May 26, 2005

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 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States it's 1 -877 -753 -3341 and now with today's topic here is

James White actually hold off calling that number unless you're Xavier or some of those folks who have already invited to call in, those fine honest

Roman Catholic folks from the Planet Envoy web board who we've invited to call in see if they can back up their their slander and libel and ad hominem and all that type of stuff they do and call it apologetics.

If they'd like to call in that's fine otherwise hold off on that because we have a lot to do today and I'm sure that as soon as Xavier finds time to get that phone and call in and back up his bravado will have a wonderful conversation based upon facts and things like that but instead we've got a couple other things we are talking a little bit more about Patrick Madrid and the

Envoy folks here we have some I was just scrolling down someone sent me a

URL and Patrick Madrid started blogging some stuff and as normal I don't know maybe it's just if I don't have a lot of interaction with somebody over time it's just my nature to think better of someone and I've just forgotten just how completely disconnected

Patrick Madrid is from reality I'd forgotten that here's you know here's a guy who who just keeps using the same arguments he's been doing this now for many many years and he never interacts with the rebuttal of them they never grow they never show any you know signs of improvement or anything like that he just ignores refutations and just keeps going on and on and I don't know

I guess I just forgotten about that or or something I maybe it's just so many of his fellows have have just gotten you know either completely lost it like St.

Genes and gone off into odd stuff like matatics and things like that that that he ends up looking better or something in my mind

I don't know but the the Patrick Madrid of 1993 and the white man's burden fame is still around and this is the same guy who puts out a magazine that has an entire article about me without ever mentioning my name or even giving a single reference that the readers can go read the original article that it's allegedly rebutting

I just I don't know how people look at themselves in the mirror when they when they engage that kind of apologetics

I really don't but I've been reminded I was looking at the at the blog and I find that the people being cited supporting

Madrid and how he just all these folks have to run around going oh I won that debate oh

I won that debate I don't have to do that where do I do that I don't do that I don't even have to do that I can just let the debate sit out there and do its thing it's

Madrid that has to do that Madrid had to put out the white man's burden and and and now he's putting it back out again in fact even

I saw it reposted and guess who's supporting him in that such unbiased folks as Art Sippo and Ron Ticheli Now Ticheli's up at Boston College he put on he was part of putting on the debate that took place what was that 96 was that the date 96 for the

Boston College debate Scott Butler and Robert St. Genes versus myself and Rob Zins I think that was 96 and I'll never forget during the break and this is

I don't know what it was during the early nineties but Catholic apologists had very small bladders during the early 1990s

I don't know if it was something they drank or just what it was but they would keep leaving while I was speaking

I'm not really sure how you can how you can debate someone when you don't hear what they're saying but these folks would keep leaving during debates

Sippo did that he went and got a coke used the bathroom he didn't care less what I had to say and you know certainly pronounce it to be all wrong but it's funny he can't even know what in the world

I said in some parts that debate because the tapes were lost and he wasn't there and yet he's very confident that he won it

I don't know sometimes people think we're making these people up that they that we've just created these folks out of whole cloth and that they still exist but St.

Genes and Butler would keep leaving during the debate not the same time thankfully but they keep leaving during the debate we get to the break and that's where you're supposed to use the restroom

I guess and I walked out to look for the restroom because we're at Boston College I'd never been there before well actually

I had in 1993 but it was a different building and I'm looking for the restroom and I come around a corner and Tichelli's out there with with St.

Genes and was there a third person I don't remember if there was a third person but he's out there with St. Genes he doesn't see me coming toward them so I can hear him very loudly saying to Bob St.

Genes Scott can't handle this kind of information and then all of a sudden he looks up and I'm walking by and all of a sudden he becomes very quiet so he was really unhappy very very unhappy about the outcome of that debate very very unhappy and so the people on the blog saying oh yeah

Patrick did great and St. Genes that's you know that's sort of like asking you know

Boston fans how they think the Red Sox did last year over against somebody else well do you like the

Yankees or the Red Sox well what do you think they're gonna say I don't know but anyway we'll look at that a little bit later on instead first we're starting with the other side of well

I don't know if it's the other side of the fence anymore or not I think the fence is gone personally this morning was that this morning yeah that was this morning 9 a .m.

probably Eastern Time I'd imagine so fairly early this morning Timothy George who is fairly well known in Christianity today

Dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University executive editor of Christianity Today put out a statement in which he says the promise of Benedict the 16th evangelicals can be glad that the new pope is not likely to be a mere caretaker and you just where where do you start with this stuff

John Paul II will long be remembered as the greatest pope since the Reformation what does that mean what what does if you're if you're a

Protestant what is the greatest pope since the Reformation is that the most

Catholic pope or the least Catholic pope you know what what makes someone a great pope

I really wonder he goes on to say the last last time a man of comparable age was selected to succeed a long -serving pontiff was 1958 when

Angelo Roncalli succeeded Pius XII as John the 23rd to the surprise of many the good

Pope John proved to be far more than a mere caretaker listen to this he opened Catholicism to the wind of the

