Post-Mortem on Last Week's Debates

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line. I don't have a timer running now, but I will probably still talk fast

Would like to do a bit of a post -mortem on last week's encounters We had two encounters with Michael Brown on the subject

Calvinism and 90 minutes with Tim Staples Haven't really said anything much about that.

I put a very brief post up In regards to some some chatter on the

Catholic answers forums web boards Including the the initial thing being hey, that sounds like good idea.

Let's let's do that in Catholic answers live Well folks, may I suggest for your health? You do not hold your breath

Waiting for My appearance on Catholic answers live because I just don't think that's gonna happen and we'll talk about that a little bit later on So I'm gonna start off with the purgatory debate information.

I Have a bunch of stuff sitting here. I want to get to I don't know if I can get to all of it and Then I want to play some clips from dr.

Michael Brown's comments He took phone calls but made comments on his own program the day after same day

Staples and so we have a lot to get to today. I want to start off. However, since I asked

James Swan to communicate over to the folks on the Catholic answers forums

Specifically a fellow by the name of Marco Polo who is a radio club member now.

I'm assuming he's a guy. I don't know but The Nick he uses is

Marco Polo I wanted to and he's posted five over 5 ,900 times so this is a regular on the

Catholic answers web forums He had some comments and I would like to assist him in Becoming a better Catholic apologist.

How's that? I Also would like to comment on apologist 78 a very interesting fellow

Who can't possibly have a lot of friends on the Catholic answers web forums because he's just too stinking honest, but We'll get to that in just a moment.

Marco Polo started off by saying I didn't think apologists were giving white any more attention He's proven to be a polemic a polemics driver rather than a serious apologist.

Well, I wonder why that is I'll be very interested in knowing how many of my books Marco Polo has actually read

How many debates with anybody other than a Roman Catholic maybe with the John Dominic Croson or or or whatever

No, no phone calls today, sorry No, I'm not gonna have time to not gonna have time unless is it about the debate?

If it is if it is specifically a comment on either debates Maybe the last five minutes program if I'm lucky if it's on anything else ain't happening today

So just should have made that announcement right off the top I don't need anybody calling in asking about Mormonism today or something like that ain't gonna ain't gonna happen.

I'd be interested in knowing You know whether Marco Polo has viewed my debates with Bart Ehrman or John Dominic Croson or any of these folks like that You sort of wonder so then he goes on in the next post.

This was January 29th at 1056 a .m. And What I really wanted to help him out with is how not to stick your foot way down your mouth

Right as you begin your argument He starts off by saying I listened to most of White's opening statement that is until he went on his

Catholic apologists in the Catholic Church of hypocrites rant toward the end Which is par for the course for this polemicist now, that's funny because it immediately indicated me

He didn't even listen everything I had to say now Tim Staples went first and Tim Staples had addressed me numerous times

Tim Staples made arguments against me in his opening statement But if I respond from a

Catholic position that I'm a polemicist the the bias Prejudice and simple bigotry of many of the people the

Catholic answers web board is absolutely shocking It's amazing that they cannot see their own double standard and it amazes me because as an apologist

I listened to what the other side has to say all the time. I Spend hours listening to what the other side has to say but these folks don't get that you need to listen to what the other side has to say you need to understand what they're saying and Some of these folks just don't have any interest.

It reminded me very much of one of the most amazing stories I've ever seen that has illustrated the the mindset of many of the people in these in these forums and that was the debate

I had with Tim Staples in 2000 when a man who had used to work for a Evangelical ministry in Southern California had become a

Roman Catholic and he attended that debate and I knew he was I had met him when he had worked that other ministry and While I was having the debate with Tim, I noticed something when

Tim was speaking this man would stand in the back and listen and As soon as I got up to speak he left the room

He wouldn't listen to a word I had to say but afterwards was telling people how Tim Staples had completely manhandled me

So it's amazing the number of people who will not listen to what I have to say and then are

Absolutely convinced that I got creamed in a debate. It's just You listen to it and you just go wow.

They're really people that think like that. They don't see their own self -deception They don't recognize it. They don't recognize their own bigotry at this at this point, but then he he begins to quote me and it says

Now the opposite of the reception of reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term that Paul uses is Zamio facet

I now That's the actual term the inflected form. He completely misspells it

Not even in any known Transliteration methodology and misspells it and then puts this my note.

I think he completely mispronounced this Parentheses close is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as suffer loss

Well, here's what I want to try to help Marco Polo out Because what I did when

I gave this term in the debate is I gave what's called the lexical form and Since a meow is only found in the

New Testament the passive There are some lexical sources that list it as a deponent hence zamiyah am

I now it's an Omicron contract verb so you'd never see zamiyah am I or even zamiyah Oh in the text because that thematic vowels all is going to contract with it with the ending and you're gonna have a long vowel there, but Zamiyah Oh zamiyah am

I are would be the way you'd look it up in a lexicon So generally not always but generally when you are talking about a term and its general usage you will

Provide it in its lexical form, which those who know the Greek language know. That's what

I was doing I did not give the inflected form Zamio facet I as it is found in first Corinthians 315 because I was talking about the word as a whole

Especially as it was going to be found in other texts And so I just want to help Marco Polo out if you're going to criticize people in print on the internet you you might want to know enough about the language to not stick your foot in your mouth like he did right off the top there because then he goes on and ignores

What I said about zamiyah, and it was interesting to me, and I'm not gonna play this clip I have a number of clips queued up I'm not gonna play this clip, but one of and I think he was on Catholic answers live yesterday because the voice sound very familiar one of Tim's compatriots at Catholic answers live one of their apologists called in and It's interesting that that Pat that Tim did not make the argument based upon zamiyah.

Oh in his opening statement or even anywhere during the debate and if there's going to be any means of coming up with a concept of Purification or punishment it's gonna be through Trying to find some way of ignoring the proper translation of zamiyah.

Oh, and that's what the apologist did he called up and he pointed out the zamiyah can have a certain meaning and Anybody who had actually listened to my opening statement and again?

