The Great Debate IV - The Mass - Sungenis

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:01

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the

00:07

United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc.

00:16

is prohibited. Good evening, everybody. It's great to see the crowd that we have tonight.

00:27

It keeps getting bigger every year, and I am so delighted that there are so many people out there who are interested and concerned about doctrine.

00:36

And I know that I'm very concerned about doctrine. I go to a church that is very, very concerned about doctrine and the purity of true biblical doctrine.

00:45

In fact, I was just discussing that with my pastor the other day during one of our head -shaving ceremonies, and I said, why is it, oh king of the great planet

00:58

Zetox, that we have such a great deal of concern over the biblical teachings?

01:05

But he answered in Zetoxian, and you wouldn't understand the translation. Anyway, my name is

01:10

Chris Ornzen. I am with WMCA Radio, and I am thrilled to see you folks out here.

01:15

And before we get underway, there are a lot of people that need to be thanked who made this event possible.

01:21

And first, I'd like to thank Mike Rotolo of Reformation Press, who has just come out with James White's latest book.

01:28

And make sure that when you go over to the book table over there in the book room, they will be giving a free gift away for every purchase.

01:35

I'd also like to thank Calvary Press, Christian Publishing. I'd like to thank

01:40

Monsignor James Lasanti of St. Thomas the Apostle Roman Catholic Church in West Hempstead.

01:45

I'd like to thank Arnold Pilsner and the Americans United for the Pope organization in Massapequa, Long Island.

01:51

I'd like to thank Pastor Vince Sawyer and Faith Baptist Church of Corona, New York, Faith Reform Baptist Church of Mattock, New York, the

02:01

Worldwide Church of God in Amityville, New York, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Franklin Square, the

02:07

Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Bohemia, Long Island, North Shore Baptist Church of Bayside, Queens, Wantoah Baptist Church of Wantoah, Long Island, Hope Reform Baptist Church of Farmingville, Long Island, Grace Reform Baptist Church of Merrick and Amityville, Long Island, Bible Baptist Church of Syosset, New York, West Sayville Reform Bible Church, Grace Gospel Church of Patchogue, New York, Timothy Hill Children's Ranch in Riverhead, New York, the

02:34

Olive Branch Christian Bookstore, New Hyde Park, Long Island, The Rock Christian Book House, Wantoah, New York, Maria Monte Roman Catholic Gift Shop in Huntington, New York, The Wanderer Roman Catholic Newspaper, National Catholic Register, Envoy Catholic Magazine, Andy Anderson of WMCA Radio, Hank Hanegraaff of the

02:54

Christian Research Institute, Tim Kimball of Tim Kimball Live, Bruce Clark and Ken Grimble of WFRS Family Radio, WFME Family Radio, Good Old Gold, and I want to tell you something about Good Old Gold, one of our newest sponsors, who says there's anything sinful about commercialism.

03:12

If I didn't have these commercials, ladies and gentlemen, you wouldn't be here. And these people deserve our thanks, and they deserve our patronage.

03:19

My good friends at Good Old Gold, it's a Christian -owned store in the Busy Bee Mall, Basset Piqua Park, Long Island.

03:26

They are giving away for every purchase today. Actually, I think they're just giving them away period, right?

03:31

That's right. No purchase necessary. A coupon for a free jewelry repair, up to $10.

03:37

And also, if you're interested in buying a diamond, even if you don't get it from them, they want you to know the facts about buying a good diamond.

03:44

So see Good Old Gold in the room adjoining here during a break or afterwards. Smith Brothers Landscaping is also one of our newest clients.

03:54

I'm using them. I just bought a house, and this summer, they're going to be doing the landscaping and the masonry design.

04:01

They're not just mowing lawns here. They're architectural landscape designers, and they do great work.

04:07

We have some people in here who can testify to that, good Christian people who own this company. Bethany House Publishers, unique printing of Ronkonkoma, who helped us out immensely with all kinds of printed material.

04:20

Dantona Industries of Wontow, New York. The Lachman Foundation, publishers of the

04:25

New American Standard Bible Update. And last but not least, one of my dearest friends in the world,

04:30

Dan Badafuco of Badafuco and Associates. Let me tell you something right now.

04:37

This Calvinist has a warning for all of you. If any of you

04:42

Roman Catholics or Arminian Protestants seek to do me bodily harm, I've got this number memorized.

04:55

And believe me, I am not kidding when I tell you I will sue the

05:01

Coral House for everything they do. Seriously, Dan Badafuco is a fine

05:10

Christian man. He's a dear brother in Christ, and people need these services when if you're in an accident and somebody's refusing to pay for your damages, you need a lawyer.

05:23

So thank God for Dan Badafuco. I'd also like to let you folks know that tomorrow from 2 to 4 p .m.,

05:30

I will be hosting the Andy Anderson Show. The people at WMCA Radio have lost their minds.

05:41

I was able at a company party to pour some Jack Daniels in the punch, and before you knew it,

05:47

I got the job hosting Andy's show. Tomorrow from 2 to 4 p .m.,

05:53

please call in with your questions, whether you're Catholic or Protestant. The discussion is going to be on ecumenicalism.

06:00

And James White will be on with me and Pastor Larry Carino of Grace Gospel Church and Pastor Rich Jensen of Hope Reform Baptist Church.

06:07

We're going to be talking about ecumenicalism. We're not going to be talking about necessarily debating whether Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, which one is the true faith.

06:18

We're really going to be discussing if we are passionate about the doctrines that we believe, is ecumenicalism a good thing or a bad thing, or how far can you go with it?

06:28

A lot of things like that that will be brought up. Also, there's a rumor going around.

06:33

I'd like to squash it today. There's a rumor going around that I am a double agent for a secret organization of Mormon assassins.

06:43

And it started because James White, I got him on this huge speaking tour, which people are really convinced that I'm trying to cause him to die of a coronary arrest.

06:55

He is speaking at 10 churches all over Long Island. You want to mark your calendars for, in particular,

07:01

Wednesday, May 12th, he is debating a Muslim, Hamza Abdul Malik, who may even be here tonight.

07:07

He's come to a couple of the other debates. He's debating Mr. Malik at Bible Baptist Church in Syosset on the question, does the

07:13

New Testament teach the deity of Christ? He is also going to be debating on Saturday, May 15th, at the

07:20

Medford Avenue Elementary School, a oneness Pentecostal, also called

07:25

Jesus -only Pentecostalism. They will be debating, does the New Testament teach the Trinity?

07:31

And we hope that as many of you can come out to this as possible. I would like to apologize to everybody right up front for something that I'm about to do and say.

07:44

It's been welling up in me for four years to do this, and I realize that this is a very solemn and serious event that we've got here.

07:52

It's a very important event, and I know that people are going to say, Chris, you're a juvenile idiot, but they do anyway.

07:59

So this has been welling up inside me, and I ask your apologies beforehand, Mr. White, Mr. St. Janice, and our moderator, but I've just got to do this.

08:06

It's been welling up for four years. Let's get ready to rumble!

08:25

Tonight's card from the choral house in Baldwin. Choral at the choral four.

08:32

Tonight we've got defending Catholicism, the papal bull, Robert St.

08:38

Janice. And to defend the doctrines of Protestantism, here he is,

08:47

James White, a .k .a. Arriva Derchiroma. I'm sorry,

09:02

I had to get that out of my system. I will never do it again, I promise. I'll never do it again.

09:10

I'll never do it again. I am terribly sorry. You know, my wife said to me the other day,

09:18

Chris, what are you doing these debates for? You are living proof that both

09:23

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are true. And I said, what are you, kidding me?

09:28

Where did you get that ecumenical drivel from? You're my wife. What are you talking about? She said, every single day that I'm with you, you remind me of the

09:38

Roman Catholic teaching of invincible ignorance and the Calvinistic teaching of total depravity. By the way, just a quick announcement.

09:57

Next year's debate has been changed because of the Y2K situation. We are going to be having a debate between the cave dwellers and the tree people.

10:17

Before I move on, though, I'm sorry,

10:23

I just have to tell you a real quick story about Y2K. Just real quick, real quick, don't worry about it. This husband says to his wife, you know, this

10:30

Y2K series is serious business. The computers are going to go crazy. They're going to trigger off a nuclear war.

10:38

Mostly everyone on the planet is going to be destroyed. But you know what me and you are doing, honey? We're building a bunker beneath the house.

10:45

We're going to supply it with three years worth of food and water. Then we're going to sell, right now we're selling everything we own, every stick of furniture, every piece of We are selling and we're taking every dime out of the bank and we're putting it all into gold.

11:00

And we're going to wait in the bunker for three years. After the nuclear holocaust is finished, we're going to emerge as the richest people on the planet and the few surviving people that still remain.

11:10

We are going to rule over these people and be rulers of the entire world. And his wife said, well, you know something?

11:16

I don't believe that this Y2K is that serious. I don't believe it's going to start a nuclear holocaust.

11:21

He says, stop being such a pessimist. Anyway, it's good to be here.

11:36

And I'd like to introduce the folks that I have behind me, the reason why we're here, to hear a very serious issue debated.

11:46

First, I'd like to introduce you to a man named James White. And James White is a very good friend of mine.

11:56

He is one of several pastors at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Arizona and is the leading

12:02

Protestant representative engaging Roman Catholic apologists in debates across the country. James knows the issues well.

12:08

In addition to being adjunct professor teaching New Testament Greek for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, he is director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a theologically reformed

12:19

Christian apologetics organization in Phoenix. He has written over a dozen books including Answers to Catholic Claims, The Roman Catholic Controversy, and Mary, Another Redeemer.

12:28

James also serves as critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update version. You can hear him every Thursday night at 10 o 'clock on the

12:35

Voice of Sovereign Grace radio broadcast on WMCA. Here he is, Dr. James White. Perhaps some of you have heard of one of Dr.

12:51

White's bestselling books, Is the Mormon My Brother? Well, I just learned that he wrote a sequel to it that was actually a biography of me.

13:02

Originally, I was touched, I was thrilled, I was excited, and that faded quickly into humiliation, depression, and disgust.

13:12

He wrote a biography of me, Is that Mormon? Is that Moron My Brother? I've got a copy of it right off the presses here.

13:24

In fact, the full title is, Is that Moron My Brother? Does Chris Arnzen's existence prove beyond all doubt that God chooses the foolish things to confound the wise?

13:35

It's got some pretty interesting accolades in the back cover. Prison Inmate writes, Please send me as many copies of Is that Moron My Brother as you can.

13:45

The pages are so soft and absorbent. Mr. Rogers of Mr.

13:56

Rogers' Neighborhood writes, If Arnzen was my neighbor, I'd burn his house down till he was sleeping in it.

14:04

Dr. J .I. Packer writes, Although I have been growing increasingly more ecumenical as I age, I must loudly proclaim with all the boldness

14:12

I can muster that I want no fellowship with this Arnzen fellow. In fact, I pray someone drafts a document to ban

14:19

Arnzen from all Christian fellowship. Just point me where I should sign, and I will not delay in doing so. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship, he said something that I originally thought was nice, and then

14:28

I started to think about it. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship writes, I hope one day soon Mr. Arnzen begins to receive many, many years of benefit from my ministry with Prison Fellowship.

14:40

Finally, Robertson Jenis actually endorsed James' book, The only thing that could get me to consider leaving the

14:45

Roman Catholic Church is if Chris Arnzen joins the Roman Catholic Church. Now, ladies and gentlemen, the

14:57

Roman Catholic debater that we have here for the first time, I'm very excited that he is here to debate

15:04

James. His name is Robertson Jenis, and he is the president of Catholic Apologetics International, an apostolate dedicated to teaching and defending the

15:12

Roman Catholic Church. CAI produces books, audiotapes, videotapes, and conducts conferences, seminars, and debates.

15:20

Robert was born into a Catholic family, but left the church at the age of 19. After spending the next 18 years in various Protestant churches, he returned to Catholicism in 1992.

15:29

His conversion story is included in the bestselling book, Surprised by Truth. Robert was educated at George Washington University, where he received his bachelor's degree in religion, and Westminster Theological Seminary, where he received his master's degree.

15:41

He is presently pursuing his doctrinal degree at Maryvale Institute in Birmingham, England. Robert has written a number of books.

15:47

Among them are Shockwave 2000, Not by Faith Alone, Not by Scripture Alone, How Can I Get to Heaven, the

15:53

Catholic Apologetic Study Bible, and the most recent to be published by Queenship Publishing this winter, Not by Bread Alone, the

16:00

Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass. In 1998, Robert was nominated by Envoy Magazine as the

16:07

Envoy of the Year and Best New Evangelist. He has frequently appeared on Catholic radio and television, and his 18 -part series,

16:13

Justification, Not by Faith Alone, will begin airing on EWTN in June of 99. Here he is,

16:18

Robert St. Genes. I've been speaking with Robert probably for the last month and beginning.

16:33

I didn't know how we would click. We didn't really warm up to each other right away, but as the weeks went on and we began to talk and laugh and joke,

16:41

I really began to appreciate my phone calls with him. Although I must admit, when he sent me a package recently,

16:46

I did have my mother -in -law open. And it just occurred to me,

17:01

I better call her. I never found out how that happened. Anyway, over the past three years, we have had the privilege of a friend of mine,

17:14

Robert Unger, who is a Jewish attorney who was moderating our debates in the past.

17:20

Robert couldn't make it tonight. In fact, I don't think he likes me much anymore. One of the reasons

17:27

I got that impression was, I was over his house recently sitting in the living room while he and his wife were in the kitchen.

17:34

And all of a sudden, his son came out of the kitchen, and he says to me, where's the Chinese food? I said, what are you talking about?

17:40

He said, yeah, my father said that there was some dumb goy out here. But in all seriousness,

17:54

Bob Unger is still a very dear friend of mine, and I love the guy. And he could not make it, but I am thrilled that we have another dear friend of mine, who believe it or not, is a

18:04

Roman Catholic. I picked the Roman Catholic moderator. Can you believe it? His name is Frank Russo.

18:09

He is the New York director of the American Family Association. And he is involved in something that I think is one of the arenas where Catholics and Protestants can do things together, and that is through the political system, fighting some of the social ills that are in this country.

18:26

I do not believe in theological ecumenicalism, but this is one area where I believe that we can legitimately cooperate.

18:33

I would have probably voted for Pat Buchanan a few years ago if he had won the primaries, even though he's

18:39

Roman Catholic. So, I mean, these are ways I believe we can work together. And I'd like to introduce you to him now.

18:45

Here is my dear friend, Dr. Frank Russo. There is one ground rule that I must make right now for everybody.

19:02

This is actually a ground rule more for you in the audience than for the debaters. If the

19:09

Roman Catholics win tonight, you are all forbidden to sing,

19:17

We Are the Champions. And if the Protestants win tonight, you are all forbidden, the

19:23

Protestants are forbidden to sing, Another One Bites the Dust. So just keep this in mind. I would like you all now to very seriously,

19:35

I know that I like to start things off on a light note. And there is a reason for that.

19:40

I mean, we walk in here with a very serious issue at hand. And sometimes I feel like people want to put on brass knuckles and start cracking heads.

19:47

And I think we have to diffuse the atmosphere a little bit. But I don't you to ever think for a minute that my humor is in any way belittling or taking less seriously the tremendously important and vital issue that we are talking about tonight.

20:02

In fact, this is probably the most important debate that we have done in this past four year series, because it addresses the very issues of salvation.

20:12

And I want to tell you that I am a Protestant who loves Roman Catholics. I'm going to give my benefit of the doubt to Mr.

20:19

St. Genes. I believe that he is probably here out of a love for Protestants. But the thing is here, one of us in this room, one of the groups in this room, whether you be

20:29

Protestants or Roman Catholics, one of us is committing a very, very serious heresy.

20:35

And we hope that tonight this debate will help reveal the truth of who is in error here.

20:42

And even as a Protestant, I say many of you Protestants in this room may be in serious error when it comes to the atonement, which is going to be touched on in this discussion today on the mass.

20:54

So I want you to seriously consider what's being said. And before we have the debaters begin,

20:59

I would like us all to bow in a silent word of prayer. Now I'd like to turn the event over to my friend

21:19

Frank Russo of the American Family Association. Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone.

21:33

I'm just going to take one minute to tell you about the American Family Association. It's a nationwide organization with approximately half a million members, which promotes the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on building strong families.

21:49

The AFA believes that most of society's basic problems, the drug abuse, the poverty, the violent crime, the educational problems are due not to a lack of public spending, but rather a lack of public morals.

22:02

Special attention is focused on the effects and influence of the media and academia in particular.

22:09

The AFA has about 30 statewide chapters. I'm the director here in New York. And in New York, our membership is roughly 50 -50 between Protestants and Catholics.

22:18

The AFA of New York focuses on the production and airing of a weekly public access cable TV program, which you may have seen.

22:24

We've been on now, this is our fifth year. We're on throughout New York state with access to 5 million people, believe it or not, each week.

22:32

There's a newsletter we put out locally. It's free for the asking. I brought about 30 or 40 copies out by the front desk.

22:39

You're welcome to take a copy. If you'd like to get on our mailing list, just fill out the part at the back and send in your name and address.

22:46

The national organization issues a monthly journal to some half million people every month. There's a small charge for that.

22:53

I thank you for listening to that. We will now begin, and the procedure is going to be

22:59

Robert Sungenis is going to open with 30 minutes. Jim White will follow with his opening statement for 30 minutes.

23:07

And then each will have a rebuttal of 12 minutes. We'll then take a break of 10 minutes and we'll proceed to cross examinations.

23:15

Each one will have a chance to cross examine the other. First one, 14 minutes, then the other 14 minutes.

23:23

And then they'll repeat that again, two 14 minute cross examinations. After that, there'll be a closing of seven minutes each.

23:32

After that, we'll go to questions from you folks. Okay, we'll begin again.

23:38

The opening topic or the topic being discussed and debated by these two fine Christian gentlemen, how biblical and ancient is the mass?

23:47

And we're going to begin with Robert Sungenis' opening statement. Robert Sungenis Chris, I want to thank you for that opening.

24:19

It was very nice of you to call me the papal bull. I hope you don't mean that in a double entendre though.

24:27

But I am here because I am convicted that the Catholic Church does have the truth on this issue and every other issue that it proclaims.

24:34

This doctrine is 2000 years old, has never changed in the Catholic Church, has been taught consistently.

24:42

And the Council of Trent, and I make no apologies for saying this, called my opponent's view a heresy. And one of the reasons why is the testimony of the early fathers, which

24:52

I will start with first. And I will just read a selection of these. There's hundreds that I could choose from, but I don't have the time to read them all.

25:00

I will just read what I think is most pertinent tonight. Ambrose 340 to 397 said this,

25:07

But the bread is bread before the words of the sacrament. When consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ.

25:18

The Sacraments, Book 4. Ambrose again, For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ.

25:27

If the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements?

25:37

Ephrates 280 to 345 said this, But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood.

25:46

With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten. And before he was crucified, he gave his blood as drink.

25:55

Athanasius 295 to 319 said this, But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, the bread has become the body and the wine, the blood of our

26:05

Lord Jesus Christ. Sermon to the newly baptized. Augustine 354 to 430 said this,

26:11

What you see is the bread and the chalice. That is what your eyes report to you.

26:18

But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ.

26:25

Augustine again, For Christ was carried in his own hands. When referring to his own body, he said,

26:33

This is my body. For he carried that body in his hands. On the

26:38

Psalms. John Chrysostom 344 to 407 said this,

26:45

This sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which

26:53

Christ gave his disciples and which priests now offer. Homilies on the second epistle of Timothy.

26:59

The council of Ephesus in 431 said this, We offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches.