Spirit by convening the Second Vatican Council I'm used to hearing people talking about the wind of the

Spirit and Vatican II the problem is I'm used to all of them who do that being

Roman Catholics what does it mean to be a non -roman Catholic and view

Vatican II with its confirmations of Trent and its confirmations of all the sacramental violations of the gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ what is it to view that as the wind of the

Spirit I what I don't know

I confess I'm left just speechless going wouldn't the wind of the

Spirit result in moving away from all those things that violate the gospel maybe you know getting rid of the concept of tradition clearly explained in Vatican II and holding to the absolute supremacy of scripture and the sufficiency of scripture in the concept wouldn't that be what the

Spirit does I wow I don't know and so then it goes on to say five -point ecumenism five -point ecumenism

I'm only used to one particular use the term five -point personally so that one's I don't like that one I am

NOT predicting that Benedict XVI will follow suit and preside over a new council Vatican III haven't heard anyone who suggests that but I do believe his pontificate will be one of great moment for the

Christian Church not least for evangelicals so we immediately recognize that we're functioning with a a a given view of the

Christian Church here that is no longer as we saw with the death of John Paul II it is no longer defined by the gospel it is defined culturally it is defined in a broad historical manner but it cannot be defined theologically outside of maybe the use of the word

Jesus Christ we see this for example right before I went to Italy we were discussing

Paul Owen and his betrayal of his alleged alleged apologetic stance on Mormonism and saying that his real problem with Mormonism is they don't baptize properly you can have the wrong

God, the wrong Christ, the wrong gospel, all the rest of that stuff. You can be a polytheist but if you baptize properly, well, we can just clasp hands and and have a good ecumenical discussions same kind of background here that once again we're we're stuck with this issue of what is the

Christian Church well evidently for most people anymore especially in the

Academy there's no way of answering that question you have to use a very very very very broad definition you can only look at historical things you can't do it by the gospel you can't do it on the basis of Christian truth that's just too narrow see so it's a it's a pragmatic way of doing it since that's too narrow and that makes us sound too narrow then we're going to do it a different way and so this is an important moment a great moment for the

Christian Church and he says here are five reasons why evangelical Protestants whatever that means anymore they're not protesting against anything that's for sure and Orthodox believers of all persuasions should be pleased at the election of Pope Benedict the 16th.

The first point is he takes truth seriously once again

I guess the most positive spin I can put on that is he actually believes that there is a truth the problem of course is every

Pope that you know was very involved in the counter -reformation and the

Inquisition took truth seriously too so isn't that relevant anymore?

I suppose the idea you know that he takes truth seriously is meant to mean see we can join with them against the postmodernists or something like that I'd like to try to think that that's what it is but the problem is when the truth that you take seriously happens to be the negation of the gospel of Christ which is more important seems to cross my mind doesn't seem to cross

Timothy George's mind because his second point is his theology is Bible focused Bible focused alrighty how do you respond to someone who calls themselves an evangelical

Protestant that's Bible focused does that mean that he's familiar with to him what it means is he's familiar with biblical exegetical issues which he certainly is that does not mean that your theology is actually determined by scripture or actually you know really impacted in that way but certainly no one is going to say that Ratzinger does not know his means of defending his position you know in fact

I was I was looking at one of his books called called to communion understanding the church today it's

Ignatius publication prior to his well everything would be prior to his election at the moment but it was interesting because he was he was talking about in fact

I think I did I mention on is either on the dividing line or one of my blogs I was mentioning some things that he was talking about in regards to the canon of scripture and things like that he's talking about the

Matthew chapter 16 passage and he makes the comment this region starting page 58 we cannot enter in all these debates here nor is it necessary for us to do so there are two reasons why this is the case first we have seen the substance of what

Matthew says is mirrored in all the strata of the New Testament tradition however diversely these layers may be organized in other respects that was a previous discussion that we would certainly take much in argument against anyways such unity the tradition to be explained only for his recounted

Matthew originates in Jesus himself second he's talking here about the fact that many modern

New Testament exegetes which identify as ultra -liberals a question the litany of almost anything in Jesus as in any the

Gospels and so second we have no need to pursue such as further in a theological reflection because for one who in the faith of the church read the

Bible's the Word of God the validity of a given statement does not depend upon the historical hypotheses concerning its most ancient form and source everyone who attends the findings the exegetes over a longer period of time knows how short -lived these hypotheses are

I just stopped for just a moment and saw someone saying Latter -day Saints are in fact monotheistic let me assure

St. Pete whoever St. Pete is Latter -day Saints are not monotheistic that is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of Mormonism and the teachings of Joseph Smith and maybe we have a

Mormon channel we can have a profitable discussion with that person that in the in the context channel anyways a saying of Jesus report in the

Bible is not made binding on faith because it is acknowledged as Jesus Word by the majority of contemporary exegetes it does not lose its validity when the opposite is the case that's for certain it is valid because Holy Scripture is valid now listen closely is valid because Holy Scripture is valid agreed and because Scripture presents it to us as an utterance of Jesus said in other terms the guarantee of its validity does not result from hypothetical constructs however well founded they may it might be but from inclusion in the canon of Scripture which in turn the faith of the church avouches as the