Maybe this is the issue is that these folks don't aren't listening to what I'm saying they turn turn the volume down turn music up or something and then only listen to Tim and then

Fault me for not saying what I already said, but in my opening statement I had already addressed this I had already pointed out

That zamiyah Oh can be translated as punish however every word is

Defined by its contextual usage and since it is being paired directly if you just look at the forms in first Corinthians 3 14 and 15 you will see that zamiyah

Oh is being Contrasted to the receiving of a misthos

Misthon links a tie at the beginning at the end of verse 14 will receive a reward the work that he has built

Remains it stays on the foundation the fire cannot touch it that which is not built of gold silver and precious stones is consumed and he escapes as as of a person running out of a burning building and By the way, y 'all notice

Tim never touched the drone Bible commenter Never touched it never even made reference to it.

It gives the exact same interpretation I did he doesn't touch it with a 10 -foot pole.

I found that very very interesting, but anyway I had already addressed the fact that zamiyah

Oh since it is occurring in the same sentence Or at least the sentence immediately after receiving a misthos that even

Catholic scholars recognize that the proper translation is to suffer loss that is he suffers the loss of All those there.

There is another interesting possibility for this text and That is since zamiyah face a tie

Could also be referred to it is lost. That is what he built That it's actually not the man and then of course punishment wouldn't even be relevant at that point and At least the

I believe it's the Holman Christian study Bible standard Bible translates it that way does not translate it

He shows ever lost it shall be lost is the translation that they offer at that point

And so if the Catholic apologists apologists are going to even engage this

They've got to get to that level of text. They've got to start talking about lexical semantics

They've got to talk start talking about they've got to start demonstrating. They can actually read this language on their own that's they got to start doing and they're not doing that and Later on Marco said he insists that the passage makes no allusion to a person being purified

But rather the person just won't get some reward. He talks very fast and often speaks incoherently Like when earlier he tried to identify the verb in 313 for the fire, which isn't a verb

Of course, I didn't do that. I spoke of ass. I even asked mr. Staples. What verbs are used with fire?

I never said fire is a verb. I spot I spoke of the specific verbs as To what the fire does but he just didn't understand those things.

And so I'm hoping that Marco Polo will be Assisted by that information to help him to understand there was

Some really interesting commentary offered by a junior member of The forum hasn't written nearly as much only 132 posts as of This particular posting but apologist 78

Apologist 78 Catholic answers has never been able to effectively deal with white

Which is I can only guess why they avoid taking him on Madrid got trounced on the subject of scriptura sola

Pacwa and he keeps misspelling Pacwa apologist 78 misspelled all the names of the people

I've defeated which was rather interesting Pacwa got trounced on the subject of papacy and scriptura sola

Stravinskis got trounced in the subject purgatory So Janice and I part of Catholic answers has fared only slightly better Matta ticks got trounced in the subject of scriptura sola

White knows his stuff and white knows the art of debate Catholic answers is from what I can tell not geared toward a more scholarly

Defense the faith but rather only broad in general defenses in other words For those who are more versed in the faith and the polemics between Catholics and Protestants.

This website is not for them I'm really surprised this still posted there Then I this is this is interesting and now this is a secondhand account

So I've thought about writing to Tim and asking him about this It goes on to say

I met staples at a parish and I pointed this out in a more polite way to which he responded

White is a liar and Carl Keating doesn't want to give keep giving him a platform

At that point I knew Staples didn't get what I was saying. And so I dropped it Now, of course, there is the rather lingering question that is out there for everyone and that is

Why is it that some Tim Staples won't debate me in a formal debate? We've invited many many times

But come on the program this one time How about Jimmy Akin or or Carl Keating?

it is Plainly obvious to me. The decision was made quite some time ago That Catholic answers was going to change its approach when

Catholic answers was small when Catholic answers was trying to establish itself They were aggressive

They did lots of debates. They published a tract. I'd love to I'm gonna someday. I think I know which shelf it's on I'm gonna dig through all my old stuff

And I'm gonna find the track they used to publish That said if you ever encounter anybody Who who speaks against the church preaches against the church?

Then invite them To do a debate and we will provide someone to debate them.

They don't publish that anymore because Catholic answers is very much on the defensive now and they have recognized that They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by debating those who can demonstrate that their

Level of defense the Catholic Church is aimed at the jackchicks of the world not at serious

Opposition to Roman claims they discovered that in the early to mid -1990s and that was it

No more they have a financial base to protect I See that because I've purchased things from I actually purchased their stuff and listen to it and study it and respond to it

They don't do that Because again, that's just that's not their thing Their kind of apologetics is to repeat the pablum.

That's the simple stuff For the basic people and then and then pretend like that's a complete defense of the

Catholic faith but I get their their money raising emails all the time and Normally five or six copies over the course of about two weeks the same one

That's the one that you know work takes hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to run a web form

I've talked to one of our volunteers does most of our web work and he just laughs Just that this is they really say that they really say it cost that much money, huh?

Okay. All right. Well, whatever They must be people big bucks. But anyway, I know that they they raise millions of dollars

And so when you were raising millions of dollars you cannot afford to have your

Darling apologists getting their heads headed to them on a platter in a debate and so they don't really do it anymore

They'll do some radio programs stuff like that But the idea of what we did in in 2000 when when

Tim melted down in our debate on papal infallibility When he asked me a grand total of four questions and 12 minutes of cross -examination

I asked him I believe was between 35 and 43 I forget how many it was someone counted for me once That would be a disaster now and so they don't

I would be interested in finding out from Tim What I know

I I've got it I've already got it. Yeah, I've already got it up. I've got the I've got the Yeah, I'll get to it.

Don't worry Apologist 78 continues if white is indeed a liar, which I don't believe then it is up to Catholic answers to show where he is

Actually, I find white to be very scholarly and while I do not reach his conclusions or agree with him I have to give him credit for a fair and honest research critique of the

Catholic faith I can tell you I know my stuff theologically and I would not want to go up against white White is like a chess player.

