

If that doesn't mean that scripture can give you what's true, then what does it mean? What does it mean?

That's the haunting question you'll have tonight. Just to keep you up to date, the next section is the final section, and this will go back to the time rules that we used for the opening section.

This will be on Pope Zosimus, and we will have closing statements on this, and then some overall debate closing statements after this will be coming up.

So we will only have eight minutes for our opening statements for the next section. Now our next example of papal fallibility is not as clear as that of Honorius, but in many ways it is more compelling, for it illustrates very clearly the impact of this debate upon the gospel itself.

I refer to an incident that took place at the beginning of the 5th century when Zosimus, then Bishop of Rome, attempted to use his self -proclaimed apostolic authority to force the bishops of North Africa to reverse their condemnations of the heretics,

Pelagius and Celestius. The resistance of the bishops, their rejection of his commands, and his eventual capitulation and reversal on the very nature of heresy illustrate for us not only papal fallibility, but also the defense of heresy through the abuse of alleged papal power.

The incident of Zosimus and North Africans is famous for the reason that the leading light of the Africans was none other than Augustine.

The story should be familiar to all of you who read such magazines as This Rock or Envoy. If for no other reason, then this is the context in which the words of Augustine misquoted by Carl Keating, Stephen Ray, Tim Staples, and other

Roman Catholic apologists, Rome has spoken, the case is closed. Augustine never said those words.

Instead, in Sermon 131, he spoke from the Bible on the gospel of grace, and at the end of his sermon, he warned his listeners against the air of Pelagianism.

He then exhorted his hearers not to hide any Pelagians they may encounter, but to call them to repentance, and if they would not, to bring them to the attention of the church.

It is in that context that he then says that the two North African councils have already spoken on the matter, and have condemned it.

Further, those councils sent their condemnations to the Apostolic See, which would be

Rome, the only Apostolic See in the West, and responses agreeing with the

North African action had come back in return. Augustine expresses his desire that the matter, which has been refuted in every way possible, would soon come to an end, and the heresy would go away.

Roman Catholic historians have been admitting for centuries now that the Augustine never said nor intimated, Rome has spoken, the case is closed, as so many assert even to this day.

Shortly after Augustine preached that sermon, Zosimus became Bishop of Rome. Arrogant, and not overly bright on the theological end of things,

Zosimus was taken in by the confession of Pelagius and Celestius. He ignored the fact that his predecessor had approved of the

North African actions. He wrote a papal encyclical, Magnum Pondus. In the letter, he says that Celestius has convinced

Rome that Rome him of his unconditional faith. The Pope says that Celestius' faith is Catholic and Orthodox.

He claims to have maturely examined the entire issue. The Pope attacks the two North African councils as inept and destructive, and he closed by saying, quote,

I urge you to do as much by the authority of the apostolic seat as by the mutual concord that exists between our two churches, end quote.

Please take special note of these words. Here is a letter from the Bishop of Rome in which he actually claims to be exercising the authority of the apostolic seat.

In it, he makes doctrinal claims regarding the faith of Celestius, and this despite the fact that when we examine

Celestius' letter to Zosimas, we read him saying, quote, we did not say that infants, therefore, must be baptized for the remission of sins in order that we might seem to affirm original sin, which is very alien to Catholic sentiment, end quote.

His denial of original sin was glaring, and yet the Pope concluded that he was Orthodox upon a time when the

Church had a mature examination of the evidence. But this is not all. Zosimas then sent a second letter regarding Pelagius in September of 417, in which he spoke of how he and his advisors had wept at the reading of Pelagius' letter.

He again upbraid the North Africans, calling them whirlwinds and storms in the

Church, but the North Africans stood firm. So Zosimas tried one more time with an encyclical called

Quamui Patrum. Here, he simply pulled rank, raised his voice, and said,

So great is our authority, that no decision of ours can be subjected to review. So little did

Augustine and his fellow bishops believe the fanciful statement, Rome has spoken, the case is closed, that even this kind of language could not faze them.

They stood firm, and when the emperor then wrote to Zosimas, agreeing with the North Africans' position, Zosimas knew he was in trouble.

At the same time, the Africans gathered in council once again, condemned Pelagius and Celestius, and wrote a terse cover letter to Zosimas, informing him in no uncertain terms that they would not submit to his demands.

Faced with this turn of events, Zosimas did a 180, completely reversed himself, condemned the very men who only a few months before he had called

Catholic and Orthodox, dried the tears of the eyes of those who wept at Pelagius' letter, and fell in line with the

North Africans. But this was not the end. Years later, Augustine had to write letters against Pelagians, and in so doing, attempt to explain

Zosimas' actions. Those who continued to promote the heresy of Pelagianism, which included the denial of the absolute necessity of God's grace for salvation, latched on to Zosimas' actions and his letters and used them to their advantage.

Augustine was forced to make excuses for Zosimas and attempt to defend against the use of his letters and words by enemies of Augustine's message of grace.

Now here we have a Bishop of Rome acting as the Bishop of Rome. He writes encyclicals where he specifically claims the authority over the words of Peter.