Word of God that is as the trustworthy ground of our existence so what is the ultimate authority in Ratzinger's viewpoint here

I mean it's interesting that we would take a similar we would say similar things we would say majority opinion of exegetes does not determine the validity of these truths and that it's

Scripture that gives these things their theological reality but you see

I would base that in the nature of Scripture I would base that in the nature of Scripture as being

Theanostos whereas Ratzinger has to base that in the church's alleged creation of the canon and the testimony of the church to the canon of Scripture now you see why there's more than one section on the subject of the canon in Scripture alone but it's going to be really really distracting to be trying to talk about trying to talk about this particular article while watching evidently a a

Mormon has come to the channel and then of course the cell phone goes off as well and unfortunately

I can't respond to cell phones while I'm on the air and so anyways that's going to be just a little bit on the distracting side so anyhow we will just I will just stop looking at the

Mormon discussion haha if I can do that so his theology is

Bible focused what is what does that mean in light of what I just read what what does it mean to be

Bible focused very very okay I guess we'll have to turn this off because they don't get the point alright somebody in 952 the 952 area code doesn't get the clue and doesn't know that we're on the air anyways to do to do number three his message is crystal centric well that's nice what is crystal centric mean well we know what crystal centric means but what does that mean for Ratzinger I have you read for example the material he's written on the mass on the

Eucharist is that me is that what it means to be crystal centric that love this he is Augustinian in perspective hey does that does that mean the

Calvinist are safer that that's that's nice and he champions the culture of life well okay we've we've that's that's wonderful anyway

I was just looking at this thing and as I as I was doing so I just couldn't help but wonder how many people listening to the this material listening reading this material in Christianity have a sufficient background in anything

Ratzinger has written anything in modern Roman Catholic theology or the history of Roman Catholicism to understand these things in a in a proper in a proper way

I I just I I just cannot begin to think that very many of these folks would honestly have a means of evaluating this later on he says

Roman Catholicism is not a cult the Pope is not the Antichrist just so evangelicals are not a sect and the gospel call for all people to repent and turn to Jesus is not proselytism

I guess that's meant to sort of do with the Senators did in the Senate this week let's let's deny the two things over here do things over there

I am the wonderful moderate in the middle well I don't use the term cult simply because I don't like term cult of almost anybody you know maybe

Heaven's Gate fit the term cult but the term really doesn't communicate much in and you rarely if ever hear me using the term certainly not as much as people expect that I would

I would say Roman Catholicism is false religion it does not represent the gospel Jesus Christ is not possessed gospel

Jesus Christ while claiming to do so the Pope is not the Antichrist well if you use the term the

Antichrist as if there's only one I would agree however by promoting a false gospel you you take a stance against Christ there is no neutrality and so when people ask me what

I think about the Westminster statement on that the London Baptist Confession statement regarding the Antichrist if you're taking that in an eschatological sense to where you're identifying the papacy as a singular eschatological fulfillment no

I don't necessarily take that viewpoint I don't agree with that that because it basically takes too much eschatology and you know everybody knows how

I think about that but beyond that I have said many times that the to take the position take the roles that the

Pope takes to take the titles the Pope takes Holy Father vicar of Christ to promote the

Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice the concept of indulgences purgatory priestly confession to deny all those fundamental issues of the gospel regarding justification is to take the stance of being against the gospel and hence against Christ you cannot put the two together you cannot you cannot separate

Christ from his gospel so if you if you trample upon his gospel you're trampling upon Christ and in that sense not only the

Bishop of Rome but the prophet of the LDS Church and the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses etc etc would all be anti -Christ in the actual biblical usage of that phrase because it's used in the plural it's used in the plural to describe those who had gone out from the church yes

Osho Holy Father is wrong it is used of exactly one person in the Bible and that is by the son of the

Father and so yes Holy Father is a title of deity and it is only properly used of one person no

Pope is holy to begin with in that sense and then to use it in the sentence used of authority in the like is is well downright blasphemous especially given the fact the papacy is an unbiblical institution as we have demonstrated repeatedly in other debates we've done on that particular subject and would direct anyone to any of the debates we've done the papacy

I think each one of them has a demonstrated that with a fair amount of of clarity

I'll we go on here with with the Mr. George Dr.