He is always ten steps ahead view at any given time Well, I'm not like a chess player

I wish I had time to indulge in that love of mine, but I was a

USCF chess player at 13 Playing men that were a five times mage anyway This website is more for those who are just looking to get started in apologetics and it introduces them to the very basics

I myself like Catholic answers to become more high -powered and answer white but that is not currently their market

See he recognizes market I can tell you this if I ever hit the lottery of a few things

I would do number one have the works of Robert Bellarmine's Disputations and Stapleton's works translate into English while Whitaker wrote a reply to those works

They still remain the most effective Catholic apologetics works against the Protestant heretics known Francis de

Sales also wrote a small work. Yes, he did and it is worthless It would be so much fun to write an entire response of the sales because it's just it's bad stuff

Anyway, number two hired the best and brightest Catholic theologian or theologians to sit down and write up a reply to William Whitaker George Salmon William good life.

It's great There's someone out there who knows these first first Catholic I've run into that can actually put all these in a row today

Theologians have no interest in the above because theology is not geared toward Plemix anymore Now here's where he comes after me a little bit white simply parrots these authors in his own works and debates

Consequently to no understand the above authors is to no understand white to refute the above authors is to refute white

Catholic answers doesn't seem to get that Actually salmon simply parrots the old Gallican arguments and debates thus to be familiar with the

Gallican debates and the replies to Gallican bishops One already has a leg up on salmon You know what they say there is nothing new under the

Sun all this being said part of the problem in any Catholic Protestant Plemix is difference in theological and spiritual methodologies

Protestant theology and spirituality. This gets weird for a moment is Masculine in emphasis. Let me try that again is masculine in emphasis

Consequently any other meanings to scripture beyond what the literal meaning is and what historical exegetical methods can surmise is simply ignored

This is the weakness with white and I take this as such a compliment There is on his part and over reliance on the historical exegetical method of scripture scholarship

And thus he lacks the ability to see more broadly when you read scripture. Thank you. Thank you.

I am I am so Thank you. I am so honored that You have recognized that my intention is to exegete the text of Scripture.

Let the Word of God speak Thank you Notice he says this problem plagues modern

Catholic Scripture scholarship as well, even the Orthodox ones And then he finishes with this and I hey,

I'll let you guys have this one if you want it Catholicism My contrast is more feminine This makes sense because the essence of the church is feminine

Consequently, there is an ability to view the scripture more broadly and not narrow the scriptures down to limit them to their historical context

What what are you doing? You went way low for the masculine The church transcends time thus the scriptures being a product of the faith the church professes also trans transcend time

Meanings while found in the literal can be varying and broad depending on the controversies The church is facing a given times there that sort of you know exploded things right there at the end

But I I was like wow someone who actually gets it. Well, he's actually continued

His discussion And in today at 7 o 'clock this morning was talking to fell by a name of Randy Carson and Randy Carson has said

I Clearly stated that I have not actually listened to debate yet Therefore my tone is based on listening to many debates featuring

James White. I just love that Well, I actually don't know anything about that one

White is good at debating but that does not mean that his points are the reason he wins or loses

He has a quick mind. He is articulate and he prepares extremely well for these events. Thank you in Contrast folks like father

Mitch Pacwa and Gary Machuda spelled properly have not been well prepared for the aggressive rapid -fire assault that white launched at them

They are more academic and slower read too polite in their responses and have been overwhelmed by whites relentless questions

To which apologist 78 says I agree that Paco Machuda have not been prepared for white style

And I agree that Paco is more academic Machuda is not theologian So I'm not certain about him in any case It is not typical of scholars to engage in debate tactics for debates don't prove anything

However from my view Pacwa should have been prepared and there is no excuse for him not to be

I Mean think about how many years were there between the first time I debated Mitch and last time Decade and a half something like that Whites now listen, this sounds like something

I've said a few times whites books debates, etc Are readily available before you engage your opponent debate?

It is up to you to know your opponent and know what arguments he will most likely use Yeah, yeah, there's applause in the studio audience.

Thank you very much Then this other fellow has said conversely what has been demolished by Madrid's and Jenison Matta ticks precisely because they were equally nimble

Just as tough and persistent and they have the advantage of 2 ,000 years of Catholic truth on their side Can we have a can we have a little applause clap in the background for that one?

More rhetoric to which apologist 78 says no, I disagree. I think white was just as effective against these people as well

I do not believe they fared any better using arguments like Jesus never wrote anything and never instructed his followers to go and write demonstrates they failed to grasp the reform doctrine of And it demonstrates they have never read anything of what white is written in the subject not to mention debated a man

Someone gets it someone on the other side actually gets it. Isn't that nice? Then the last comment he makes here.

This is interesting. I cannot agree more. I tell you the truth I would have been converted by white long ago.

If all I had to go on was his performance and debates In interesting

Statement and then at 713 Someone had confused Tim Staples with Scott Hahn.

I'm not sure how you do that and so he responded Someone said is white really going to debate

Scott Hahn if so when and he responded that would be nice wouldn't it? but from what

I hear Han refused to debate him because he sees him as Uncharitable if by Uncharitable Han means white is well -prepared and does not just roll over and play dead then

Han would be correct It has been really interesting to to watch the commentary and finally to see someone

On the Catholic answers forums who is not so completely blinded by prejudice

I mean how many times have reread people in those forums that said well I've never read anything and I would never listen to anything.

He said but I know this about him He's a mean terrible horrible nasty person. That's that's what you get. It's shocking

I just want to know should we take bets on how long Apologist 78 has to survive on the

Catholic answers web board. You do you do have to wonder but The topic will will die down now going to the debate itself.

Oh my goodness. It's 1125 and I Think we might be going a little long today

Sorry, but I've I've I spent a lot of time last night putting these clips together and all these books over here

I have things to read out of so We need to get to him. Let's get to the debate itself.

Here is a section from Tim where he attempts to provide Evangelical support for his interpretation late the fire does not purify close quote

Now I find this to be fascinating because even an evangelical scripture scholar like dr. W.

Harold Mayer in the expositors Bible commentary Who says in a commentary on these very verses that we're talking about?