He speaks on a doctrinal subject, the orthodoxy of two men condemned by the North African councils. He commands the

North Africans to submit, and they refuse. He identifies men as Catholic and Orthodox, and only a short while later he condemns with the anathema.

These are the simple facts of history. It is painfully obvious that no one involved in the entire affair believed in papal infallibility except possibly for the one man who ended up with egg on his face, and that was

Zosimas himself. And he was proven to be anything but infallible. But note, again, two things in closing.

First, if you had read the encyclicals sent by the Pope to the North Africans, and believed what you read, guess what?

Again, you would have been led into heresy, and this time on the very gospel itself. If you knew what

Pelagius and Celestius taught, and then read the Pope's defense of them as Catholic and Orthodox, you would be led to believe in error on the very nature and sufficiency of grace itself.

Again, we see what we have already seen. No one can ever know if what the current Pope is teaching will be infallibly true in the far or even near future.

And secondly, this topic touches on the very gospel itself. Had the North Africans not had the strength of an

Augustine at the helm, and had given in to Zosimas, might it not be his decision rather than his predecessors that would have held sway?

How different would be the theological landscape had this taken place? But thankfully, the nature of the gospel is not decided by Roman bishops or North African councils.

The gospel is based upon the God -breathed revelation of scripture, not upon the outcomes of political struggles fought between bishops and popes.

And for this, we can be forever thankful. Again, in summary, Zosimas used this time all the things that Mr.

St. Genes said Agatho used that proved that Agatho is speaking infallibly. He claimed the apostolic seat.

He made all of those claims that the bishop of Rome likes to make for himself. The North Africans didn't give in.

And he was in error in trying to reverse the condemnation of these heretics.

What mechanism would have been in place to allow any of us to know whether original sin is true or not, grace, necessity, is it just an addition?

Who would be the one to know? If we believe in papal infallibility, we cannot answer that question if we believe in the sufficiency of the scripture.

We can't. Thank you. Sixty -eight

African bishops formed a council and determined that Pelagius was in error, although he tried to give the impression that he was orthodox.

The council wrote to Pope Innocent, telling him of their conclusions, and asked that the authority of the apostolic seat be added to theirs in condemning

Pelagius, PL 33, 759. Another council, 61 bishops, including

St. Augustine himself, determined that Pelagius was teaching heresy and wrote to Pope Innocent, this is the pope before Zosimus, by the way, asking for his authoritative ruling.

The council writes to Pope Innocent, quote, since God has by a special gift of His grace set you in the apostolic seat, so that it could rather be imputed to us as a fault of negligence if we fail to unfold to your reverence whatever is to be suggested for the church,

Pelagius, as the letter of some of our brethren say, is in Jerusalem and is said to have deceived many there. We consider that those who hold the authority to hold such perverse and pernicious opinions will more easily yield to the authority of your holiness drawn from the authority of the

Holy Scriptures, Augustine's letters, PL 33, 763. This again shows that the

African council deferred to the judgment of Rome and wished to draw upon its supreme authority to stop the errors of Pelagius.

Augustine says that the authority of the pope, Pope Innocent, to do this is derived, quote, from the authority of the

Holy Scriptures. Pope Innocent wrote back to the African bishops affirming his role by saying, by the example of ancient tradition, it was proper for you to refer to our judgment.

Pope Innocent said, you have preserved the institution of the fathers, that whatever is done even though it be in distant provinces should not be ended until it comes to the knowledge of this sea,

Augustine's letters, PL 33. Augustine comments on Pope Innocent's letters, quote, to all he wrote back to us in the manner that was right and proper for the pontiff of the apostolic sea, quote, by which all doubt about this matter was removed, unquote, against Julian PL 44, 704.

In fact, Augustine refers to Pope Innocent's condemnation of Pelagianism eight times in all his writings.

But Pelagius did not stop teaching the heresy, nor did his disciple, Celestius. After Pope Innocent died,

Celestius went to Rome to appeal to Pope Zosimus. Pope Zosimus asked Celestius to make a written profession of faith,

I Libellus. Augustine records Celestius' statement to Pope Zosimus, quote. James, I forgot that.

It's not working. I have 235 left? I'm at 235.

Can you fix that for me? I'm not infallible.

Nope. And evidently, neither are you. That's right.

Thank God. If indeed any questions, this is Augustine writing to, recording

Celestius' statement. This is what Celestius said to Pope Zosimus. If indeed any questions have arisen beyond the faith on which there might be much dissension,

I have not passed judgment as the originator of any dogma, but whatever I have derived from the fountain of the apostles and prophets,

I have offered for approval to the judgment of your apostolate, Zosimus, so that if by chance any error of ignorance has crept in, human as we are, it might be corrected by your sentence.

Pelagius had made a similar confession to the one which was reported in PL 45, 1718. It is not hard to see that Zosimus would have been inclined to absolve

Celestius from heresy since Celestius fiend allegiance and submission to whatever the

Pope decreed. Believing that Pelagius and Celestius would submit to orthodoxy,

Zosimus wrote to the African bishops in the aforementioned encyclicals urging them to refrain from judging

Pelagius and Celestius. This is an important distinction to be made here. As we saw,

Pope Innocent had already laid down the decree against the doctrine of the Pelagians, that babies are born with original sin.