27:08

Having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ, and not as common common flesh do we receive it, but as it truly is the life giving and very flesh of the word himself, the council of Ephesus.

27:23

Cyprian of Carthage said this from 258, The priest who imitates that which

27:29

Christ did truly takes the place of Christ and offers there in the church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the

27:37

Father. Cyprian to the Ephesians. Gregory of Nansiensis 315 to 367 said this,

27:46

Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the body and blood of the

27:54

Lord, using your voice for a sword. Letter to Amphicolius. Gregory of Nyssa 335 to 394 said this,

28:03

He offered himself for us, victim and sacrifice, and priest as well and lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

28:11

When did he do this? When he made his own body food and his own blood drink for his disciples.

28:17

Gregory of Nyssa. Ignatius of Antioch said this from around the year 110,

28:23

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior

28:29

Jesus Christ, the same flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his graciousness raised from the dead.

28:35

Irenaeus of Lyons 140 to 202 said this, He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant which

28:43

Malachi, one of the 12 prophets, had signified beforehand. He's referring to Malachi chapter 1 verses 10 and 11.

28:51

Justin Martyr, another early father from 110 to 165 said this, For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink, but as Jesus Christ our savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation is the flesh and blood of that incarnate

29:17

Jesus. First apology. There's many more I could read, but I think you get the point.

29:24

That's why we Catholics are convinced that the Father's taught this doctrine. There's another quote I would like to read for you.

29:31

Christ presents himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of his people.

29:37

His work of intercession then is based on his works of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the

29:48

Father. By presenting his finished work on Calvary before the Father, he assures the application of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes.

29:59

What father was that? That was no father. That was James R. White in The Fatal Flaw, pages 134 to 135.

30:08

Sounds pretty Catholic to me. Why does Mr. White insist that we must present, that Christ must present his work continually to the

30:18

Father to assure the applications of the benefits of the atonement if, as he says on other pages,

30:23

Christ's death on the cross is perfect and complete? Why must Mr. White do this? Because he has to answer

30:30

Hebrews 7, verses 24 and 25 and Hebrews 9, 23 and 24, two of the very passages upon which

30:36

Catholicism bases his doctrine of the mass. On another page, Mr. White criticizes the

30:42

Catholic Church for representing the blood of Christ to the Father. And he writes, quote, if Christ's death actually saves those for whom it is made, then obviously the mass is a contradiction to the work of Christ.

30:54

For there would be no need of a representation of his death since those for whom the atonement is made are perfected thereby.

31:02

The Fatal Flaw, page 132. It seems that my opponent wants his cake and eat it too. He wants his religion to be able to present the death to the

31:11

Father in heaven for his side. But he says that if we Catholics represent the death to the

31:17

Father, then we have a contradictory atonement. On page 123, after quoting

31:22

Hebrews 2, 17, which reads this, therefore he had to be made like the brethren in all things in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

31:37

My opponent says this about that passage. Here, the writer of Hebrews teaches that Jesus's role as high priest was so that he might make propitiation for the sins of the people.

31:47

This means that Christ's death has atoned for sin. There can be no other propitiation if Christ has already atoned for sin.

31:54

I want to point out two outstanding features of this passage and especially the phrase to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

32:01

It is the only time that this phrase of the sin follows propitiation in the

32:06

New Testament. This shows a shift from merely propitiating God to propitiation for that which is offensive to God and which must be completely cleansed to procure his complete favor.

32:19

In the Catholic understanding, the act of propitiating sin occurs in the sacrifice of the mass. Number two, the ongoing work of propitiation for the sins of the people is confirmed by the use of the present tense infinitive, elaschethai, to make propitiation presently and answers to the passage in the

32:37

Hebrew epistle which specify Christ's ongoing work as priest. Hebrews 5 verses one to two,

32:43

Hebrews 7 verse 24 and 25, Hebrews 8, one to three, Hebrews 9, 23 to 24.

32:49

Protestant Greek commentators don't know what to do with this passage because they see a present propitiation occurring here but they don't know what to apply it to because they're used to thinking in a past propitiation.

33:02

The point my opponent misses is that if Christ's high priestly office is not over, then his propitiation to the

33:08

Father is not over for that is what priests do. Christ's death on the cross does not automatically cover my future sins because one cannot propitiate sins that have not yet been committed.

33:21

When we repent of our sins, we see how Christ will propitiate our future sins in such passages as Hebrews 9, 22 to 24, which reads, in fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

33:38

It was necessary then for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

33:48

For Christ did not enter a man -made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one. He entered heaven itself now to appear for us in God's presence.

33:57

Notice several things in these passages. First, the blood of the old covenant sacrifices was required to make everything ceremonially clean and that shedding of blood and sprinkling of it on the people cleansed them and forgave their sins.

34:12

Thus, it is no surprise to read in Leviticus 5 verses 9 and 10 this, the priest is to sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar.

34:21

The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for sin he has committed and he will be forgiven.

34:31

Their forgiveness though real was temporary and incomplete. It like every other old covenant sacrifice depended on the ultimate sacrifice of Christ even on the cross for its temporary effectiveness.

34:44

Second, in the words with better sacrifices than these,

34:51

Paul who we understand as the writer of Hebrews uses the plural word sacrifices both for the old covenant animal sacrifices and of the new covenant sacrifices concerning Christ.

35:03

Third, Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary allows him to quote, now appear for us in God's presence.

35:12

Now here are the important connections between these three facts I just mentioned. First, the text refers to the shedding of blood in both the old and new covenant but in doing so refers to Christ's work in heaven as that which incorporates the shedding of blood.

35:28

The implication is that in heaven there is a present shedding of blood or a presenting of the shed blood.

35:36

Second, the text specifies the plural sacrifices of Christ in heaven, not a sacrifice.

35:44

Sacrifices that allow him to now appear for us in God's presence. Hence there are sacrifices being continually presented to God by Christ in heaven.

35:55

This is the essence of the Catholic mass. Christ sheds his blood on the altar under the appearances of bread and wine and it's presented along with us, his body to the father in heaven to appease him for our sins and to seek effectual graces.

36:09

Now after quoting Hebrews 8 verses 10 to 14, my opponent says, but Christ, well let me tell you what the verse says first.

36:19

It talks about the offering of his sacrifice and then sitting down at the right hand of God. And on page 179 of the

36:26

Roman Catholic controversy, my opponent says this about that passage. But Christ's sacrifice accomplishes its goal.

36:34

He does not stand repeatedly offering his work. His work of atonement is completed. Instead, he is seated.

36:42

His work is finished. The one offering needed to perfect for all time. There is no need for repetition or for representation.

36:51

First, if there is no need for representation, we would ask again, why Mr. White insisted in his previous book that quote, the presentation of the work of the cross before the father, by presenting his finished work on Calvary before the father, he assures the application of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes, unquote.

37:11

And we would ask why he doesn't mention his own version of quote, presentation to the father in his second book, since it is such an important issue to the discussion.

37:22

But we would also ask why Mr. White never quotes the last half of Hebrews 8 verses one to two.

37:28

The verse says this, we do have such a high priest who sat down at the right hand of the throne of majesty in heaven and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle.

37:38

But Mr. White leaves out that part in his book and never mentions it. It is clear from this passage that Christ does not merely take his seat at the right hand of God.

37:48

Rather, he continually serves as a priest in the most holy place and does the things that priests do, which is according to Hebrews 5 .1,

37:58

offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Likewise, Hebrews 7 .24 says that Christ has a permanent priesthood for his priesthood did not stop when his life on earth was over and it will not stop until God makes it stop.

38:12

Some may object, however, that the following verses in Hebrews 9 .25 to 27 do not support such an interpretation of Hebrews 9 .22

38:20

to 24. These verses read thus. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again.

38:26

The way the high priest enters the most holy place every year with blood that is not his own, then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world.

38:34

But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Opponents would claim that Christ does not have to keep appearing before God in order to offer sacrifice, but that he offered a sacrifice once for all on the cross.

38:49

This, however, is a misreading of the text. The text does not say that Christ will not have to represent his sacrifice before God.

38:58

It says that Christ's offering is not like the priest's offering of the old covenant who had to go in and out of the most holy place every year.

39:07

When Christ enters the most holy place, he is there to stay. He does not have to go in and out, which will require his suffering and death each time he entered.

39:16

He enters once never to leave again. While in the most holy place, however, he continues his office of high priest.

39:24

Or as Hebrews 8, verse 2 says, Christ is he who serves in the sanctuary. And as Hebrews 9, 24 says, appears for us in the presence of God.

39:35

Since he no longer dies, it is his resurrected body that appears on the altar and is consumed by his people, which gives greater meaning to Paul's words in Romans 4, 25.

39:45

Quote, he was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

39:51

It is Christ's work of intercession, which can now be accomplished because he is raised to life that completes our justification through his permanent priesthood.

40:01

On page 124 of the fatal flaw, Mr. White wrote, quote, John wrote, and if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the father,

40:11

Jesus Christ, the righteous. And he himself is a propitiation for our sins, not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.

40:18

Unquote. Jesus Christ is a propitiation for the sins. There is no other. Mr. White finishes his quote.

40:25

What Mr. White misses here is that John is saying that if we should fall into sin, Christ is presently the propitiation for that sin, not merely a past propitiation.

40:36

In 1 John 2, verse 2, the propitiation is understood in terms of his present propitiatory advocacy with the father, not just a past propitiation on the cross.

40:49

It is not propitiation, which is now over, and now there is only intercession left. The intercession is the propitiation, and it is past, present, and future.

41:00

The negative of John's verse is that when a Christian falls into sin and does not seek the advocacy of Christ before the father, and thus the propitiation is not applied to him, although it may have been applied to previous sins he had committed.

41:14

And that's why 1 John 1, 8, and 9 says, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them.

41:22

If we confess. But the reason Mr. White would not be inclined to apply a present propitiation is that he doesn't think we need one.

41:31

Mr. White believes that Christ only died for a select few people, paid for all their past, present, and future sins by his death on the cross, a decision in which they had no part, nor can they leave even if they tried.

41:43

This is ironic because I just quoted his citing of 1 John 2, verse 1, in which

41:48

John said, he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. But how can

41:54

Mr. White believe this if, as he says in his book, Christ only died for those he chose to die for and the rest of the human race he did not die for?

42:02

So it's not only Catholics with whom Mr. White has his contentions tonight, but any of you who think you have a free will to make a decision for God or if you believe that God even wants to save the whole world,

42:14

Mr. White is against you. In his book, The Fatal Flaw, page 151, Mr.

42:19

White says, rather than a cross which shows the impotence of God in that it fails to secure the salvation of those for whom

42:27

Christ dies, we proclaim the powerful Savior who in union with the Father sovereignly draws men to himself, having accomplished full and complete pardon in their behalf.

42:36

Why does God choose to save and damn arbitrarily? John Calvin, Mr. White's mentor, said that he saves some without their free will only to show that God has qualities of mercy, but damns the rest without their free will to show that God has qualities of justice.

42:53

Now, who has the impotent God? The God of Mr. White is so insecure about his own character that he has to create beings without free will so he can save some, damn the rest, all just to show what a great

43:04

God he is. Who has the impotent God? I'd say it's the God who has to take away any free will in man in order that his plan cannot be thwarted.

43:13

If you take away man's free will, you don't have to worry about your plan falling apart. But we say no.

43:19

The omnipotent God is the one who can give man free will to choose heaven or hell through his grace and still remain sovereign in all things.

43:27

He is also against any of you who think that your faith justifies you. Mr. White writes in The Fatal Flaw, page 131, it is our contention that the death of Christ is complete in and of itself and does not need man's faith or participation in sacraments or ceremonies.

43:43

Thus, if faith is not required, then surely Mr. White believes that no one who is saved can lose his salvation, which is precisely what he states in his book.

43:52

But this is why Mr. White totally misconstrues the book of Hebrews. For out of 303 verses in the book of Hebrews, 51 % of them warn

44:02

Christians about falling into apostasy and going into damnation. But not one of these passages does

44:08

Mr. White address in his two books. 40 % of the verses speak of Christ's work on the cross and his present intercession with the

44:16

Father in heaven. 8 % of the new covenant replacing the old covenant. Thus, the key to understanding

44:22

Hebrews is to see the connection between the constant warnings about falling into apostasy and the present and past work of Christ.

44:30

In short, the message is if you find yourself falling away from the faith or to prevent falling away from the faith, call on your eternal priest, your brother, who suffered as you did.

44:41

Call on your advocate with the Father. He will be there for you. He is continually presenting a sacrifice before the

44:46

Father for you so that God will give you the graces you need to persevere. It is not like the old covenant in which people couldn't even touch the mountain that Moses walked up to receive the commandments.

44:57

We have a new covenant in which God is very near and dear. But with much freedom comes much responsibility.

45:05

And that's why Hebrews 10 verses 26 to 31 says this, If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

45:22

If you sin deliberately after you become a Christian, you become an enemy of God and the sacrifice will not be applied to you in your sin.

45:31

That's why Hebrews 3 verse 12 says, See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living

45:37

God. That's why Hebrews 4 verse 1 says, Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.

45:49

That's why Hebrews 12 verse 25 says, See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven.

46:04

On page 150 of the fatal flaw, Mr. White quotes Hebrews 10 verses 10 to 14, where it says,

46:10

For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified. Then Mr. White gives these comments,

46:16

His sacrifice is for all time, for by it he has perfected all those who are sanctified.

46:22

The atonement is powerful in accomplishing the perfection of God's people. And so he can conclude where there has been forgiveness of sins, there is no longer any offering for sin.

46:31

If an offering is still being made, then there has not been real and complete forgiveness. Unquote. St. Paul uses the concept of perfect quite often in the book of Hebrews, actually eight times.

46:43

According to Hebrews 10 verses 1 and 2, perfection for the individual refers to having one's sins forgiven completely in order that the conscience may be free of guilt, something which the old covenant law could never provide.

46:56

Hebrews 7, 19. Hebrews 9, 9. The joining of he has perfected to the present passive participle are being sanctified shows that the completed act of Christ, which has been achieved and thus stands forever is in a progressive relationship to us in sanctification.

47:15

See Moulton's grammar. That's what a Protestant tells us. The individual stands perfect because his past sins have been completely forgiven, not because he has reached a perfect state, which requires no more forgiveness or effort on his part.

47:32

Hence, the use of perfect here should not be misconstrued to mean that the individual has no possibility of stopping the sanctification process, nor that the anticipated perfection of the individual in eternity is a foregone conclusion.

47:46

Such an idea might better be expressed by following the main verb with a noun form, the sanctified.

47:52

But that form is not chosen here. Rather, the verb form chosen is one of continuing action, which specifies the process, a process by which we are continually forgiven of our sins, albeit now it is a complete and perfect forgiveness, and it makes our conscience clear of past sins.

48:10

In other words, Christ has perfected the process by which our sins are forgiven and thus no more sacrifices needed for past sins.

48:18

But this does not mean we cannot forsake the process by refusing to repent of our future sins.

48:25

And indeed, more than half the book of Hebrews shows how it is possible to fall from the sanctifying process.

48:32

Hebrews 10 verse 29 says, How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him?

48:44

From a Catholic perspective, the answer to the question, what does no more sacrifice left mean is that the once for all aspect of the cross is applied only to confess sins, not future sins of which there is no guarantee they will be accompanied with repentance.

49:01

Thus, it is necessary for a continual application of the once for all atonement of the cross to be made.

49:07

This is precisely what occurs at the Catholic mass. Christ's body and blood are offered to God as a sweet smelling sacrifice.

49:14

As the Council of Trent says, For appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest of crimes and sins.

49:25

And its salutary effects apply to the remission of those sins, which we daily commit. Complete forgiveness of past sins is the main difference between the power of the new covenant and the weakness of the old.

49:37

In the old covenant, the people needed a continual sacrifice for past sins, because although temporarily appeasing the wrath of God and temporarily forgiving them,

49:48

Hebrews 9 .22, Romans 3 .25, Acts 17 .30, these sacrifices did not completely forgive them nor make their consciences free.

49:56

Hebrews 9 .9, Hebrews 10 .2. The blood of the new covenant, however, forgives all our past sins so that our conscience is clear.

50:04

And that's why baptism is an answer of a good conscience toward God in 1 Peter 3 .21. Hence, Hebrews 10 .18

50:12

can conclude, And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

50:19

Past sins no longer need a sacrifice. It is only our present and future sins which must now have the blood of Christ applied to them.

50:27

This is why Hebrews 5 .9 says, Obedience anticipates our repentance from future sins, without which we will not be forgiven nor the blood of Christ applied to those sins.

50:46

It is for these disobedient people that St. Paul says in Hebrews 10 .26 that no more sacrifice remains for sin.

50:56

But if, as Mr. White argues, the one sacrifice of Christ pays the penalty for all his sins, why is there, according to Hebrews 10 .26?

51:13

In my remaining time, let me just say why we offer sacrifices to God. In the time of Abel, Abel offered sacrifices to God, Genesis 4 .4.

51:24

Job offered sacrifices for his children in Job 1 .5. It says that Job offered sacrifices after his sons and daughters had a party, perhaps because they may have sinned against God.

51:37

And he offered burnt offerings there just because they may have sinned. In the last chapter of Job, Job's three friends are criticized by God for not saying the right things about God.

51:50

And God tells him to go offer a sacrifice of seven burnt offerings of this animal and seven burnt offerings of that animal.

51:58

And then I will forgive you of your sin. And they go and do that. And he asks

52:03

Job to pray for them and Job prays for them. This is before Israel was ever a nation.

52:10

Where are these people learning to offer sacrifice to God? And why does God like it so much? What does he get out of it?

52:17

But that's what's happening. Noah, when he came out of the ark, one of the first things he did in Genesis 8 .20

52:23

and 21 is offer a burnt offering to God. Why? Because it's significant to him.

52:32

And this is before the Levitical law ever existed. So men have been sacrificing for eons and eons.

52:39

Because we must appease God. Because God is a personal being. God is not a rock in space.

52:45

God is offended and insulted by our sins. And he needs to be appeased. And he is appeased by those blood sacrifices.

52:52

And that's why they continue. And that's why they continue in heaven today. Because we continue to sin.

52:59

Yes, Christ's once for all atonement is applied to all your sins. You never have to worry about your sins anymore.

53:08

Except the ones you're going to commit tomorrow that you may not repent of. Those Christ has not forgiven.

53:14

And he will not forgive until you bow the knee to him and repent of those sins. Thank you.

53:52

Good evening. Good evening. The great debates now turn to the incredibly important issue of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

54:01

We have covered the foundation of authority over the past number of years. We've looked at sola scriptura.

54:07

We've looked at the papacy. And now we go to the substance of the gospel itself.

54:13

And there's far too much to say this evening. Far too much material that we could cover. I'm going to try to avoid the temptation to try to cover everything.

54:24

But since there is so much, this requires the audience to listen, to take notes. And most importantly after this evening to do research yourself.

54:34

Now I would like to suggest to you that the standard for the Roman Catholic side this evening is very, very high.

54:42

The Roman Catholic side is defending their assertions concerning the doctrine of the mass.

54:48

What I write or my books is not the subject of the debate this evening. We need to remember that Rome anathematizes and identifies as quote, satanical, end quote.

55:01

Any teachings that differ from her own on this subject and as quote, impious wicked men, end quote.

55:08

Those who do not bow to her claims. Those are in the very same words of the Council of Trent that were just quoted from.

55:16

Hence, if we're going to have a side making that kind of assertion that our doctrine is infallible.

55:22

Our doctrine has not changed for 2000 years. I would suggest to you that the bar is set very high and the standard must be indeed very high.

55:32

I would like to present to you three issues. Three issues this evening. Number one, the

55:39

Bible does not teach nor require us to believe the concept of transubstantiation.