George when he when he says when we come closer to Christ I wasn't quoting the thing called no man father

I was quoting John 17 which is only place where Holy Father appears and it's an inter -trinitarian conversation and if you're gonna take the way that the

Eternal Son addresses the Eternal Father and apply it to a man you're missing the point hello ding ding ding that's how how much more obvious can this be anyways

I'm sorry if you're not watching the channel you have no idea why I said that when we come closer to Christ we come closer to one another and such stereotypes are overcome that seems to indicate that for Timothy George Catholics and Protestants come closer to Christ and they're just coming closer in different ways and that to come closer to Christ in a

Catholic way and to come closer to Christ in a Protestant way are equally valid and that that brings us together in Christian fellowship isn't that interesting well

I certainly would disagree with such a such a perspective in any way shape or form and so on Benedict new reformation that's that's exactly what work but if you have to read that part

I think it did other the where was that part I thought

I read it he he makes the statement that he he feels somebody's hammering us with fax calls and that lovely don't just love fax fax spam fax spam is just just I unbelievable up there was a statement here for some reason

I can't seem to locate it but he makes the the statement some point that's a

Benedict might might usher in a a new reformation as wanna go what kind of using of the term reformation do we have here other it is

I read it may well turn out to be the harbinger of a new reformation well what was the old reformation about what was the old reformation about I don't know a different lines to huh hmm so maybe it's purposeful maybe someone's just trying to play around mess the program here

I'll keep people getting in I don't know possibility then again

I may make me save your only has a fax he's back to taxes response

I it's a doubt that 877 -753 -341

Xavier is for talking to me not sending I'm 0 I see of what some some for me to review great wonderful lovely

I'm bad always bad timing there is 952 California I bet you 952 is

California I'll bet you dollars doughnuts that it that's who was calling me yeah yep yep yep that makes sense that that makes 949 is this one yeah 949 952 they've got to be fairly close to sir anyhow so much for Timothy George and Christian a dot com just keep in mind whenever you read anything

Christian today it is probably not going to be viewing the reformation in an overly conservative or historical fashion at that point and that's a sad sad thing so we move on from there to Saturday things and that is

I like I said I was sending URL to yeah

I bet to envoy on core I guess this is in essence something similar to a blog and let me see here when does this start so one was posted today and yeah okay so all this is posted today starting 526 and we've got to letters to this rock magazine about souls return to be with why does this debate was 1993 you know it there they're living in the past the funny thing is they accuse me of bringing this up I'd like to point something out

I responded to sip oh because sip oh is constantly raging about these things and engaging in outrageously infantile behavior on Patrick Madrid's board and their moderators won't do anything about it okay that's first thing

I didn't bring it up if if you know if that man would actually you know behave like an adult

I would never have to raise the issue again or even talk about the issue again but that's is

I can do about so I didn't bring that up secondly it's Madrid who set out sent out an advertisement about the 1993 souls return debate

I'm just responding to what he himself said in his advertising so if I respond to people insulting my mother and if I correct misapprehensions and straw men in a published ad

I'm the one who's raising problems I'm the one who's constantly arguing etc etc you can't win with these and can't they just know how can they not know that how can they not realize well you know you just respond what

I said I I just can't I don't understand it he even reposts here the white man's burden and I wonder if he'll link anywhere here near probably not

I I didn't look here we've got William G most

Ron Tichelli and Art Sippo as our unbiased folks that's that's brill you know

I don't see any links here to well there's there's a one link to my blog and so at least you go to blog you'll eventually be able to find the article that's a refutes this stuff anyways but some

James White should probably be on the envoy payroll this was posted about 1050 this morning that's fairly close the same time that the

George article was posted isn't that odd and I'll take a look at it here with you all in the next half hour but we're going to be taking a break here and I remember

Xavier all you all you folks from the plan on boy forums now's your time come on guys

I'm here's here's your opportunity to to call in 877 -753 -3341 this is it man such a rare today so many stuff and true this portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church the Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God the proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church the elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day the morning

Bible study begins at 930 a .m. and the worship service is at 1045 evening services are at 630 p .m.

on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix you can call for further information at 602 -26 grace if you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PRBC .org

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day

Christians around the globe are having the very foundation of their faith challenged at an unprecedented level from every imaginable source never before in history has the authority and inspiration of the

Holy Scriptures been so viciously attacked by those outside the pale of orthodoxy within the walls of traditional evangelicalism itself questions that plague the steadfast

Christian from the onslaught of Bible skeptics such as the Jesus seminar, the Da Vinci Code, and wolves in sheep's clothing leave many without needed answers.

Is the Bible a product of man, not of God? Is it true that the

New Testament is a false testimony? Is it true that the canon of scripture was distorted by men with a political agenda?

Is it true that Jesus's divinity was the result of a vote of bishops? Is the

Bible true? Join us

August 26th and 27th for the 2005 Alpha and Omega Ministries National Conference in Seattle, Washington as we answer the tough questions and challenge the false presuppositions of the skeptics and deniers of the gospel of Jesus Christ with the founders, president, and director

Dr. Tom Askell the director of Baptist Studies Center at Westminster Theological Seminary Dr.

James Renahan Grammy award -winning reformed Christian musician Steve Camp and president and founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries Dr.

James White and on Saturday the 27th of August don't miss the most important debate of 2005

Dr. James White versus Jesus Seminar Chairman and Bible Critic Dr.

