Response to “White is Wrong” Article in This Rock Magazine

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:20

This is the Dividing Line, the Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

00:30

Your 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.

00:39

And now with today's topic, here is James White. And good afternoon and welcome to the Dividing Line. We are live today and I actually think we're live streaming and doing everything else, which is really, really a neat thing to do, in point of fact.

00:52

It is much more fun than when we are dead casting, much more enjoyable. And those of you who are tuning in today or maybe listening by archive, we will be providing our response to the wonderfully titled article from the current edition of This Rock magazine, or I suppose if you're actually listening in sometime way down the road, which happens, it is the

01:16

April 2001 edition of This Rock magazine, beginning on page 26.

01:22

The article is titled, White is Wrong. At least it's straightforward and we'll be talking about that in just a few minutes.

01:29

You may want to, if you are listening by archive, fast forward a little bit to get to that because we're going to start off with a brief report.

01:37

Those of you who know that this is the day before Easter Sunday, Resurrection Sunday, here in the year 2001, know that that means that we have been out at the

01:50

LDS Easter Pageant all this week and, in fact, all through Friday and Saturday of last week.

01:58

It's been seven nights. I know why they went to seven nights now. They really,

02:04

I think, wanted to very strongly encourage as many of their own people as they could get to come earlier in the week so that they would not take up all the seats and stuff there toward the end of the week, such as last evening and then this evening's performance that we'll be going out to after we do the program today.

02:28

I don't think it worked, actually. Friday and Saturday and Tuesday of this week had fairly small crowds, especially the week before.

02:38

That was the first time they had done English performances the week prior to Easter, the week before Easter, actually.

02:45

So there were pretty small crowds and had some really great conversations, as I reported last week. But last night,

02:53

Friday evening, normally Fridays and Saturdays are the largest evenings. The crowd was simply huge, just massive.

03:02

I mean, the place was as full as I had ever seen it by about 7 .05 and it doesn't start till 8.

03:08

So they had another 55 minutes of people crowding in there. People were standing on the sidewalks.

03:14

People were all the way out to the corner that we normally stand at, Main and Hobson and Mesa, sitting on blankets and everything else.

03:22

And to be honest with you, the people that are out that far, I don't think they could hear almost anything. Traffic's right next to them and they could probably hear our conversations better than they could hear the actual pageant itself.

03:34

And I think that's what they were trying to avoid, but they weren't able to avoid it. It was just simply a huge, huge crowd.

03:42

And we've had a good number of folks out there to be with us. There's a few folks who have given the ultimate and been out there every single evening so far.

03:54

There are the faithful few there that have been there every night and then other folks have been able to come out one night or two nights or three nights, all depending on what their work schedule is like and so on and so forth.

04:05

But we had a huge group earlier in the week when the folks from Grace Covenant came out and it's just been a really neat opportunity out there.

04:16

Obviously, we've had some tough conversations, but we've had people that, oh,

04:22

I'm so offended that you would be out here and all the rest of that kind of stuff. But we've also had good conversations as well.

04:29

We've gotten a lot of tracks out. I think Rich is already sitting there going, boy, am I going to have to spend some time in the print shop before October because we have been going through our supply of tracks at a rapid pace.

04:44

I think tonight we may be looking for tracks in boxes that were photocopied back about 1989 or so just to simply have enough to pass out,

04:54

I don't know. So it's been good along those lines and I know that we had a

05:00

Mormon missionary call up and talk with Rich and when the missionary decided to end the conversation prematurely,

05:09

Rich used that wonderful function called Star 69 and just called the missionary back and ended up talking to the missionary and the missionary's partner and it was really cool.

05:19

So anyways, we've had a lot of good conversations and we'll be back out there for the last night this evening and we would appreciate your prayers for that.

05:30

Those of you who are wondering what's the next outreach as far as the Mormons are concerned, that would be the trip up to Salt Lake City again coming up in October and I think

05:41

I mentioned last week that we are going to be trying to arrange a debate at that time as we had just a couple weeks ago now and possibly on the subject of justification.

05:53

We'll see if that works out and we will be doing that sometime. We'll let you know about that and hopefully it will work out for the next trip to Salt Lake City.

06:02

It has been quite the interesting experience. We've had some folks trying to play some mind games with us out there, but those haven't gotten anywhere and it is interesting to note that since I first went out there in 1983 on the back of a

06:22

Kawasaki 440 with my wife behind me on the motorcycle and for those in the video, that the 60, the

06:34

Superstition Freeway, stopped at Country Club Road and you had to get off there and go north to Maine and then out to the temple from there, but back then it was a very different experience.

06:51

The large portion of the conversations we have now focus around whether there is something called objective truth.

07:03

So much of our conversations now are just, well, you know, that's your opinion and that's your truth, but you know,

07:11

I have this feeling, of course we've always had to deal with the Mormon testimony, but the Mormon testimony used to be that the

07:19

Holy Spirit has told me that this is true and it is true. In fact, it's true for you too and you need to believe it.

07:26

Now it's, well, the Holy Spirit has told me that this is true, but that's only really for me.

07:32

You know, I mean, we don't want to offend you and it's this Americanized version, this very subjective, there's really no objective truth type stuff and so on and so forth.

07:43

It's changed a lot and instead of the kind of conversations we used to have where we were able to focus, for example, on the nature of God and go to scriptural passages relevant to that, now instead we have to discuss whether there is such thing as, whether it's even relevant to go to the

08:04

Bible, whether it's even relevant to look at what the Bible says about things like that. So it's very, very interesting to see the change that has taken place over the past 18 years now in talking with the

08:17

LDS people out there and sadly I would simply say that Excuse me, again, don't worry folks,

08:24

I have water this week, yes, I have an entire bottle right here in my hand and I'm just going to keep chugging it down there so we can keep talking.

08:33

Sadly, at least 15 years ago, and I'll admit, it is a lot easier to talk to a

08:40

Mormon who actually believes Mormonism is true than to talk to a Mormon who feels

08:45

Mormonism is true and I think you understand what I mean by that. It's a lot easier to talk to someone when you share a common commitment to the idea that there is truth and that we need to deal with it.

08:59

So anyways, there's a brief report on what's been going on out there. We've had a lot of great folks out there with us and I'm very thankful to all of them who have made themselves available and it's a long night.

09:13

I mean, let's face it, we start tracking about 6 .15 and last evening we left somewhere right around 10, 10 .05

09:20

and you do that for five, six, seven nights and it wears on the body, it truly does, but the

09:29

Lord has given us strength and so we're thankful for that. I should just mention, he doesn't have a microphone so that way he can't pick on me, but one of my good friends,

09:41

Eddie DelCour, you may remember from last year when we had a radio program back then and when

09:47

Eddie came by we had Eddie on and I just, it's very strange when

09:53

I'm around Eddie and Warren and George Soto, you know, it's just easier to proclaim the word of the

10:01

Lord in a strong way. You know, I'm not sure exactly what that means, but maybe it's the fact that I've got hundreds of pounds of guys behind me when those guys are around and you just sort of feel a little bit, especially those big old

10:16

Roman centurions. You know, we mentioned last week and they started this last year, they pick out a bunch of guys, these guys aren't even in the pageant, and they have like a minimum height requirement of at least 6 '1 and they dress up as these

10:35

Roman centurions and someone was mentioning last evening that they've just slaughtered what

10:40

Roman centurions really did look like. They got the headdress all wrong and the swords all wrong, but anyways, hey, they're wearing plastic breastplates, what do you expect when someone's wearing plastic?