This doctrine remained in full force when Zosimus became the Pope after Pope Innocent. The only question for Zosimus was what to do with the perpetrators of that false doctrine.

Pope Innocent before him had stated that if Pelagius and Celestius should ever retract their teachings on original sin, they should be accepted back into the

Church. Innocent's Epistles PL 33, 780. Papal infallibility does not give the

Pope the power to peer into the heart of a man and determine whether he is being sincere. Thus, whatever

Zosimus' estimation of Pelagius and Celestius' hearts is not in the category of ex cathedra dogma.

Nevertheless, Pope Zosimus, being wise, did not lift the excommunications of Pelagius and Celestius until he should receive word back from the

African bishops. Paulinus of Milan adds this comment, quote, The true faith is never disturbed, and above all in the apostolic church in which teachers of false faith are as truly punished as they are easily discovered.

Again, we see that the continual esteem given to the Pope in the Church of Rome to settle once and for all any heresy circulating in the

Church. Pope Zosimus, now that he has all the information he needs in front of him regarding the insincerity and heresy of Pelagius and Celestius, now issues a binding decree as to the fate of the two heretics.

He says, Quote, Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the apostolic sees so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, which it ought to in the name of Peter, from which it has itself its origin, for canonical authority willed that this apostle,

Zosimus, should have such power by the decisions of all, and by the promise of Christ our

God that he should loose the bound, and bind the loosed. And an equal condition of power has been given to those who with his consent have received the heritage of his sea.

For he himself has care over all the churches, nor does he allow anything of its privileges or decisions to be shaken in any wind, which no one shall rashly attack at his own peril.

Zosimus's Epistle, 12 PL 2676. In the latter part of the letter, Zosimus upholds the excommunication of Pelagius and Celestius.

This letter is called the Tractoria. Marius Mercalter, a disciple of Augustine, writes, quote,

Celestius was condemned by the aforesaid bishop Zosimus of blessed memory in a very long and complete document.

In this document, the chapters of which Celestius was accused are contained, and his whole case, and that of Pelagius, is narrated.

Copies of this letter were sent to all the churches of the east, to the churches in Egypt, Constantinople, Thessalonica, and Jerusalem.

That's what Zosimus did. In Epistle, 215, to Valentine, Augustine writes, quote,

Zosimus' answer was sent to all the bishops of the world. Not to be outdone,

Pelagius had spread the rumor that Zosimus had approved of their heresy, not unlike what Dr. White is trying to do tonight.

But the evidence mounts against them. Not only do we have the Tractoria of Zosimus, but Zosimus tells the

African bishops that even in his first letter to them, he did not give assent to all of which Celestius wrote.

Although some would want to make Zosimus' assent to part of Celestius' letter, as an indication he was embracing the

Pelagian heresy, four Orthodox contemporaries of Zosimus tell us that this was not the case, and among them is

St. Augustine himself. Augustine says, for although Pelagius tricked the investigation in Palestine, seeming to clear himself before it, he entirely failed in imposing it on the

Church at Rome. Although he tried, he utterly failed. For the most blessed Pope, Zosimus, recollected what his exemplary predecessor had thought of these very proceedings.

On Original Sin, PL. 49, and on and on, Augustine says the same thing.

Not only was Augustine giving this commendation to Pope Zosimus, but Marcarius Mercator, Paulinus of Milan, and Pisidius all exonerated

Zosimus, and said that he condemned the heresy. Now, what you just heard is exactly what

Augustine had to do in later years to attempt to defend against the use of Zosimus' earlier letters.

So, now what you have is there is a question that Zosimus wrote those earlier letters and said everything that I quoted him as saying.

He then reversed himself. So, now you have contradictory papal encyclicals. And again, by what mechanism are we to know which ones are right?

Well, it's the later ones. You mean when they contradict the previous ones? Were the previous ones right during the time before the later ones that corrected them were written?

Here is the issue that we keep coming up against over and over again. The bishop of Rome said in an encyclical to the bishops of North Africa, I have maturely examined this issue and here is what

I have decided and you people have acted rashly. Then he changes his viewpoint later on. How are we to know when we hear a pope say in an encyclical today,

I have maturely examined the issue, named the issue, whatever important issue faces the church today.

How are we to know that next year, ten years from now, he's not going to go, I was mistaken, or would be mistaken,

I have had further insight into the subject. This becomes the issue that comes up over and over and over again.

Augustine and others did defend Zosimus on the issue of original sin. They did not deny that he had, in point of fact, written the encyclicals that the

North African church refused to obey. Now, if you heard the language that was used in writing to Zosimus, it sounds very flowery.

You should see the language that was used in writing back. You should see the language that was used in writing to Zosimus by people who wrote to Augustine or when the deacons at Rome wrote to Cyprian and called him

Pope when Cyprian was in North Africa. That was the standard way of addressing people.

And folks, the popes from the middle of the third century onward made great claims to themselves. There's no question about that.

No one has even denied that. The question is, does that have any basis in history? Does that have any basis in Scripture?

