Tim Staples and Mike Gendron

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Critiquing Tim Staples’ Rapid-Fire Use of Proof Texts

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line today. What I would like to do before we do any phone calls or anything else is to slow down a Radio program I was listening to a debate now. I I don't get the feeling I got the whole thing.

I don't know It's only 26 minutes long but someone sent me a link to a I'm not gonna call it a debate a radio program that was done between Mike Gendron and Tim Staples and It's Roman Catholic program and but they're at least given equal time a whopping four minutes as I recall To state their case on the gospel And then like two minutes to rebut what the other person said and then it ended in an odd odd spot.

So I may not have the entirety of it. I don't know. It's it's all I saw. It's the only link to anything I saw so but I listened to it and So I As I listened to Tim Staples making his presentation I realized that he has a a written out presentation front of him.

And it sounded very familiar because it sounded a lot like what he had done with Matt slick where he had sort of done the Scattergun approach the carpet-bombing approach just throw so much stuff out there that you could never in any type of radio Appearances like that actually deal with the texts that were being presented and there's lots of folks that are good at doing it.

It's not difficult to do I can do it. I mean if I wanted to throw out a whole string of texts on the sovereignty of God and election and Predestination you can you can carpet-bomb anybody of course if you're a if you actually, you know believe that you need to be respectful of the Word of God then you can only do that if you have exegeted each one of those texts in their context and are handling them correctly, but Unfortunately Jehovah's Witnesses can do it Mormons when I do role-playing for example I did some role-playing when I was up in Great Falls.

And that's what you do you carpet-bomb the other guy you just throw a bunch of texts out you don't care anything about the context at all whatsoever and It works very very well. Most people Unfortunately do not know how to respond To carpet-bombing when it comes to the use of the text but what I want to do is is I want to in essence slow the debate down and listen to each one of the texts as Mr. Staples presents it and stop and examine it and discover whether one of the leading Apologists one of the foremost Apollo one of foremost Bible scholars of the entire Roman Catholic Church at least according to Catholic answers initially, but remember they just kept downgrading poor Tim after it.

I'm sorry what?

There was a time limit on that. Oh.

Oh. Sort of like milk. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, oh it was well, then actually it was for a limited time only. Sort of like a certain political promises, but anyway It's for as long as we want the promise to be valid as how long it's good anyway.

That's what I want to do that and then we can we can take calls after that, but I want to go through this. There's only what six minutes worth of stuff. So there's not that much, but I want to look at these texts because they are the commonly misused and abused texts That people have used and that certainly is used by Catholic answers To to misrepresent these things now remember I did two Bible answer man broadcasts with Tim Staples and in the second of those two the first was in 1996 the second was in 2000 and in 2000.

I'm scrolling down here. If you go to the articles page you go to vintage that ailment org slash Roman dot HTML capital R. Which would undoubtedly offend Frank Beckwith, but I think it's perfectly accurate you will find a article by Colin Smith called Tim Staples misrepresents Paul and that's actually vintage that ailment org slash Staples gal to that HTML for Galatians to and It's interesting because Tim doesn't make the exact same mistake in this debate that he did back in 2000.

But he's only one verse off of it, and he makes the same errant application. I Don't know if he's ever read this it would be amazing to me that he wouldn't but then again as I've commented so many times Roman Catholic apologists just do not approach apologetics the way that we do they just don't the idea of actually wanting to see Meaningful criticisms of their position And interacting with them now.

That's just no that that doesn't work, so I don't know if he's ever seen it, but Colin Smith wrote this article. Well, we might take a look at that because it does sort of come up here, but So let me I'll tell you what.

Let me throw the the Carpet-bombing presentation at you first now. Let me just comment Mike Gendron did a fine job he I'm not playing his stuff because I'm not criticizing him, but he did a fine job in in the debate and you know Gave a biblical presentation as to what the gospel is and the difference between faith and works and so on and so forth.

That's not my purpose to look at that, but I I would like to give you the idea of How it sounds because this again it takes me back to the days of Jerry Manateeks when he was with Catholic Answers. Because you have Tim doing this you know throwing all these Verses out and and for the average Roman Catholic who let's be honest with ourselves Doesn't know enough of the Bible to catch any of these contextual errors.

It sounds very impressive. So let's just listen to his opening four minutes, then I want to go back through it. That's that's what we'll do. So here's the Tim Staples giving his Arguments on the nature of the gospel I should our listening audience.

Believe in Catholic tradition and Not in Mike Gendron's position of faith alone.