10:51

But they come out and basically have been trying to tie us up and keep us from doing the things we're supposed to be doing out there, but they pass out programs and stuff like that.

11:02

And when they're standing there trying to sort of, you know, get in your face, it's sort of neat to have some guys that, while they're not quite as tall as the centurions, as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

11:13

It's been a very, very interesting experience and we'll be wrapping it up this evening. And of course, this evening is always the most interesting one.

11:21

And that is the, well, we did have an experience where, hit and run, somebody shoot that guy just came into the channel.

11:35

We did have an interesting experience where some black folks came by and it wasn't one of our folks that originally started the conversation, but someone with a concern

11:48

Christians did and started to share with them some of the things that the Mormon Church has taught in the past and has not rescinded as far as the nature of the black person, the pre -existence, the curse on the lineage of Cain and all the rest of that stuff.

12:04

Eddie got into that conversation. And the Roman centurions, I honestly think that if it hadn't been

12:10

Eddie standing there talking to them, that they might have pulled their swords. They're smart enough. Eddie would take their swords and bend it into a fish.

12:18

Here, have a symbol of peace. So they probably wouldn't get away with that. But if it had been anybody else,

12:24

I think they, I mean, they were really, really, really, really angry because the folks said, really? We're out of here.

12:29

They didn't even bother to go in. They just said, we don't need that. And they left. So it was an interesting experience as well.

12:36

But would you, could you bend swords like that? Three times. Three times into a fish. Yeah. Oh, cool.

12:44

Could you do that tonight? I'll run, grab it and get it to you, okay? Anyways, what

12:50

I was trying to say is Saturday nights, all those people have been frustrated, like those centurions are really frustrated over that.

12:58

That's when they decide, hey, this is my last shot. In fact, back in 1985, the first year that we did the full pageant, we did the whole thing, tracks and lots of people and covering all the corners.

13:09

It was Saturday night where the missionaries who had been frustrated with us the whole week came out and tried to basically connect themselves to our people so that they couldn't get tracks out.

13:22

And we had to send a whole group of big, ugly guys down there. And it was, that's generally

13:27

Friday and Saturday nights is when things can get a little bit on the wild side. So we'd appreciate your prayers for those of you who are listening live this week in regards to what's going on this evening.

13:40

I do apologize for, I do not understand why my voice, which normally is doing just fine, when

13:45

I start talking maybe too fast, does what it's doing. Anyways, so that's the report on that.

13:52

And so I appreciate that those of you who've been praying for us on that. Now I'd like to turn to a completely different subject.

14:00

And generally, when someone writes something about our ministry, the normal way we respond to it would be on our website and would be in written form.

14:14

This is a situation where I'm responding to it first on real audio.

14:19

I may write something in the future, I honestly don't know. There's so many projects facing me right now.

14:27

I just finished the first editing run on The God Who Justifies that there's going to have to be a second one here very quickly.

14:35

I'm way behind on the homosexuality book, and those of you who've looked at the schedule on the website of what's coming up know that I have very little time before I head to Long Island, and I've got debates to do, and just all sorts of stuff like that.

14:54

So it's just hard to find the time to respond to everything that I'd like to respond to that comes our direction.

15:02

But when This Rock magazine puts out an entire article directly naming us, providing old, old, very out of date picture, there's even an entire page of a picture of a monitor with our website up on it, which

15:20

I thought was really cool. Good grief. You've got to respond to something like that.

15:27

You can't let that kind of thing just simply pass you by. So with that in mind,

15:35

I do apologize for the voice. I'd like to start off letting you know,

15:40

I did mention this in the chat channel, the article that they are responding to is on our website.

15:46

If you go to our website right now, and if you're listening live, if you're not, don't worry about doing this in the future, because obviously we'll change it.

15:53

But on the website, right on the main page, I've put an announcement that we're going to be responding to this article right there on the main page.

16:02

And by clicking there, you can read the article that they are responding to. It is called,

16:07

Failure to Document Catholic Answers Glosses Over History. And as I recall, this was posted somewhere around November of last year, and it was because someone sent me the article that Stephen O 'Reilly wrote in regards to the case of Pope Honorius.

16:29

And the reason I jumped on it very quickly was I had just—in fact, I said in the second paragraph of it—I have recently had the opportunity of twice debating leading

16:38

Roman Catholic apologists on the subject of papal infallibility. The first debate with Timothy Staples took place in Fullerton in July, and the second with Robert St.

16:47

Genes took place in early October in Clearwater, Florida. In both debates, the issue of Honorius took center stage.

16:53

In fact, in the second debate with Mr. St. Genes, the second round of the debate was limited to the topic of Honorius' condemnation as a heretic by the

17:01

Sixth Ecumenical Council, and that by prearrangement. And so, that particular subject was very fresh on my mind when someone sent me

17:12

Mr. O 'Reilly's article. And so, it didn't take very long to write this. In fact,

17:19

I even mentioned there that I provided the notes that I used in the debate with Mr. St.

17:24

Genes on Honorius. I'm having lots of problems here.

17:33

I apologize. My goodness. Maybe it was due to the fact that everybody was doing their lawns today, and there's stuff floating all over the place.

17:42

I don't know. Well, we will press on, please forgive my voice. Now, the first thing that I want to do is

17:51

I want to give kudos to Catholic Answers. You might say, excuse me, your coughing has obviously disrupted the flow of blood to your brain if you're giving kudos to Catholic Answers.

18:02

No, I mean it. What I mean is, if you read this article, you could actually go to the internet and read my original article.

18:14

And that's a good thing. Why do I say that? Well, some of you may remember that Envoy magazine, which was started by Patrick Madrid, who was the vice president of Catholic Answers for many, many years, a couple years ago did a hit piece on me, that's the only way to describe it, in which they attempted to respond to basically one statement in an entire article on the

18:53

Council of Nicaea that had appeared in the CRI Journal. Now, personally,

18:58

I think even responding to one statement in an entire article without ever mentioning what the actual article was really about and going into the whole thing is pretty cowardly to begin with.

19:12

But what's worse is anyone who read that article in the

19:18

Envoy magazine, A, never saw my name. That's right.

19:24

They provided an entire response to an article and never gave the author's name other than he was a

19:30

Baptist. Nor did they find a reference to the actual issue of the

19:39

CRI Journal where they could go and look it up. That's just simply cowardice.