And it does not. So what do we see in both of these situations? We see a situation where we have to, in essence, use hindsight to say, well, it didn't really mean this.

When at the time it was taught, there was no way of knowing it. No way of knowing it whatsoever.

It is obvious what Zosimus intended when you read his letters and you read the railing language that he used in writing to the

North Africans. And the fact that he claimed his apostolic authority. Well, if that's not papal teaching that we have to accept as binding, then we have to And it can be loosed when the emperor steps in and writes to Zosimus, then where is this doctrine of papal infallibility and the certainty that allegedly arises from this concept of an infallible church?

It becomes a vapor that disappears upon examination. Thank you.

Don't you just love this? Dr. White says, which ones were right?

Well, if we pay close attention to what happened, Pope Zosimus wrote a letter to the

African bishops alone. And that letter was not concerning whether he believed in original sin or not.

That letter concerned whether Celestius and Pelagius were to be exonerated or not exonerated.

What had happened was that Zosimus was fooled by Celestius and Pelagius because they feigned allegiance to the pope.

And having done that, the pope writes to the African councils and says, I think that they are going to give us allegiance.

Now, the African councils write back and tell Zosimus, no, they're fooling you. They're trying to fool you.

They may appear orthodox in front of you, but they're not. They did the same thing in Palestine. And the

Diospolis, they had a council there that exonerated Pelagius because he feigned submission.

So they were well aware of his tactics. And Dr. White said that Zosimus changed his viewpoint.

But it wasn't on original sin. You'll never find that in Zosimus' writing. He changed his viewpoint about Celestius and Pelagius because now he found out that indeed they were heretics and were only feigning submission to the

Roman church. Now, Augustine told us this. I'm sorry, this clock is not working. Just let me know to stop.

The only thing he changes his viewpoint on is whether Pelagius and Celestius were orthodox themselves, not on the doctrine of original sin.

That was never done by Zosimus. As a matter of fact, he couldn't go against that. Why would a Pope innocent before him had already declared that?

Why would Pope Zosimus go against it? And Dr. White said that the emperor stepped in. Well, this is a controversy.

This is not supportable by history. There's many people that believe that the emperor wrote his letter after Zosimus wrote to the

African bishops. There's no proof that the emperor wrote before, as if to give pressure to Zosimus to write to the

African bishops. That's just not provable. I think the bottom line here is this, that Augustine, Mercurius Mercator, Pisidius, all say that Zosimus did not make an error in the faith.

The only thing he had trouble with was determining whether Pelagius was really a heretic or not because he feigned submission.

Now, who's right? The Pelagians, who think that Zosimus sided with them, or the great

Augustine, who said, no, Zosimus did not side with you? Well, I think Dr. White is taking the side of the Pelagians. Pelagians tonight because they're the only ones back then who said that Zosimus sided with them.

As a matter of fact, the writer, George Salmon, the Protestant, says that Augustine was a liar in this case, that he was lying when he supported

Zosimus just to make it look good as if Zosimus was doing the right thing. Well, who's George Salmon to say something like that?

Augustine lived back then. Augustine wrote these things. He's calling the great Augustine a liar, and everybody else who said

Zosimus was doing the right thing a liar. On the other side of this issue, Protestant William Bright says no, even if this was the case.

The fact is that Zosimus was not teaching an ex -Catholic doctrine, so there's really no issue here in regards to our debate.

Mr. Zangenis, you just said that I'm siding with the Pelagians and saying Zosimus denied original sin.

Where in my presentation did I say that Zosimus denied original sin? I didn't say you said

Zosimus denied original sin. What I was referring to was that you are siding with the

Pelagians who said that Zosimus was on their side. I didn't say that you said Zosimus denied original sin.

Okay. And in regards to the encyclicals that Zosimus wrote, he did say that he had maturely examined the entire issue when he commanded by the authority of his apostolic office the

North Africans to reverse their condemnation. Did he not? Yes, he did. When a

Pope, if a Pope were to write an encyclical today in which he said he has maturely examined the issue of evolution and creation, and he comes to a particular conclusion, by what mechanism would you be able to know whether the

Pope's encyclical was an infallible definition that demanded your utter obedience or whether it was something that might be reversed by a future

Pope or a future church council? Well, I think I already gave that answer in the first part of the first section when

I gave the criterion for when the Pope speaks infallibly, and those were five criteria. I could read them again for you, but I don't think you want to waste that time.

Now, I would say this in the case of Zosimus, that the letter that he wrote was only to the

African bishops. It wasn't to the whole world because he was trying to find out the issue. Was Pelagius and Celestius, indeed, or were they heretical?

He wanted their help, so he wrote them this letter. He said, this is what I have determined based on what Pelagius and Celestius have told me because they told me they wanted to submit to me.

Is this true or false? Let me know. The African bishops write back. They say, no, that's false. Zosimus examines the issue again, and he determines that the

African bishops are correct, and he issues this decree which is sent out to all the churches of the world. If he was just inquiring of the

North African bishops, why did he call them storms and whirlwinds and things like that?