55:46

Now let me say immediately, of course God has the ability to do it. The question is, does he tell us that we have to believe that he does it as a part of the gospel itself?

56:00

Remember, if you anathematize someone, if you make something a de fide dogma, that means you are insisting that this is the only truth concerning this topic.

56:10

And that is the issue that we must deal with, with transubstantiation. Secondly, the modern

56:16

Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation and the mass has not, as the

56:22

Council of Trent would dogmatically and infallibly have us to believe, quote, ever been a firm belief in the church of God, end quote.

56:31

Nor is Trent correct to assert that their understanding is the view of, quote, all our forefathers as many as were in the true church of Christ, end quote.

56:42

Remember those terms, ever been a firm belief and all our forefathers, those are rather extensive words.

56:50

And thirdly, and most importantly, the dogma of the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice is not only unbiblical, but it is in fact directly contradictory to scriptural teaching on the nature and effect of the atoning death of the

57:07

Lord Jesus Christ. So serious is this error on the part of Rome that the entire gospel of Rome, I believe, to be defective because of it.

57:17

Now I wish to read you a citation from John O 'Brien so you can understand the height of the subject that we address this evening.

57:27

John O 'Brien in the book Faith of Millions said, when the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings

57:35

Christ down from his throne and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

57:41

It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors, is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim.

57:49

Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which

57:55

Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man not once, but a thousand times.

58:06

The priest speaks and lo, Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

58:17

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice -gerant of Christ on earth?

58:25

He continues the essential ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ.

58:31

He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement, which

58:38

Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter

58:45

Christus, for the priest is and should be another Christ, end quote.

58:54

We look at the subject of transubstantiation. It is a $10

58:59

Latin term that is rather long. It is based upon the concepts of Aristotelian philosophy.

59:06

It is based upon the ideas of accidents and substance. That substance is what makes something what it is.

59:13

The accidents give to us the external appearance and form and shape. And that everything has this substance and this accidents.

59:21

And that in the miracle of transubstantiation is the substance of the elements that is changed.

59:28

And yet in that process, the accidents remain the same. Now this concept of transubstantiation, which is taught as a dogma by the

59:39

Council of Trent and it is the foundation of the concept of the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice.

59:46

It could not be a sacrifice if Christ is not made present there. Two primary passages in the

59:53

New Testament are presented to us in defense of this concept. Specifically, we look at the words of the

01:00:02

Lord Jesus in the institution of the Lord's Supper. And then the words of John 6.

01:00:09

Let's think together of the Lord's Supper. As even the Council of Trent asserts, the context of that blessed evening was the

01:00:18

Passover meal. The Passover celebration was rich in symbolism with every item on the table and every action by the participants speaking of greater realities and greater spiritual truths.

01:00:36

For example, we think of the original celebration of the Passover meal. The blood was placed upon the lentils and upon the doorpost.

01:00:45

And if you think about it placed here and here and here, what did it form? It formed a cross.

01:00:50

They had to find the spotless lamb. And we all recognize, of course, what the spotless lamb pointed us to.

01:00:58

It was a symbol. There were bitter herbs on the table that symbolized the suffering of the people of Israel.

01:01:06

There was the unleavened bread again symbolizing things. The entire evening was tremendously symbolic.

01:01:13

And in that context, Jesus standing before the apostles breaks the bread and says, this is my body.

01:01:22

I would suggest to you the literal contextual understanding would not see a miracle involving

01:01:28

Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance, nor the offering of a sacrifice that has not yet taken place, nor, as the

01:01:38

Council of Trent dogmatically taught, the ordination of the apostles as priests. To read all of that dogma, most of which did not evolve for many centuries after the event into the text is to give a classic example of eisegesis.

01:01:55

Instead, Jesus is establishing a memorial of his sacrificial death upon the cross.

01:02:00

The elements become symbols that do not intrude themselves into our thinking.

01:02:07

They do not become the focus of our thoughts or adoration. No, we do this in remembrance of Him.

01:02:15

Anything that would distract from our proclamation of His death until He comes is to be rejected.

01:02:23

Paul said that we proclaim or make known or announce the Lord's death until He comes, not that we re -enact or re -present it.

01:02:33

The words of John 6 are frequently brought up in the presentation of the concept of transubstantiation.

01:02:41

We're often told, well, here it's the Catholic that's literal in his understanding of the text, and the

01:02:47

Protestant becomes the non -literal person. But what does the term literal mean?

01:02:54

To understand a passage literally is to understand it as the original speaker or author intended it to be understood.

01:03:02

It is the intention of the original author that determines whether we are taking something literally or not.

01:03:07

So let's listen to the words of Jesus in John chapter 6, when he says in verse 32, Jesus then said to them,

01:03:14

Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.

01:03:22

For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world. Then they said to him,

01:03:29

Lord, always give us this bread. Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.

01:03:42

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Now I ask you, is the hungering of which the

01:03:50

Lord Jesus speaks here physical hunger satiated by the taking in physical food?

01:03:57

Is the thirst here physical thirst assuaged through the drinking of fluids?

01:04:03

If anyone says no, these refer to spiritual hunger and to spiritual thirst, I agree wholeheartedly for coming to Christ and believing in Christ are not physical, but spiritual acts.

01:04:16

But to say so immediately sets the context for Jesus' words concerning what it means to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

01:04:23

In both passages, he is referring to himself as the source of spiritual life.

01:04:30

Augustine said the same thing. He said, he that comes unto me, this is the same as when he says, can he that believes on me.

01:04:38

And what he meant by shall never hunger, the same we are to understand by shall never thirst.

01:04:44

By both is signified that eternal fullness where is no lack, end quote.

01:04:50

Christ indicates that his words are spirit and life, not flesh in verse 63, and that he indeed in his physical body would ascend into heaven in verse 62.

01:05:00

Augustine likewise held this view. It taught that what was eaten and drunk was life itself, spiritual life, not something that is simply physical.

01:05:11

So we see that both passages contain within themselves the necessary information that tells us what is intended by the original authors, and in neither case do we find anything that compels us to a belief in transubstantiation, but rather to the opposite view.

01:05:29

The second point I want to present to you this evening is the Roman Catholic concept of the mass, as Trent said, the view of, all our forefathers, as many as were in the true church of Christ, end quote.

01:05:44

The early church, I would suggest to you, was the martyr church. And what would have been most precious to her was the presence of her

01:05:53

Lord spiritually, not physically. The persecutors could take away our physical possessions and our physical life, but not our spiritual treasures and our spiritual life.

01:06:06

Augustine put it this way, while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed, for they were our examples and in many various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate.

01:06:27

Now that this sacrifice has been revealed and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority.

01:06:40

And he also wrote in the same work against Faustus, the Hebrews again in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ.

01:06:55

This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ.

01:07:04

Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain.

01:07:11

In the passion of Christ, the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice.

01:07:17

After the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.

01:07:25

We must be very careful to look at the entirety of what an early father said. You can indeed multiply the examples of speaking of the body and blood of Christ in the

01:07:35

Lord's Supper, but you need to look at all of what an early father said, not just snippets.

01:07:42

Tertullian, for example, in opposing Marcion, wrote the following. When he so earnestly expressed his desire to eat the

01:07:51

Passover, this is Tertullian writing, he consider it his own feast, for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not his own.

01:07:58

Now listen to this phrase. Then having taken the bread and given it to his disciples, he made it his own body by saying, this is my body.

01:08:06

Now, if we stop right there, that sounds very much like what the Roman Catholic doctrine is.

01:08:12

But the sentence actually continues by saying, quote, that is the figure of my body.

01:08:19

A figure, however, there could not have been unless there was first a veritable body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a figure.

01:08:28

And he goes on from there to again use the phraseology, the figure of the body of Christ.

01:08:37

Theodoret, for example, was a man who spoke of the transformation of the elements via priestly consecration.

01:08:44

He spoke of the adoration of those elements. Again, sounds like exactly what Rome says.

01:08:49

This sounds very much like that. But he also says, quote, the mystical emblems of the body and blood of Christ continue in their original essence and form.

01:09:01

They are visible and tangible as they were before the consecration. But the contemplation of the spirit and of faith sees in them that which they have become and they are adored also as that which they are to believers.

01:09:17

Even Pope Galatius wrote in his work against Eutyches and Astorius, quote, the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive is a divine thing because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature.

01:09:31

Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

01:09:44

I would suggest to you that in light of what the Council of Trent said, Pope Galatius' teaching on the subject was to use that terminology impious and wicked.

01:09:54

How can that be? Now, toward the end of the first millennium, one finds such notables as Gottschalk and Retramnus opposing the concept of the literal materiality of the elements of the

01:10:06

Eucharist. When Paschasius Radbertus, though not using the later scholastic terminology of transubstantiation, presented very much the same concept, the debate was joined, demonstrating that surely such a concept was not the ancient and constant faith of the

01:10:21

Church. The renowned historian Philip Schaaf notes, In both cases, the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect.

01:10:32

The one was based on a literal, the other a figurative interpretation of the words of institution and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St.

01:10:40

John. But remember, folks, Council of Trent said this has always been the faith of the

01:10:45

Church. How indeed could two viewpoints exist side by side and result in such controversy if Trent is correct that it has ever been a firm belief in the

01:10:55

Church of God? In the debates that took place toward the end of the first millennium and the beginning of the second, those who defended a symbolic understanding of the

01:11:03

Eucharist were able to quote on their side the testimony of Augustine. It is ironic to note that in regard to two dogmas of the

01:11:10

Roman Catholic Church, transubstantiation and the concept of the Immaculate Conception, the testimony of Augustine had to be overcome and that with great difficulty.

01:11:21

The word transubstantiation seems to have first been used by Hildebert of Tours in about 1134.

01:11:26

Others mention other differing candidates for the first people to use it, but it was a long time after the apostles before that term came into use.

01:11:36

I'd like to introduce to you a key issue. If one believes in transubstantiation, then one will worship the consecrated host as God.

01:11:44

The Council of Trent says that we're to do so. Yet history records that the elevation and adoration of the host is not an ancient practice.

01:11:52

And as the New Catholic Encyclopedia notes, such items as the tabernacle, pick, suborium, et cetera, begin to appear only at the same time as the use of the term transubstantiation.

01:12:02

While the ancient church carried the host to the sick, the idea of reserving the host in a tabernacle for worship came about at this later time.

01:12:11

As Schaff notes, the elevation and adoration of the host were practiced in the Latin church as early as the 12th century.

01:12:17

Honorius III in 1217 made obligatory the ringing of a bell at the moment the words of institution were uttered and the worshipers might fall on their knees and adore the host.

01:12:27

The Lambeth Synod of 1281 ordered the church bells to be rung at the moment of consecration so that the laboring man on the field and the woman engaged in her domestic work might bow down and worship.

01:12:37

Synods prescribed that the picks, the receptacle for the host be made of gold, silver, ivory, or at least polished copper.

01:12:45

A light was kept burning before it perpetually. In case a crumb of the bread or a drop of the wine fell upon the cloth of the priest garments, the part was to be cut out and burnt and the ashes thrown in the sacchary.

01:12:55

If a drop happened to fall on a stone or a piece of wood or hard earth, the priest or some pious person was to lick it up.

01:13:02

The festival of the Eucharist, Corpus Christi, celebrated the first Thursday after Trinity Sunday, had its origin in the vision of Juliana, a nun of Liege who saw the full moon representing the church year with one spot on its surface.

01:13:14

This spot indicated the church's neglect to properly honor the real presence. She made her vision known to the

01:13:19

Bishop of Liege and the Archdeacon James Pantaleon. A celebration was appointed for the diocese and when

01:13:25

James became Pope under the name of Urban IV, he prescribed in 1264 the general observance of the festival.

01:13:33

John XXII inaugurated the process wherein on Corpus Christi day, the host was carried about the streets with great solemnities.

01:13:42

He also says that the denial of the cup to the laity became common in the 13th century. It was at first due to the fear of profanation by spilling the consecrated blood of Christ.

01:13:54

Now let me ask you a question. Why did it take more than a thousand years before anyone was concerned about spilling the consecrated wine?

01:14:03

And why did the miraculous stories about consecrated hosts literally explode in number only after the beginning of the second millennium?

01:14:13

Just as an example, I again cite from Schaff. Another case related by Etienne of Bourbon is of a farmer who, wanting to be rich, followed the advice of a friend and placed the host in one of his beehives.

01:14:25

The bees, with great reverence, made a miniature church containing an altar on which they placed the sacred morsel.

01:14:31

All the bees from the neighborhood were attracted and sang beautiful melodies. The rustic went out, expecting to find the hives overflowing with honey, but to his amazement, found them all empty except the one in which the host had been deposited.

01:14:43

The bees attacked him fiercely. He repaired to the priest, who, after consulting with the bishop, went in procession to the hive and found the miniature church with the altar and carried it back to the village church while the bees' singing songs flew away.

01:14:57

Schaff says these stories, which might be greatly multiplied, and he provides a number in his history, attest the profound veneration which the host was held and the crude superstitions which grew up around it in the convent and among the people.

01:15:10

And here's Schaff's comment. The simple and edifying communion meal of the New Testament was set aside by medieval theology and practice for an unreasonable ecclesiastical prodigy.

01:15:21

Why don't you have those stories in the third century and in the fourth century if transubstantiation is actually the historic faith of the church?

01:15:31

But now I very hurriedly come to what is in fact the most important point this evening. It is the main reason we are here.

01:15:38

The mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. I am very thankful that I believe these four words,

01:15:46

Jesus Christ saves sinners. That is why he is the perfect savior.

01:15:54

Paul said in 1 Timothy 1 .15, it is a faithful saying, Jesus Christ came into the world to do what?

01:16:01

To make it possible for us to save ourselves? No, to save sinners.

01:16:07

That's why he came. Luke 19 .10, Jesus says, for the Son of Man came to seek and to do what?

01:16:14

Save the lost. And in Hebrews 7 .24 -25, a passage you've already heard, but Jesus on the other hand, because he continues ever, holds his priesthood permanently.

01:16:24

Therefore, he is able to save forever or to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

01:16:36

These passages in the book of Hebrews are so plain that I would simply ask you, I would beg of you, whoever you are,

01:16:43

I don't care what church you go to. I challenge you before you go to bed this evening, you reread these passages in Hebrews and you ask yourself the question, is

01:16:54

Jesus Christ presented here as a perfect and complete Savior? I ask you to do that.

01:17:01

In Hebrews 9, beginning at verse 11, But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, and not through the blood of goats and cows, but through his own blood, he entered the holy place once for all, having done what?

01:17:24

Obtained eternal redemption. He did not merely make it a theoretical possibility.

01:17:30

He obtained eternal redemption. For if, the writer says, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who've been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living

01:17:50

God. For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

01:18:07

He goes on to say, For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us.

01:18:18

Nor was it that he would offer himself often as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

01:18:28

Otherwise, he would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world.

01:18:34

But now, once at the consummation of the ages, he has been manifested to do what?

01:18:41

To put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

01:18:47

And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ, also having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin to those who eagerly await him.

01:19:04

The point of the writers of the Hebrews is this. The repetitive nature of the sacrifices under the old covenant demonstrates their imperfection.

01:19:14

Listen to Hebrews chapter 10. For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year make perfect those who draw near.

01:19:30

Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers having once been cleansed would no longer have had consciousness of sins.

01:19:38

But in those sacrifices, those repetitive sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins year by year for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

01:19:52

If you come to the same sacrifice over and over again, that sacrifice becomes a reminder to you of your sins because you have not been perfected.

01:20:03

That's what the repetitive sacrifices did. How often do you, my

01:20:10

Roman Catholic friend, go to the sacrifice of the mass? Are you perfected? If you go to the sacrifice of the mass and admit that you are not perfected thereby, then it cannot be the same sacrifice that Jesus Christ offered on the cross of Calvary.

01:20:28

Why? Because Hebrews 10 says, by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

01:20:39

And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time. You see how often he repeats this idea of repetition time after time, the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

01:20:53

But he, in contrast to the repetitive way of offering sacrifices, he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet.

01:21:12

For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

01:21:18

That is the issue this evening, my friends. If you claim, as Roman Catholicism claims, that the sacrifice of the mass is simply the representation, it is the same sacrifice.

01:21:34

That's what Rome says. It's the same sacrifice. It's not another sacrifice. We're not sacrificing Christ over again.

01:21:40

It's the same sacrifice. If that's what you say, then my question for you this evening is very simple.

01:21:46

The scriptures say that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ perfects for all time those for whom it is made.

01:21:56

If you can go to the mass one time, ten times, a thousand times, and yet die impure and end up in purgatory undergoing satispassio for your sins, then

01:22:08

I suggest to you, my friend, that is not the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is the issue that we must

01:22:15

That is Please, that is the issue that we must think about this evening.

01:22:21

What does the sacrifice of Christ accomplish? Is it only the situation where you approach the sacrifice of Christ, now all your past sins are taken care of, but now, buddy, you better keep your nose clean.

01:22:33

Now, buddy, you're back to the neutral point now, and now you're in the state of grace, you do good works that are meritorious in God's sight, all the rest of that stuff.

01:22:43

Or is the writer of the Hebrews right when he says that Jesus Christ is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near unto

01:22:52

God by him? Is he able to do that? Is he able to do that?

01:22:57

That is the question that everyone must think about this evening. I don't care where you come from.

01:23:03

I don't care what you call yourself. If you walk out of this room this evening without the recognition that the topic tonight is what does

01:23:13

Jesus Christ accomplish in his atoning death, is it as the Roman Catholic Church says, so that there can be a sacrament whereby the fruits of that sacrifice are given out, or is it as the scriptures teach?

01:23:31

The spotless Son of God is a powerful savior, able to save to the uttermost those who draw nigh unto

01:23:38

God by him. Thank you for listening. And there will be a time afterwards, if you're not already aware of this, for the audience to ask questions of the debaters.

01:24:00

So you can kind of vent your opinion at that point. And remember, these are going to be questions though that we're going to be getting later, not sermons.

01:24:08

We don't want sermons, questions. So I just wanted to remind you of that. And I apologize for butting in here.

01:24:14

I was going to say the same thing. This is not a church service. This is a debate. I know a lot of people feel very emotional about some of the things said.

01:24:22

But in respect to both gentlemen, would you please refrain from making any comments at any time?

01:24:28

It's very disconcerting to either the speaker or the other speaker. Okay. Thank you very much.

01:24:33

We're now going to go to two 12 -minute rebuttals, beginning with Roberts and Jennings. Quiet, please.

01:25:07

If you have to leave, please leave quietly. Unfortunately, they just made that rule when

01:25:16

I get up to speak. Okay, you'll get no respect, no respect.

01:25:30

Well, my opponent has just proved to me that he doesn't understand the book of Hebrews at all. Because, again, he failed to mention one passage in Hebrews that talks about falling from the faith.

01:25:44

Because he doesn't like that. He doesn't like that topic. And yet, again, I say to you, 51 % of the book of Hebrews talks about that very topic.

01:25:53

Yes, Christ is able to save to the uttermost, but read the rest of the verse. And that's why

01:25:59

He makes intercession for us. If we were saved completely and automatically with no problem, there would be no need for intercession.

01:26:09

And intercession is there in the context of salvation. Not just fellowship with God.

01:26:19

For repetitive sacrifices, yes. That's Paul's argument in the book of Hebrews. There are repetitive sacrifices in the old covenant.

01:26:26

And the reason they didn't work was because they couldn't completely forgive sin and perfect the forgiveness of those past sins.

01:26:34

God had to put them on the shelf, as Romans 3 .25 tells us, until Christ came to deal with those sins.