Let me quote it here He says fire in the scripture is used figuratively in two ways as a purifying agent

And by the way, he references Matthew 3 11 and Mark 9 49 as two examples of our

Lord using fire as a purifying effect And as that which consumes and he gives a bunch of verses so it is fitting

Symbol, it is a fitting symbol here for God's judgment as he tests the quality of the Christians work

You know any B makes a good point there, but I also want to now I'm going to stop right there before he goes the second one because it would be nice to actually read

What dr. Marek just said? Dr. Mayer's interpretation is almost identical to my own

He specifically says instead of talking about the details the building itself Paul turns his attention to the kind of materials

Christian workers are using the materials of preaching the cross for the salvation building up believers and living a

Christian life that is commensurate with that preaching the purity and depth of such Christian teaching and a life corresponding to it are crucial crucial for that kind of building material will stand the test of fire on the

Day of the Lord's judgment since valuable metals and precious stones were used to adorn ancient temples Paul could have taken his imagery from Herod's temple in Jerusalem or from the beautiful public and religious buildings in Athens and Corinth where the remains of the 6th century

BC temple of Apollo still stands today Such imagery would be sufficient to convey the thought of pure doctrine

The frames of ordinary houses and buildings were built of wood Hey, or dried grass mixed with mud was used for the walls and roofs were thatched with straw or stalks

So the kind of insipid teaching in life represented by these lesser things will also have to face the test of the pure fire of God's justice and judgment when it will be consumed

The day is not a day of calamity or hardship brought by man but rather the day of the Lord which is exactly what

I said the day of the second coming of Christ the Quality verse 13 is to be equated with the kinds of materials of doctrine and life that are used

The fire is the fire of God's judgment fire in scripture is used figuratively in two ways as a purifying agent

Matthew 3 311 mark 949 and as that which consumes Matthew 3 12 second Thessalonians 1 7 and 8

Hebrews 12 29 So as a fitting symbol here for God's judgment as he tests the quality of the

Christians work Those Christians whose works stand the test of fire will be rewarded though those whose works are consumed by the fire will themselves escape the flames an exact statement that he mocks in his purgatory presentation will escape the flames as if they were to jump out of the burning wooden structure they had built and Will be saved alone without any works of praise to present to Christ not a word of purification

Not a word of purgatory not a word about sin Nothing the exact same

Interpretation I gave and given by the Jerome Bible commentary and we just didn't read the rest of it

That's on pages 207 and 208 Always read the sources as we're going to see in the rest of the clip point out what you'll find from another

Protestant work and a good one called Kittles theological dictionary of the New Testament volume 6 page 944

Here these Protestant scholars teach what I would argue It is impossible for any

Christian to ignore about this text if he's serious about studying it and that is

That st. Paul is here referring to to quote Kittles, let me quote

He is referring to the idea of an eschatological refining fire and They reference here

Malachi chapter 3 verse 2 He gives nine words.

Let me give you the rest page 944 Kittles theological dictionary in the

New Testament volume 6 Poor fire occurs in three passages in Paul the reference in each case is the eschatological judgment of fire in 1st

Corinthians 3 13 Paul adopts in his argument the idea that the Lord will execute the last judgment with fire the coming day will decide concerning the work of preachers for it shall appear with fire the eschatological judgment of fire will test the quality of every work the good builder whose work is

Fireproof will receive reward the poor builder whose work burns up will suffer loss But not eternal damnation he shall be saved yet so as through fire verse 15 be

The difficult concluding clause does not describe the punishment as a purging fire but uses a proverbial saying to make the point that only with the skin of his teeth and Not without great peril will the one concerned attain to eternal salvation

How could you read a source like this that directly contradicts your own position and not mention that I just have to wonder in passing

Paul is here bringing for current ideas into listeness Paul is here bringing for current ideas into loose connection without following them through consistently one

The theme of the house on fire which derives logically from the metaphorical description of preaching is building

Number two the expectation that the coming Lord will appear with fire saying this one is one eight number three

The idea of an eschatological refining by fire Malachi 3 2 and number 4 the proverbial expression about being saved through fire i .e.

Having a narrow escape the stress is on the incorruptibility and definitiveness of the last judgment in 2nd

Thessalonians 1 7 the prioress of Jesus is depicted in Old Testament terms etc. Etc That's the last that he says nothing nothing nothing about the purification of sins

Purgatory or anything else and plenty indirect contradiction in the very same text

Sometimes it just makes me wonder if these guys don't expect that we're ever gonna bother looking at this up.

It really does Make you wonder because even in his closing statement

Even though Protestant scholars as I mentioned as well as Catholic do see an obvious reference here back to Malachi But we can't say there's any purification going on here now, what did the actual text say a

Loose connection of a number of different things not anything about purification

That's text didn't say it and yet how many times did Tim Staples? Repeat it now.

I was going to mention. I didn't read the part where I was criticized in the Catholic answers forums for Just being so nasty to Tim And you know, that's just the way that I am and yet how many how many

Remember some of these statements from mr. Staples Listening to me needs to realize something

You've been listening to a man in James White who I respect greatly as a man and as one who is very fervent in his

Beliefs and I want to be clear on that But you're also listening to a man who can keep a straight face and say that st

James taught justification by faith alone Even though st. James says you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

Which is a fascinating way to approach scripture to say the least now, does that sound very nice to you?

I mean I Just obviously I asked the question has Tim Staples ever responded to the 24 page chapter in the

God who justifies Providing exegesis of James chapter 2 verses 14 and following has he ever even attempted to criticize that I am unaware of it if he has

I'd be happy to see it but something tells me if that had ever been published any place a lot of People would have been directing me to it

It just seems like the folks of Catholic answers just want to try to avoid your knowing That that kind of information is is there but remember this this particular phrase

The bottom line is that is bogus Sin and the effects of sin are being described quite effectively here for those who have

I It's that I is to see for some reason I cut off the end Really?

we've seen both of the references reference sources to use do not teach what he says they teach they contradict him and The term sin never appears in a place and if we just have eyes to see and to say otherwise is bogus

And then of course we had this line scripture says rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee consider yourself rebuked

But I only do so out of great charity toward you and all of your listeners and vote for those of you listening check out our

Website at Catholic answers at Catholic comm you can email me there as well But I would finally exhort all of us not to follow as st

Paul says in 1st Timothy 4 7 godless and silly myths and quite frankly you're gonna get a lot of silly myths with mr white with all do respect

Keep cutting off that last portion for everything Ah myths myths myths

But you know something I didn't have to cut out Catholic comm there by the way the Catholic answers website is

Catholic comm I don't have to fear you going there if you go to the envoy web forms that Patrick Madrid runs

And you try to post something that says ailmen org the software has been specifically coded to put zeros in the place

So no one can even find the reference that you're going to what does that tell you?