Because they probably were, according to his estimation. If Pelagius is in front of you telling you that he's orthodox and that he's going to submit to whatever is determined by Pope Zosimus, and he makes it sound good just as he did in Palestine, just as he did in Diopolis, he's got a reputation for doing this.

And so I can see why Pope Zosimus would feel the way he did. And so he would naturally feel that the African bishops were being too harsh on Pelagius.

Are you familiar with the Catholic scholar Merdinger's work on Augustine and North Africans? Yeah. Are you familiar with the insights provided in that work in regards to the fact that the vast majority of scholars do recognize that Zosimus only reversed himself upon discovering the

North Africans would be intransigent and that the emperor was siding with him? No, I don't agree with that.

That is a controversial issue. I know many scholars that don't take that view, and I don't think we're going to decide it tonight.

So we don't have any real infallible knowledge as to what Zosimus said that was infallible and what he didn't say that was infallible, right?

No, I think your question was regarding whether, you know, the Zosimus was sort of forced into this issue by the

African council. That's what I'm saying is not decided. I'm not talking about infallibility here. But the point again is, you said that the mechanism that would have been available for a person living in North Africa in that day was the five criteria that were defined in the

Vatican council 1400 years later. Is that right? Yeah, retroactively yes.

Retroactively. So is it your position that the people living in North Africa had those five criteria, functioned on that basis and had the personal ability to apply these things to Zosimus' letter so that if they were concerned about the issue of the nature of grace, for example, they could come to a solid conclusion based upon papal teaching?

Well, yeah, because that's exactly what I had said in my remarks. I said that Augustine, Mercurius Mercator, Pisidius, and a number of other men had said that Zosimus was faithful in his teaching, that he did not deny the doctrine of original sin, and when he issued a letter that when

Zosimus issued his second decree that was given to all the churches of the world, Augustine and the same gentleman

I mentioned, backed him up and said that Zosimus spoke for the whole church. So yes, back in that time,

Augustine did recognize the difference between when a poet makes a non -infallible statement as opposed to a fallible statement.

And that's when he agreed with Augustine? That's when who agreed with Augustine? That's when Zosimus now agreed with Augustine and therefore that's an infallible statement.

Well, Zosimus always agreed with Augustine that the doctrine of original sin was true because Pope Innocent had taught it.

The question in this case was whether Celestius and Collegius had retracted that doctrine or not.

And Zosimus thought that they did when they actually did not, and that's the controversy that we're discussing. Okay, Dr.

White, it's your claim that — let me ask you this first.

Are you familiar with the fact that Augustine said that he supported Zosimus's decision? And never accused him of heresy.

I am familiar with the fact that in later years Augustine defended Zosimus against the charge that he denied original sin.

I have always, in my presentation and in those things that I've written on this, differentiated, and I think this differentiation has been lost thus far, differentiated between saying that Zosimus denied original sin and saying that Zosimus was both taken in by Pelagius and Celestius, and that Zosimus had used his apostolic authority to attempt to overturn the action of the council in North Africa, and that the

North African bishops refused to accept his alleged authority in so doing. Do you have any evidence that — well, let's put it this way.

You say that later in his life Augustine tried to support Zosimus. Are you implying that Augustine did not support

Zosimus in the beginning of this issue? Augustine certainly did not support

Zosimus in his letters that were written up until the point where both the

North African council met and reissued its condemnation against Pelagius and Celestius, wrote a letter that they sent to Zosimus that was very terse, didn't use any of the flowery language of the letters he cited, that reiterated their condemnation of Pelagius and Celestius.

It was not until Zosimus reversed himself, did a complete 180, and agreed with them, then, once he agreed with Augustine, Augustine certainly supported his condemnation because in those days, having the agreement of the largest church in the

West, especially against the multiple churches in the East, was always something that a position, a side, and a controversy wanted to have.

Okay, so I assume from what you're saying that there is no statement from Augustine that when you think he disagrees with Zosimus, that it was over the doctrine of original sin, it was over whether he was going to condemn

Pelagius and Celestius. Is that correct? I think if I understand what you just said, yes, but I'm not sure that I did.

Okay. Now when Augustine then supports Zosimus, are you saying, later in his life you said he supported

Zosimus, are you saying that that support of Zosimus is true or false? Is that a true support, or was he just making things up?

You cited from the source that I was referring to, and that was when Augustine wrote letters against Julian the

Pelagian, I believe it was Julian that you quoted from, that's my recollection of what the source was, that in those letters he defended

Zosimus against the accusation that the Pelagians were making that Zosimus had consistently denied the doctrine of original sin.

They did this because of the fact that Celestius' letter to Zosimus so glaringly did deny original sin, and it was in response to that that Zosimus had said he had maturely examined it.

It was Augustine's position that Zosimus was orthodox on the subject of original sin, and he denied the

Pelagians' misuse of Zosimus' letters in later controversies in regards to the subject of Pelagianism.

All right, but earlier you stated that Augustine did not think that Zosimus was going against the doctrine of original sin, yet you just said that Zosimus was influenced by Celestius' writing regarding original sin.