19:45

That's the only way to describe it. That's not being ad hominem. That's just cowardice. I mean, that makes it a pure hit piece.

19:52

That's not scholarship. When we take somebody on, we tell you exactly what we're taking on, who they are, and how you can check out what they themselves wrote.

20:01

How else can you do anything honestly if you don't do that? The fact that they provide, right along my bad picture here, it says www .aomin

20:13

.org. On the next page... By the way, I need to mention this.

20:18

I'm going off the basis of a scan of this article. Someone's going to send me the actual article.

20:24

They didn't get around to it, I guess, because I didn't get it in the mail. So I'm going on a scan, and there may be a few errors in the scan, but I think we can get past most of those.

20:36

It's a fairly decent scan. But in the picture, you can see www .aomin

20:41

.org. You can see the actual URL to the article that I myself wrote.

20:47

If you were to put that in, you'd be able to bring it up on your browser in the whole nine yards.

20:52

So I've got to give them kudos. They didn't do what

20:58

Envoy did. Someone who would follow that article can simply click on Roman Catholicism and find the entire index.

21:08

You know what's so neat about that? There's all sorts of articles in that index that Catholic Answers has never responded to.

21:17

In fact, I don't believe can respond to. So this is obviously why

21:25

Envoy wouldn't do it. Because obviously, there are people who are going to come to this website as a result.

21:33

They're going to read this article. And what we'll do very quickly after, maybe even today,

21:38

I think I can do it, is right up at the top of this article, I'm going to put a little link. Coming here because you saw about this article from the

21:47

April 2001 This Rock Magazine. Click here to listen to our response to Mr.

21:52

O 'Reilly. We'll do that. But once they've read this article, they can click on Roman Catholicism, and they can see all these other articles that Catholic Answers has never responded to, unlike this one.

22:08

So that could be very, very, very interesting. So with that in mind, I think it's time to get to the response.

22:17

Now, there are a few things to mention before we take our break. And boy, I'll need a break today.

22:24

I provided the facts about Honorius in the article. And I provided 14 points, and Mr.

22:33

O 'Reilly is quite correct to point out, as I have noted in my debates, that 11 of these points came from Philip Schaaf.

22:40

Anyone who's read Schaaf's treatment of this subject knows that. I just expanded on them and added further citations and documentation to them.

22:48

But I provided 11 points. And basically what I need to do is give you, if you haven't read it, and some of you have, and so this will just sort of be a review for you.

23:01

The issue with Honorius is quite simply this. Honorius, Bishop of Rome, was condemned by the

23:09

Sixth Ecumenical Council, and that's what Rome identifies it as, the

23:15

Sixth Ecumenical Council, which met in Constantinople, 680 -681. The primary issue of debate with Mr.

23:23

O 'Reilly is, what was Honorius condemned for? You see, if Honorius was simply condemned for failure to teach, then that doesn't impact the very anachronistic dogma of papal infallibility.

23:43

But if he was condemned for failure as a heretic, for teaching heresy, then obviously it has great impact upon the doctrine of papal infallibility.

24:00

Now, I should note, and I will note in my response as we go on, that the various responses by Roman Catholic apologists to this issue are very wide indeed.

24:14

In other words, Mr. Staples, in our debate, adopted pretty much the same position that Mr.

24:24

O 'Reilly adopts. However, Mr. St. Genes took a completely different perspective, so different than that of Mr.

24:35

O 'Reilly, that Mr. O 'Reilly would have to condemn Mr. St. Genes' research as being as faulty as my own.

24:44

Bob St. Genes admitted that Honorius did teach heresy. He just simply said that he didn't teach that heresy ex cathedra in an official capacity, and hence that was his defense.

25:01

So with that in mind, let me just run through these 14 points if I can, and we'll take a break. Another butterscotch thing to help me out here, and I will again apologize to the voice.

25:13

Here are the 14 points I provided in my article. Number one, Honorius' condemnation is found in the

25:20

Acts of the Council in the 13th session right near the beginning. Number two, his two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session as being hurtful to the soul.

25:37

This includes the letter that contains the phrase that is under the most scrutiny, and By the way, most of these facts were either not presented at all in Mr.

26:00

O 'Reilly's original article, or when they were presented, they were presented after anachronistic spinning of the historical situation had already taken place so that their weight would not be felt.

26:16

We'll go into more of that in the future. Point number three, in the 16th session, the bishops exclaimed anathema to the heretic

26:25

Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc. Now let me point out that one of Mr.

26:36

O 'Reilly's defenses is going to be, he's going to assert that the council differentiated between Sergius as a heretic and Honorius as one who failed to teach.

26:54

However, note as I go through these points how often Honorius is simply mentioned in the same sentence with all the other heretics and called a heretic.

27:06

In fact, I would say to you that the words of the 16th session utterly refute all of Mr.

27:13

O 'Reilly's position. He has to come up with the most novel meaning of heretic.

27:19

And in fact, he has to come up with a meaning of heretic to where when it says heretic Sergius, that means

27:25

Sergius was a formal heretic. To heretic Cyrus, that means Cyrus was a formal heretic.

27:30

Heretic Honorius, that means he was not a formal heretic, he failed to combat heresy. All within one sentence.

27:37

So the word within just a couple spaces of its previous use has to be defined differently.

27:46

Very, very strange. We're going to take our break. I'm going to try to repair my voice and we'll pick up with point number four on the other side of the break.

27:53

We'll be right back. Okay. I have absolutely positively no idea why we're going to have to keep going.

28:11

I'm going to take a drink. But I've been told that for some strange reason, we cannot take a break, which is somewhat of a disappointment to the man who has no voice, but okay, we will press forward and maybe someone will tell me when we can take a break and we'll go from there.

28:35

Number four, in the decree of faith published at the 18th session of the council, it is stated that, quote, the originator of all evil found a fit tool for his will in Honorius, Pope of old

28:52

Rome, et cetera. Further, the secular council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine.

29:01

They said that Satan had, quote, actively employed them, please notice the word them, in raising up for the whole church, the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ, our true

29:23

God, one of the holy trinity, thus disseminating in novel terms amongst the orthodox people and heresy.

29:34

And quote, please note, no differentiation is made between Sergius or Honorius.

29:44

And if we do serious historical investigation, we have to go to the documents first, allow them to define our terms, draw our conclusions from that, and go from there.

30:03

We cannot, as Mr. O 'Reilly does throughout all of his article, assume the later doctrinal definition and then play with the historical facts to make things work.

30:16

We're ready to take a break. Oh, thank you, Lord. Make it a long one. We'll be right back.

30:37

Incorporating the most recent research in solid biblical truth, Letters to a Mormon Elder is a series of personal letters written to a fictional

30:44

Mormon missionary. Examining the teachings and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

30:55

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

31:02

With well -defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism, and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

31:17

LDS Church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons.

31:25

Letters to a Mormon Elder. Be sure to get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at AOMin .org.