What does it tell you that they fear us? They fear what you will read here

When Patrick Madrid had that article written on the Council of Nicaea They didn't even tell you where to go to read the article that they were criticizing

Just listen to us. We are the church. Don't question us is that apologetics

Hmm doesn't seem to be But you want some myths? folks, please

Do this for me if you if you if any Catholic Listening to this right now

And I'm hoping that there are some that you've stuck through this far even though for many of you Oh, I can't listen to this.

I'm turning it off if you bought into any of this well

Mr.. Why just doesn't understand the Catholic position Because of one statement by the current

Pope Please Go by Check it out from the library do it.

However. You need to do it. There's a book by tan Publications ever heard tan.

It's it's a Catholic group. Yes, and it's called Purgatory by Father FX Shoop SJ that means

Society of Jesus. He's a Jesuit read it Just just read it

Just start the beginning go again almost every single page We'll have stuff on here that well, mr.

Staples would now identify as misunderstanding. Let me just read something toward the end here It's about the brown scapula.

I mentioned this he didn't say anything about it because he didn't want to get in trouble Two wonderful promises are later available to those who have been enrolled in the brown scapular enrollment is a simple process

One should ask a priest to make this enrollment the great promise the Blessed Virgin Mary given to st Simon stock on July 16 1251 is as follows quote whoever dies wearing the scapular shall not suffer eternal fire end quote our

Lady's second scapular promise known as the Sabatine privilege the term the word Sabatine meaning Saturday Was given by the

Blessed Virgin Mary to Pope John the 22nd in the year 1322 and is as follows quote

I the mother of grace shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever. I shall find in purgatory.

I shall free end quote there are three conditions for obtaining this privilege the wearing of the scapular the practice of chastity according to one state of life and The daily recitation of the little office of the

Blessed Virgin Mary those who cannot read can abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays Instead of reciting the little office also any priest who has diocesan faculties

Which includes most priests has the additional faculty to commute change the third requirement of another pious work for example the daily rosary

Now I don't believe that Mary said any of these things okay, and I know That today there's all sorts of controversies the fact is that for hundreds of years

Even if you say well the Pope never blessed it the Pope allowed it it continues to exist and he knows it and What good would it have done if?

Anyone didn't think that well purgatory involved suffering over time Which of course is exactly what we read

For example on page 89 Faith does not teach us the precise duration of the pains of purgatory

We know in general they are measured by divine justice and that for each one They are a proportion to the number and gravity of the faults which he has not yet expiated

God may however without prejudice to his justice abridge these sufferings by augmenting their intensity the church militant also may obtain their remission by the

Holy Sacrifice the mass and Other suffrages according offer for the departed according to the common opinion of the doctors the expiatory pains are of long duration

There is no doubt says Bellarmine that the pains of purgatory are not limited to 10 and 20 years and that they last in some cases entire centuries

But allowing it to be true their duration did not exceed 10 or 20 years Can we account it as nothing to have to endure for 10 or 20 years the most excruciating?

Sufferings without the least alleviation if a man was assured that he should suffer without Some violent pain in his feet or his head or teeth for the space of 20 years and that without ever sleeping or taking the least

Repose would he not a thousand times rather die than live in such a state and if the choice were given to him between a

Life thus miserable and the loss of all his temporal goods Would he hesitate to make the sacrifice of his fortune to be delivered from such a torment?

Shall we then find any difficulty in embracing labor and penance to free ourselves from the sufferings of purgatory?

Shall we fear to practice the most painful exercises vigils fast almsgivings long prayers and especially contrition accompanied with sighs and tears?

and quote These words comprise the whole doctrine of the Saints and theologians pages 89 and 90

I guess I'm in good company Because even

Bellarmine just didn't get it. He just didn't understand Along with mr.

White doesn't understand My oh my oh my so I took a little time

And I looked up some papal documents because remember we had one papal document read to us One quote from the current

Pope went back to May 24th 1824 Pope Leo the 12th

You must also discuss carefully how much efficacy there is in indulgences how great is the fruit of remission not only the canonical but also the temporal punishment due for sins and Finally how much aid from the treasure of merits from Christ and the

Saints may be applied to those who died truly penitent before they had made adequate Satisfaction for their sins their souls must be purified in the fires of purgatory

So that entry into the eternal fatherland may open to them Where did

I get that silly idea that Catholics had ever associated the fire of first Corinthians 3 with purgatory?

Oh, I'm such a silly Protestant. Well, so is Leo the 12th. He must be a silly

Protestant to Their souls must be purified in the fires of purgatory

Guess he's just a confused Pope infallibly confused but still Or how about Pope Paul the

Paul of six we believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ Those who are listen listen listen to what

Rome really teaches folks here This really does help to illustrate why we engage this time work in regards to Roman Catholics.