No, no, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I said that the Pelagians who were misusing Zosimus based their assertion that Zosimus was on their side upon the fact that Celestius had written

Zosimus a letter where he did deny original sin and Zosimus had said, I have maturely examined this. Obviously, Zosimus had not maturely examined this, so here you have in a papal encyclical the

Pope claiming the authority of the apostolic seat, commanding bishops in North Africa to take an action with doctrinal ramifications based upon ignorance when he himself says that he's maturely examined.

Okay, did Pope Zosimus at that time ever bind the African council to accept a rejection of original sin?

No, of course I never said they did. What he tried to bind the North Africans to was to his authority to reinstate

Celestius and Pelagius. Oh, okay, well that's what I was getting to. See, that's not an area of infallible dogma and that's exactly what we have been discussing.

So whether someone is a heretic, I'm sorry, I can't ask you questions. Yeah, I know what you're going to ask, let me try to answer it for you.

No, no, no, no. You started making a statement, that's why I started asking a question.

Yeah, I got six seconds left, shut up. Yes, Mr. Gore. All right, forgive it.

Oh. That's it. This is working right, it's just a matter of hitting the start stop button.

Okay. All right, now let me just give you a game plan because some of you are starting to go, we need to stand up,

I'm getting tired here. We have a two minute closing statement to this round, then we have a short closing statement to the debate as a whole, and then we have given some time to make final comments and apply this to a wider subject because we've been very narrow, we have to be very narrow to be fair in a debate.

So that's, we're wrapping up now. And you're all going, yeah, sure you are. So this is my closing statement to the section on Zosimas, it's only two minutes.

What do we see in this issue? It is very simple. If you lived in North Africa on the morning that Zosimas' letters arrived, you would hear the

Bishop of Rome claiming to be the successor of Peter, sitting upon the apostolic seat, deriding your own bishops and commanding them to rescind the actions that they had taken against men that, let's say, let's say you lived in Hippo and Augustine was your bishop, that you had heard him teaching from the scriptures that what

Pelagius taught was a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you believed, and it has been claimed by Mistress Ingenis that this is an apostolic tradition, that this is what people believe, if you believe that that man is the vicar of Christ and he is the infallible head of the church, what would your duty be at that point in time?

Your duty would be clear, absolutely clear. And yet if you followed it, you'd be wrong.

You'd be wrong. You'd be wrong biblically because Pelagius was a heretic and his teaching is completely opposed to the message of grace in scripture.

But you'd be wrong if you embraced this system of authority that would cause you to listen to what that man said based upon some alleged authority and some apostolic see.

That is what we've been seeing with such clarity this evening over and over again. I keep asking for that mechanism and I'm told, well, they should have known something that was not defined until a council met in 1870.

That's not very reassuring to me in regards to the nature of the gospel itself. Thank you.

The issue with Zosimus, I think, is very clear. Zosimus is not clairvoyant.

Zosimus cannot peer into the heart of Pelagius and Celestia to determine, after they've told him, that they are going to submit to Rome.

And this in itself is important because even two heretics say they want to submit to Rome and that's understood by Zosimus, yes, now they're orthodox, they want to submit to Rome.

So we have another clear indication that that was the order of the day, to submit to Rome. Even two heretics feigned that.

But Dr. White asked, what would your duty be if Zosimus gave this order to the

African Council? If you'd followed that, he said, you'd be wrong. Well, of course, you would be wrong.

But you know, that letter from Zosimus to the African Council never got out to the rest of the world. That's exactly the point.

It stayed between him and the African Council, because they were deliberating on whether Pelagius and Celestius were indeed heretics.

When it was finally determined that they were indeed heretics, that they were just feigning submission to Rome, then

Zosimus wrote another letter that he sent to the whole world, backed up by the African Council.

That, if you believed that at that time, and you would have because it would have been disseminated to all the churches, yes, you would have believed that Pelagianism was a heresy, because that's what

Zosimus had bound them to, all the churches. That's the issue.

Now, Dr. White asked, what's the mechanism? We had to wait until a council of 680? Well, I would say this.

At least we have a mechanism. I asked him for where the mechanism and he mechanism is that we have to until a of 680 was formed, and we have to wait until a council was formed and we wait until a council was formed, until a council was and we have to until a council was formed, to until a council was formed, and to wait until a council was have to a council was formed, and we have to wait until a council was formed, and we to until a council was have to a council was formed, and we to until a council was and we to wait until council was and to a council was formed, and we to until a council was and we cannot wait authoritatively is a tradition of church teaching which hasn't changed one dogma in 2 ,000 years.

That's what he mostly relies on and that's what you can have as well. We were just told that the

Emperor even recognized the authority of Agatho and Leo and yet the

Emperor was the one who contradicted Zosimus. So I guess sometimes the Emperor agrees and sometimes the

Emperor disagrees. This evening in this debate we have seen that any teaching by a

Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome can be in essence removed from the realm of the possibility of error merely by saying that the certain criteria are not met when he's wrong and they are met when he's right.

We haven't been given an infallible list of what these infallible statements are. Roman Catholic theologians and apologists disagree with one another as to what is and what is not an infallibly binding teaching and I don't know about you, but I know that everything that's in here is infallible, and I'm glad that I do.