John Dominic Crossock Is the Orthodox Biblical account of Jesus of Nazareth authentic and historically accurate featuring three hours of debate and cross -examination

Join us and be a part of this historic event that will sharpen your apologetic and reassure your convictions in God's perfect and holy word

Seating is limited so sign up today at aomin .org or call 877 -753 -3341

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including

Genesis, Leviticus and Romans Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people

The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality

Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org to get you to do it and you know there's just some folks

I don't care you know procrastination is the middle name and so anyway that's gonna be a time to do it and you're gonna want to be there for that debate and you can get to the website and since you're already listening you know that because it's right there on the website so I don't need to need to worry about that anyway go back to a

Pat Madrid here and he says the prosecutor apologist James White has been factory repping

Envoy a bit recently and whom I'd argue with the new readers he's sending away via his recent posts about me as Weblog and some of the readers who visit

Envoy's website keep it up Jim we appreciate it well you know I suppose

I could respond by saying and thank you for promoting us because you linked back to us and that's silly the fact the matter is that the web board at Envoy provides a forum for certain people to say certain completely absurd things and I've responded to that it has nothing to do with you know if Pat Madrid thinks that it's advertising for me to point out that Catholic apologists have been reduced to attacking a man's family and and throwing mud as their highest form of apologetics okay if if that's if that's what you want to think factory repping is if that's what

Envoy is all about is that kind of stuff is the Art Sipo style in -your -face slash and burn type apologetic alright what what can

I say there's your advertising if that's what they want to be known for great wonderful whatever apparently

White is experiencing a lull in the endless storm of controversy he finds himself in with various Protestant groups and personalities at whom he rages snipes scoffs mocks taunts and vilifies on nearly daily basis on his weblog well isn't that interesting

I guess the only people who are going to be impressed by that kind of of caricature that kind of straw man is the person who doesn't read it and that is is that not and I see some folks in channel who have spent some time examining these things is that not in essence what seems to be the core of Roman Catholic apologetics at least the the stuff that actually sells the stuff that you know

I'm always been in business for a while and isn't it it seems much more to not not to be convincing those who have a firm belief in what they would view as error but just simply to keep the the troops happy those who are looking for an excuse to continue to believe in the mess that Rome promulgates that's their job is to give them that kind of of material that kind of reason to continue to believe these things and not take seriously anything anyone else says that's why they're such a a vast difference here a between the approaches that we have you know

I mean you could want I would just invite someone go read the white man's burden it they they just reposted it fact

I need to link to that so a bike and do that they want to discuss a I imagine

I quoted most of it in my response actually but just in case in the nineteen ninety -three was a while back dozen years ago and read the white man's burden and then read my response to it and ask yourself the question who engages in the issues who engages in the argument who engages in the textual material and who engages in little quips and little straw man stuff and the saying that someone rages snipe scoffs mocks taunts you know who rages is are simple but Patrick Madrid as a mind that why because it's in service of Mother Church I'm yeah

I know he didn't post my response white man's burden but as I said at least as someone follows the web blog that the little link there they'll go to that at least be able to read it to my knowledge

Madrid has never responded to my rebuttal is white man's burden he just and that's the thing about Patrick Madrid he is saying the same things with no development with known no recognition of response that he said 1213 14 years ago he's using the same solo script or a blueprint for anarchy stuff and it doesn't even seem like he's aware of the literature has been written since then the debates have taken place since then the the the holes have been shot through his own position he's not even cognizant of those things it doesn't seem to care about those things because who would be the only people that would be aware of that not his audience if his audience is like I just said just keeping the troops happy they wouldn't be aware of that stuff because one thing we certainly learned as we sit here waiting for Xavier to call in and he hasn't these folks don't read our books they're afraid to I don't need to I saw someone just recently is in the same thread ask and it may even been

Xavier maybe somebody else ask this person have you ever read any of of James White's books in response

I'm not gonna waste a dime on that garbage la la la la la la and so all they do is they repeat what they hear people say and then it grows by the way it's very interesting how it grows

Madrid's rages snipe scoffs mocks taunts will be in vilifies will will become worse with the second telling and then worse with the next telling and and then you start hearing people say all you've got such a bad reputation and you like so as long as you know this is sort of don't we see this in politics and I mean the funny thing is a lot of these

Roman Catholics are more conservative in their in their politics they see the left doing this all time but they don't recognize their own people doing this constantly arm so do we address a lot of issues on my web yeah odd isn't it odd that we would be criticized for that in other words since I'm consistent in responding to both

Rome and two Protestants were inconsistent with their with their alleged beliefs that somehow is bad you know

I'll let again I can't worry about the folks were not even take the time to click on a link and go over and find out if that is how

I am because I know when those folks do that they're gonna see the Patrick Madrid is being dishonest the

Patrick Madrid is creating a caricature straw man if they take the time to read the white man's burden listen to the debate then read the white man's burden read my response to it just do it yourself

I don't have to tell you what to think because if you're if you're not interested in the truth all that stuff's gonna mean nothing to you and there's nothing

I can do about that you I'm sorry but I can't help you and you're not the type of person that I'm trying to help in the first place

I recognize that I really really do I recognize I have a very small audience and I don't have any problem with that that's great that's all

I can handle I'm not the brightest bulb in the constellation so I'm just gonna keep plugging away at the little part of the world

Lords Lords directed me at and the popularity contest not even gonna try okay not in the track alright so anyway