01:26:41

That's why they weren't effective. But it doesn't mean that Christ can't offer

01:26:46

His sacrifice to the Father continually in heaven. He does so, and He perfects the forgiveness of our past sins.

01:26:55

That's the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant. Not because there's a repetition, a reminder of sins.

01:27:04

Yes, because they weren't completely forgiven. That's why they were a reminder of sins. And yes, we're reminded of our sins when we go to Mass, but then they are completely forgiven and never remembered no more.

01:27:16

And that's what Paul says about the new covenant. God will remember those sins no more once they are completely forgiven by the blood of Christ.

01:27:24

So we have nothing to worry about with those sins, but we're talking about my present and future sins.

01:27:31

And that's the argument of the book of Hebrews. That's why my opponent ignored those passages that say, if we deliberately sin, there remains no more sacrifice for sins.

01:27:40

What does that mean, Mr. White? Why does Paul keep telling the same story over and over again in every chapter that you can fall from your faith if it's so secure?

01:27:52

Yes, Christ is able, but are you able to be faithful? The whole argument of the book of Hebrews is you can depend on Christ because He is faithful.

01:28:02

The question is, will you remain that way? So I don't see any argument, no basis whatsoever for his criticisms.

01:28:10

And we can make little jokes about bees making a church and singing and dancing and all that kind of stuff, but superstition does not make

01:28:17

Catholic dogma. And as far as transubstantiation is concerned, yes, we do set the bar very high because truth is truth.

01:28:29

And we will not compromise on truth. And God sets the standard very high for all of us.

01:28:34

Yes, we will admit to that. Does Mr. White imply by that that his bar is lower?

01:28:40

Is that the kind of faith we have? A low standard to go by?

01:28:47

No. Rome hits the bar very high. And yes, we will anathematize any error.

01:28:53

And that's why Rome continues to say after each canon, let him be anathema if he does not believe this.

01:28:59

Why? Because truth is truth. We don't compromise on truth. If it's true, it's true.

01:29:04

If it's wrong, it's wrong. There's no in between. If you claim that it's not true and it is true, yes, you are a heretic.

01:29:13

But what Mr. White is trying to do with that is to say that we condemn all of you to hell because you don't believe exactly as we do.

01:29:21

No, we don't do that. The anathema of Trent does not do that. But that's what the implication was.

01:29:27

The anathema of Trent excommunicates you if you don't abide by that, but they leave salvation totally between you and God.

01:29:39

John chapter six was talked about. You have seven minutes.

01:29:46

Excuse me. Mr. White made a case that Jesus is talking symbolically.

01:29:59

You know, we Catholics have no argument with that, believe it or not. That's how he starts out his argument in John chapter six, very symbolically.

01:30:11

As a matter of fact, when he says in verse 35, I am the bread of life.

01:30:16

He who comes to me will never hunger and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. Automatically, I think of drinking water because he says you will never be thirsty.

01:30:27

And I know he's not talking about literal water here. Yes, there's a symbolic context here.

01:30:32

That's what Jesus said. They hunger and thirst after righteousness. But there's a shift in this passage and it comes starting at verse 49, 50 and 51.

01:30:44

And you know what? This is the first time that Jesus uses the word eat. The first time he uses the word flesh and the first time he uses the word blood.

01:30:57

When he begins his second discourse, the second phase of his argument to the Jews. Yes, there's a symbolic context, but it's followed by a very literal context.

01:31:07

And not only that, Jesus mentions four times. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood and then what he does is he shifts from using one verb in the

01:31:18

Greek that can be interpreted either spiritually, symbolically or literally to a word that cannot be interpreted symbolically.

01:31:26

And that's the Greek word trogon. That's the word you find where it says he who eats my flesh in John 6, 54 and 56 and 58.

01:31:36

Four times he uses that word. Now, why if Jesus is just remaining with a symbolic context is he using a word that is only interpreted in Scripture as physical?

01:31:47

The Jews understand this because as soon as Jesus starts shifting his language in John 6, 49, 50 and 51, when he uses the word eat, blood and flesh, they know exactly what's happening.

01:32:00

And they start complaining. Yes, how can this man tell us to eat his flesh? That's the first time

01:32:05

Jesus used the word flesh. That's why he didn't use it in the previous verses because yes, he was talking symbolically.

01:32:14

The key to understanding this is if you don't understand Jesus spiritually, you're not going to understand him physically either.

01:32:20

He's just proving the point to them, you see. And that's why he continues to tell them in John 6, you don't understand because the

01:32:27

Father has not revealed it to you. You are dead in your sins. You don't have any spiritual awareness.

01:32:34

You can't even understand me coming from heaven and drinking spiritual water. How are you going to ever understand this?

01:32:41

That's the whole context of the passage. Yes, we need to read the context, Mr. White, all of the context.

01:32:47

As far as the word transubstantiation is concerned, the question would be raised, why is that now a topic of discussion in the 12th century or the 11th century at the

01:33:01

Fourth Lateran Council? Why is it dogmatized then? You know why it's dogmatized then? Because that's the first time that someone objected to it.

01:33:12

Please don't do that, please. That's the first time. The Greeks even had another word they used to use, the ancient

01:33:20

Greek fathers. Metousios, which means change of substance. They used that word as early as the 6th century to describe what was happening.

01:33:30

And Beringarius of Tours was the first one to cast any doubt and he later recanted. So that's why the doctrine came and that's why doctrines always come in the

01:33:40

Catholic Church. That's why they're dogmatized, because someone raises an objection and the church has to sit down.

01:33:47

That's what he did with the Trinity that Mr. White wrote a book on. Where did he get that information from?

01:33:53

From those previous councils. And why did those councils make a decision? Because they had Arians all around them saying, no, there is no

01:34:00

Trinity. Jesus was not God. And they were forced to make a decision and they did.

01:34:07

But not so with the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, that just tells us that it was believed so firmly that no one objected to it for quite a long time.

01:34:17

And then the church came along and had to lower the boom and keep the doctrine straight. Why? Because the church never changes her doctrine.

01:34:25

Oh, and Mr. White talks about Augustine. Augustine this and Augustine that. Yes, Augustine had many spiritual applications of those very passages.

01:34:33

That doesn't mean that Augustine didn't believe in the physical reality of those same passages because in those passages, other passages, he talks about the physical reality.

01:34:42

Does Augustine, can Mr. White show us a sample where Augustine shows us one time that he says,

01:34:48

I don't believe in the church's belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? No, there is no such passage in Augustine.

01:34:56

Yes, there's a lot of spiritual application of Augustine's use of those passages. I do that myself.

01:35:02

But it doesn't mean that he didn't believe in transubstantiation or something similar to that. You see, that's

01:35:09

Mr. White's trying to imply because he talks spiritually, he doesn't believe in the physical presence of Christ.

01:35:14

I already read you those passages. Listen to Augustine again. What you see is the bread and the chalice.

01:35:21

That is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice, the blood of Christ.

01:35:30

That's in Augustine's sermons, 272. Augustine said this again, for Christ was carried in his own hands.

01:35:37

When referring to his own body, he said, this is my body. For he carried that body in his hands.

01:35:43

Is that spiritual? No, it's not. Did Augustine ever take that statement away? No, he didn't.

01:35:50

Did he have a spiritual application of the Eucharistic passages sometimes? Yes, he did. Okay, so when you read these fathers, yes, you have to read everything about the father,

01:35:59

Mr. White, everything. And though some fathers would add, in addition to their belief, a figure, as Mr.

01:36:05

White pointed out, of one father. Yes, I use the word figure all the time. George Washington was a good figure of history.

01:36:12

But does that mean George Washington didn't exist? No, they use figure not in the same way Mr. White is implying that they use figure.

01:36:18

He's trying to tell you that it just means symbolically and it does not. Read the context of what the father tells you and you will see in the very same passage, he supports the physical presence of Christ in the

01:36:29

Eucharist. Thank you very much.

01:36:49

Just a reminder too, when the speakers ask questions, they're asking them rhetorically. You're not to react and answer the questions.

01:36:57

Okay, thank you. Augustine said, who is the bread of the kingdom of God?

01:37:21

But he saith, I am the living bread which came down from heaven. Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart.

01:37:29

On this occasion, it was the parable, the supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive him with faith and receiving him, we know what to think of.

01:37:37

We receive but little and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but is what is believed that feeds us.

01:37:45

Therefore, we too have not sought for that outward sense. This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life.

01:37:56

To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.

01:38:05

I was asked to provide a passage, I did. It was said just a few moments ago, and I think this will help us to remember that we need to be focused on what the topic of the debate this evening is.

01:38:22

This debate is not about me, and this debate is not about my opponent. And on my part,

01:38:29

I will do everything in my power to make sure that the debate stays on one subject, and that is that the

01:38:34

Roman Catholic Church teaches as a dogma the concept of the mass transubstantiation and that the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice.

01:38:42

I don't care. It should not matter to you who I am. It should not matter to you who is up here. The only reason you should be here is if you want to know the truth about this issue.

01:38:54

What was just said, I hope you noted it down. I hope you all were writing this down. Yes, we remember our sins when we go to mass.

01:39:06

That's what was said. Write that down, keep it in mind. I want to focus upon that in future discussions.

01:39:15

We had a few comments made about little jokes. It wasn't a little joke. It was a historical story that demonstrates the stories that began to circulate after the concept of transubstantiation came into vogue.

01:39:27

And again, I ask the question, if, as it has been asserted over and over again, that this was the firm belief, and everybody believed this, why then is it in the 13th century that someone goes, you know, people might spill the cup.

01:39:42

And that might cause a problem. So let's withdraw the cup from children because the mass had been given to children all up to this point in time, and from the laity.

01:39:51

Why does that take place only after the term transubstantiation begins to be used? I would suggest to you that it is not because, well, everybody believed up till then.

01:40:03

It's just finally someone came along and said otherwise. No, Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance were not the universal faith of the church.

01:40:13

Just so happens that around that time, there is revival in Aristotelian learning in Europe. It has been said that I've ignored this passage or that passage, and again,

01:40:24

I don't want to get into this personal stuff. The subject this evening is the fact that Rome dogmatically teaches a subject.

01:40:34

That is what we are supposed to be defending. Yes, they use the anathema, and it was said

01:40:40

I was trying to insinuate that means you're going to hell. Well, all I can say is when you look at the context of the

01:40:48

Council of Trent, you look at the context of history, I'd ask you to ask one historical figure concerning what the anathema meant.

01:40:56

His name was Jan Hus. The Bohemian priest who was burned by the Council of Constance in the middle of the 15th century.

01:41:04

And ask him what he thought anathema meant. In regards to Augustine's view and the view that there were many people who held this symbolic view,

01:41:15

I refer you to people like Schaff, Pelican, Cunningham, J. N. D. Kelly, all scholars of the first rank.

01:41:22

You don't have to take my word for it. Do your homework yourself. You will see that that's the case.

01:41:28

It was asserted just a few moments ago, where did I get my information for my book on the Trinity? I saw some of you that had it out there, and that made me feel very good, whoever it was that had that book.

01:41:38

I didn't get it from the Roman Catholic Church. The doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical doctrine, and it is presented to us as a doctrine of revelation in scripture.

01:41:50

The reason that the Creed of Nicaea is correct in what it says about that is because it is commensurate with God -breathed revelation, not because the

01:41:58

Council of Nicaea said it. Now, one thing that is, I think, a problem so far, aside from the small desk up here, is the fact that we haven't heard much about the

01:42:10

Roman Catholic case. We've heard a lot about me, but we haven't heard a whole lot about what

01:42:16

Trent says, for example. And so I'd like to read into your hearing so you know why the bar is so high, what

01:42:24

Rome is actually claiming here. The Council of Trent, if anyone denies, in the sacrament of the most holy

01:42:30

Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our

01:42:36

Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that he is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or force, let him be anathema.

01:42:46

If anyone says in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our

01:42:52

Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread and the body, and the whole substance of the wine and the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the

01:43:04

Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema. If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the

01:43:13

Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each form, and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.

01:43:21

If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of Latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal right and custom of Holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

01:43:50

I ask a question. If in point of fact, the doctrine of transubstantiation has been how everyone understood that, the concept of the real presence of Christ, and no one stood up here and said that Augustine denied that Christ is really present in the supper, the question is how?

01:44:08

Rome has decided, we'll tell you dogmatically how. And we will describe as satanical any opposing viewpoint.

01:44:17

But if that has been the universal custom of the church, then I have a question. Why did it take over a thousand years for people to start putting the consecrated host into a tabernacle, and placing it in a church, and lighting a candle before it, and bowing down and worshiping it?

01:44:39

I've asked that question before. So far, I haven't heard an answer. Why were there not examples in the days of Augustine?

01:44:49

Why can we not find Augustine carrying the consecrated host as the bishop of the church in Hippo in ceremonial procession in Carthage?

01:44:59

And people bowing down and worshiping as it goes by. Why? I ask the question.

01:45:11

I would like to suggest to you that when we talk about the gospel this evening, and I'm very much looking forward to the next section of the debate where we can have interaction.

01:45:21

I think that's vitally important to a debate, and I hope you'll listen very carefully. Not because of who's up here, but because of what is said.

01:45:30

When we have interaction on the subject of this issue, I hope you will listen carefully, because there really are two views in regards to the saving work of Jesus Christ.

01:45:43

And they're not necessarily Protestant versus Catholic views. I know those who would bear the name

01:45:50

Protestant who would disagree with me on these issues. But fundamentally, folks, the question that you will have to face is this.

01:46:02

Does God save, or does man allow

01:46:07

God to save? Does God save, or does man allow

01:46:15

God to save? That is the question you must deal with this evening.

01:46:22

You see, the scriptures can say, Paul, for example, speaking of the Corinthians, can speak of the faithfulness of God.

01:46:31

It's God's faithfulness that brings about the gospel. It's God's faithfulness that brings about salvation based upon the perfect work of Christ.

01:46:40

He never says, I'm so thankful, O Corinthians, for your faithfulness. When he says,

01:46:47

I'm convinced this very thing, that he who has begun a good work, and you will continue it until the day of Jesus Christ, he doesn't say,

01:46:52

I'm convinced this about you. He is convinced in God's faithfulness to bring about salvation.

01:46:59

And really, my friends, that is the issue this evening. I submit to you that as Paul said in 1

01:47:09

Corinthians 1, it is by his doing that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become to us all the beautiful things of salvation, justification, redemption, and sanctification.

01:47:21

Why? So that he who boasts, let him boast in the

01:47:28

Lord. There's nothing I can do to add to a perfect work that has been done in my behalf.

01:47:38

Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, became sin.

01:47:45

Why? So that I might be made the righteousness of God in him. Not my righteousness, not my standing before God someday, clothed in partially the righteousness of Christ, and partially the righteousness of saints, and partially the righteousness that I've done, my good works done in a state of grace.

01:48:06

No. That I might become the righteousness of God in him.

01:48:12

A perfect and complete righteousness. Jesus Christ says in that same passage in John 6, about which we will be talking all night, all the

01:48:26

Father gives me will come to me. And the one who comes to me, I will certainly not cast out.

01:48:32

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me.

01:48:40

That of all that he has given me, I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

01:48:48

Is Jesus able to do the will of the Father? Is Jesus powerful to do the will of the

01:48:54

Father? I submit to you that he is willing to do the will.

01:49:00

He's capable of doing the will, and he will accomplish it. Thank you. We'll now begin.

01:49:12

There'll be four 14 -minute segments. We're going to begin with Jim White questioning

01:49:18

Bob St. Janis. Thank you very much. Sir, do you believe the

01:49:23

Roman Catholic Church to be infallible in its official teachings on matters of faith and morals? Yes, I do.

01:49:30

Do you believe the doctrine of the Eucharist, the concept of transubstantiation, the concept of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice are matters of faith or morals?

01:49:40

Yes, I do. Does it not follow then that you believe Rome has the capacity to infallibly define these teachings for all faithful followers of Christ?

01:49:49

Yes, I do. Would it not be impious and an act of rebellion for a believer to reject the

01:49:55

Roman Catholic definitions of the Mass given what you believe concerning the authority of the Church? Yes, I do. Sir, did the

01:50:01

Council of Trent provide dogmatic and fallible definitions concerning the Eucharist in the 13th session of 1551 and the 22nd session of 1562 wherein transubstantiation is put forward as is the nature of the

01:50:13

Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice? Yes, they do. Were those definitions infallible at the point at which they were given?

01:50:20

Yes, they were. Is it your opinion, sir, that the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the validity of the

01:50:26

Council of Trent, defined, what the Council of Trent defined on these very issues? Yes.

01:50:32

And is it not the case that the universal catechism of the Catholic Church likewise cites from these passages in the

01:50:38

Council of Trent? Yes. Okay. So does it not follow, sir, that these teachings remain inviolable and infallible teachings of the

01:50:45

Roman Catholic communion to be accepted de fide as dogma? Yes. Was it infallibly true in 1551 that men who taught that the presence of Christ in the

01:50:55

Eucharist is spiritual only are impious and wicked men, to quote from the Council of Trent? Yes.

01:51:02

We're doing well so far, aren't we? Thank you, Terry Mason. Was it infallibly true in 1551 that the doctrine that Christ is physically present only in heaven, but present only on earth in his majesty is, quote, satanical, end quote?

01:51:17

Could you read that again? Was it infallibly true in 1551 that the doctrine that Christ is physically present only in heaven, but present only on earth in his majesty is, quote, satanical, end quote?

01:51:28

If they said that, yes, it's satanical. Was it infallibly true in 1551 that all the early fathers who were in the

01:51:34

Church of Christ had believed as Rome taught regarding the Last Supper or the Mass? I decline to answer that.

01:51:41

Was it infallibly true in 1551 that Rome's doctrine of the Mass has, quote, ever been a firm belief in the

01:51:47

Church of God, end quote? Repeat that. Was it infallibly true in 1551 that Rome's doctrine of the

01:51:53

Mass has, quote, ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, end quote? If you're saying that, if Trent is saying...

01:52:03

That's a quote from Trent, yes, sir. Yeah, well, that's true then, okay. Who has the... Just make sure that you're telling me you're quoting from Trent, and I'll say true to everything.

01:52:11

Okay, thank you. Who has the final authority to interpret

01:52:16

Matthew 26, verses 26 through 29, John 6, 53 through 58, or 1

01:52:21

Corinthians 11, 23 through 26, the chief passages on this concept? Who has the final authority?

01:52:27

Yes. The Church does, of course. The Church of Rome, is that correct? That's right. Who has the final authority to interpret the words of Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, or Augustine on these issues?

01:52:38

The Church does, of course. Is it possible that the Church of Rome is in error concerning its claims that all the early fathers agreed on this issue?

01:52:47

Is it possible that the... Is that a quote from Trent? No. Okay. No, I don't think

01:52:57

Trent said that. That's right, and I don't think any Catholic would say that the way you are saying it, Mr. White, because they didn't mean every single person when they used the word all, so I don't decline to answer that.

01:53:07

All right. Is it possible that the Church of Rome is in error regarding its interpretation of the previously cited passages regarding the supper?

01:53:13

No, they are correct. What kind of data would it take, sir, to convince you that the Council of Trent was in error in its interpretation of Matthew chapter 26?

01:53:22

Oh, take an act of God, of course. Okay. What kind of data would it take you to convince you that there were many early fathers who did not, in fact, believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, instead taught a symbolic understanding of the real presence?

01:53:36

Well, since the word transubstantiation wasn't used with the early fathers, I guess they couldn't believe in that exact definition, could they?

01:53:42

Okay. Is it a fact, sir, that there really is no way in which I can possibly present anything whatsoever to you that would cause you to change your view on this, since you indeed believe the

01:53:52

Church to be infallible and her teaching on this final and clear? Okay. And since I'm not

01:53:58

God, I can't do an act of God. Right. You're not God, and you're also not this being.