31:32

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

31:38

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

31:45

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with us this coming Lord's Day. Our morning

31:51

Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and our worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30

31:58

p .m. on Sunday and Wednesday prayer meeting is at 7 .00. We are located at 3805

32:04

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information. Answering those who claim that only the

32:10

King James Version is the Word of God, James White in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

32:21

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

32:35

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .AOMin

32:43

.org. And welcome back to The Dividing Line.

32:56

Yes, my name is James White, the coughing and scratchy -throated one. I feel fine.

33:03

I feel absolutely fine, but for some strange reason, when I speak, it just gets extremely scratchy in there and so I sound terrible, but if you can fight through it,

33:15

I'm going to fight through it. Guys in the control room, I'm going to back my voice off a bit. I think if I speak a little bit more softly, that will probably help a little bit.

33:24

In fact, I can start sounding like I can sing bass again. Maybe that would be the way to do it.

33:31

Anyways, we are looking at the points presented and then I'm going to go into the various points presented by Mr. O 'Reilly, but I want to emphasize again, one of the key issues here is how do you do history?

33:43

And Mr. O 'Reilly's article illustrates to a T, the application of sola ecclesia to the study of history.

33:57

What do I mean by that? Mr. O 'Reilly has an ultimate authority, the teaching magisterium of the

34:05

Roman Church. He is told by that teaching magisterium that no pope of history has ever taught contrary to the faith when speaking ex cathedra.

34:20

So what happens when you encounter Pope Honorius condemned as a heretic using the very same words of the condemnation of Sergius and others as heretics for having taught monothelitism?

34:42

You torture history. You make things up.

34:47

Yes, make things up. We are going to discover that Mr. O 'Reilly makes things up as he goes along and then uses them to reinterpret history.

34:58

By the way, I asked Mr. O 'Reilly if he'd like to join us today.

35:06

I invited him to join us today. I gave him the number to join us today and he declined.

35:13

Instead, he wanted to have a lengthy written debate starting off with a few months on the subject of whether Honorius' letters were, without any reference to later councils, in and of themselves, heretical.

35:32

I said, not only do I not have time for that, I think there are probably three people upon the face of the entire earth who would bother to read through all that.

35:39

Let's actually do a debate. But he wasn't interested in that. So I'm not sitting here going, ah ha ha ha.

35:50

Let's just do this without giving him an opportunity to respond. I'd be glad to have him respond here on the program, but he declined to do so.

35:58

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

36:15

Bishop of Rome as a tool for his will. Number six.

36:21

I know, I'm preaching, I'll back the voice off. The report of the council to the emperor says that, quote,

36:30

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

36:45

Number seven. Thank you, Mr. M. Phibbo from New Orleans for posting those things in the chat room, which is what

36:53

I'm reading that will help folks follow along. Number seven. In its letter to Pope Agatho, the council says, quote, we have destroyed the fort of the heretics and slain them with anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely,

37:14

Theodore of Perron, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc. Note that the council believed its actions to be in full accord with Agatho's wishes and Agatho's letter and, and this is a further refutation of O 'Reilly's position, there is no differentiation in that sentence between Honorius, Sergius, Cyrus, or Theodore.

37:44

Now folks, am I making something up to say that when the council, writing to Agatho, says

37:53

Theodore, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc., and just throws his name in with the others, that that means there is absolutely no historical basis for the assertion that they are somehow viewing him differently?

38:11

Doesn't that make sense? He's thrown into the very same list as the heretics who've been slain with the anathema.

38:22

Alright, number eight. The imperial decree speaks of the unholy priest who infected the church and falsely governed and mentions among them

38:36

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

38:45

The confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.

38:52

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

39:11

Seems pretty straightforward to me, doesn't it? Number nine. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the council and expressly says that he too anathematized

39:25

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

39:33

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

39:43

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

39:50

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

40:05

So, what is the significance for the Catholic apologists?

40:10

Well, they're trying to see... Pope Leo... Leo's more important than the council, because if you look back into church history with anachronistic eyes, that is, if you don't read it for its own context, but instead take something like papal infallibility and read it back into history, then what you can do is you can try to take

40:34

Leo and say, well, you see, the council was subject to Leo, and the council's decisions cannot be ratified until the

40:42

Pope in Rome ratifies them. Now, that's a historical anachronism. No one at the council believed that.

40:50

In fact, that concept comes from a later body of documents that we know today were forgeries, but still, it's very common for Catholic apologists to make that kind of assertion.

41:01

That's why they latch on to Leo's words. Number 10, after a drink, that Honorius was anathematized by the six councils mentioned in the

41:14

Canons of the Council of Trullo, Trullo, I can speak, which met less than two decades after Constantinople, for those of you who would like to look it up.

41:26

That's the Trullian Canons number one. This shows that the condemnation of Honorius was accepted by the wider church immediately after the council, and, and this is important, amongst those who were familiar with Leo's letter.

41:44

Number 11, so too the seventh council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the

41:53

Acts the same is said. Number 12, Honorius' name was found in the

41:59

Roman copy of the Acts, and this is evident from Anastasius' life of Leo II. This means that in Rome itself, the condemnation with anathema, as a heretic, was embraced and accepted.

42:19

Number 13, the papal oath as found in the Libra Diurnis, taken by each new pope up to the 11th century, states in no uncertain terms,

42:58

Number 14, in the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II in the

43:03

Roman breviary, the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the

43:10

Sixtenod, and the name remains there until the 16th century. Now, let me just point something out.

43:18

The vast, vast majority of what I just noted, just in those points, was not even mentioned by Mr.

43:30

O 'Reilly in his original article. Now, folks, how can you write a meaningful defense of Honorius, and say, oh, see, there's nothing here about papal infallibility, if you don't mention, for example, that the council burned his letters as hurtful to the soul?

43:51

How can you deal with the relationship between the council and Honorius, and the papacy, without making reference to these things?

44:06

That was one of the main reasons that I said what I said, that I pointed out that this entire article only has one purpose, and it's to give the

44:20

Roman Catholic who wants an answer, not a historically accurate one, but wants an answer, a way of feeling better about Honorius.

44:33

Sure, it's selective, and sure, it really has nothing to do with the original context, but that's the way it is.

44:40

Now, let me start looking at some of the specific statements in White is

44:45

Wrong, and offering a response as best as we can, given our time frames, and given the fact that I sound like I smoke a pack of Pall Malls every day, which

44:57

I don't, by the way, just, you know, oh boy, I can just see somebody pulling that one out and putting it on a website someplace.

45:04

Yeah, right. And they got up, and there was this little postage stamp -sized dance floor.

47:06

It was a restaurant that we went to, because it was free for us, because we worked at a radio station. And they left their cigarette sitting in the tray, and it was wafting over me, so I was having, you know,

47:18

Pall Mall -flavored, camel -flavored cheeseburger. So while they were up dancing,

47:23

I took it, and I stuck it in the water, and then I put it back in the thing. And when they came back, he picked it up and tried to take a drag on it.