I'm let's see they says that after all this vilifying also heaven only knows what kinds of things he says about them in less public for which obviously is a less than subtle assertion

I'm a hypocrite and I say things differently in public they do in private which you know again remember this is the same man who would allow his magazine to write articles about me without ever naming me and without ever telling people where they go to read the original trust us trust our accuracy of course it wasn't accurate my demonstrated that they had no response and they don't know you know and I feel so sorry for the people who follow these false teachers because they don't know that their teachers have been refuted over and over and over again because they're afraid to go look they're afraid to look into things it's a a fascinating apologetic approach if it's not fellow

Protestants he's excoriating on his website which is another way for disagreeing with then it's the hapless

Mormons and if it's not Mormons it's someone else and often the someone else is those mean

Catholics now of course Patrick Madrid has debated Mormons and so if we were to be consistent

I would say that that he's excoriating the hapless Mormons if I was to be consistent but I won't because what

I would the honest thing to say is that Patrick Madrid has studied Mormonism and he has engaged in debates against Mormons from Roman Catholic perspective that's the honest thing to do but you see that doesn't evidently get you the same kind of a support or something

I don't know since you're not sensationalizing and there you go that's a that's how you do that you have to sensationalize things so what is he done in this one period he's poisoning the well this is this has been the

Catholic answers means of doing things the very first debate ever did in August 1990 in Long Beach was quote -unquote moderated by Patrick Madrid which means he sat there and smiled he allowed

Jerry Matitix to go the first 14 minutes of his 20 minute opening statement without ever mentioning the subject of the debate and I even leaned over to him and asked what does any of this have to do with the debate and he just said

I don't know but of course he wasn't going to stop Jerry because they're buds and and that's you just don't do things like that so Jerry in that debate spent the first 14 minutes doing nothing more than poisoning the well and falsely accusing me of ignorance of Roman Catholicism he later admitted on the phone that he had done that but of course it's too late for the people who were there and that's just that's just how

Catholic answers always worked and that's evidently how Catholic apologetics in general functions at least that which makes money and and is out there and publishes stuff and things like that so you poison the well you attack the guy you use your credibility to say he's mean he's nasty he kicks his cat beats his dog you know the woman is married to him is is frazzled mess because he's just such terrible horrible person and all the rest of that stuff and then only then does he get to Art Sippo.

He says White has carried on a running verbal gun battle with Catholic physician Art Sippo ever since their public debate on justification in Toledo back in the early 1990s.

I think it was 91 or 92. It was 1991 always blazing in my memory. The exchange was sponsored by Catholic Answers and I was dispatched to moderate and what a great job he did.

I don't have time right now to share all the curiosities of that debate but a few will suffice to shed some light on why he has never ceased his angry fixation on Sippo.

I know there are people in the channel right now who have gotten loving epistles from Art Sippo. It is absolutely impossible for any human being on the planet, for anyone any collection of human beings on the planet, to pull from anything

I have ever written to anyone in the entirety of my ministry.

Let's take it back. Let's go back to 1983. Okay? Let's go back 22 years.

You could not pull out of all my emails everything I've written and I've written a lot of stuff in that time enough insults, enough denigration and open nastiness to begin to match one ten thousandth of what we could produce from Art Sippo.

Not just in emails but in other stuff that he's written. The man is just gut -wrenchingly nasty.

Okay? I mean go read his exchanges with Robertson and Jennings for crying out loud if you don't want to believe what he's written to me and how nasty the man is to me in every context.

And I'll find this stuff when I have absolute... I've had no contact with him. People send me a link and he's out there in a forum.

I'm not... I've not posted anything in that forum. I've not said anything about him in months. And he's just going away.

Let me tell you something. The person who has the the fixation is

Art Sippo. I wish... if I never had to to say the name

Art Sippo again I would be happy. That would be wonderful. But the fact of the matter is that this man is twisting history.

He's a false teacher. And you know sometimes when someone says

Dr. Sippo or James White did X, Y, and Z and it's just simply a lie, you have to go, no, that's not true.

By the way, the guy who's saying this, Art Sippo, has a long history of really being very, very odd.

And so anyways, so it's just... Madrid has the exact opposite of the truth here.

The fixation is by Sippo. I can guarantee you I could never say Sippo again and you'd be able to find him over and over and over and over again continuing to go after me whenever anybody says anything about me.

And why even to this day, over a dozen years later, he continues to fulminate against Sippo. You mean respond to Sippo's nasty attacks against my parents on your web board,

Patrick? Maybe that's what it is? So in other words, if Sippo can call my parents vicious bigots on a web board, unchallenged,

I wonder how long a post of someone calling Madrid's parents vicious bigots or Sippo's parents vicious bigots would appear on the envoy web board.

Anyone want to guess how long that would be there? Probably not long. But you see, as long as the insult is aimed at me, as long as the insult's outgoing in service of Roma, then all is well.

There's a little bit of hypocrisy there. Yeah, about 10 seconds. Yeah, I think so. He says that is when he's not fulminating against many, many people he fulminates against on a nearly daily basis, weblogging his internet -based radio broadcast.