01:54:10

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.

01:54:17

Okay. That's what Paul said for those who come preaching another gospel that was not the true gospel.

01:54:23

All right. Turning our attention to Matthew chapter 26, verses 26 and following, is it your belief that this passage teaches transubstantiation?

01:54:33

Matthew 26 what? Verses 26 and following, the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Do I believe they teach transubstantiation?

01:54:41

Yes, as the Church defines it, I do. Is it your assertion that in the words, take, eat, this is my body, we are to see both the ordination of the apostles as priests, as well as the miracle of transubstantiation?

01:54:50

Yes, I do. Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 11, 26, and keep your finger there in Matthew 26, because this is just an aside.

01:54:57

Okay. That the supper is to be celebrated until the Lord comes. Is it your view that the mass will be celebrated after the final consummation of all things and the establishment of the kingdom of God?

01:55:07

No. When Jesus says in Matthew 26, 29, but I say to you,

01:55:12

I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink anew with you in my father's kingdom. Was he not referring to the cup he had just blessed as the fruit of the vine?

01:55:22

Church never has made a dogmatic statement on that. Do you answer something?

01:55:28

No, I'm not done yet. Let me finish the statement. The church says that this either could be the actual fruit of the vine, meaning that's only wine, or it could be the actual transubstantiated bread or wine.

01:55:40

It could be either one of those. So you can take your pick and I'll answer either one of them. Okay. Was the cup literally the fruit of the vine?

01:55:50

That was actual wine transubstantiated into the blood of Christ and when he said, this is my blood?

01:56:00

And when he says, I will not eat of this, I will not drink of this cup until the kingdom of God.

01:56:07

Will Jesus perform the miracle of transubstantiation? Well, he actually said you don't believe that, so nevermind. In 1

01:56:13

Corinthians 11, 26, we are told that the participation of the believer in the Lord's supper amounts to a proclamation of the

01:56:20

Lord's death until he comes. Are you familiar, sir, with any usage of the Greek verb that is used there, proclaim, katangelo, in the

01:56:28

New Testament that would indicate this means to represent, make present, etc.,

01:56:33

or any other usage that would be commensurate with Roman Catholic teaching? No, because that passage is not talking about proclaiming and using proclaim in the sense of transubstantiation,

01:56:42

Mr. White. Okay. Would you agree, sir, that the Passover meal was filled with symbolic meaning and with physical items that carried a solely symbolic message in their usage?

01:56:53

Repeat that, please. Would you agree, sir, the Passover meal was filled with symbolic meaning and with physical items that carried a solely symbolic message in their usage, such as the bitter herbs?

01:57:03

Some, yes. Would you say that the Lord Jesus was literally teaching that he is a vine in the discourse in John 15 about the vine and the branches?

01:57:10

No, I wouldn't, but that's the only time he talks about himself being the vine. Is it not the case that the discourse in John 15 about the vine and the branches was delivered to the apostles the very same night in which

01:57:20

Jesus said, this is my body, while instituting the supper? Yeah, but the this is my body is talked about six times in the

01:57:27

New Testament. The vine is only talked about once. Would you agree that the sermon in the synagogue in Capernaum, recorded in John chapter six, took place at the very least a full year before the institution of the

01:57:37

Lord's Supper? In Capernaum? Say that again, please. John chapter six. The discussion that we're looking at in John chapter six takes place in the synagogue in Capernaum.

01:57:48

Would you agree that that what is said in John chapter six took place at the very least a full year before the institution of the

01:57:55

Lord's Supper? There's no evidence of that. So you would say the Lord's Supper was closer to this period of time?

01:58:02

I don't know. Doesn't give any indication either way. Would you agree, sir, that the first mention of food in the discussion in the synagogue in Capernaum is found in verses 26 through 27, where Jesus says that we are to not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life?

01:58:18

Repeat the first part of your question. Would you agree that the first mention of food in the discussion in the synagogue in Capernaum is found in verses 26 through 27?

01:58:26

This is John chapter six. Yes, it is. According to verse 27, who gives us the food that endures to eternal life?

01:58:32

The Son of Man will give it to you. Immediately afterward in verse 29, does Jesus define the work of God as belief in himself?

01:58:39

Yes, he does. In verse 32, Jesus says the Father is giving the true bread out of heaven.

01:58:44

Would you say the term giving is present tense, i .e., my Father who is giving you the true bread?

01:58:52

When I say it's present tense, is it a present tense? Yes, it is. OK, well, then I agree with it if it's present tense. Jesus then identifies himself as the bread of life,

01:59:01

I believe, in verse 35. Does he not? Yes, he does. Does it not follow, sir, the true bread was already being given at that point in time in the person of Christ and that one could, and I would say at least before, who knows how long before, the institution of the supper, have the bread of life by faith in Christ?

01:59:19

Sure could. Jesus said in John 6, 35, he who comes to me will not hunger and he who believes in me will never thirst.

01:59:27

Sir, have you been hungry today? Yes, I have. Have you been thirsty any time?

01:59:33

If you haven't, I'll invite you out to Phoenix and you'll find out what that's all about. As a matter of fact, may I have some more water, please? I'm thirsty. Yet you believe in Christ, do you not?

01:59:41

Yes, I do. Is it not clearly the intent of the text to indicate that the hungering and thirsting here in John 6, 35 is not literal physical hungering and thirsting?

01:59:50

Augustine identified coming and believing here in John 6, 35 with the same comment in John 6, 47 where the subject is belief in Christ.

02:00:00

Would you agree or disagree with Augustine's interpretation? I probably would, yeah. Right before speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in verse 53,

02:00:09

Jesus speaks of himself as the bread that came down out of heaven using the exact same

02:00:15

Greek term katabino that he used in verse 33. You had indicated that there was a great shift between these passages.

02:00:27

But since we have seen that Jesus was speaking figuratively in verses 33 through 35, why don't we consistently follow this context in verses 53 through 58 when he uses the exact same term as himself being the bread that has come down out of heaven?

02:00:42

Well, Mr. White, because as they say in real estate, the three rules of real estate are location, location, location.

02:00:49

Three rules of exegesis are context, context, and context. Thus, when

02:00:55

I said Jesus begins using words that he hasn't used in John 35, not just 6, 35, such as eat.

02:01:02

Do you ever see the word eat in John 6, 35? No. Do you ever see the word blood at all?

02:01:09

No, you do not. Do you ever see the word flesh? You do not. OK, so there is a definite context shift because he's using terminology that he has not used prior.

02:01:20

Then he uses the phrase that you used about the bread. So if you look at these in the context, you're going to get a completely different interpretation.

02:01:28

You had said in your presentation that the verb to eat cannot possibly taken figuratively.

02:01:38

Can you cite me a lexical source that says that the meaning of this word precludes any figurative use of it?

02:01:44

Yeah, try Liddell and Scott, try Walter Bauer, Gingrich and Dirch, try those at least the ones

02:01:52

I've looked up tonight. And they say that that word cannot possibly ever be taken figuratively. They never give an instance of that word being used figuratively.

02:02:00

That's not what I asked. What I asked, you made the assertion that this verb can't be taken figuratively.

02:02:06

Is there any lexical source that says not that it is or is not taken that way, but that there is something in the meaning of the word that precludes it being taken figuratively?

02:02:17

There's no book that says there's no green men on Mars, but it doesn't mean there are green men on Mars, Mr. White. I'll take that as my answer.

02:02:23

Well, you give me one where it says the trogon is used. I'm asking you questions right now. I only have a couple of seconds left.

02:02:28

I'm not done with my answer yet. I'm not done with my answer yet. I'm not done with my answer yet.

02:02:34

And my answer is a question to you, which is you don't have to answer it if you don't want, but that's part of my answer, which is you show me a lexical source that says the trogon has a symbolic meaning and show me any biblical source that says trogon has a symbolic meaning and I'll believe you.

02:02:54

Okay, we'll now go to 14 minutes of course examination by Officer McGennis.

02:03:04

Okay, Mr. White, I'd like you to listen to the following quotes from the fathers. Origen, are you familiar with Origen?

02:03:38

Yes. Okay, do you know Origen's dates? Oh, the beginning of the 3rd century toward the middle of the 3rd century.

02:03:44

Wrong. Excuse me? Wrong. 185 to 254.

02:03:50

Excuse me, 254 is the middle of the 3rd century. You said from the 3rd century was your beginning century.

02:03:56

Something tells me he wasn't writing when he was 10. No, the 2nd century is 185, not the 3rd century, okay?

02:04:05

This is what Origen said. I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion.

02:04:12

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries. So you know how when you have received the body of the

02:04:18

Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish.

02:04:26

You account yourself guilty and rightly do you so believe if any of it be lost through negligence.

02:04:34

Then Augustine says this. You said that Augustine did not say that we adore and worship the

02:04:39

Eucharist. I'll read you a quote from Augustine. You tell me what you did say. I did not say that, sir. Tell me what you did say.

02:04:45

I'm not sure what you're referring to. What I said was that all scholars with whom I am familiar with will specifically make the statement as, for example,

02:04:54

Schaff does right here. In the previous period, we distinguish three views, the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irnaeus, the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and origin.

02:05:08

And he goes on to add Augustine to that view in regards to his specific understanding of the means by which the real presence takes place.

02:05:18

OK, you had made the case that because they started worshiping the host around the second millennium, the beginning of the second millennium, and you asked the question, why are none of the fathers doing the same thing?

02:05:31

That's how many people were. Well, whatever. Can I correct? Can I correct this? I made the statement in my opening statement.

02:05:37

In fact, I specifically cited Theodoret, where he speaks of adoring the elements. And then

02:05:42

I demonstrated that he spoke of that in a figurative way. What I said was, why do we not see

02:05:48

Augustine putting consecrated hosts into a pix or a suborium or whatever and carrying it in procession through the streets where people bow down to worship it?

02:05:59

That is what began to happen at that point in time. All right. If what you're doing is trying to say that there's a difference between Augustine adoring the

02:06:07

Eucharist and then carrying a suborium through the streets, if that's the case you're trying to make, you're correct. OK, but the point, in fact, is that Augustine adored the

02:06:16

Eucharist just like those of the second millennium did, even though we don't have a statement saying that he carried it through the streets.

02:06:21

That's not the issue. The issue is, did Augustine adore the Eucharist? And this is what he says on the psalms.

02:06:26

Tell me what you think about this. For he received earth from earth because flesh is from the earth.

02:06:33

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation.

02:06:40

But no one eats that flesh unless first he adores it. And thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the

02:06:47

Lord's feet is adored. And not only do we not sin by adoring it, we do sin by not adoring it.

02:06:54

Is that a question I can answer? Yeah, tell me what you think of that. Thanks. Well, I think when you read Augustine, you understand why it is that Shaft, Pelican, Cunningham, J.

02:07:02

N. D. Kelly, and everyone else understands why he did not hold to a materialistic view.

02:07:08

Let me give you just one quote. This is a tractate 50 from the Gospel of John.

02:07:14

Let us, for our part, show the Jews where Christ is. Well, if he believed in transubstantiation in a physical sense, we can answer that question easy.

02:07:23

He's on the altar. Would indeed that all the seat of those who have been given commandment to have it shown them where Christ was would but hear and apprehend.

02:07:31

Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is and take him. They may hear it from us. They may hear it from the

02:07:37

Gospel. He was slain by their forefathers. He was buried. He rose again. He was recognized by the disciples.

02:07:43

He ascended before their eyes into heaven and there sitteth at the right hand of the father. And he who was judged is yet to come as judge of all.

02:07:51

Let them hear and hold fast. Do they reply? How shall I take hold of the absent? How shall

02:07:56

I stretch up my hand into heaven and take hold of one who is sitting there? Now, how should if Augustine believed what you're asserting, he say?

02:08:07

By partaking of the supper. What does he say? Stretch up thy faith and thou hast got hold.

02:08:14

Thy forefathers held by the flesh. Hold thou with the heart for the absent

02:08:19

Christ is also present. But for his presence, we ourselves were unable to hold him.

02:08:26

But since his word is true, lo, I am with you always, even the end of the world. He is away and he is here.

02:08:32

He is returned and will not forsake us. For he has carried his body into heaven, but his majesty, he has never withdrawn from the world.

02:08:42

This is just one of many citations where Augustine strongly emphasizes. This is very important that the physical body of Jesus Christ was resurrected into heaven.

02:08:52

And that's where it is. And he specifically over and over again says we have been deprived of his presence.

02:09:01

But by spirit, we have his majesty with us. Well, you get no argument for me on that,

02:09:07

Mr. White, because as Augustine and every other father does, they have a spiritual application.

02:09:13

And as a matter of fact, right in that very context, Augustine is concerned about people receiving the

02:09:19

Eucharist with a good and pure heart. And that's why he's concentrating on the heart.

02:09:25

Is this a question? No, I'm reading the comment. Then I'll give a question to you. I just wanted to be quiet.

02:09:30

Listen for now. Actually, this is a time for questions. That's right. You'll get the question. Just hold on.

02:09:36

So if you read the context, as I was saying before, you will get why Augustine is talking about the spiritual emphasis.

02:09:42

It's not to deny the Eucharist. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is to tell the people to set their minds on the spiritual so that they understand exactly what the

02:09:53

Eucharist is. Well, again, you can say I have not asked you a question. This is not. But this is not a time for you to make a speech, sir.

02:10:00

These are either questions or if you're going to make a statement that I have said something, I'm going to correct it. And you are wrong.

02:10:05

I did not say that Augustine denied the real presence in the Eucharist. I said that he denied the physicality of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

02:10:16

Please, at least accurately represent what I'm saying. Well, you're going to have to be quiet now. Let me get to where I was going to get.

02:10:22

OK. I know that Augustine never did that because the word transubstantiation was not used in Augustine's time.

02:10:28

So that's really irrelevant. The point, in fact, is that when Augustine has a spiritual context about the

02:10:34

Eucharist, he's not referring to a denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

02:10:40

That is what I want to make clear. You are implying to the audience that because he speaks spiritually sometimes, he's denying it.

02:10:46

Now, this is the question you're going to get. Show me one passage where Augustine denies the teaching that Christ is physically present in the

02:10:54

Eucharist. Is there anyone? He is hereafter to come to judge the quick and the dead and the self, same bodily presence according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine.

02:11:04

For in his spiritual presence, he was still, of course, to be with them after his ascension and with the whole of his church in this world, even to the end of time.

02:11:17

We cannot, therefore, rightly understand of whom he said, while I was with them, I kept them, save as those only who believed on him, whom he had already begun to keep by his bodily presence, but was now to leave without it in order that he might keep them with the

02:11:34

Father by his spiritual presence. You are right, since the term transubstantiation, and I would say what it represents, was not something that Augustine would ever be dealing with.

02:11:47

You're seemingly asking me to try to come up with a denial of something you admit he wasn't talking about, but I think that this passage comes about as close as you can possibly get, because there he specifically contrasts his physical bodily presence with the spiritual presence that he would leave with them.

02:12:06

I think that's about as close as you're going to get. OK, so Mr. White, let me ask you this question. Then you would claim from that vantage point that you just gave about Augustine that when he says this, what you see is the bread and the chalice.

02:12:20

That is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ.

02:12:28

When he says, for Christ was carried in his own hands, when referring to his own body, he said, this is my body, for he carried that body in his hands, that Augustine has no understanding or no belief in the physical presence of Christ in the

02:12:46

Eucharist. Is that what you're telling me? I am telling you that when you read all of what Augustine says, most definitely what he's talking about there is for him a very real presence.

02:12:56

But for Augustine and the early fathers, a spiritual presence is not an unreal presence.

02:13:02

It was very real to them. And in fact, I would reassert that it was more real to them than any type of physical concept that they could have never understood regarding accidents and substance.

02:13:11

OK, so what you're telling us, and Mr. White, correct me if I'm wrong, is that when the fathers talk about real presence, about Christ's bodily presence, all these passages

02:13:20

I quoted you from the fathers, that they are really talking about a spiritual presence of Christ in the

02:13:25

Eucharist. Is that correct? I have indicated a number of times in quoting from Schaff and others that there were numerous views and numerous ideas that were present in the early fathers.

02:13:37

Pelican himself points out that there was no firm, clear doctrine of Eucharistic presence so that we can discover what its outlines were as to the means or anything else.

02:13:47

And the whole reason I've brought this up, sir, is that I am not trying to say that all the other church fathers agreed with me.

02:13:53

I'm not the one who has a Council of Trent that anathematizes people and says that all the fathers believed as I did and that the church has always held this to be the view.

02:14:02

That is what you're defending in this debate, not what I'm having to defend. I'm simply demonstrating that the assertion of the

02:14:08

Council of Trent is untrue. Well, you really didn't answer my question. I asked you if you think that the fathers talk about the physical presence in the

02:14:17

Eucharist are referring to a spiritual presence. I said yes or no. I said Augustine did and others did.

02:14:23

Oh, Augustine and others did. Can you name anybody else who had that same view? I just I mentioned in my opening statement,

02:14:29

I quoted at least two of the early church fathers who and specifically, I quoted Tertullian and Theodoric.

02:14:34

Can you give me the quote? Yeah, if you want to give me the time to go back and track them down.

02:14:42

Well, while you're doing that, let me quote you from Tertullian. Tertullian against Marcian said this, then having taken the bread and given it to his disciples, he made it his own body by saying, this is my body.

02:14:56

That is the figure of my body. That's the quote. I figure, however, there could not have been unless there were first a veritable body, an empty thing or a fan.

02:15:06

Did you read that part? Yes. Oh, OK. An empty, an empty thing or a phantom is incapable of a figure.

02:15:12

If, however, as Marcian might say, he pretended the bread was his body because he lacked the truth of bodily substance.

02:15:19

It follows that he must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcian's theory of a phantom body that bread should have been crucified, but it wasn't crucified, was it?

02:15:30

But why we call, but why call his body bread and not rather some other things, say a melon, which

02:15:37

Marcian must have had in lieu of a heart. That's one of the reasons. He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ who said himself by Jeremiah, I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter.

02:15:49

And I knew not that they devised a device against me saying, let us cast out the tree upon his bread, which means, of course, the cross upon his body.

02:15:58

And thus casting light, as he always did upon the ancient prophecies, he declared plainly enough what he meant by the bread when he called the bread his own body.

02:16:10

He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the New Testament to be sealed in his blood, affirms the reality of his body for no blood can belong to a body, which is not a body of flesh.

02:16:22

Now you're going to tell me that a Tertullian from that quote is saying that he believes in a spiritual presence.

02:16:28

Where do you see the word spiritual? Yes, sir. Most definitely. He uses the term figure and I'm not sure why you read the entire quote, especially if you understand

02:16:35

Marcian's heresy and the fact that as a Gnostic, he would be a Dosetic and he denies the reality of the incarnation of Christ and what he here and what

02:16:44

Irenaeus and what Ignatius were talking about in their context was the demonstration that Jesus Christ truly came in the flesh, that the

02:16:51

Dosetics and Gnostics denied he came in the flesh and he's demonstrating that Christ had a real body or why would he use a physical thing to represent it?

02:17:00

I don't know what else you could possibly be referring to in regards to reading the entire quote. That's what I brought out.

02:17:05

He says Marcian pretends that the bread was his body and Dr. Tully is disagreeing with him. That's why. The Council of Trent bases its doctrine of the mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice on the doctrine of transubstantiation.

02:17:26

Does it not? Excuse me. I'm stopping.

02:17:32

Go ahead. Let me start again.

02:17:39

The Council of Trent bases its doctrine of the mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice on the doctrine of transubstantiation.

02:17:46

Does it not? That's right. And does not the Council of Trent anathematize anyone who would say that it is improper to render latria, true and full worship to the consecrated elements?

02:17:58

That's right. And what pronouncement does the Council of Trent make upon anyone who would say that it is improper to carry the consecrated host about or to reserve it in a tabernacle for worship?

02:18:09

What anathema? What pronouncement does the Council of Trent make? It would be an anathema. Could you explain briefly, sir, if in fact the belief in the mass as defined by Rome has always been the faith of the church, why it is that we don't find tabernacles being made until at earliest the 10th century, why rules and regulations are only then introduced regarding how to make such objects, and why it is that only at this time a movement arises to remove the cup from children and laity, which had been indeed the universal custom up to that time?

02:18:40

Because the doctrine of transubstantiation doesn't depend on a tabernacle, Mr. White. It doesn't depend on any kind of periphery that's going on out there in the pews or in the church.

02:18:50

It depends on what the dogma means. That's all I was trying to tell you before. We don't base our dogma on practices of the populace that may be aberrant or superstitious or what have you.

02:19:02

We base it on what Scripture in the tradition tells us from the fathers. So why is it,

02:19:09

Mr. St. Genes, then, that prior to this period of time, when consecrated hosts would be consecrated, they were not treated as the

02:19:18

Council of Trent says they should be treated and placed in a tabernacle and worshipped? Mr. White, I did tell you that in the fourth ladder in council, the church did finally define the doctrine of the

02:19:28

Eucharist in transubstantiation. And from that, we have a more improved view, a more respectful view, a more developed view of what this actually is that we are partaking of.

02:19:43

But that does not in any... I'm not done yet. That does not in any way mean that the people of the ancient fathers, as I already quoted to you from Augustine, did not adore the

02:19:53

Eucharist. Origen and Augustine, I just quoted to you, did adore the Eucharist. You were claiming that they didn't. So specifically then, they would dispose of these consecrated hosts.

02:20:06

Weren't those consecrated hosts physically the body and blood of Christ at that time? Who is they? Who are you talking about? The early church fathers before the concept of a...

02:20:14

up until the time, the turn of the millennium, before the concept of a tabernacle, pix, saboreum developed, they would just carry the body and blood of Jesus around and then just dispose of the consecrated hosts?

02:20:26

Well, let me read you from Origen again. He says... We heard from Origen. We heard from Origen.

02:20:32

Where does he mention a tabernacle or anything where you're placing something? I'm answering your question.

02:20:38

I'm saying that they don't need a tabernacle to carry the host around. I'm telling you that Origen had just as much respect for the host as the people of the second millennium because he says that if I admonish you with these examples that you treat the consecrated host and that if you drop it, you are guilty.

02:20:59

If you lose it through negligence, you are guilty. That's what he tells them. And every particle, he says here, must not fall to the ground.

02:21:07

That's in the context of the sacrament, right? That's right, because he says consecrated gift. But he doesn't speak of anything outside of the sacrament.

02:21:13

Excuse me? Does he speak of any time outside of the actual offering of the mass? I don't know. I'm just answering your question.

02:21:18

Do you believe the mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice? Yes, I do. Do you believe the mass presents the exact same sacrifice as that of Calvary, though, in an unbloody manner?

02:21:28

That's right. Could you tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statements from Dr.

02:21:35

Ludwig Ott in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 414 through 415, specifically.

02:21:42

The sacrifice of the mass affects the remission of the temporal punishments for sin, which still remain after the forgiveness of the guilt of sins and of the eternal punishment, not merely immediately, but by conferring of the grace of penance, but also immediately because the atonement of Jesus Christ is offered as a substitute for our works of atonement and for the sufferings of the poor souls.

02:22:03

Here's the key phrase. The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional in the case of the living to the degree of perfection of their disposition, end quote.

02:22:17

Would you agree, especially with that last sentence? The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional in the case of the living to the degree of perfection of their disposition.

02:22:30

That's right. I would agree with that. That's what we call faith. Okay. Now, specifically, page 415, as the sacrifice of the mass does not work mechanically any more than the sacraments, the receiving of the fruits of the sacrifice demands certain due moral dispositions, and the measure of the fruits received is dependent on the quality of these dispositions.

02:22:55

I agree. That's why 1 Corinthians 11 says that before we take the body of the Lord, we better examine ourselves to know who we are and what it is that we're actually receiving.

02:23:04

And if we have any sins, we better confess them. To summarize these statements, would I be correct to make the statement that the person approaching

02:23:10

God and worshiping the mass receives a limited propitiation from that sacrifice, and the measure of the propitiation he or she receives is based upon their dispositions?

02:23:22

Well, it's limited in the sense that it's based on their dispositions. That's what God said. It's not limited in the sense that God is limiting it.

02:23:29

God gives as much as the people want. Is it technically possible, sir, within the realm of historic and orthodox

02:23:34

Catholic theology, the person could attend mass, say, a thousand times, which is barely more than monthly during a normal lifespan, and yet still go to hell having committed a mortal sin and not receiving reconciliation?

02:23:46

That's right. That's why Ezekiel 18 says that if a man lives his whole life in honor to God and is purified and perfected before entering into the presence of God.

02:23:54

That's right. You see, because... Okay, thank you. In fact, sir, is it not... Is it not technically...

02:24:00

I'm not sitting here preaching. I'm just asking questions. In fact, sir, is it not technically possible for a person to attend mass every day of their life, say, 20 ,000 times, and yet still remain imperfect when they die, still needing the purification of purgatory before seeing

02:24:16

God? Yes. And, Mr. White, I will continue if you allow me. That's the same thing with your faith.

02:24:23

Well, maybe not your faith because you're Reformed. You think God's already done everything. You don't have to do anything. But for those people out there who believe in free will, they have the same problem, you see, because if they don't maintain their faith, if they sin, they could fall away from their salvation, you see.

02:24:38

So there's a lot of people out there that disagree with you. Thank you. What did the Lord Jesus mean when he cried out, Tetelestai, in John 19 .30

02:24:45

from the cross? Say it again. What did the Lord Jesus mean when he cried out, Tetelestai?

02:24:50

It is finished in John 19 .30. His sacrifice on the cross was finished.

02:24:57

Could you turn, sir, to Hebrews 7, 24 -25, which you have cited in our presence?

02:25:03

Here we are told that Jesus can save those who draw near to God through him, panteles, which can be translated either as forever or completely, because he ever lives to make intercession for them.

02:25:20

Now, in light of that, I'm sorry? Are you asking a question? Would you say that you are drawing near to God in the

02:25:28

Eucharist? Sure would. Christ is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him.

02:25:37

Yet you have said that we can approach God in the mass, thousands of times, and yet still die impure.

02:25:43

Is it your position that Jesus' saving to the uttermost does not include actually perfecting those for whom he intercedes?

02:25:51

I will answer it this way, Mr. White. That's why I kept harping on the fact that the book of Hebrews, 51 % of the time, talks about falling from the faith and actually mentions those who are

02:26:00

Christians, seasoned Christians, who sin deliberately. And Paul says that they have no more sacrifice for sins remaining.

02:26:08

So is it your position that Jesus' saving to the uttermost does not include actually perfecting those for whom he intercedes?

02:26:15

No, if they want to be perfected, he will perfect them. The problem is not with Jesus, it's with us. So his work of sanctification and salvation in us does not include changing us sufficiently that we will then somehow make it?

02:26:33

Mr. White, if it was done so sufficiently, then there wouldn't be any warnings in Hebrews to not fall away from the faith.

02:26:39

That assumes, and I have resisted very strongly, sir, the temptation to turn this into a debate on eternal security.

02:26:46

I'd be glad to debate you on that sometime when that's the subject. But that assumes the idea that what the apostle

02:26:53

Paul is doing is he's talking to true Christians and saying that they can have the Lord Jesus fail to perfect them in their behalf.

02:27:02

And it assumes that when you preach to an audience that you're going to say that everyone in that audience is in fact a true

02:27:08

Christian and that you're not going to warn anybody against going back into the world. That's a very big assumption.

02:27:15

But if the propitiatory effect of the mass, sir, is limited by the perfection of our dispositions, does it not logically follow if we accept the

02:27:25

Roman Catholic teaching that the mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary, that the effect of Jesus' intercession before the

02:27:33

Father is likewise limited? No, it just shows the flaw in your theology, Mr. White, because you believe that you don't have to have faith.

02:27:40

That's what you said in your book. I didn't say that. Yes, you did. I'll read it for you. You want me to read it again? I described faith as the gift of God, sir, that it is given by God.

02:27:49

This is what you said in your book. It is our contention.

02:27:59

What's the page like? Page 131 at the bottom. Thank you. It is our contention that the death of Christ is complete in and of itself and does not need man's faith.

02:28:08

Man's faith or works, sir. Please read the whole thing. So, okay. So you got both of them in there.

02:28:13

So, okay. What is? You mentioned faith. So much for context. Context, okay.

02:28:21

The context says faith. Does Jesus save completely every person for whom he intercedes?

02:28:27

Yes or no? Jesus wants to save completely every person for whom he intercedes.

02:28:32

Thank you. But we have a problem, Mr. White. That's called sin. That's why the book of Hebrews talks about falling away.

02:28:38

I would love to preach on that one. But why don't you? Why don't you tell us about the book of Hebrews? In the case of a person, excuse me, in the case of a person who enters into the state of grace, attends mass for many years, does good works, et cetera, but then falls away, commits immortal sin, is not reconciled and does not desire such reconciliation.

02:28:57

This is interesting. This is the actual question I wrote and you just answered it. Would it be true that Jesus tried to save such a person having interceded for them and yet was unable to bring about their final and full salvation?

02:29:08

I think that's what you just said. I don't know what you're misconstruing. What I said, Mr. White, all

02:29:13

I said was Christ is there for us. He wants to completely save us to the uttermost. But the point is that we sin and that's why he has to intercede to the father for us because we sin.

02:29:24

Can I finish my answer, please? You just said, sir, that... Well, I guess I can't finish my answer because you keep interrupting me.

02:29:30

You just said, sir... Can I finish my answer or not? Okay, I'll finish my answer. Thank you. That's why in the first chapters of Hebrews talk about Christ as our brother,

02:29:40

Christ who is our priest. This is why the whole reason that he's introducing

02:29:45

Christ to us is because he has the power to save us. But then he goes on and says to them, look, the

02:29:52

Jews were in the same situation as you are today and they fell. Don't let that happen to you.

02:29:58

And you even have a better promise now because of the new covenant Christ has given you. And so you have more power to maintain your faith.

02:30:07

But at the same time, you have more responsibility too. So don't fall away. That's what you need to answer.

02:30:12

Sir, you just did. You just made the statement that Jesus wants to save the uttermost.

02:30:18

The passage in scripture says he is able. Yeah. Does it say that he did save the uttermost?

02:30:24

It says he is able to save to the uttermost. Not that he did. So if he is able to save to the uttermost, are you saying that his ability is limited by what we do?

02:30:36

Oh, let me read first. Second Timothy chapter two. Just a simple answer. Oh, I'm gonna give you a simple answer from scripture.

02:30:42

Better than me. If we died with him, we will also live with him. If we endure, we will also reign with him.

02:30:51

If we disown him, he will disown us. That's very simple, I think. He said that with relief in his voice.

02:31:19

Are you ready? Mr. White on...

02:31:28

Excuse me, we can... Oh, I'm sorry. Please. Wait a minute. Okay, go ahead. I didn't get a chance to start.

02:31:36

Go ahead. In your book,

02:31:46

The Fatal Flaw, 134 and 135, you say this.

02:31:57

He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents himself before the

02:32:04

Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of his people.

02:32:10

His work of intercession, then, is based on his work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but it is the presentation of the work of the cross before the

02:32:21

Father. Jesus does not implore the Father to be merciful to men without grounds for that mercy, does he?

02:32:28

Would the Son ask the Father to compromise his holiness and justice by simply overlooking sin? Surely not.

02:32:34

Rather, the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in his death, he has taken away the sins of God's people.

02:32:43

And therefore, by presenting his finished work on Calvary before the Father, he assures the application of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes.

02:32:52

Now, my question, Mr. White, is... This sounds very Catholic. It is not.

02:32:59

I assure you, it is not. We'll find out. Let me give you my question. My question is, Mr. White, if you say that Christ saves to the uttermost, and his death on the cross is perfect and complete in itself, as you said on another page, then why does he have to present this same, as you say, finished work of Calvary before the

02:33:17

Father to assure the application of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes? Why does that have to have...

02:33:23

Why did we have to have an intercession to bring to the Father this sacrifice of Calvary? Context, context, context.

02:33:30

As I specifically said, he enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption,

02:33:37

Christ presents himself before the Father as a perfect oblation in behalf of his people. And then, here's what seemingly you're not seeing.

02:33:46

And we're getting a lot of feedback here. If someone can do something about the feedback, it would be very helpful. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the

02:34:00

Father. Your question is based upon separating the work from the intercession. The high priest who has given his life in his blood, not the blood of goats and bulls, which is the argument that the writer will make.

02:34:15

The high priest intercedes for the people of God. And what I said in that passage is not that intercession is a separate work, not that intercession is an additional work, but as I emphasized,

02:34:30

Jesus Christ sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high.

02:34:37

When you sit down, the high priest had no place to sit in the Holy of Holies.

02:34:43

There is no place for him to rest. There is no place for him to do anything but simply offer the sacrifice, offer the blood.

02:34:50

Christ sits down at the right hand of the Father, his work having been completed and his being in the presence of the

02:34:58

Father, that work in and of itself intercedes in our behalf because the fact that when the

02:35:05

Father looks at the believer, he looks at the believer as having been justified, made righteous.

02:35:13

Why? Because as Paul said, I have been crucified with Christ.

02:35:20

It is not I who live, but Christ lives in me in the life, which I now live in the flesh. I live by the faith of the

02:35:25

Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me in my place.

02:35:32

You see, Mistress and Janice, when the nails went into that cross, the writing and certificate that was against me, my sins were nailed to that cross with Christ.

02:35:46

I participated in his death because I am united by God to his

02:35:53

Son. And that is why I can have both the forgiveness of my sins and bless

02:35:58

God, the perfect righteousness that the Lord Jesus gives me that I cannot have in and of myself.

02:36:05

That's very good preaching, Mr. White, but it doesn't answer my question. My question is, why does it have to be presented again before the

02:36:14

Father if it is in itself complete and perfect? That's what

02:36:20

I asked you. And I said it was improper to say that I am making the presentation of the work separate from the work itself.

02:36:29

I said the work is complete, that he appears in the presence of the Father. How? He sits down at the right hand of the majesty on high.

02:36:37

You made the assertion during your opening statements, and I could not find the passage of Scripture that you were even trying to make reference to.

02:36:44

I think it may have been Hebrews 8, 1 through 3, where you say that he's active in doing some sort of separate action or something along those lines.

02:36:54

I'm not sure what you're referring to. That is not what I am asserting. That is not what I said in the book.

02:36:59

I did not say it's a separate work, and the assumption of the question is completely contradicted by what

02:37:04

I myself said in that passage. Well, let me give you my opinion of that, Mr. White, which is it doesn't make any difference whether you separate the intercession from that or say it's not a different kind of work.

02:37:15

The question is why does it have to be done? That's the question, not whether it's connected to whatever you are claiming here as another kind of work.

02:37:25

I'm not asking you that question. I'm asking why it has to be done, and the passage I was referring to, by the way, is

02:37:30

Hebrews 8, chapter 8, verses 1 and 2, which says he sat down at the right hand of the throne of majesty in heaven and who serves in the sanctuary, okay?

02:37:41

So he's not just sitting there doing nothing. He's sitting, and then he does something. That's what the

02:37:46

New American Standard says. I'm not done yet, please. Don't interrupt me, okay? You asked me where the passage was.

02:37:52

I'm telling you where the passage was. Also, I had read to you that in Hebrews 9, verse 23, it was necessary then for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these, the sacrifice going on in heaven, okay?

02:38:10

So I have no problem with it, with the statement that you made in your book, that he has to present this finished work of Calvary before the

02:38:17

Father, but I would think you would have a great problem with that passage regardless of the fact of whether it's a different kind of work or not.

02:38:24

That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you why he has to present it to the Father if the work of Calvary in itself was perfect and complete.

02:38:32

Answer that. Thank you for the opportunity of doing so. Romans chapter 8 asks the question, who shall lay a charge against God's elect?

02:38:44

Before whom would a charge be laid but the judge of all the earth? Jesus appears in the presence of the

02:38:52

Father in our behalf. His presentation is not a separate work as I said.

02:38:59

And you ask, well, why must he do this? Well, I'm not sure where else the Son of God would go upon his ascension, but to the right hand of the majesty on high.

02:39:08

And I don't know to whom this work would be presented, but to the judge who then on the basis of that perfect work says about those for whom it is made, the chaos, just, not guilty.

02:39:23

No one can bring a charge against God's elect because the judge is the

02:39:29

Father and the advocate is the Son who died in my place.

02:39:35

In regards to Romans, I'm sorry, Hebrews chapter 8 which you brought up,

02:39:41

I'm not sure what translation you're using. Could you identify that please? New international version. Okay, thank you. The specific, the new

02:39:48

American standard, which I'm somewhat partial to for some reason, describes, it says, now the main point in what has been said is this, we have such a high priest who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle which the

02:40:11

Lord pitched, not man. And my point is that if you're trying to say that the

02:40:18

NIV is indicating that there is some sort of extra action going on, I would simply point out that the word minister there is a noun.

02:40:29

It is not one, it is not a passage that says there is some work going on that is separate from the work that the high priest has already accomplished.

02:40:36

That's why he sits down, waiting from that point for his enemies to be made a footstool for his feet.

02:40:45

Oh, so he's sitting down then Mr. White and he's presenting the work of Calvary to the father. Is that what you believe then?

02:40:51

I believe that as the perfect high priest who has given himself on behalf of his people, he is seated at the right hand of the majesty on high having once for all taken away their sin and again,

02:41:07

I simply emphasize that is not some separate action, that is not some separate work that makes the previous work imperfect.

02:41:17

Oh, well I think it is and I'll tell you the reason why is because if the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was perfect and complete and once and for all, there would be no need to continually present it to the father.

02:41:31

That's your theology. So why is he, it doesn't make any difference whether liturgicals here is a noun or a verb.

02:41:40

The point is that he's a minister in the tabernacle. He's not just sitting down, but even if that wasn't correct, let's just say he's sitting down and we'll take the rest of the verse out.

02:41:50

The point still remains that you said that he's presenting the cross of Calvary to the father to assure the application of the benefits of the cross of Calvary.

02:42:00

So it's a necessity for him to do that intercession of presenting it to the father to have the effect of Calvary to his people.

02:42:08

But that's not what you had claimed earlier. You said the cross of Christ on Calvary was perfect and complete and needed no other thing to be done.

02:42:17

Because the work of intercession is not a separate work, it is the same work.

02:42:23

Sir, I'm not sure why we're arguing about my theology. Because you're twisting words, that's why. You're here to defend the dogmatic assertion the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice.

02:42:31

Don't get the focus off me. The focus is on you to explain your own words. It doesn't make any difference whether it's a work that's the same or different.

02:42:39

The point, in fact, is you say he has to present it to the father to effectuate the work on the cross.

02:42:45

And if it's not done - I did not say that. Well - Where's the word effectuate? Oh, okay. Well, whatever. Okay, you didn't use the word effectuate.

02:42:51

Oh, context, context, context. No, it's not context, Mr. White. Okay, I'll read it again for you.

02:42:58

Okay, this is what you said. I enjoy the fact that we keep reading my book here. I just wish it was available.

02:43:05

It's not in print anymore. I hope they go out and buy it and see all your mistakes. He says this.

02:43:12

Rather, the son intercedes for men before the father on the basis of the fact that in his death he has taken away the sins of God's people.

02:43:19

And therefore, by presenting his finished work on Calvary before the father, he assures the application of the benefits of his death.

02:43:27

Okay, that's what you said. Now, I interpreted that as effectuate. I'm sorry. I think your words are actually more powerful.

02:43:33

I personally think I am the infallible authority on interpretation of my own words.

02:43:42

Yeah, that's your problem, Mr. White. You think you're infallible. Mr. White, could you explain to us the meaning of the passages in the book of Hebrews that talk about the sin of apostasy?

02:44:07

Certainly. The writer of the Hebrews is writing to the Christian congregation. When I as an elder in the church stand before the congregation,

02:44:14

I have to recognize that I do not have the ability to look into the hearts of men. As I address that congregation,

02:44:19

I warn that congregation because I know that since I cannot see those who have truly been born again and those who have not, that I must warn everyone against the tremendous danger of abandoning the gospel of Jesus Christ, abandoning those things that you have been taught and heard, and either going back, in the case of the book of Hebrews, to the

02:44:42

Jewish religion because the pressure of the families that were around them, the things that they lost by going out of the

02:44:51

Jewish culture or whatever else the world might want to attract to us, I have the responsibility to warn that congregation of the dire circumstances that come from not pressing on.

02:45:04

That warning that is given out, some people seem to assume, and I guess you're one of them, sir, that that means that Jesus Christ only wants to be able to save the uttermost, but he needs our help.

02:45:18

I don't believe that that's the case in any way, shape, or form. And I think one of the ways in which he exhorts his people is through the warnings that are provided in scripture.

02:45:32

Oh, so you're saying that it's not really possible for them to fall away. He just says the words, I warn you. I'm saying that it's...

02:45:38

Wait a minute, I'm not done yet, Mr. White. You say it's not possible for them to fall away. He just warns them because he's supposed to warn them, but it doesn't really mean anything because they can't fall away, right?

02:45:48

No, that's not what I said. I said that there are individuals within the congregation who we do not know the state of the soul of everyone.

02:45:56

And there are individuals in the congregation that must be exhorted to press on and to not go into the world. That's what

02:46:01

I said. Thank you both. We're now at the time for the closing statements.

02:46:08

Each one is given seven minutes. Robert, you're first. Well, you just witnessed myself this morning.

02:46:27

Well, you just had witnessed myself and Mr. White engage in some very lively discussion.

02:46:34

We do that all the time. Don't take offense at it. We've been at each other for the last, what, seven years,

02:46:40

Mr. White, something like that? Okay, we all have moments of getting very intense about our discussion.

02:46:47

But nevertheless, that does not lessen the gravity of this discussion here that we're talking about. And that is, is it true that the

02:46:55

Eucharist really is indeed the body of Christ and that it is a sacrifice that's offered to God?

02:47:02

I think I've offered ample evidence that that is the case. What I believe as a

02:47:08

Catholic is that if the fathers had taught this doctrine, even though there may have been some kind of passages in Augustine that you pointed out where he had a spiritual application here or some other father's history of application, the consensus among the fathers, and there's hundreds of the quotes that I've given you, is that indeed it was the body and blood of Christ.

02:47:33

All use the same terminology. They may not have understood it exactly what was going on there.

02:47:40

And we don't need Aristotelian philosophy to understand it, right? We really don't.

02:47:46

That's just the closest thing we have to try to explain it. But the problem is that Mr.

02:47:52

White has to avoid all the other fathers that talk about this Eucharist being the actual body and blood of Christ.

02:48:00

You'll notice that he only picked on the ones that have some ambiguity in them, like Augustine.

02:48:06

And Augustine had some ambiguity because he was a Platonist to begin with. Then he changed his mind and he started to work better with the church on this whole thing.

02:48:17

I will admit that, but that's only one father. And there were over a hundred of these fathers.

02:48:23

I could have quoted you many more of them than I did. Now, were they all wrong? Even if we grant some ambiguity in some of the fathers, why are they all saying the same thing?

02:48:34

And I use the word all relatively speaking. I'm not saying that every single father had to go by the same exact definition.

02:48:42

Once it was dogmatized, yes. And that happened a thousand years later. That's when they had to believe in the dogmatic definition of Trent or of the

02:48:51

Fourth Lateran Council, okay? It wasn't required before. So yes, we had various variances about what was actually going on because nobody really knew.

02:49:05

Who Jesus was. They can't explain how it can be God and man at the same time. They can't explain how there can be three persons and one

02:49:13

God. They only told you what you couldn't say about it, but they don't understand it. How can we understand it with our finite minds?

02:49:22

You know, today they don't even understand why you can sit in the chair you're sitting on. They don't understand what matter is made of.

02:49:29

They don't understand energy and how all these things fit together. Scientists will tell you that today. And yet we see in the

02:49:38

Bible that miraculous things were performed all the time. As one of the fathers quoted,

02:49:44

Elijah calls down fire from heaven. They make axe heads float. They part the

02:49:49

Red Sea. They change rods into serpents and back again. And yet we're amazed that Jesus himself can perform a miracle and change bread into his body.

02:50:01

Why is that so hard to believe? Because it's Catholic, that's why. That's why.

02:50:07

Because in order for us to be what we should be, we're going to have to be

02:50:14

Catholic if we want to believe that. Because if that doctrine is right, that means all the other doctrines that the church has taught are right as well.

02:50:22

And then we're going to be forced to be Catholic. Yes, I understand the dilemma that my Protestant brethren are in.

02:50:29

I was there for 18 years. I know what you think. I know what you're going through.

02:50:36

Believe me. And I grew up as a Catholic for 19 years. I've been on both sides of the fence.

02:50:44

And I know, sir, I'll have to ask you to stop, okay? I know in being on both sides of the fence, the problems on both sides of the fence.

02:50:55

I know that. But what I do know is that despite all the problems you may see in the

02:51:01

Catholic church, and there's plenty of them, believe me, the dogma has never changed.

02:51:07

Not one. And I say this everywhere I go. If someone can show me one dogma that has changed in the

02:51:14

Catholic church, one, I will become a Protestant again. And I challenge any one of you to show me one.

02:51:22

But there is none. And if truth is truth, truth will never change.

02:51:29

It will always be the same. And that's what Jesus said to the apostles. The gates of hell will not prevail against it.

02:51:37

I will send the spirit of truth and he will lead you into all truth. Now, Mr. White believes in the omnipotent

02:51:44

Jesus who can save even against your will. Why doesn't he believe in the Jesus that can keep his church from error?

02:51:52

Is that it? Is that an impotent Jesus? He wants his cake and eat it too again, you see.

02:51:59

He wants Jesus to save everybody, but he wants his church to falter. The very church that he said he would build.

02:52:05

That's a problem, you see. You can't have one without the other. Jesus promised that to us.

02:52:13

The problem is with us. We have the truth because he gave it to us.

02:52:19

We have the problem because of our sin. And that's why the book of Hebrews talks over and over again.

02:52:25

Don't fall into the same sin that the people of Israel fell into. Because the same thing can happen to you.

02:52:32

And what did God do with them? He destroyed them. And Mr. White tries to tell us, well, no, he's just warning them because he doesn't know who is saved and who's not saved.

02:52:42

Do you know where the Bible ever explains it that way? Where it ever says, this is how you understand all the passages that talk about falling away.

02:52:52

What it really means is that the preacher doesn't know who's saved and not saved in his congregation. Not once.

02:53:00

Never. Those warnings are real. They're very real.

02:53:06

And that's why people go to hell today. People who were in the church and lose their faith.

02:53:12

It's real, believe me. And it is a heresy to say that it's just because the preacher doesn't know who's saved or not saved in his congregation.

02:53:21

Thank you. The Catholic church teaches that transubstantiation is a dogma that defines the very gospel of Christ.

02:53:46

We have seen no evidence from scripture to support this concept, nor have we seen any scriptural evidence of the mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice.

02:53:55

It seems this evening the thought was if we attack the perfection of the work of Christ on behalf of his people and assert you can lose your salvation, somehow this automatically proves that what

02:54:05

Rome teaches is infallibly true and you should bow to it. I don't think that proves anything of the kind.

02:54:13

In fact, my opponent just said, well, someone will just show me where Rome has changed the dogma, then

02:54:18

I'll become a Protestant again. And yet you may recall that I asked him specifically, who has the authority to interpret scripture?

02:54:25

Well, the church of Rome. Who has the authority to interpret what the early church fathers have said? Well, the church of Rome. You see, there is something

02:54:33

I call sola ecclesia, the ultimate authority of the church. And it's impossible to show someone who believes that that a dogma has changed because all they say is, well, the church says it hasn't changed, therefore it hasn't.

02:54:46

Nothing can be accomplished there. This evening you have seen that there are indeed two views in the world, those who view

02:54:53

God as able and powerful to save and those who do not. I want you to remember the statement

02:55:00

I made. I pointed this out to you. I said, write it down. Yes, we remember our sins when we go to mass.

02:55:07

That's what Mr. Syngenis said. In Hebrews chapter 10, we have there a reference to this repetitious sacrifice that is a reminder of sin year after year.

02:55:23

The word reminder there is the Greek term anamnesis. Anamnesis.

02:55:29

A repetitive sacrifice is an anamnesis, a reminder of sin.

02:55:36

But you know where else the word is used in the New Testament? If you have your Bible, please turn with me to 1

02:55:41

Corinthians chapter 11. Paul says, For I received from the Lord that which

02:55:47

I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread. And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, this is my body which is for you.

02:55:56

Do this as an anamnesis of me. Do this in remembrance of me the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying this cup is a new covenant in my blood.

02:56:09

Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. My friends, if you have an anamnesis of sin, you're without hope.

02:56:25

The new covenant doesn't give us an anamnesis of sin. It gives us an anamnesis of a savior.

02:56:37

We remember him, not our sins.

02:56:49

There's the difference. An anamnesis of sin, a reminder of your imperfection, or a reminder of a perfect savior.

02:57:02

He who became sin in my place, so that I might become the righteousness of God in him.

02:57:14

I'm sorry that anything has intruded into this debate other than the subject.

02:57:21

How biblical and how ancient is the mass as Rome defines it, as Rome infallibly proclaims it, she claims.

02:57:30

I don't claim infallibility. I'm a very fallible man, a very weak man.

02:57:36

I don't claim infallibility. I never would. But I do believe an infallible word from God.

02:57:48

I do believe that he has been faithful to the promise to his church. I believe the gospel has been preserved down through the ages, even when it was in a very small minority.

02:58:01

And that infallible word says without question that there is one offering for sins and it perfects those for whom it's made.

02:58:10

My Jesus doesn't just want to and try but fail. He actually accomplishes what the father sends him to do.

02:58:17

That is the Jesus Christ that I offer to you. Not one who tries, but is limited by what the little creature does.

02:58:29

Mr. St. John says, oh, Mr. Dwight, he says God will do it against your will.

02:58:37

My friends, he knows what I actually believe. If he's a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, he should know that what

02:58:47

I believe is that outside of the grace of Christ, my will is twisted as an enemy of God.

02:58:54

And unless God by his spirit melts my rebellious heart and gives me a new heart so that my desire is to serve him,

02:59:03

I will be lost for eternity. That's what we believe. There's no reason to misrepresent it.

02:59:13

Two views, a God who saves or a God who tries.

02:59:20

I pray that the God who saves will be merciful to us all this evening. God bless you and thank you.

02:59:43

Okay, this is the section of the debate which will involve questions from the audience.

02:59:50

And you're to form a line behind this microphone right over here. And remember that the key word here, as always, is questions from the audience.

03:00:04

Please, we do not want sermons. We will all go to our own churches. This Lord's Day to hear sermons.

03:00:11

Tonight, we want to hear questions from the audience. My name is Steven Sherman. This is to Mr.

03:00:18

St. Genes. Two brief scripture quotes. Therefore, I say to the

03:00:23

Israelites, none of you may eat blood nor may any alien living among you eat blood.

03:00:30

Old Testament, New Testament, Acts 15, 20. Talking about the Gentiles.

03:00:36

Instead, we should write to them telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.

03:00:46

Note it doesn't say strangled animals and their blood or animal blood. It says refrain from blood.

03:00:52

My question is, since both Old Testament and New Testament have ordination of commands not to eat blood, how could

03:00:59

Jesus Christ who is sinless instill a sacrament which would go against his own word? Well, if you pay attention to the context of both passages, it talks about literal blood.

03:01:11

Actually drinking blood. Not the appearance of redded wine that has a substance as blood.

03:01:18

Very different. If those contexts were talking about the Eucharist, you would have a point. But they are not talking about the

03:01:24

Eucharist. They're talking about the Old Testament law of drinking blood. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

03:01:30

Next question. He has 30 seconds to respond. Yeah, let's let the moderator take care of those things.

03:01:37

I just heard, I thought a few moments ago, the statement that, well, we shouldn't expect to see transubstantiation in the

03:01:43

New Testament. They didn't use such categories as accidents and substance. And yet I think the answers to the question just given depended on the differentiation between accidents and substance.

03:01:53

So I'm not sure exactly if that is consistent or not. I certainly don't believe that there's anything in the New Testament that addresses those issues of accidents and substance that would dismiss those passages as being relevant.

03:02:05

Next question. My name is Mary Ann. My question is for Mr. St. Janus. You had mentioned earlier that there was no examples of the

03:02:14

Catholic Church changing doctrine over time. Is there any evidence of it creating dogma centuries after Scripture was closed, such as the assumption of Mary in the 1950s?

03:02:27

Well, we don't claim that we're creating dogma. We claim that that comes from the Church. But surely truth is not progressive.

03:02:33

Surely everything God needed to tell us about salvation was in the Word. Wouldn't it have been a horrible trick and a deception on his part if he left out something in the canon that we needed to know that was required for salvation?

03:02:43

Sure, that would be a horrible trick. But we're not saying he did that. We're saying that implicitly the assumption is in Scripture.

03:02:50

That's what we're saying. We're saying implicitly the immaculate conception is in Scripture, okay? In the Magnificat.

03:02:55

It may not be as... Please, if you just would... When you're asking a question, you can give up to 30 seconds. You can stop your question.

03:03:00

Whoever is answering it is given a minute, and then the other person will have 30 seconds. Otherwise, we're not going to be fair to the other people.

03:03:11

Well, again, once you make the Church the ultimate authority, then you can simply say, well, we're not making these things up because anything is implicit in Scripture.

03:03:20

The bodily assumption is not implicit in Scripture. It's not implicit in the early Church. It is an example,

03:03:25

I think, of where the Church has exercised its authority to create a doctrine that is neither apostolic nor historical.

03:03:33

In fact, it came from, actually, non -Christian sources originally. Next question.

03:03:39

Mr. St. Genesis. If you would, I have a question about the canonicity of the

03:03:45

New Testament, how it was formed, and the Council, I think, of Hippo and the

03:03:50

Council of Carthage that formed these, that actually read all the many books of the

03:03:56

New Testament and the Scriptures and canonically decreed which ones were divinely inspired and which ones were not.

03:04:05

Now, of which St. Augustine was right there and took part of this and said, if the

03:04:12

Catholic Church does not say that this is Scripture, then it's not Scripture. And I don't think anyone can deny that, but I really would like that question talked about.

03:04:21

I don't know what your question is. My question is, did the Catholic Church look over the

03:04:27

New Testament, the many books of the New Testament, and decide which were divinely inspired and which were not? Yes, they did.

03:04:34

When did it do that? The Council of Rome in 380 was the first time a pope had declared the canon, the same canon we have today.

03:04:41

Now, if the Catholic Church was infallible... You're going on. Oh, okay. I only have 30 seconds.

03:04:51

I do not believe that any council sat down and worked its way through books and then by its authority decided what was and what was not.

03:04:59

As early as the 360s, Athanasius gives his 39th Festal Letter. Canonicity is not nearly as simple as saying a bunch of people sat around and gave a decision, especially since the first dogmatic definition of the canon is not until 1546, at least from the

03:05:13

Roman Catholic perspective. That raises all sorts of issues, the Apocrypha and things like that that have been debated before, if anyone's interested in looking at them.

03:05:20

Before we get to the next one, is there any question? I don't know if anyone has a question for Jim. Anyone, who has a great question for Jim?

03:05:28

Oh, in fact, Jim, would you come up and ask your question so we get to a balance in here? I'll try to do justice.

03:05:37

I'll try to do justice in making this a question. There was a lot of talk before about how Christ appears in heaven, how he presents himself to the

03:05:44

Father, whether he is sitting or whether he presents himself as a sacrifice in heaven. Okay, I'm not going to try to go into who said what.

03:05:52

I go to Revelation 5 .5 and Revelation 5 .6. Okay, many, many years after Christ is sent into heaven.

03:06:00

John was a young man when Christ sent into heaven. He was an old man, as I understand it, when he saw this vision. The elders point out the line of the tribe of Judah, and he looks at a lamb appearing as it has been slaughtered.

03:06:13

And my understanding of that is that Christ appears as a lamb in heaven. I understand, I'm over. Hebrews 13 .8 says,

03:06:18

Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Would you do that again? Think while you're up there. Think of your question and get it down succinct.

03:06:27

What's your understanding of that, Dr. Wright? I think I know what the question is. And I demonstrated my great fallibility in not taking, well, having time,

03:06:37

I guess, to focus upon that very passage because there Jesus is seen as the lamb standing as it's slain.

03:06:45

And I love what is said in Revelation 5 .9. And they sang a new song saying, worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals.

03:06:53

For you were slain and purchased for God with your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

03:07:02

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.

03:07:09

And I believe that that is yet another passage that makes it very, very plain that it does not say you attempted to purchase them and attempted to make them a kingdom.

03:07:19

It says you have done it, and that's why the worship is directed only to he who sits upon the throne and to the lamb, never to the ones who've been redeemed because they're not the ones who quote unquote actuated the process.

03:07:33

I think Mr. White's avoiding the question, the impact of the question, which is to answer why a lamb has to be in heaven as if its throat has been slit, just like they did in the

03:07:44

Old Testament. That's the issue here that he's not addressing. He keeps going back to this, you know, what Christ has done and completed and perfected.

03:07:51

We've been around and around about that. The issue is why is it under the rubric of a lamb slain in heaven?

03:07:59

If the cross is done, complete, perfect, over with, why is this lamb in heaven with his throat slit?

03:08:06

Presented to the Father. Next question. Glenn Bader from Mr.

03:08:12

St. Genesis. Much was made a number of times of Augustine in the fourth century intimating that Christ, when he gave the bread and wine to his apostles, was actually giving them his body and blood.

03:08:26

If he did give them his body and blood, literal body and blood to eat before his sacrifice, weren't they just eating and drinking damnation of themselves because he had yet taken upon himself the sin of the world?

03:08:38

That law was not given until 1 Corinthians 11. There's many things the apostles didn't understand about Jesus.

03:08:45

They didn't understand that he was going to rise from the dead. He had to walk down the Emmaus road with them and explain to them opening scriptures that this would occur.

03:08:53

And then they're finding their eyes were open. And actually the same thing happened in Luke 21, verse 40,

03:09:00

I think it is. He actually broke bread again with the disciples after he rose from the dead. And it says, then they understood, you see.

03:09:08

Okay, because he's explaining it to them. Things are different between the time he was alive on earth before he died on the cross and the time he rose.

03:09:16

That's when they started to understand. There's a big difference between the two. Well, obviously,

03:09:23

I have a tremendous problem with the idea that what we're being told is that the clear understanding of reading the passage in the institution of the

03:09:32

Lord's Supper is that when Jesus says, this is my body, that that means he has ordained the apostles as priests, that he has actually transubstantiated the elements and he has offered the sacrifice that has not yet even taken place.