But I don't know when it comes to the Pope. We were just told that Popes don't contradict one another and and yet in point of fact

Pope Gregory the Great rejected the apocryphal books as canon scripture and yet the Council of Trent a thousand years later said they were.

So what's which one's infallible? Well by hindsight we say that Trent was and that Gregory wasn't, but what if they'd gone the other direction?

They would have pointed at Gregory's statement long ago and say see there isn't there is a indication of the Pope's authority way back then.

No matter which direction you go you can always insulate your ultimate authority from that kind of examination.

The Mistress and Janice went back to Matthew chapter 16 and he said see whatever Peter binds the problem is folks that if you go to Matthew chapter 18 verse 18 binding and loosing is something the

Apostles do not Peter alone and the better understanding the phrase when you look at the actual grammar is whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven.

What does that mean? Is that some ecclesiastical authority given to Peter and the

Apostles? Or is it the glorious recognition that when two thousand years later we stand and proclaim the forgiveness of sins through the shed blood of Jesus Christ that our proclamation has the same authority and carries the same promise as it did when

Peter proclaimed it on the day of Pentecost. That's what binding and loosing is.

It's not focused upon us. It's that the person who wants to be freed from their sin the proclamation is to them faith in Jesus Christ is the only way.

That is what binding and loosing is about. It's not some later development of a papacy. So Peter doesn't isn't given that authority.

The only one infallible in Scripture is Scripture itself. Thank you. Seven. We now have our final overarching.

We can stray a little bit from the topic. Closing statements and Fini in Latin. Let me do some mop -up work here, and then

I'll get into my general closing statements. Matthew 18 verse 18 was brought up as a something that's going to demote

Matthew 16. I don't think so. All that says is that when the bishops declare and the

Catholic Church says when they're in unison with the Pope, yes, they're infallible too. We've already covered that area.

That's really not a problem for us. The problem for the other side, however, Dr. White's side, is that in Matthew 16,

Jesus speaks to his Peter singularly. There is no other apostles involved here.

And he said that the binding and loosing doesn't refer to Peter. It refers to the gospel.

But that's not what Matthew 16 says. Jesus says whatever you, Peter, bind. He doesn't say with the gospel or with Scripture or with anything else.

He said you personally. That's what the text says, and I'm trying to be faithful to the text. Now, in closing, today we live in a world turned upside down by moral relativism, a world in which someone who's the

President of the United States or someone running for the presidency of the United States can tell themselves that they are

Christian, yet condone the slaughter of unborn children. A world where technology has outpaced our moral standards in many areas.

Population control, cloning, genetic engineering, surrogate motherhood, euthanasia, the list can go on and on.

But the Catholic Church has held the line on each of these issues, except for a few non -Catholic voices here and there, some of which may rightly accept a good thing, but may also wrongly condone a bad thing.

The Catholic Church is one voice the world looks to for complete and unalterable guidance.

In many previously conservative non -Catholic denominations, the

Baptist Church, many Baptist denominations, women are allowed to be ministers in the church.

Known homosexuals are willingly granted seats of ecclesiastical office.

Contraceptive pills that take the life of the blastula, not merely prevent a pregnancy, are condoned by many non -Catholic ministers across this nation.

Divorce and remarriage is granted with impunity, and on and on the list goes.

The Catholic Church, thanks to the Pope and the Magisterium, has not condoned not one of these things and never will.

Now, I know what you're thinking. I know what you're thinking, because I've been there and done that.

I know that you know that there's homosexuals in the Catholic Church. Some of them are priests, and some of them are bishops.

I know that people are granted annulments in the Catholic Church with impunity. I know that many

Catholics take contraceptive pills and probably do kill their blastula. There's many things that go on in the

Catholic Church, but that's not the issue here. The issue is, can we go somewhere where we can know whether these things are right or wrong?

And I submit to you tonight that you can, because the Pope and the

Magisterium has never waffled on any of these issues. If you've watched them in the last 30 years, on every issue, population control, abortion, homosexuality, women in the ministry, the

Church has said no to every one of them, like clockwork. Yes, there are many who don't obey.

I would submit to you that most Catholics don't obey. I would submit to you that the 65 million

Catholics in the United States could care less about what the Pope says. There's only a small percentage of them that really care, maybe one -tenth of them.

And I'm sure you could find the same thing in your churches today. This may be a faithful church, but yet you look across our land, you see many, many people who could care less about what you say about the faith and morality that we should have.

And in the Catholic Church, some of our greatest enemies are right in the

Catholic Church itself. We have liberal Catholics that permeate this land.

I can hardly find churches to go talk to about the Catholic faith because they're so liberal, and they won't let us in.

So, yes, I'm alarmed at that. I'm not saying that we live in a dream world, believe me.

But I'm saying this, that if we really want someone who has stood up and defended the truth, that is what the

Pope of the Mattis dream has given us. Mike was telling me about an experience he had, just,

I don't know when it was, a priest was on a radio station. And he was some New Age priest talking about all kinds of things that would make you probably throw up.

And I run into that all the time. But that's not the Catholicism that we want to present to you.