That's this one right here. Hi, Pat. Hope you're listening. The debate with Sippo was both weird and wonderful.

I would not use wonderful. It was simply weird. Weird because several strange things happened that day.

A good portion of the cassette tapes of the debate were defective. Actually, the problem is what I was sent contained the same portions of the debate.

So the tapes did work. What happened? I don't know. All I know is they redid that debate a few months later with Rob Zins.

And as Madrid knows, there was a split amongst Catholic apologists this time.

I'll give you some background information here if I have the time to. You see, despite the claim of Rome to be all wonderful and unified and stuff, they're really not.

And there are people who dislike each other. And when I did my first debate against Matitix, it was videotaped.

And in fact, the debates against Pacwa, the first two, were videotaped. Those videotapes do exist.

You'll never see them. You'll never see them because a guy named Scott Butler owns them. And Scott Butler got into a argument with Catholic Answers, and so he wouldn't give them the tapes.

So we appear, and remember this is a Catholic Answers event. I'm just doing the debate. I had a horrible trip out there.

I'm going on my own on my own dollar. This is after we had a, you know, very, very extremely small ministry strapped, just tremendously strapped at this point in time.

I go all the way to Toledo, Ohio. I get there, and I'm there early.

I'm always early for things like that, if I can be. And in walk people with videotapes, videotaping equipment.

I'm like, no one said anything about videotaping this. Who are you guys? And so even Patrick Madrid walks up to them and says, who are you?

Well, Scott Butler sent us. Oh no. In fact, Madrid got on his cell phone, and he calls

Carl Keating back in California and then kicks him out. He says, nope, you guys ain't doing this. So they get kicked out, and just a matter of months later, same place, same subject, they redid the debate, this time videotaping it with Art Sippo and Rob Zins.

Now isn't that odd? And then the tapes of our debate, when I finally get them, are well, you've heard it if you've taken the time to pick it up, are only partial.

And in fact, Sippo's most outrageous behavior, which takes place after he leaves, after the break, after he's sitting on his desk, swinging his legs like a child, and during the cross -examination where he just acted really like an adolescent, that's not there.

That went, poof, gone. Isn't that odd? Now, he spends a lot of time saying, we had absolutely nothing to do with any of that stuff.

Well, fine. I'm just reporting on the facts here, you know? That is what happened.

A good portion of the cassette tapes of the debate were defective because it seems the taping equipment had gone on the fritz. I'm sorry, going on the fritz does not explain how you get two tapes of the same thing.

When the debate was over, the dust had settled, sort of, because for White, the dust from that debate has never really settled, as is evidenced by his apparent need to take pot shots at Art Sippo whenever the idea pops into his head, which is not infrequently, which, of course, is a lie.

The reality is it's exactly reversed, and it is Art Sippo who is constantly raising the issue.

It's one of the few things he can talk about, and so we have to correct it when he is the one who brings it up.

The sound on much of the tapes is muffled and in places incomprehensible, rendering at least some of the recording of the debate, perhaps most of it, irretrievable.

That's not the case. That's untrue. What we have is quite listenable. We make it available.

That's not what happened. So, he doesn't even have his facts straight on this. Parts of at least one cassette were audible, but most of it was either blank or sort of muffled.

The recording was effectively useless. That's not true. There was no recording ever sent to me of the second half, and if they have that,

I'd like to hear it, because you know what? We've made a lot of good stuff. We've made a lot of bad stuff sound good, and so if what he's saying by this is that, in fact, the rest of the debate does exist, and they just didn't send it to me because it wasn't a high enough quality, well, let us, hey, the digital age has arrived.

Let us work on it. I bet we've got, no, we actually got the first half, not the second half.

The second half is the half that I would like to hear. I'd love to take a shot at those with some digital editing equipment, get that quality up, because believe me, we've had to work with some bad audio before.

So, if that's what Patrick Madrid is saying, I'd like to hear that. I really would.

It says that, now, the alternative theory espoused over the years since then by certain wishful thinkers in the

Prosten camp is that tapes were intentionally sabotaged by someone on the Catholic side, because Sipo had done so poorly, and White had done so well.

I've never said that. I have never said that. It's, see, Madrid just has to function on this idea of, well, he's always claiming he won.

I don't have to do that. I can let the listeners listen to that. That's his thing, not mine.

My concern was Sipo's behavior, and if you judge debates based upon behavior, yeah, it wasn't even debate, no question about that.

I mean, on any meaningful grounds, the man would have been disqualified 120 different times just by his behavior, but we're talking about the substance of the debate.

We're talking about justification. That's why I do debates, not for this all the rest is other stuff, which evidently is why some other people do debates.

But anyways, the theory holds that Catholic answers are so mortified by the way the debate went,

I'm chuckling as I type this at the inanity of that notion, that it did not under any circumstances want to allow the evidence of debate to ever be heard again.

Well, you know, we do have an example of that. It's from St. Joseph's. Somebody go over to St.

Joseph's and try to buy the Tim Staples debate, Tim Staples now being on staff at Catholic Answers, on papal infallibility and see what you get.