I know people don't like it Oh, well, my aunt so -and -so is that a wonderful little Roman Catholic? I wish you wouldn't talk about the Roman Catholics. Listen to what they teach about the gospel

We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ those who are pilgrims on earth the dead who are attaining their purification and the blessed in heaven all together forming one church obtaining their purification

Do you remember the text that I Mentioned to you at first that I mentioned at the beginning of the debate basically in my opening statement

Titus 2 14 Speaking of the God -man Jesus Christ has just been called our great

God and Savior who gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed every lawless deed

No distinction no divisions Every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possessions zealous for good deeds to purify for himself my friends not that they purify themselves

Not that they obtained their purification the difference between the gospel of Jesus Christ and Romanism Is that Jesus purifies for himself in the gospel and in Roman Catholicism you add to the work of purification

He cannot do it himself One is God -centered one is man -centered one brings life one brings death the post conciliar documents

Called indulge NTRM doctrina. It's just one document, but a number of different sections to it

Quoted often in the Universal Catechism the Catholic Church says it is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice

These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death

Or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or purifying punishments

These punishments are imposed by the just a merciful judgment of God for the purification of souls That offends the sanctity of the moral order and the restoration of the glory of God to its full majesty

Did you did you hear that or am I just overwhelming you with all this stuff? Did you hear what just was said?

Forget about Titus to forget about Jesus purifying These punishments are imposed by the just and merciful judgment of God for the purification of souls the defense of the sanctity of the moral order and did you catch the last one and The restoration of the glory of God to its full majesty

God's very glory will be Dependent on your suffering your sada spacio and purgatory not the finished work of Christ.

It's a blasphemy I don't know how any person can believe the

Word of God is the Word of God and read that and not go blasphemy Because that's what it is

All these ecumenists sitting around in their rooms trying to massage language to create a unity that does not exist

It's blasphemy Identify it for what it is. Don't call this some mere difference of opinion

This is about the gospel it goes on to say for this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home and those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and Those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which

With the expiation of all the sins of the entire mystical body divine justice is placated expiating their sins in Purgatory and you see

I haven't taken the time to do it because I want to make sure that this debate took place But now I have the time. I don't have the time right now, but we'll now be able to do so in his

CD series and he made reference to this just sort of he didn't expand upon it, but he made reference to it

He talked about my other errors. There's a whole section where he goes after me in my alleged Ignorance of the doctrine purgatory and One of the things he went after is my statement that nowhere in Rome's doctrinal formulations

Do they say that our saddest passio are suffering in purgatory is?

The Application the merits of Christ. This is our suffering This is not the merits of Christ being applied and he goes through an incredibly long argument to try to find some way of Making that suffering due to the grace of Christ But it that's just because he doesn't understand what

Protestants understand or believe or at least reformed Believe about the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the nature of the atonement.

He does not understand it Nor does he feel any particular need to understand it

But these things are vitally vitally important and So I hope that has

Assisted anyone who had any questions from that I went a lot longer than I thought and I started preaching.

I apologize for that very quickly, I want to shift gears and address the statements made on Michael Brown's program

I'm only address a few just just some standard ones I don't know when we're gonna have the opportunity of having him on I want to do it as soon as possible, but he's got debates coming up.

I've got debates coming up We're both very very busy. We don't want to want to just do it piecemeal and It was you know,

I don't know at least a month and a half or more since I first contacted him So we'll get it done and I'm gonna put some feelers out to some some of the large churches that have had me in That have facilities that would do well in hosting a formal debate

With with dr. Brown as well. I think that could be done very well but Just a couple things.

I only have three clips here that I want to play From dr. Brown's program that's aired just an hour or two before the staples debate

That just sort of taken took me back a little bit One of them especially because I I've addressed these issues in the books that I sent to dr.

Brown I don't know if you really had a chance to read them Ironically, I just got the ones he had sent me his answering

Jewish objections today In in there at the post office box, but let's listen to a couple of the things dr

Brown had to say the reason I got a PhD in Semitics was so I could read everything as clear as I could especially the

Old Testament in the original and in its context and do proper Exegesis of the text and not have to rely on what a dictionary said or a commentator said, okay look

You read the scripture to me. You're gonna conclude Jesus died for the whole world you read in John 1

He was in the world. The world was made by him. The world didn't recognize him It tells us what the world is what the cosmos is and then a few verses later

It tells us that the Lamb of God takes away the sins of the whole world You're not going to deduce by that. Oh, I guess it's a different world here

And first it meant the general world now it suddenly means the elect In fact, it's important to see how an author uses a particular word in John overwhelmingly

Over and over is using cosmos as the world as a whole or the non elect Excuse me the world as a whole humanity as a whole when it says

God so loved the world It doesn't make a sudden shift to now. It's just talking about the elect.

Of course not. Oh well Said that takes me back a little bit because I would think that dr.

Brown would be aware of the fact that cosmos has a very wide application in The Ohanian literature we are not to love the world

Nor the things in the world Jesus in his high priestly prayer says I pray not for the world so obviously there is a wide variety of uses of cosmos and they cannot be made equal to one another and In John chapter 3,

I don't just simply go elect In John 3 16. I say this Verse contains particularity.

How is the love of God shown? However, you define cosmos the love of God is shown by giving eternal life to a specific people a specific people and So it is not

I think a meaningful argument to simply say well John uses cosmos of the whole created order

Yeah But then he also uses it and says we shouldn't love the world and Jesus doesn't pray for the world He prays for those given to him out of the world

So all those things have to be allowed to have a place of course

Matthew 23 came up and I Sent the potter's freedom.

I sent God's sovereign grace. I sent drawn by the Father so the chapter on the big three is there and I would at least think that I mean if I had heard a

Particular if I had heard dr. Brown specifically interpreting a text say

John 6 Where he presents a strong argument, I would feel some obligation to respond that particular argument

I don't hear anything of a recognition of what I have said about these texts.