No, no way. There is a lot of heresy in the Church today, and it is our job to point it out, even to people like you.

I consider James more of a friend to me than I do many of the priests that I run into.

Because they're so liberal -minded, so heretical, I wouldn't give them the time of day. But not only has the

Catholic Church's magisterium not succumbed to abandoning any of these evils, what's more important is that we can have confidence, according to the promise of Jesus, that the gates of hell will not prevail, that the

Pope and the magisterium will never lead us into error. It's not just the past or the present, it's the confidence of the future.

That when an issue comes up in the future, they will stand up and say the same thing that they've said today.

No to abortion, no to population control, no to homosexuality, no to women in ministry, and you can go down the list.

I have that confidence. Amen. I don't believe there's anyone who can look me in the eye and tell me that the political figures that were just mentioned briefly are in obedience to the

Word of God. Their stances, their support of homosexuality, and abortion on demand, and the

Nazi holocaust of partial birth abortion, it is very clear that these are individuals who are not in obedience to the

Word of God. We don't need to have another authority beyond Scripture to tell us that they are not in obedience to what

God has already revealed. Adding further witness to that accomplishes nothing. The issue that we face this evening is

Mr. St. Genes' express to us his confident faith that the

Pope and the Magisterium will not change in the future. And I must admit, my family is here and they'll tell you the debate that Mr.

St. Genes and I have had this evening is worlds different than what I had only in July on the exact same subject.

And I thank him for sticking to the issue, and I thank him for being willing to be here and to address it, and to stand up for these teachings, because he's right, we have a hard time finding

Catholics who will actually defend Catholicism these days. But the problem is,

Mr. St. Genes has embraced an authority and he says it'll never change. The problem is what we've seen this evening is he doesn't know that.

If you look at the papal syllabus of errors from the last century, and compare that with what is now allowed by the

Magisterium today to be taught as Roman Catholic theology, you would see a huge difference.

And you see, the issues we've examined demonstrate to us that while that may be a statement of faith that it's not going to change, history tells us that it can.

I have in front of me the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994. And in the outlined yellow sections are sections about a doctrine called indulgences.

And you can't believe, and actually Mr. St. Genes would believe, how many Catholics I've run into who say, we don't believe that anymore. You do, don't you?

He knows that. Any honest person who studies Roman Catholic theology knows that there is an entire section on indulgences in the

Catholic Catechism bound upon the individual conscience by the authority of the

Church. And that is the issue this evening when we talk about the

Pope and the Magisterium. It may be nice to say, we can go to a source that gives us absolute, confident, infallible teaching on these moral issues.

Well, so can we. The problem is that same source also binds doctrines like indulgences and the treasury of merit and purgatory and the

Mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice upon our souls. That's the issue.

Mr. St. Genes says, there are all sorts of disobedient Catholics in the Church.

Well, some of them would question his understanding of that. But I would happen to agree with him.

I believe that his reading of the theology of the historical Church at that point is pretty accurate.

But the problem is, that defeats the primary argument the Roman Catholic apologists use against the sufficiency of Scripture.

That is, look at all the denominations. All I can say is, look at all those disobedient people. You stand up and say that the

Bible doesn't address how we're to live our lives? You stand up and say the Bible doesn't address homosexuality?

And you're in rebellion against the Word of God. That's all there is to it. It is more than sufficient for life and godliness.

And most importantly, it is more than sufficient to tell us what the gospel doesn't address.

My friends, the only reason, and I said this in my beginning so I'm being very consistent, the only reason that I engage in these encounters is not because I love debating.

If this was the last one I ever did, I would not in any way, shape, or form miss it. The reason that we address these issues in this way with knowledgeable people who can ask each other questions and bring these issues out and to understand the basis from which we get the gospel and why the gospel is so precious and what it is.

And you say, but you weren't discussing the gospel tonight. Mr. St. Janice and I spent three and a half hours

I think in May on Long Island debating justification. But more than once, we both had to sort of touch on the fact that, well in reality, our differences here go back to authority.

And so I do believe this evening that we have been touching upon the gospel because we're talking about the very authority from which we derive it.

And the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope and the Magisterium teach doctrines that I am convinced my life would be a lot easier if I wasn't convinced of this, but I am convinced on the basis of my study of the word of God that those doctrines would fall under the anathema of Galatians 1, 6 through 9.

I am convinced of that and because I'm convinced of that I am constrained out of love for God, love for His truth, and love for anyone who would embrace those teachings to warn you.

And yes, if that means I have to study these things, I mean how many Protestants study Zosimus, you know? How many

Roman Catholics would even know who in the world Zosimus was? Why? Because I desire people understand that the greatest gift that has been entrusted to the

Church is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is ours to proclaim, not to edit. And I believe with all my heart that the

Gospel that Rome teaches is not the Gospel of Grace. And so if I love Him and if I love them, I'll address even these issues to gain a hearing, to gain a hearing for grace.

Thank you for being here this evening. Thank you for sticking it out. I truly appreciate the interest that you have shown.

It shows that you know what's important. I hope that all of us leave here with a greater dedication to doing our homework and to looking into what the