Well, I think the key here if I could sum up the Catholic position on justification or salvation It would be that we believe justification is by faith, but it's not by faith alone. Our Protestant friends tend to emphasize verses like Romans 5 1 which tells us we have been justified.

And that's true our justification in one sense is past tense. However, the scripture also makes it very clear that we're not justified by faith alone. It's also dependent upon what we do. For example James 2 24 st. James tells us we see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

In Matthew 12 37 Jesus says by your words you will be justified by your words you will be condemned. Romans 6 16 st. Paul says it's obedience which leads up to justification and in Galatians 2 17 St. Paul says we are seeking to be justified.

So justification also has a future and contingent sense to it salvation similarly in Ephesians 2 8 9 4 by grace You have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It's a gift of God not of works.

Clearly there Salvation is past tense and we believe that as Catholics baptism now saves us first Peter 3 21. But salvation too is also seen as a process and it has a future and contingent sense. Romans 13 4 11 for example, st Paul says now is salvation nearer than when we first believed and our Lord tells us in Matthew 10 22 You shall be hated of all men for my namesake, but he that endures until the end Shall be saved.

So once again Salvation is past tense in one sense, but in another sense its future and contingent upon what we do. I think a real problem here in a key is in that word works that I mentioned before from Ephesians 2 8 9.

Romans 3 28 and verses and chapter 4 verse 5 are an example Portent of this word. Romans 3 28 says we account a man to be justified by faith. Apart from the air God Namu and Greek the works of law. Now a Protestant friends will say we'll see that proves that works are not involved in our justification in any sense.

But that's false. In fact st. Paul had just made clear in Romans chapter 2 verses 6 and 7 that works are Necessary for us to merit the reward of eternal life. He says to those who by patience in good works seek for glory and honor and immortality God will give them eternal life.

The key is that Romans 3 28 Excludes works of law that is works that the Judaizers which st. Paul is writing about were emphasizing Circumcision doing works of law that had passed away in Jesus Christ.

But as Paul says in 1st Corinthians 9 21, we are under the law of Christ not the Old Covenant law. And another very important text in this Discussion is 1st John 5 13 where st John says these things have I written unto you that you may know that you have eternal life our Protestant friends Particularly Calvinist will say see we can know with an absolute certainty that we have Everlasting life now, therefore it can't be contingent upon anything that we do.

Well, the fact is true. That's not what John is saying. In fact in the very next verse st. John makes clear. He's not talking about knowledge in a strict You know metaphysical certain you have 15 seconds left in in the next verse He says and this is the confidence that we have in him that if we ask anything according to his will He hears us and we have what we've asked he uses analogy between the certainty We can have in our prayers of petition with our salvation.

I've got a hold of right there to an assurance. Okay. All right, and Mike.

I at least appreciate the guy was strict on the time. So you've got to be with these guys because they will I I tell you They will just roll on and on and on and on. Okay, there is your Carpet bombing attack now.

I understand if you only have four minutes you got to talk fast and I would talk fast too and I would present things very Quickly, and I wouldn't provide any context thing. I couldn't I understand all of that, but the problem is Each one of these texts if we just stop and examine it does not support Tim Staples position and So that's what we want to look at and then we're gonna look at his rebuttal too because he makes some accusations there, too.

But I've noticed that Tim has started using utilizing a lot of Greek. He likes to throw out Greek phrases now and so I figure if you guys start doing that then we're gonna hold you to a little higher standard and that's what we're gonna do is let's let's start again and Listen to what Tim Staples has.

I should our listening audience.

Believe in Catholic tradition and Not in my gendron's position of a faithful on.

Well, I think the key here if I could sum up the Catholic position on justification or salvation. It would be that we believe justification is by faith, but it's not by faith alone.

Our Protestant friends tend to so it's by faith Coupled with something else and so all those texts talk about being justified by faith. You've got to find something else to Couple together with faith because if it's not by faith alone that it's by faith.

Plus and then you need to fill in the plus part. And you can't just simply assume that but that's that's the assertive side versus like Romans 5 1 which tells us we have.

Been justified and that's true. Our justification in one sense is past tense.

That's not all that Romans 5 1 says however, it says therefore having therefore which wraps up Romans 3 and 4 Therefore having been justified by faith We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

You you have to allow the text to speak and it says we have peace. There is an established reality of peace between ourselves and God through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ and nothing else is mentioned as The means by which this has taken place and if you don't see that in Romans 5 1 then you've missed everything in Romans 4 Arguing up to it that talks about the empty hand of faith.

Fitting together with that that grace it is by grace. So it might be by faith. It's those things are by faith. So it might be of a grace because you add anything else in there and you're destroying God's grace.