47:32

That was the funniest thing. The look on his face when he got that wet tobacco.

47:38

It was just really funny. I detest smoking. Anyways, Mr. O 'Reilly says in his article,

47:46

Quote, Now you see, there are those who attempt to say that, well, all

48:01

Honorius meant was that in his context, he was talking about the will that's attached to the human nature of Christ, not the divine nature.

48:13

He didn't speak clearly, but it's an orthodox usage.

48:21

Now, it's interesting. Mr. Robertson -Genis agreed with me in our debate that Honorius' letters were heretical.

48:31

And that took place within one month of when I posted this. So, isn't it interesting that Rome, though infallible, can't give us an infallible explanation of Honorius' error?

48:41

I mean, you'd think, since this is the most obvious example, that there'd be a monolithic or official response.

48:57

But instead, you find Rome's apologists basically piling different excuses on, hoping that if the one excuse doesn't do it, then maybe the proliferation of three or four excuses might do it.

49:13

Seems very strange to me. But much more importantly, much more importantly than that, there's a simple question that has to be asked here.

49:24

Did the council fathers at Constantinople also, quote, ignore, end quote, such evidence when they condemned

49:34

Honorius as a heretic? And with the Roman legates looking on, burned his letters as hurtful to the soul?

49:44

Why didn't the representatives of Pope Agatho jump up and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.

49:51

Wait a minute. Don't burn those letters. Okay, they're not as clear as they could be, but they're certainly in orthodox understanding.

50:04

Why didn't they do that? O 'Reilly will later on attempt to say, in reality, the fact that the papal legates were there actually proves his point.

50:17

But in reality, the fact that they are looking on, and they allow this to happen, demonstrates that the council fathers in Constantinople, I guess, were just as guilty as me.

50:33

Just as guilty as me of, quote unquote, ignoring the evidence that Honorius is used with orthodox.

50:41

Do you really think they'd burn letters that could be interpreted that way? I sort of think not.

50:48

And I think the person who allows the historical situation to determine their understanding would not see it that way either.

50:56

Mr. O 'Reilly goes on to say, quote, What is undeniable is that the pope's use of the phrase one will, though orthodox, manifests a lack of understanding and diligence in regard to the nascent controversy.

51:11

The mere expression one will was consonant with the heresy's view, which denied any human will in Christ.

51:18

White appears to admit as much when he says that Honorius, quote, made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved, end quote.

51:26

Well, I did say that. And you see, Honorius just was ignorant of the issues.

51:34

But you see, the problem is that Rome has defined as a dogma the infallibility of the bishop of Rome.

51:43

Now, the people back then didn't believe that, but that's what has been defined, and that's why we look at these things.

51:50

If we allow history to be history, we recognize that what happened was

51:56

Honorius messed up. Honorius was not a theologian. Honorius got taken in, and he, as the bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to another bishop in which he promulgated a heresy.

52:15

Now, he didn't know that. He was, you know, just a guy.

52:22

And since the whole doctrine of papal infallibility was something yet future, it certainly is unfair to judge

52:30

Honorius in the way that he's been judged. But you know what? That's not our fault.

52:36

That's Rome's. Rome's the one that's playing with history here. Rome's the one that's being anachronistic, not us.

52:42

So we have to deal with what Rome has defined. And when he says it is undeniable that it's orthodox, again, he just assumes that.

52:58

Maybe he'd like to debate those Catholic apologists who recognize that it's not. Maybe he'd like to debate the council fathers on the subject, but there's no reason to debate me and say

53:08

I'm wrong when you basically have to make a choice. Who more likely can correctly interpret

53:16

Honorius's letter? Mr. O 'Reilly, living at the beginning of the next millennium, actually two millenniums down the road now, or the council fathers who lived only a few decades later, some of whom would have even known

53:33

Honorius personally? Who do you trust? Well, you see what I mean. Continue on.

53:40

Mr. O 'Reilly says, I'm really not sure what in the world he's talking about here.

53:58

In reality, I don't have to even worry about either one, since it was

54:04

Honorius that fell into monothelitism, not myself. And so please note that the fundamental assertion of O 'Reilly, the whole fabric of his argument that underlies this entire article, is the assertion which is disputed by Roman Catholic theologians and historians themselves that the statement was indubitably orthodox.

54:31

The facts do not substantiate that. The council did not substantiate that either.

54:38

And therefore to say I'm wrong, simply because I allow them to have their way, doesn't seem to make much sense.

54:44

I know, I'm yelling again. I'm trying, but it's hard. It's hard to sort of whisper these things, though my voice would last longer if I did.

54:54

Mr. O 'Reilly continues, all of which are taken verbatim and without attribution from Philip Schaaf's work.

55:06

I think he's accusing me of plagiarism there, but again, if he had bothered to actually listen to any of the debates I've done on it, he would know that I sort of consider anyone who's dealt with this field to know exactly where they came from.

55:17

And I have attributed them when I've cited them, but I also not only expanded upon them, but I would like to ask

55:24

Mr. O 'Reilly, why didn't you deal with them since you know they're there too? We continue on, quote, it was the nature of this condemnation, that is, he's referring there to the condemnation of the

55:36

Council, not the fact of it that I contested. Well, that's true. So I guess that's his statement, that the nature of the

55:45

Council's condemnation was not for heresy. But we already read in their own words that it was, over and over and over again.

55:56

He says, quote, White's 14 points are non -pertinent, while others are merely repetitious of charges that were addressed.

56:05

Well, I'll let you judge that. I'll let you judge whether those 14 points that I read are in fact extremely relevant to the issue of the nature of the condemnation that was presented by the

56:25

Council against Honorius. I'll let you determine whether they are pertinent or not, and I'll also let you determine what, excuse me, why

56:34

Mr. O 'Reilly did not address them, and why he did not address them in a historical order.

56:42

In other words, he starts with Pope Agatho's letter. And Mr.

56:49

Staples did this as well. He starts with Pope Agatho's letter, and says, look, Agatho says that all the

56:59

Roman bishops have been infallible. He actually doesn't say that, but that they have remained in the faith.

57:07

Now, because of that, then the Council could not have done X, Y, and Z, and after he's established all that stuff, then, and only then, does he actually give you the words of Honorius' letter, which was written about 40 years earlier.

57:23

Now, why do it that way? Unless you're attempting to anachronistically perform surgery on history to make it say something you need it to say, because your ultimate authority demands that that be the conclusion you come to.

57:41

Remember, folks, a person who is faithful to the fundamental assertions of the dogmatic authority of the

57:54

Roman Catholic Church cannot allow these facts to lead to their only obvious conclusion.

58:05

Can't do it. That's why Roman Catholic historians who had written one thing about Honorius before Vatican I had to go back and revise their historical writings after Vatican I.

58:23

Why? Because history had changed? No. Their ultimate authority had changed.

58:30

And so what had to actually be changed? The recounting of history itself.

58:38

There's the danger, folks. There's the danger. When you adopt as your ultimate authority a man -made system that will force you to revise history.

58:52

We've been seeing it all week out in Mesa. We've been seeing it all week out in Mesa.

58:57

We can show people stuff from the book of Abraham. We can show people stuff from the book of Mormon.

59:04

We can show people stuff from the teachings of the early founders of Mormonism. You do with the facts what you have to do to keep

59:13

Mormonism true. Well, here's a glowing example of doing with the facts of history what you have to do to keep the

59:22

Roman system true. Well, I'm not quite there yet, but we're working on it, and we're going to continue our response to Mr.

59:31

O 'Reilly's article, White is Wrong, right after this break. Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing

59:54

Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

01:00:04

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

01:00:14

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived, bodily assumed queen of heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

01:00:29

Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman the

01:00:34

Bible calls blessed among women and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.

01:00:40

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at aomen .org.

01:00:46

The Conference on Rome, over 13 hours examining major doctrines and issues that separate Roman Catholicism from Biblical Christianity, featuring the leading

01:00:54

Protestant apologists on Rome and America today. Listen to Dr. Eric Fentzen's presentation, Rome has spoken, the matter is debatable.

01:01:02

When the Roman Catholic apologists insist that the principle of sola scriptura has resulted in over 25 ,000 denominations, we should in turn insist that the principle of scripture plus an infallible interpreter has resulted in an even greater number of religious cults.

01:01:17

Pastor Rob Zins addresses the evangelical romance with Rome. There was not a Roman Catholic Church in the first five centuries.

01:01:24

There was, to be sure, a Catholic Church, but this is the universal designation of the body of Christ.

01:01:30

It is not Romanism. Pastor David King, the impact of Romans 117 on Martin Luther.

01:01:36

How is one himself to have that righteousness which God requires, yea, demands, and which is utterly indispensable to salvation?

01:01:48

It is by faith, and by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we lay hold of the

01:01:55

Lord Jesus by faith alone. And Dr. James White examines the veneration of saints and images.

01:02:03

Do you think if such a person were brought before Moses, having just been caught bowing down before a statue and lighting candles and rocking back and forth in prayer, do you think

01:02:14

Moses would have accepted the excuse, I wasn't giving Latria, Moses, I was only giving

01:02:19

Dulia? Other topics addressed in this tape series, Is There Something About Mary? Scripture's Sufficiency, The Roman vs.

01:02:24

Protestant View, Canonizing the Apocrypha, An Assault on Scripture, Rome's Sacraments, An Assault on Christ's Gospel, and Purgatory, An Assault on Christ's Perfect Atonement.

01:02:34

Look for this tape series and many others at AOMIN .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot

01:02:39

O -R -G, The Conference on Rome. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

01:02:57

I can hum, I just can't talk, that's my problem. We are responding to Stephen O 'Reilly's article,

01:03:07

White is Wrong. So far we haven't proven me wrong on anything. We're still looking, though.

01:03:13

We're trying. I was just making the point that I have to be wrong to the person who follows the ultimate authority of Rome.

01:03:22

Whether I am factually wrong or not isn't the issue. I have to be wrong. If I'm right, then their entire system collapses.

01:03:30

That's what happens when you believe in sola ecclesia. Now, we then have the assertion made by Mr.

01:03:38

O 'Reilly, and I need to sort of find this specific citation here.

01:03:48

Here we have acclamations. Here, this is page 29. Acclamations were shouted against the condemned, including

01:03:57

Honorius the Heretic. In response to White, it would do well first to recall the words of the

01:04:04

Council's official condemnation. The quote, quote, The names of these men whose doctrines we execrate are

01:04:11

Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter and Theodore, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed

01:04:16

Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, rejected because they were minded, contrary to our Orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema.

01:04:26

And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized

01:04:31

Honorius, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

01:04:40

Now, listen to what, listen to the, this is the only way I can describe this, and I think

01:04:46

I'm being perfectly honest here, is myth -making, because there's no citations in this next paragraph, but here's what it says.

01:04:57

Clearly, clearly the Council specifies two different categories of offenders that merit the same punishment.

01:05:06

To the first group belong those whom the Council judged to be minded contrary to our Orthodox faith, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter and Theodore.

01:05:15

Whatever his fault, Honorius was not judged by the Council to be minded contrary to the

01:05:22

Orthodox faith, and thus cannot be considered a heretic in either the material or formal sense.

01:05:32

Instead, Honorius was faulted for having followed, and then he inserts, i .e.

01:05:39

lent support to, the view of Sergius and confirmed his impious doctrines.

01:05:45

And notice, even the Council's words, that Honorius followed

01:05:52

Sergius, has to be changed to followed, i .e. lent support to, parentheses closed, the view of Sergius and confirmed his impious doctrines.

01:06:05

Even the words of the Council have to be changed. That is, by agreeing with Sergius that a rule of silence be imposed,

01:06:15

Honorius left Cyrus' false reconciliation to monophysites in place, and thereby gave practical, not theological confirmation to the heresy.

01:06:26

Can you believe that? No citation given from the

01:06:32

Council where, oh, well, the rule of silence is what we really are asserting here.

01:06:38

If I dared play with the facts of church history, the way that Mr.

01:06:47

O 'Reilly is here, every publication out there would be on me like a duck on a junebug.

01:06:56

But as long as it's in defense of Mother Church, all is well.

01:07:05

My goodness. I am so thankful that I don't have to do with church history what

01:07:11

Roman Catholic apologists have to do. It's amazing. I really feel sorry for people who have to engage in this type of mental gymnastics to avoid that kind of thing.

01:07:23

Unbelievable. We continue, whatever his fault. Oh, I just read that part.

01:07:28

I'm sorry. Next one. Honorius, out of ignorance of the issues central to the controversy, the infallible vicar of Christ, ignorant of issues central to the controversy, well, anyways, had too quickly accepted

01:07:43

Sergius' view, and notice here, now that he's stuck this in here, now he's going to use it, regarding the necessity for a rule of silence.

01:07:51

Where did the Council say that? Where did the Council say that all of a sudden now is this necessity for a rule of silence, and not

01:08:00

Sergius' view of monothelitism? Do you anathematize someone and call them a heretic for agreeing to a rule of silence on an issue?

01:08:16

I don't think so. I continue on. This ignorance can only be due to a grave failure on the part of Honorius to inquire into the underlying nature of the dispute over a new expression and the reconciliation of the monophysites that was too easily accomplished by the employment of it.

01:08:34

By agreeing to a rule of silence instead of issuing a rule or definition of faith,

01:08:40

Honorius left the monothelite patriarchs of the East in opening to further insinuate the heresy among the faithful.

01:08:47

Notice something. Stop it right there. Stop the tape, stop the tape, as a famous person says. Notice what

01:08:54

O 'Reilly does here. He separates Honorius from the monothelite patriarchs of the

01:09:01

East. But remember, remember, when I read their own words, they didn't make the differentiation.

01:09:12

They used the plural and lumped them all together, including Honorius. So who's playing with history here, and who's deriving their definitions from what's actually said?

01:09:27

Honorius's culpable neglect of his duties gave the heresy space to grow and spread.

01:09:33

He thereby shared blame for the spread of the heresy, albeit in a different manner than those minded contrary to the faith.

01:09:42

So, in a paragraph where there's no citations from the council, definitions are created that are directly contrary to what you would derive if you just read the council directly.

01:09:55

And now those definitions are used to be the very bulwark of your defense.

01:10:04

Isn't that fascinating? We go on. That is,

01:10:09

Honorius had failed to teach and thereby permitted, not caused, not joined in causing profane teachings of Sergius, etc.,

01:10:20

to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

01:10:30

And so now we go back, now we go to Leo's letter. We've left the council.

01:10:36

We've managed to duck the council's words. Haven't repeated most of them.

01:10:43

Haven't let them speak and throw Honorius in as a heretic right along with all the rest.

01:10:50

And now we go to Leo. Oh, see, Leo fixed the whole thing. And Leo, you know, he just permitted.

01:10:59

He didn't cause it, but he permitted it. Despite the fact that the council said that he followed their views, not just gave space to their views, but despite all that, we've already taken care of that, so let's move on from there.

01:11:15

He goes on to stick with Leo II, who as bishop of Rome, by the way, obviously, anyone who examines history fairly would recognize the desire on the part of a bishop of Rome to be, how shall we say, somewhat less strident in his condemnations of his predecessors than someone else would be.

01:11:40

I mean, think of our own presidents. Generally, once a person becomes president, it's pretty hard to get them to just rip the face off their predecessor.

01:11:50

Even if they'd like to do so, they generally try to avoid doing that. So, that's hardly an overly surprising thing, but what

01:12:01

Catholic apologists do is they then take the ahistorical idea that Leo overrides the council.

01:12:11

That Leo can correct a council. That a council is not authoritative outside of Leo's agreement with it, which comes from, as I said, way down the road.

01:12:23

It wasn't even a belief at the time. It's anachronistic. And they use that to get around this issue. That's how they do it.

01:12:31

I continue on. Here's his explanation of the papal legates.

01:12:39

Listen to what happened to history when forced to serve the

01:12:45

Magisterium of Rome. Quote, White notes approvingly that the papal legates,

01:12:52

Pope Agatho's representatives of the council, remain silent throughout these words and actions directed against Honorius, which he claims indicated that they subscribed to them.

01:13:02

But their silence redounds to the defense of Honorius's orthodoxy.

01:13:09

These papal legates carried Agatho's letters, fully accepted by the council. These letters asserted the inerrant

01:13:16

Magisterium of the Apostolic See of Rome. They asserted that all of Agatho's predecessors, a group that includes

01:13:23

Honorius, had been orthodox and that Agatho, and thus any pope, is liable to judgment for negligence in his office as teacher.

01:13:32

The legates' silence indicates that they considered the council's decrees fully consistent with these three points.

01:13:41

Unbelievable. Unbelievable that the papal legates, listening to Honorius being condemned as a heretic in the very same words as Sergius and Cyrus and Theodore, their silence actually proves that Honorius was not a heretic, like Sergius and Cyrus and Theodore.

01:14:11

Oh, nothing like just, you know, going backwards. Here, I hear bells. Not sure what that was, but just, just absolutely incredible.

01:14:21

Let's think about it. What they're saying, what O 'Reilly is saying, is that, well, you see,

01:14:28

Agatho's letter, Agatho's arrogant letter, which is exactly what it is.

01:14:34

Read it. It's incredible. I mean, this is the first guy, this is the first documentary evidence we have of one of the bishops of Rome bringing certain scriptural passages in to attempt to substantiate his own authority.

01:14:47

Bing! Not sure what's doing that. That particular letter, they have that in their minds, see.

01:14:55

And their idea is, the idea being presented is, well, you see, that letter says that all the popes have been

01:15:04

Orthodox. Now, some of you may have listened to the debate that I did with Tim Staples.

01:15:12

It would be nice if you could watch the debate that I did with Tim Staples, but St. Joseph's, despite their promise to do so, will not give us the videos of that debate.

01:15:21

And it would be very interesting to watch, as I cross -examined

01:15:27

Tim Staples, because he brought up the same point. He said, well, look, Agatho said right here that Honorius was

01:15:39

Orthodox. Oh, really? Does the name Honorius appear in Agatho's letter, Mr.

01:15:44

Staples? Well, he did say his predecessors.

01:15:50

Does the name Honorius, sir, appear in Agatho's letter, yes or no, sir?

01:15:58

Well, no. No, it doesn't. But it does mention his predecessors, and he was a predecessor. So, that's an assumption on your part, that when he says that the

01:16:12

See of Rome, as a whole, has been Orthodox in its beliefs on this subject, that you mean that that means he's presenting an interpretation of Honorius' position that the legates would have understood, and therefore they would have interpreted the council's actions, despite the fact that their words are very clear as to what they were saying, in such a way that by their being silent in the burning of the letters and the accusation

01:16:38

Honorius was a heretic, that actually proves that they believe that he wasn't a heretic, but that the council was just condemning him for not teaching.

01:16:45

I think that's the reasoning. It's sort of a little bit hard to follow.

01:16:52

Doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's what's being asserted. Then, I need to go back to the original here.

01:16:59

Here we go. Then, Mr. O 'Reilly completely missed a point that I made. Excuse me again.

01:17:08

I made a point in my presentation where I was attempting to show why the issue of papal infallibility is so important.

01:17:21

And here's the quotation from the page 30 of This Rock.

01:17:28

Quote, And finally, I remind us all, Honorius died 40 years prior to the

01:17:36

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

01:17:44

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

01:17:58

For 40 years, those letters existed, and if you had looked at the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby.

01:18:06

End quote. Now, that's, I think, a point that is so easily understood.

01:18:14

It was a point I made throughout the debate with Tim Staples. Tim, how do you know?

01:18:20

How do you know that Dominus Iesus, which had just been released by Rome, how do you know that 40 years from now, that's not going to be considered heretical?

01:18:33

You see, once you set up this non -biblical authority that is binding upon the consciences of men, history tells us that following the bishop of Rome may well lead you into heresy.

01:18:50

How do you know, Tim? How do you know, Mr. O 'Reilly?

01:18:55

You don't, because you see, you've turned those into your ultimate authority, and when that ultimate authority all of a sudden makes a mistake, or gets redefined down the road, well, you're all the worse for the wear, aren't you?

01:19:13

What is Mr. O 'Reilly's response to that? Quote, This is nonsense.

01:19:22

Aside from the fact White has offered no evidence based upon the substance of Honorius' letters that this

01:19:28

Pope taught heresy, the Pope's letters were known to a select few

01:19:34

Eastern bishops, not the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition.