They have a videotape, and it went by. It got Nixoned, man. It got Nixoned, because that's exactly what did happen there, and it was bad.

Anyways, he says, I was there. I know what happened. After the debate, we were anxious to get the tapes duplicated in the circulation.

I'm not saying White wasn't similarly anxious to make copies and circulate them too, but I can tell you that it is simply not true that anyone in the

Catholic circles connected with that debate had in any way even the slightest desire to prevent the tapes of debate from reaching as wide an audience as possible.

If anyone tells you otherwise, he is not telling you the truth. Well, we've already documented some problems with truth here. Other things that made the event weird.

Hold off the music for a moment. I want to try to wrap this up. This debate with Sippo, which has spawned innumerable potshots, catcalls, and other such outbursts from Whiteners and sympathizers, again, untrue.

It is Sippo who does that, was extremely sparsely attended. Yes, it was a Catholic answers event. We don't know of anyone in the

Toledo area back in 1991. My recollection is that, apart from myself, White, and Sippo, there were fewer than 40 people in the room.

I would say so, and I would say only one of them was a Protestant, and he was an Anglican. Perhaps 25 or so allow such a small audience to behold such a momentous clash.

Haha. Item. Interestingly, as far as I know, the only person I turned that day who sympathized with White's view on justification was

James White himself. Possibly. So is it any wonder that the spin we've heard over the years from Whiteners and sympathizers and the

Protestant side about how the debate went would favor White? Again, where did I do that?

I've written this big long thing that Madrid has ignored, where I dealt with issues, things like that.

Here's the same type of situation. How about dealing with the issues? I don't have to spin this.

I would like to be able to let people listen. What I've talked about has not been the debate on that level. What I've discussed has been

Sipo's behavior. His childish behavior. That's what

I've discussed for a long long time. Now notice what Madrid says here. Art, that's

Art Sipo, didn't abide by the rules of debate in certain ways. Well, thank you. That's the first time

I've heard this. First time finally someone honestly said, you know, okay, some of the things that White said were true.

For example, he sat on the edge of his table once, rather than on his chair behind the table, and swung his legs like a kid fishing off a bridge in the summer sun.

That is exactly right. And if I'm not recalling incorrectly, Sipo's denied that.

But during the cross -examination, he would ask some cheeky question, sit down, swing his legs, make motions toward the audience.

Now Madrid's behind us, so maybe he couldn't see that. But he'd make faces toward the audience.

He'd point at me and chuckle, and then stand up and say, well of course no Protestant could possibly ever answer that question anyways, and go on with a monologue that had nothing to do with what

I just said. That's what I mean by absolutely infantile behavior. So here he is verifying, sitting on the table, doing the types of things that that he was doing at that point.

In a sense, although sitting on his table was, shall we say, atypical for debate settings, it was at least reflective of how

Art felt that day. Yeah, he must have felt better after he went to the bathroom.

Sure, after he got that Coke from out in the hallway while I was speaking. As he and others remarked afterwards, debating white was like fishing out of a barrel.

Now folks, just stop right there and think for a moment. And we'll stop here, because this, you know, you can read this yourself.

He even says, as moderator, I could have done a more rigorous job of corralling Sipo, but as not letting him go to the bathroom during White's remarks, but then human physiology is what it is, and when the body imposes certain demands, one sometimes must accede to them, no matter what may be happening.

I'm sorry, I don't think that's what he was doing. He went and got a Coke. He came back with a Coke. He was showing his utter contempt for me as an individual.

That's how he treated me the whole time, and that's what he communicated to the audience. It was a joke, and Madrid did nothing to stop it.

But I just, just, just note this one thing. Was like fishing out of a barrel. I just simply ask a simple question.

Take the time to listen to the seven and a half hour debate with Jerry Mattox and the papacy. Listen to the papacy debate with, listen to all five debates with Mitch Pacwa, and ask yourself a question.

If someone has to say debating me is like shooting fish or fishing out of a barrel, if they have to go so far as to say that I'm that simplistic and that easy, why is it that Carl Keating won't debate me?

Why can't we get Jimmy Akin to leave San Diego? I've even offered to go to San Diego. Why has

Madrid only debated me twice? If it's that simple, if I do so badly, shouldn't they be lining up to get the opportunity to getting, get into the

Protestant venues to get their message across? Shouldn't they be doing that?

But they're not, are they? We have a hard time getting debate opponents. Seems that Mr.

Madrid went just a little bit too far there, did he? And in doing so, he tipped his hand, didn't he? He tipped his hand as to what he's really doing.

Patrick, this is beneath you. It is really beneath you. But if you really believe this, Patrick, how about you and I debate the papacy?

How about it, Patrick? You and I. Maybe we could debate predestination election. How about it,

Patrick? Let's do it. How about we do it in the pages of Envoy magazine? I'm ready to do it. And if you're just ready to do a little fishing in the barrel, it would be a great thing for you, wouldn't it?

I'll be hearing from you, won't I? We'll see you on the Dividing Line Tuesday morning. God bless. Brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.