So again, as long as as you treat the text of Scripture as if it's just a bunch of disconnected Texts you can just throw out someplace. Okay. Well. Then anybody can do this kind of radio debate but if you recognize that Romans 5 1 is a transitional statement and It makes the assertion that we have peace with God having been justified by faith then you cannot just simply look at justification as Tim Staples would is something that's past and Present and future in the sense that you just keep getting rejustified over and over again when you commit mortal sins Or it's just simply a state of grace that you enter into by baptism wherever else it might be.

Just doesn't work. However, the scripture also makes it very clear that we're not justified by faith alone.

It's also dependent upon what we do for so there is your your clear statement of synergism and The fact that what God does is only a part of these this that you're standing before God is Dependent upon what you do it is dependent upon your works.

There is the the essence of The issue right there out front. He says it very clearly there are some Roman Catholics say you try to avoid saying it quite so clearly but That that certainly is the historical position.

It's not just what God has done. It's what you do. And of course now we're gonna run off to James chapter 2 example James 2 24 st.

James tells us we see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone in Matthew.

Okay, now he throws it out there and of course doesn't give any even inkling of wanting to give a response. To everything has been said about this text I have yet to encounter and there might be one out there if someone knows where it is I'd like to like to see it.

But I have yet to encounter after five years of the book being in public distribution in both hardback and softback versions a refutation of the 20-plus page chapter on James chapter 2 that I included in the God who justifies I.

I would expect Given the nature of that chapter that that would have been something Catholic answers would have been on right away. Surely there have been people who have written the Catholic answers and asked them to deal with that particular text, but if there is something out there I am ignorant of it and Generally people throw things my direction so I find out about what people are saying and things like that, but it just hasn't happened and So there's it's just a it's just thrown out there and nothing about the kind of faith.

The Demonstration of faith. The completely different context of James chapter 2 completely different audience. The fact that Paul and James are addressing two completely different issues and these two contexts.

To force them to get out like this is classic Roman Catholic is a Jesus. It is not allowing the text to speak for itself in any way shape or form.

1237 Jesus says by your words You will be justified by your words.

You will be condemned now that one is where we first start seeing just how very shallow these arguments are. Matthew 1237 let's back up a little bit and get the context. But I tell you that every careless word that people speak they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned. Then some of the scribes affairs has said to him teacher. We want to see a sign from you. So that is the end of a discussion it moves on from there is Tim really arguing that Matthew 1237's use of justified here is Meant to be parallel to or commensurate with Paul's discussion of justification before God.

Does not Matthew 1236 make it very plain that we are talking about giving an accounting in the day of Judgment and that this is a judgment in regards to our speech. Does he really want to say that words are going to justify you?

Faith plus Confession plus sacraments plus words plus. I mean how long is this list gonna get a Clear abuse to take any Appearance of the word justified justification or any of the Dikai out to Dikai out to Kaya soon a word family group group of words and Rip them out of their context and say they're all always talking about the same thing.

That that's that's not even semi meaningful exegesis. That is eisegesis with the worst possible Direction to go it's. Anyways, so we've had James to thrown out no context provided Matthew 12 throw it out.

No context provided and neither one when we examine the context and at least that's what we're doing here are in any way relevant to Ameliorating what is said in Romans 5 1. Romans 6 16 st.

Paul says it's obedience which leads up to Justification and in Galatians to.

Romans 6 16 says obedience Leads you up to justification. I thought you were justified by baptism. I Guess what he's saying here is final justification and this obedience then is adding to your original Justification which would be the idea of doing works in a state of grace that merit Salvation so Romans 6 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience?

You are slaves of one whom you obey either of sin resulting in death or of obedience resulting in righteousness. Now again, Paul has now transitioned into discussion of the Christian life he has transitioned in a discussion of the relationship between the Christian and the the abiding presence of sin in one's life.

And is answering the question Well since we're saved by grace and why don't we just sin so the grace might abound may it never be? How shall we who died the sins still live in it? And so you've moved from one context to another but mr Staples hasn't because he will not allow these words to have any kind of meaning in the Context in which they were originally used you just pull them out and since it's the same word You don't worry about how it's being used and you make a application so now we have words justifying and works justifying and Now all your acts of obedience all these things are coming together to create this massive idea of justification.

I am going to have to Roll that back a little bit here because we started getting in the next text so which leads up to.

Justification and in Galatians 2 17 St. Paul says we are seeking to be justified so justification also has a.

Future and contingent sense to it now. Did you catch that Galatians 2 17 we are seeking to be justified. What is the text there. Well Galatians 2 16 says nevertheless knowing that a man is not Justified by the works of law, but through faith in Christ Jesus.

Even we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of law. This is by the works of the law. No flesh will be justified. But if while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners is Christ then a minister of sin.

May it never be for if I rebuild what I have once destroyed I prove myself to be a transgressor for the law died law so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.

So what he's done is he has taken a conditional and it's a hypothetical and He's turned it into an indicative a description of what we're allegedly seeking to do. That we are seeking to be justified in Christ as if that means that this is an extra action beyond faith.

When all he's actually doing is presenting a hypothetical argument the saying well Wait a minute. If if we are seeking to be justified in Christ and how according to preceding verse you does that happen?

By faith in him and not by works repeated like three different times. But if you do that, then has Christ become a minister of sin. Because of the fact that we have to believe in him and it has to do with the death of the law and all the things Related to the relationship of the law and the Judah law and things like that.

But he's taking a hypothetical and turning it into an indicative and saying oh see. We have to be seeking after justification rather than having been justified. We have peace with God for our Lord Jesus Christ and again, you just throw it out there and The only people this is convincing to are the people who don't know the Word of God and You know, it's it's it's a closed book to them.

They're not being instructed out of the Word of God in in there on Sundays. They might get a short little homily at their Roman Catholic Church, but they're not being they're not they're not having modeled for them how to exegete and handle the Word of God a right with any kind of of proper Mechanism at all and so for those sounds good.

The whole idea of what Paul's arguing about there and the the elements of his argumentation at that point in Galatians is unknown to them anyways. So I just throw it out there and it did well and works for some people.

Salvation. Similarly in Ephesians 2 8 9 4 by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It's a gift of God not of works. Clearly there Salvation is past tense and we believe that as Catholics back then.

For by grace you have been saved is perfect tense. It's not just past tense. Again we might want to ask Mr. Staples because he is going to be using Greek to translate for us take our karate s day Cessos Menoi the a pista o's Cessos Menoi s day Cessos minute.

It's a paraphrastic construction and The participle that is being used here is a perfect passive. And so we have been saved we are saved and will remain saved by faith. Through faith by grace through faith.

So it's not just see he just dismissed. Oh, yeah, there's a there's some past tense ones, too. But let's look at all these positive these these present tense ones and these future tense ones. No, that's not what Ephesians 2 8 is saying and It is saying your present state of being saved is Not your own doing it is not the result.

It does not come forth from yourselves. But we can't have that because mr. Staples has already said that a major portion of this is what you yourself do and so now we have a clear contradiction between the Apostle Paul and Tim Staples but he didn't read enough of the text to actually let anybody catch that but That's why we're slowing it down and letting you actually look at the text to see what they're actually saying.

Now saves us 1st Peter 3 20 and 21. So now sudden we we have baptism now saves us being paralleled with What is said in Ephesians 2? But the problem is 321 says Corresponding to that or as an anti type Baptism now saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh.

But an appeal to God for a good conscience. So not only can you argue very strongly that what the baptism being referred to here isn't the outward external washing of water, but the appeal to God for a good conscience that repentance and faith toward God Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ first Peter 3 21, but there is no parallel in the context there's no parallel in the language between now saves you and Caritas SSS Mennoi in Ephesians 2 8.

So to just throw these things together either shows tremendous ignorance or tremendous lack of Care to be careful what you're doing. You're just throwing this stuff out there hoping that some of it evidently will stick on but.

Salvation too is also seen as a process and it has a future and contingent sense. Romans 13 for 11 for example, st. Paul says now is salvation.

Nearer than when we first believed. Now think about that one for a second do this knowing the time That it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep for salvation is nearer to us than when we believed and so evidently, he's saying see it's a process and you're closer to the end of it and That that indicates then that you actually May have been justified but you're still being justified and will be justified and so on so forth.

Now there's no question of the fact that when we talk about salvation as a whole That Paul presents to us the now and the not yet. We have been glorified. We will be glorified. There's there's there's the the fulfillment of God's promises in in we have been adopted we are waiting adoption, but justification is not the same thing because of the nature of justification justification Justification provides to us that legal standing before God where in we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and so Just going back and forth between the word salvation and justification.

And then bring in the fact that Paul does talk about Elements of salvation that have future fulfillment Is again not handling not allowing Paul to actually speak for Paul and our Lord tells us in Matthew 10 22.

You shall be hated of all men for my namesake, but he that endures until the end Shall be saved. So once again Salvation is past tense in one sense, but in another sense its future.

Now again How many times have you heard me say that when we look at the text of Scripture? We have to decide whether a text is prescriptive. It is giving us a prescription whereby we do something to gain something from God or Descriptive he who endures the end shall be saved is a vitally important description of saving faith.

It endures to the end, but it doesn't change the fact that it alone is the only way by which you will receive Your righteousness from God and it's not really your righteousness the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to you.

And so here again the difference between the man-centeredness of Romanism and The God centeredness of biblical Christianity very very clearly seen in the consistent interpretive methodology That is applied to texts such as this one in Matthew 10 and contingent upon what we do.

I think a real problem here in a key is in that word works that I mentioned before from Ephesians 2 8 9 Romans 3 28 and verses and chapter 4 verse 5 are an example of the importance of this word. Romans 3 28 says we account a man to be justified by faith apart from the air God Namu and Greek the works of law.

Now a Protestant friends will say we'll see. That proves that works are not involved in our justification in any sense. But that's false. In fact, st Paul had just made clear in Romans chapter 2 verses 6 and 7 that works are necessary for us to merit the.

Reward of eternal life. He's now before we look at that. Let's look at the text that he just skipped over very quickly. And is now going to now notice what he's doing. Paul has concluded part of his state his argumentation in Romans 3 therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works the law and In Romans 4 5 didn't read that one, but it would be good to Actually back up and see the contrast that is provided there Romans 4 4 now to the one who works his wage is not credited as a favor.

But as what is due now, I immediately ask is that word work? The works of the Mosaic law. Of course not. The very language is used now to the one who works his wage. That's the normal term for wages, which you get from working doing employment.

His wage is not credited imputed as a favor or according to grace but as what is due that is as a debt and So this is all debt business. Work language he's using here. You can't say this is the this is the just simply doing circumcision or feast days.

But to the one who does not work and Ergon NAMU is not here. There's there's nothing about works of law in in for Romans 4 4 5 but the one who does not work but believes 100 and a degree contrast the one who does not do this but he does this but believes in him who justifies the ungodly his faith is Imputed to him credited him as righteousness.

So the whole point of Romans 4 4 5 is the exact opposite of the argumentation that Tim Staples is presenting. This is his whole point is To describe saving faith. Is that faith? It does not look to it providing any of its own righteousness.

It's it's the empty hand of faith and Tim Staples is promoting to us the filled hand of faith exact opposite. But then he's taken us back to Romans chapter 2 where again Paul is talking to the Jews and he is Talking about their stubbornness and unrepentant heart Romans 2 5 because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart.

You are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Who will render to each person according to his deeds to those who by? Perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality eternal life but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness wrath and indignation.

A Simple statement of the fact that God's judgment will be according to righteousness. It is a sound judgment. But again only if you are so completely out of tune with Paul's perspective. Do you think that what that means is?

Well, this is prescriptive. That is that by doing good and seeking for glory and honor and immortality. You'll gain eternal life that that's the reward will be given to your own works. You have to be completely out of tune with Paul's entire argument at this point to take that as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

I mean if you requires you to have completely missed the Universality of sin in Romans 1 in here in Romans 2 the fact that he is upbraiding the Jews. For possessing God's Word, but not following God's Word and then you have to completely miss all of Romans 3 and 4 notice.

He's going backwards. He's trying to interpret Romans 3 and 4 by going back to Romans 2 and taking a second segment that is a blanket statement of the righteousness of God's judgment and creating an entire Theology out of that that completely overthrows Paul's argumentation.

That's why you don't find these folks. Walking through Romans exegetically you find them skipping around jumping around and by the way just in passing. Doesn't this kind of abuse of the Bible sound rather familiar?

This is exactly what our Arminian friends do and in fact on many of the same issues. Context. How many times we tried to walk somebody through John chapter 6 and what do they do? They jump down in the text someplace else bounce backwards someplace else.

They can't follow an argument through point-by-point.

To those who by patience in good works seek for glory and honor and immortality God will give them eternal life. The key is that Romans 328 Excludes works of law that is works that the Judaizers which st. Paul is writing about were emphasizing Circumcision doing works of law that had passed away in Jesus Christ.

Now this is the normative argument. It's an old argument. It's been refuted for a long long time people keep resurrecting it. The new Perspectivists and so on so forth are big on this as well. But I remember chuckling when I was reading Jonathan Edwards work on justification by faith.

He even exploded this particular argument as well. Because he demonstrated well that this this works a lot of that's just circumcision. That's that's just the feast days and things like that really. For by the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Isn't that what Paul had said in this this very text for by law comes the knowledge of sin? So that's verse 20 through the law comes the knowledge of sin. What sin are we talking about here when Paul talks about struggling with covetousness the law?