Listen to this In point of fact throughout the Bible God speaks of certain things

He wants people to do and they don't do him and he's grieved and there are consequences or he is angered

Jesus weeps over Jerusalem not because he decreed that Jerusalem would miss him He was grieved that it missed him and said how often

I would have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under Wings, but you weren't willing and I've looked at that and I've exegeted it in context and it means what it says

His ardent desire to gather his people to himself and his people receiving unwilling to receive it

He was willing we weren't and yet our sovereign God accomplishes his will in the midst of human disobedience and sin and ultimately

Will be glorified here on the earth to the full and ultimately will be glorified throughout eternity to the full just the way he said

Now it would seem to me that for dr. Brown, especially with his sensitivity to Jewish issues, he would know that Matthew 23 is a

Judgment passage. It is a judgment chapter a very strong Condemnation of pharisaical

Judaism and hence, he would know that for example 37 seems to be the parallel of 13 and and and there is this this judgments taking place and Yet he says he wanted to gather their people but they were unwilling and yet it says

Actually, it was the Jewish leaders. This continues the theme of judgment I didn't hear anything that would indicate that he had interacted with what

I have written and Illustrated demonstrated I believe That this continues the judgment motif and that it is really useless to appeal this passage

To say well God wanted to save these people but he couldn't because they weren't willing that's not what the text is about and that's

Not what it says But I've laid that out very clearly and just simply saying well, that's not mean that's that's not meaning is is not really a response

It's not an in -depth exegetical response You can say it doesn't mean that but can you demonstrate that at least?

Anyone who's read the Potter's freedom whether you agree with it or not you at least know That not only that I accurately represent the position that I was arguing against that is that of dr.

Geisler quoting him extensively but when I Argued the big three first Timothy 2 for a second

Peter 3 9 and Matthew 23 37. I Didn't present a weak case on the other side that I was responding to I gave the best case

I could I Don't think there's any question about that And I think that's the only only way now

Here's the the longer section this this may put us just a little bit over time, but I Maybe only five minutes or so, but I'm gonna stop and start this one

Oh, if you don't believe in excuse me a Calvinist and you believe in the almighty will of man No, I believe in the almighty will of God and then the almighty will of God.

This is how he set it up This actually feeds off of what I forgot to mention nothing. He keeps saying

God's gonna accomplish his will but how What is his will if it is it is his will to save every single person then he's not accomplishing his will

So does he present two different wills as well he criticized that when

I said it But it seems like he's saying that God does have a general will to save everybody and he's trying to save everybody and I Tried to get some information out.

What do you mean save everybody equally is? He trying to save every single person equally if he's not then he's showing some kind of election

If he's not trying to save if he's if he was trying to save Moses equally with the

Amorite If there's an equal attempt at salvation there

Okay, that's at least a consistent position, but I can't see how anyone can look at the text of Scripture and believe that So when you say he's accomplishing his purpose, what do you mean?

Do you mean just sort of in a general sense? Well, he's you know nudging history along the general direction. He wants to go or are we talking about?

Saving many people alive from the coming famine By getting Joseph into the position that he gets

Joseph into and I think that's what comes up in this text You say yeah Well Ephesians 2 8 9 say faith is a gift actually the great majority of Ephesians commentators and Greek scholars say that faith is not what's referred to as a gift in fact the grammar

Does not work properly and it's what you would normally expect. It's the whole Complex of salvation that is a gift not of ourselves

Philippians he'll go to Philippians 1 29 again a text that I have addressed fully in the potter's freedom and Pointed out that that's not our argument.

The argument is not that faith is the only antecedent of what is the gift? grammatically as I point out in Ephesians chapter 2.

Yes, it is all of the preceding phrase using the neuter Wraps up the entirety of the preceding phrase including faith.

You can't keep faith out of that All of salvation is the gift of God which includes faith you can't exclude it we're not saying it's only faith, but that you cannot exclude it and So Again, I keep hearing people make these same arguments over and over again

But I don't hear them responding to the arguments that are actually being made by individuals such as myself in published works and that So I wish

I could tell you what the response that is to someone but I've never heard anyone give a response to it They're all as well.

It can't be just faith because faith is feminine and this is neuter Yeah Well exactly what in the preceding phrase is neuter the reason he's using a neuter is because he's wrapping up the entire preceding phrase which includes faith and I'd like to give you what the response that is but no one will ever tell me what the response that is then we go to Philippians 1 29 to 129 does not say that faith has to be granted to you

And by the way, I believe faith is granted through the Word of God as it comes to us There is faith to respond to it.

Paul clearly teaches that in Romans 10, but aside from that Philippians 1 29 does not say that faith is a gift

It says you have the privilege on behalf of Christ you have the privilege not only to believe in him But also the suffer for him. That's Paul's point

And that's where he stopped That's not a response. I'm sorry. I I was I was shocked

I I remember exactly where I was exactly what corner I was going around my bike when when he stopped there and I was like, well, come on explain the text let's get into the text and Nothing was given it literally says

Because to you plural it has been granted in behalf of Christ Not only tau ice out on piste wine to believe in him piste wine is an infinitival form

A lot but Kai also Tahu pair out to paschine now paschine is in the infinitive as well.

There are two things that have been granted Granted to you charisma to give freely.

What do you give freely but a gift? It has been granted to us in behalf of Christ do two things to believe and To suffer in his in his place for him

That's what it says now now is is his primary focus to discuss faith as a gift?

No, but it is a given it is it is simply understood. I Mean the very way that he can do this

It's not only been granted you to believe in him, which we all understand but also to suffer for him This is charisma a gift from his grace the same root from which we get chorus

So I didn't not see how that was a response an ecstatic or response or anything else I did interestingly enough see a video just recently

Day for yesterday. I think of John Piper explaining first John 5 1 the same way that I presented in the Potter's freedom as well in regards to Faith and regeneration if anyone follows that you might have seen it as we

One of the one of the verses that's often quoted by Calvinist. Dr White brought it up on the show the first day is

Genesis the 20th chapter where God Stops Abimelech from having sex with Sarah with Abraham's wife, okay?