01:19:43

Far from being the case that no Pope uttered a word regarding Honorius' letters, John IV, 640 -642, defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when

01:19:51

Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position. He missed the point all the way around.

01:19:59

The point was, if you had gone to the teachings of Honorius, if you lived in Constantinople, and you believed what

01:20:10

Mr. O 'Reilly believes, or what Mr. Staples believes, and you said, you know what,

01:20:16

I want to know what the Bishop of Rome teaches on this subject, and you went to those letters, who cares who they were known by?

01:20:26

The Council said that this heresy had gone out amongst the whole people. I wasn't talking about how widely known it was.

01:20:34

If you had gone to the teachings of Honorius, if you had said, I want to know what the

01:20:40

Bishop of Rome teaches on this subject, and had gone to his letters, and followed his letters, you would have been led into formal heresy.

01:20:54

And Mr. O 'Reilly knows, I think deep in his heart someplace, that there's plenty of evidence given by the

01:21:01

Council, and given in the article that he's attempting to respond to, that in point of fact, the substance of Honorius' letters did teach heresy, because it said, one will, hen thelema.

01:21:17

Then, he totally misses the point when he says, far from being the case that no Pope uttered a word regarding Honorius' letters,

01:21:24

John IV defends the orthodoxy of Honorius, when Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, peeled these letters in defense of his monotheistic position.

01:21:30

So, are you saying that the Pope, that Pope John IV, condemned that language in Honorius' letters, as the

01:21:40

Council did? That was my point. None of the Popes that followed

01:21:45

Honorius did what the Council did in correcting the letters and burning them.

01:21:51

That was my point. That was the very clear point that was being made.

01:21:58

And he goes on to say, regardless, the faithful would not have to wait 40 years for a Council to either correct letters unknown to them, or make clear the

01:22:06

Bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the 40 years between Honorius and Constantinople makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy.

01:22:19

My point again is, if you lived while Honorius was Pope, and you asked for what he taught, you would have been led into heresy.

01:22:31

And then, and this is the amazing thing, and those of you listening who have dealt with Rome's attacks upon the sufficiency of Scripture in Sola Scriptura can't help but chuckle at this, think about the issue that's just been raised here by O 'Reilly.

01:22:49

Well, you could have gone to John IV, you could have gone to a letter by him, well now you've got

01:22:56

Honorius' letter in one hand, and you've got John IV's letter in the other hand, and what are you left to, to attempt to understand, to attempt to determine the conflict between these two?

01:23:10

Personal interpretation. What a circle the

01:23:18

Roman Catholic apologist is trapped in once this unbiblical, ahistorical dogma is promulgated and then read back into history.

01:23:28

What a mess it creates. What a total mess it creates.

01:23:36

Then after this, and I'm just about out of time, but after this, he goes, attempts to go after the false decretals.

01:23:47

I had indicated he had said, the serious investigator says,

01:23:57

Of course, so far, we haven't found any. We've found

01:24:02

Mr. O 'Reilly making up things for the council without citing from them that are just his interpretations that ignore, that are not derived from the words of the council, but derived from a dogma defined in the 19th century.

01:24:17

We haven't found any errors yet, but, you know, we just simply throw them out there and hope that our followers will believe that.

01:24:25

The target of this effort is, of course, the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, which White says, quote, Surely no one in that day, i .e.,

01:24:31

the 7th century, believed, end quote. Instead, White says such papal claims were, quote, first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the 9th century, end quote.

01:24:39

That's not what I said. If you would read a little more closely, I was talking there about those false decretals, and specifically the idea that a pope has to confirm the acts of a council by his authority to ratify those acts of the council, and hence that becomes the basis upon which many

01:25:05

Roman Catholic apologists today refer to Leo's letter as a correction of an ecumenical council.

01:25:13

It is a fact of history that those fraudulent documents were absolutely foundational to the development of papal authority.

01:25:27

And the amazing thing is that Roman Catholics today, Roman Catholic historians recognize the fact that those pseudo -Isidorian decretals that were so vital in the creation of the canon law regarding papal authority were forgeries.

01:25:46

That the donation of Constantine was a forgery. And yet, even though we have now removed them from the area of serious history in the sense of these are not what they claim to be, the edifice that never could have been built without them not only continues to stand, but its defenders because of their dedication to it and their acceptance of its ultimate authority continue to defend it.

01:26:20

It's an amazing thing to see that even though we recognize the vital role that these forged documents played in the development during the

01:26:35

Middle Ages of the authority of the Bishop of Rome that leads to today's papacy somehow when you take the foundation away the thing still stands.

01:26:46

And you know what's even more amazing than that? There are Roman Catholics who will say, and you know what? The fact that that's the case proves this is

01:26:55

Christ's church because no other reason can be given. Why, despite the fact that the foundation of those documents has been removed, it continues to stand other than it's the work of God.

01:27:09

Well, wow. Wow, wow, wow.

01:27:16

How does he respond, by the way, to these false decretals? Really quickly, however, even the harshest scholarly critics of papal infallibility, such as Dollinger, admit that the false decretals were not written at Rome's behest.

01:27:27

Who cares? Talk about a canard, a red herring. And that their purpose was not the introduction or advancement of papal claims.

01:27:35

Big deal. Talk about irrelevant. They still were used that way by Rome.

01:27:42

Yes, it was actually, their initial introduction was a local thing. Everybody knows that.

01:27:50

But the fact that it then became something that Rome used is the issue.

01:27:55

Notice the total redefinition of the issue, and it's a disingenuous way of getting around it.

01:28:05

While everyone, including popes, accept these decretals at face value until advancements in historical analysis, and also something called the

01:28:11

Protestant Reformation, nothing about the Roman primacy contained in them that is not contained in other earlier church documents recognized as bona fide.

01:28:19

That is not true. And Roman historians recognize that.

01:28:25

Well, I think we can see what Rome has to engage in.

01:28:31

And you know what? The more Rome tries to fight, the more

01:28:37

Rome tries to defend, the clearer becomes the situation.

01:28:42

Every time a new defense is thrown out there and it's knocked down, the clearer becomes the entire situation.

01:28:51

And so I appreciate Mr. O 'Reilly's attempt, but the title is White is

01:28:56

Wrong, and we didn't find a single issue that substantiates the title. Does it frustrate me that there's going to be thousands of more people who are going to read that than are ever even going to bother to come look at the website and find out, maybe listen to this program?

01:29:10

I guess. But you know what? God's still in charge, and His truth is still His truth. Thank you for putting up with my horrible voice.

01:29:17

As you notice, it got a little better toward the end. It's still scratchy. But thank you for putting up with my voice. We'll be back again next week here on The Dividing Line.

01:29:24

I hope you'll be there. We'll see you then. Bye. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

01:29:50

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at PO Box 37106

01:29:58

Phoenix, Arizona 85069. You can also find us on the worldwide web at aomin .org

01:30:04

That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.