03:09:47

Certainly, I would suggest the apostles would never have had any kind of an inkling of that whatsoever. Next question.

03:09:54

Yes, this question's for both of you, if Mr. Sargenas could answer it first. I'm very, very confused here.

03:10:02

I don't know any Greek. I don't know any theology. I don't know a Bible. I want to be very specific so I can write this down.

03:10:10

What must I do to be saved? That's very clever.

03:10:21

I'd like to write this all down so if you could hear it. Okay. I'll start with Acts chapter 16 where Paul told the

03:10:27

Philippian jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. And then he baptized him. And I'll start with Mark 16, verse 16.

03:10:34

It says, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. I'll put a period on it.

03:10:41

Is that it? That's it? That's all I have to do? Yeah. Jim. Thank you.

03:10:47

You're welcome. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with a faith that is a true faith, a faith that I believe only comes from God, a faith that does not claim anything for itself, and believe that he is a sufficient

03:11:07

Savior whose sacrifice on your behalf avails before God. That's what you must do.

03:11:14

Frank's question. Frank, just one second here. I forgot to do something before. This is going to be not a money collection, but the tickets that you have, if you would like to continue to be on this mailing list to receive communication after these debates, please fill out the part with your name, address, and phone number and drop them on the plate.

03:11:31

And like I said before, every year, if you want to put C next to your name to signify that you're

03:11:36

Catholic and you do not want to receive products from the literature, that will be granted to you. And likewise, the

03:11:42

P next to your name will be Protestant. And those will come around now. I appreciate that.

03:11:48

I just wanted to get an invitation to the debates. Thank you. All right. Next question. This question is for both gentlemen.

03:11:54

Perhaps Mr. Sugenis can answer first and Mr. White respond. Mr. Sugenis, you've mentioned, and I believe we've gotten from what you've said, true doctrine and dogma should support true doctrine and dogma.

03:12:07

They should not contradict one another. If, as you say, the ongoing need for sacrifice and propitiation at the mass is indeed sufficient for the givenness of sins for the sinner to date, why then would the

03:12:18

Catholic Church continue to utilize the tribunal of the confessional and absolution by a priest and penance?

03:12:24

In addition, why would it continue to mandate infant baptism for sins? It is not a baptism of repentance.

03:12:31

And lastly, part of that same question, I would think you would just let the child continually go to mass instead of becoming infant, being baptized as an infant.

03:12:41

And lastly, if the mass is sufficient. It's a three -part question. If the mass is sufficient in forgiving sins, why then after a

03:12:49

Catholic would die, would the remaining relatives be charged for praying them out of purgatory? Now I'm confused.

03:13:00

I don't know what you want me to answer really. Confession, infant baptism, and purgatory.

03:13:07

If the mass is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, why then the need for the others? Well, I mean, we went over this before.

03:13:14

1 Corinthians 11, Paul tells the people to examine themselves and to discern that it actually is the body of the

03:13:22

Lord. And in that context, he tells the people that God actually killed, took their life because they were not discerning and not examining themselves.

03:13:32

And there were many people that were sick because of that under God's hand. So it was a very serious thing that was occurring there.

03:13:39

So that's why we have to confess our sins before we go take the Eucharist.

03:13:45

And what the church is really talking about there is mortal sin. If anyone has committed murder or adultery or anything of that sort, and they go and take communion, well that's judgmental.

03:13:59

They will be judged by God for that. So you have to confess that mortal sin. And the only way that you can do that in the church is by the sacrament of confession.

03:14:08

The Eucharist, however, does forgive us of our venial sins, not our mortal sins.

03:14:16

And that's what the church teaches. And so every time that we go up to the Eucharist to receive the

03:14:22

Eucharist, we are pure undefiled virgins for God because our sins have been forgiven.

03:14:28

Our mortal sins have been forgiven in confession, and our venial sins just by our... That's why we confess our sins so many times in the

03:14:34

Mass. Yes, it is a reminder because we are reminded of our present sins.

03:14:40

We are confessing them, and they are forgiven at that point in time. The Apostle Paul said that my sins were nailed to the cross of Christ.

03:14:56

He says, When you were dead in your transgressions, the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

03:15:14

That's the only place my sins will ever be forgiven, not in purgatory, not in anything else, only nailed to the cross of Christ.

03:15:22

My question is for Mr. St. Janus. Roman Catholic apologists seem to make much of the fact that the

03:15:31

Pope and the Church can speak infallible in areas only of faith and morals, only of faith and morals.

03:15:40

What I would like to know is in a world created and sustained by the triune God of Scripture, and in light of 1

03:15:46

Corinthians 10, verse 31, what is not a matter of faith and morals?

03:15:55

Well, if you ask the Pope directions to get to downtown Rome, and he gave you the wrong directions, well, we would say because he's not infallible in that area, is why he could give you wrong directions.

03:16:08

But if the Pope makes an official statement and tells everyone that this is given to him by Christ as pastoral duty, and defines a dogma for the

03:16:17

Church, yes, that's when we pay attention and say the Pope is giving us a matter of salvation, therefore that comes from Christ and therefore he is infallible, but not directions of downtown

03:16:28

Rome. I'm not in 30 seconds going to even try to present any number of the issues that could be raised in regard to papal infallibility and to the changes in dogma over history to those who are open to examining those changes.

03:16:44

I wouldn't even have the time to begin to give the references. Next question. Hi, how are you doing?

03:16:51

This question is to Bob, James Cadenza. Bob, we're talking about infallibility. You say the

03:16:56

Roman Catholic Church is infallible. Who consists of the Church? The clergy? The laity?

03:17:04

And if so, if the clergy then is the Roman Catholic Church, then they're infallible.

03:17:10

If you don't consider the people, the laity, the Roman Catholic Church, then they're not part of the Church, and if they are considered the

03:17:16

Roman Catholic Church, then the whole Church is infallible. People, laity, clergy, everything?

03:17:21

You got me confused again, but I do appreciate you calling me Bob, though. Now, in the

03:17:27

Church, there is clerics and there's laity. We call the clerics the magisterium, and that's where the infallibility rests, specifically with the bishops of the

03:17:36

Church and the Pope. So, I mean, there is a distinction there. I don't know exactly how else I can answer your question. So the clergy is considered the

03:17:42

Church that you consider infallible? Well, the Church is a big word. The Church also includes the people in the

03:17:50

Church and the bishops and the Pope. Are they infallible as well? Well, actually, the Catechism does say that the consensus of all the people in the

03:17:59

Church can be considered infallible if all of them are believing the same thing because the whole spirit moves throughout the whole

03:18:05

Church. Is that what you were getting at? Right, right. Yeah, there is that sense of it, too. Well, I've said it numerous times.

03:18:15

I am not infallible, and I don't think anyone else is either. I believe

03:18:20

God's Word is. I believe God's Spirit is. But I think we get into a tremendously dangerous area when we begin investing in human beings, a concept that makes them beyond correction by the

03:18:34

Scriptures and by the Word of God. I think history shows us the dangers that that brings us.

03:18:39

We can just think about things like inquisitions just as an example of what happens when that kind of concept is embraced.

03:18:47

Next question. Dr. White, could you read Romans 8 .29, and Mr. Sugenis, could you give the

03:18:53

Catholic interpretation of that verse? Well, I'd be glad to.

03:19:00

If anyone asks me to read a passage of Scripture, I'll be glad to do so. Romans 8 .29, after the great promise of God working all things, gives us the golden chain of redemption.

03:19:09

It says, For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren.

03:19:17

Would you like me to interpret that? Yes. Okay. Well, let me start off by saying that it says to be predestined to be conformed to the image of his

03:19:26

Son. It doesn't say to be predestined to heaven, does it? As a matter of fact, you'll find no passage in Scripture that says we're predestined to heaven.

03:19:32

Every passage that talks about predestination says we're predestined to be holy, blameless, conformed to the image of his

03:19:38

Son. That's the process of justification and sanctification, that God predestined.

03:19:45

Now, I know the angle of your question, so I'll take you to Romans 8 .13, in the same chapter.

03:19:51

It says this, For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die. But if by the

03:19:57

Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. One or the other, right in the context of predestination.

03:20:04

If you do evil, you will die. And he saw them to the same people that he just said that they were predestined, in the foregoing passage.

03:20:13

Next question. Mr. Skibbins, you spoke about atonement for sin, about prepossession, prepossession, proposition, excuse me.

03:20:26

Mr. White, could you comment on that last part?

03:20:32

Yeah, I just read it. Okay. Hold on, hold on a second. Well, very, very briefly in 30 seconds.

03:20:40

I believe that this passage in Romans 8, when taken in its own context, demonstrates the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation.

03:20:48

It is everything that he does, he foreknows, he predestines, he calls, he justifies, he glorifies.

03:20:55

And that's why he himself is the only one to receive glory. And in 8 .13, where the discussion was just presented,

03:21:03

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is to be according to the spirit, and hence to mortify the deeds of the body, requires that you be born again, that you be born from above.

03:21:14

And he who is born from above will do those things. That is not a prescription on how to do it.

03:21:20

It is a description of who you are and what you do. I suppose we're going to get two more questions in.

03:21:26

Yes, Mr. Skibbins, you spoke about atonement for sin, about prepossession. That was for past sins, and then sprinkling of water by the priest, and to repent and bow the knee.

03:21:35

You also said that Mr. White's statements on election were ironic and erroneous.

03:21:43

I quote you, you said that we do not compromise on the truth. Truth is the truth, we do not compromise.

03:21:49

Can you get to your question right away? Yes, okay. The Bible says, for many are called, but few are chosen. I have a number of other passages as well.

03:21:57

The Marines use God's creed for His army of saints, similarly use the Marines. The Bible says there's one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

03:22:05

If this is true, then why is there confirmation in the church?

03:22:12

Are they not sure that they're really confirmed? There seems to be a question mark behind some of these doctrines. You mean confession or confirmation?

03:22:19

Confirmed. Why do they have to be confirmed? If there's one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, why does somebody have to be confirmed?

03:22:30

Because you can sin again, that's why. But there's one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

03:22:36

That's a plural word, sins, not sin. But the same scripture says that if you sin again, you're disowning your baptism.

03:22:43

Well, the Bible does teach election. I'm just telling you what the Catholics believe. You can choose to believe it or not.

03:22:51

Last question. This is for James. First of all, in passages that speak of—

03:22:57

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I was feeling lonely up there. I thought you looked like it up there. It just wasn't fair.

03:23:03

It was sad. In passages—and I'm sorry, Mr. White, I was presuming. Don't worry.

03:23:08

In passages that speak of falling away and worrying about it, you said that the speaker or preacher simply didn't know whether each of them was saved and was not speaking to those who were saved.

03:23:17

How does one lose what one never had? How could he be speaking to people and saying, do not fall away, if they never had faith to begin with?

03:23:27

In addition, in Malachi, God speaks of a future time when everywhere they bring a pure sacrifice and altars to Him.

03:23:34

If this was not fulfilled in the Old Testament times, how was this fulfilled? And Mr. Sanjenas as well, how could that be fulfilled today?

03:23:43

It is fulfilled in the fact that we give a sacrifice of praise and that we all are a kingdom of priests unto our

03:23:48

God, as we saw in Revelation 5. In regards to how you can lose something you didn't have in the first place, again, the assumption is that the individuals to whom he's speaking of were possessors of that saving faith that only

03:24:00

God gives to His people. I don't believe that that is an assumption that can be borne out by the text.

03:24:07

So, I'm not sure. Come over here. Oh, I'm sorry. The assumption simply doesn't follow.

03:24:13

He needs to answer the other question too. I did.

03:24:19

I did. The first question. I did. The first question. I just did. No, that was the second question.

03:24:25

The first question was about how can the preacher speak. I just did. Oh, okay. Maybe you didn't hear it, but I just did.

03:24:32

Ah, okay. Yeah. Thirty seconds.

03:24:38

No, I'm sorry. I may have been... Can you just repeat what you just said about that second part again?

03:24:45

Sorry. It's getting a little late. The second part or the first part? The second part. Not the one about Malachi.

03:24:50

It's about the people not having... I repeat what I said before. I brought this up in the give and take of the question and answers, and I said the assumption that is being made in looking at all of these passages is that all of the individuals to whom these things are addressed are possessors of everything that the

03:25:12

Scripture says the redeemed person has. Like I said, if we want to do a debate on the perseverance of the saints, be glad to do it.

03:25:21

But when I came here anyways, I thought that the subject of the debate tonight was the mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice and the fact that the

03:25:29

Roman Catholic Church says that I am an impious, wicked man if I don't embrace that, not any other subject other than that.

03:25:36

Well, that would have been true, Mr. White, except in your books you constantly include your doctrines of Calvinism within your critique of the

03:25:46

Catholic view of the mass, so we have to deal with it. I'm sorry. That's just the way you wrote it. In answer to the first part, in Hebrews it says,

03:25:54

Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering?

03:26:01

Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult, persecution, and other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated.

03:26:08

You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property. Here are seasoned

03:26:13

Christians, people who have been through the persecution, people who have had their property taken away, and these are the kind of people that Paul is talking about that they may fall from the faith.

03:26:26

Not someone who just has an idea, but people who have already been through this persecution.

03:26:32

They too can fall from this faith. There's two people left here?

03:26:43

One person? All right. Brent, that's not fair. A bunch of people sat down,

03:26:49

Chris. That's not fair. That's not fair. Yeah. Yes. Yes.

03:26:54

I'm sorry. I'm causing a riot. Stop. I want to thank each and every one of you for coming tonight.

03:27:07

You gave out numbers? All right. So the first two people who have a question, leave it as I for now.

03:27:23

Mike? Chris, we need you.

03:27:29

Okay. My question is this. In the light of the

03:27:35

Scriptures, Exodus 20, verses 4 through 6, the second commandment, which seems to be missing from the

03:27:46

Catholic catechism, it has to do with idols. It has to do with making images and bowing down.

03:27:55

I see in the communion and the transubstantiation an accumulation that goes along with many other things, which are venerated, different relics, people, even the bowing down to a person, even if it is the pope.

03:28:13

I see Peter himself, who was supposed to be the first pope, would not receive worship. He was horrified in Acts 10 when they tried to bow to him.

03:28:21

John 3, verse 16, it speaks, it says... What's the question?

03:28:27

Okay. It says, If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.

03:28:33

It says, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness... What's the question? Okay.

03:28:39

That Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, it has to do with two scriptures from Numbers 21 and 2

03:28:49

Kings 18. And we see in 2 Kings 18 that when Moses made this serpent, later they destroyed the serpent because it was regarded as an idol and they said it's just a piece of brass.

03:29:01

They had made something spiritual into something that they venerated. Is this not the same thing when we consider the transubstantiation,

03:29:09

Mr. St. Jameson? That's your question. The answer is no. It's not. That was a very short answer.

03:29:16

No. I'm not going to cover it. Sir, you're too filled with emotion about this issue. I'll answer this part of it.

03:29:23

Okay. The fact that you think that we worship the pope is exactly the typical stereotype of Catholicism that we see all the time.

03:29:32

And if we don't worship the pope, we don't worship Mary, we honor them for who they are and their position.

03:29:38

I'll just make that very clear to you. I would like to comment on that. I do not believe the distinction that is made in Roman Catholic theology between Latria and Dulia is biblically sound.

03:29:53

The hyper -Dulia that is given to Mary and the prayers that are directed to her, prayer is an act of worship.

03:30:00

And it is only by allowing the church to have an authority that is not reigned in by scripture that you can see people bowing before statues of Mary and praying to her and say, but that's not worship.

03:30:09

That's one of the problems when you allow that to happen. This question is for Bob.

03:30:18

1 John 5 .13, John wrote, I write these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life.

03:30:25

I have too many Catholic friends that don't know, that don't have that assurance of salvation, and as a result, they don't have the joy.

03:30:33

And all the fruits of the Spirit are not expressed in their lives because they believe that if they die tomorrow and they haven't confessed a sin that they didn't even know they committed, they're not going to heaven.

03:30:44

And I know that when I die, I will be in heaven because by his blood, I'm covered by his blood.

03:30:50

And I would like to know how you can explain to me why it is that too many

03:30:55

Catholics don't believe that. Well, I'm not too concerned about the Catholics, I'm concerned about you. Because if you think you're just automatically going to go to heaven...

03:31:03

I don't think that. My question to you is how can you... Can you please explain to me how it is that the

03:31:09

Bible says, John wrote to us, I write these things to you that you may know.

03:31:14

Not that you can hope for. I will explain that to you. Not that you can aspire to. I will explain that to you. Okay, that's my question. Okay. I'm going to get to that.

03:31:21

Just hold on one second. I don't need counsel from you, I have my own pastor. But thanks anyway. Okay. Well, then

03:31:27

I won't talk to you, I'll talk to everybody else. Okay? Okay. And the fact is that Ezekiel 18 says that...

03:31:33

We're talking about a New Testament. Okay. But this is a New Testament. Okay. Just be patient.

03:31:41

Alright? Okay. Ezekiel 18 says, as I pointed out earlier, that if you live your whole life the way

03:31:47

God wants you to, and then you sin and don't repent of it, the question comes back, will he be saved?

03:31:53

God himself says no. Okay? So that's what you have to deal with. I'll deal with your passage.

03:31:58

1 John 5 .13. Right. Number one, that passage, it says, that you may know is in the plural, talking to all the

03:32:07

Christians of that time. Okay? Now, not every one of them went to heaven, did they?

03:32:13

No. No. So the you plural there does not mean... Well, when you say Christians... Miss, let's just let...

03:32:19

Well, he asked me a question. He asked me a question. All the people that John is writing to are the you that's there.

03:32:27

Okay? Not every one of them went to heaven. We don't know that all of them were in fact

03:32:33

Christians. I'm not going to debate with you now. I'm just going to answer your question. Okay. The only time John uses the singular you in that epistle is when he says that you know that you have sinned.

03:32:45

Okay? And that's what he talks about in 1 John. And that's the concern of him for the singular individual.

03:32:52

When you know that you have sinned, you need to repent of that sin. And John's message is if you don't repent of that sin, you too will lose your salvation.

03:33:00

Okay? So I can know as a Catholic I am a Christian because I've been baptized. I live the

03:33:06

Christian life. I don't go to sleep at night trembling that I'm going to be cast into hell tomorrow.

03:33:13

I go to sleep very comfortable knowing that I've lived for God that day. So I don't have a problem that you're trying to foist on me.

03:33:21

But I don't know this. I don't know if I will be faithful the rest of my life.

03:33:26

And that's why I bring Ezekiel 18 into the picture because God answers that question for me. He says, yes, you don't know.

03:33:33

You may be an apostate someday. And that's why the book of Hebrews continually gives us that message.

03:33:39

That may happen to you. And that's why I keep stressing that same point over and over again tonight.

03:33:45

Okay. Well, in the 30 seconds allotted to me, I'm awfully glad when someone quotes

03:33:50

Ezekiel 18. That I have made the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ.

03:33:57

That is the difference. That is the new covenant. That is the perfection of His work.

03:34:04

Jesus Christ loved the Father perfectly in my place. Jesus Christ did all things in my place.

03:34:12

And I have His righteousness. And that's why when Mr. St. Genes says, well, you don't know that you're going to be faithful.

03:34:21

That's true. But I know my Savior is going to be faithful to me. Amen. You guys are going to die hard.

03:34:33

I really appreciate you staying here. This is actually, I think, at this time, close to midnight, the largest crowd that we've had in all the years that we've been doing this that has stayed this late with us.

03:34:44

I really thank you for your interest in very eternal and important things.