Why? Genesis chapter 20 verse 6 God said to him in a dream Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me

There was a participation because Abimelech did it with a clear conscience God had mercy on him and didn't let him sin and bring further judgment on himself

Okay, is that is that clear you say well? God decreed that then the whole thing becomes a game

God decreed that he'd do it with a clear conscience But he shouldn't have done it at all and then and then

God now withheld him from no Now I think you hear the real objection

It all becomes a game Because that wasn't really exegetical either Are you really seriously saying that if he had not done it with a clear conscience and God had kept him from doing it that would

Have changed something the reason you quote Genesis 20 is that God kept a man from sinning now remember

Abimelech is a sinner What he was doing in this instance wanting to take

Abraham Sarah as another one of his wives He did with a clear conscience because he'd been lied to But it doesn't change the fact that he was kept from sinning

The whole point is the question that I asked dr. Brown and I did not get an answer to is he threw out one of these

Big Stopped again him Every every flip video, you know, I've got does that and I do not know

Why it is but anyway, he threw out this This this really really really bad example of a man who murders and rapes a little girl, you know

You got to make sure it's as emotional as possible. How can God ever have a purpose for that? and so I Threw it back and said

Why didn't God stop that if God has the ability to stop a man from sinning and he doesn't

Then does he have a purpose in allowing it to happen? I?

mean, I don't know how you come up with any type of consistent theism if you don't say that and We'd really didn't get an answer

Does God have the ability to stop free creatures from sinning? I say he does it the vast majority of the time

I say God is trouncing on the free wills of sinners every single day and I thank

God that he is Why in the world would you ever pray for protection against your enemies if God couldn't do that?

Dr. Brown knows the story in the Old Testament the promise given to the people of Israel You are to send your men down to worship in Jerusalem.

And if you're worried about the the Canaanites across the river Who see your men all leaving as long as you're faithful to me they will not even desire your land what

God has the ability to even change the desires of men's hearts

Yep, it's right there in the law there's the promise right there in front of you so much for autonomous free will and Yet people still glom onto it and hold on to it and that takes us to Genesis 50

He did it with a clear conscience so so God intervened so that he wouldn't sin But then warned him and said now you return the man's wife

But if you don't return it, you're gonna die You saw a choice to make you said well Genesis 50 that came up a lot and you meant it for evil

Joseph's brothers selling them into slavery, but God meant it for good. That means God ordained his sale into slavery.

No Listen God did there's nothing in the text that says God moved on the brothers to commit this brutal ugly act

It simply means that God Superintended the events for his purposes, you know, how many thousands of variables there were in terms of what was going to happen

You know how many opportunities there were for God to orchestrate things just the way he wanted to From how it happened to one of the brothers stand maybe he moved on a brother to stand up to rescue

Joseph for being killed and Then maybe just had the right group come at the right time to get him to the right house at the right series of events

Etc, etc so bottom line bottom line is that God can work through human choices and accomplish his will because he's sovereign

You say but if he knows in advance if he has foreknowledge Then there must be

Everything must be absolutely fixed. Uh, no, I don't see there's a logical conclusion many philosophers debate it many do not see

There's a logical conclusion Let me let me just break in here just a moment. How was that in response to Genesis 50?

Because what was missing all along is I say God Intended the event for good

The only way the word intended can be understood is that he intended it to happen just as the brothers intended it to happen that's the parallel if you try to change that to where the brothers had evil intention and brought it about but Afterwards God has good intentions and make something good out of it.

You're destroying the parallel. That's not exegesis God intended it to happen the brothers intended to happen.

They had different motivations Different purposes and yes, God did protect

Joseph. He did raise up one of the brothers. They want to kill him Their free will choice is to kill him

God restrained them so much for free will choices But it was God's intention that Joseph get to Egypt in that way to save many people alive at that time in history

Joseph understood that there's no way around it It's right there in front of us

That's why in Isaiah 41 Yahweh can challenge the false gods and say tell us what the former things were and why they happened that way

Because there's a purpose there's a plan There's a decree That's why

God accomplishes all his holy will I base everything on Isaiah 57 15 and other passages

It says in Hebrew about God show. Hey, not he inhabits eternity Psalm 90 tells us from everlasting to everlasting.

He's God time was created at a certain point I agree God exists above and beyond time

Yep for God to have perfect knowledge of the future. It can happen in many different ways that transcend our understanding

I just simply say and it can happen in a way that we do Understand because it's the way that God says he did it.

He created all things He is the creator and when he created it wasn't just that he tossed the cosmic dice and said ah

I win He Created for the specific purpose of glorifying himself in a specific way and he has been accomplishing that from the beginning now

Look, you can watch a video now Listen to this listen to this because this this concerned me and then we're gonna wrap up with this of a football game that was played last week and Those men playing played their game and made their choices and made good plays and bad plays and great plays and mental errors

Etc. You watch it. It's all fixed at that point because it's already been decided from the perspective of watching it

You already know what's gonna happen because you've seen it already But as it's being played out the things are actual and real

And by the way, then that sound a little bit like We know that Sonny and Cher got divorced

It's the same thing. It's the same assertion We're playing a video and the games already taking place, but it was free at the time

But now we have this is that it's that an analogy to how God has knowledge. He's watching a videotape

That leads to the idea that God's taking in of knowledge of the time events and time is

A learning thing. It's a passive thing. Not a decretive thing. And so again, why do you glorify

God? Why do you glorify God for how it turns out if he's just simply passively taken in knowledge about what the ends gonna be?

I Just don't find any consistency here That's you know, at least the open theists are consistent and deny to God knowledge of future events

So at least he can, you know interact in such a way, but I just don't find any consistency in this so obviously from my perspective the way that you you answer these questions is you go to the exegesis of the

Word of God and With only 36 to 39 minutes, which is all we had in each of those programs to cover so many things

We didn't do that But as I said in the second program, what I'd like to do is suggest three texts he already knows that one of them would be

John chapter 6 and Give each person sufficient amount of time to exegete it and then to have cross -examination on each one and move on to the next one that is

I think the best way of Determining these issues because people can listen here see who's handling the text who's consistent in their application of hermeneutics

That's the way to do it Well, there we go We went about to eight and a half minutes over time because I started preaching but hope you don't mind that too much

I hope it has been useful to you. We will not be here on Thursday So I guess we sort of made up a little bit for that by going a little bit longer.

Thursday is a travel day I'll see those of you in the Georgia area in Conyers looks like it's gonna be raining the whole time in there

But in Conyers, Georgia this coming weekend look forward to that, please pray for arrangements on the way to a

London There is some issues that have come up Please pray that the Lord would open those things up for us and that I'd be able to go on the 17th of February We'll see you next week here on the dividing line.

God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks