Interview with Author Bill Webster on New Book About Sola Scriptura

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 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 and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And welcome to the dividing line. My name is James white We got a little late start today

But we're glad that you're with us and we invite your patient toll -free this evening at eight six six five five zero

Thirty nine fifteen eight six six five five zero thirty nine fifteen. You may be asking well

Why another Thursday evening webcast? Rather than the regular

Saturday afternoon at two o 'clock, which you haven't done for a long long long long time now And the reason is

I'm not going to be here This Saturday afternoon at two o 'clock and so we need to move the program up and we also wanted to have a special guest

With us on the program this evening And of course, we are doing things that we've never done before And so I don't want our special guest to feel like a complete guinea pig

But you know that we we actually did this about I don't know right after we started the dividing line broadcast about two and a half well actually almost three years ago now and Our special guest this evening is

Bill Webster he's live with us from way up in what I can only call the the liberal

Northwest and As I as I recall y 'all state went went for the guy who didn't win is that in that correct bill

You all don't use Chad's do you You probably use those optical scanners like we do down here they

Something tells me that we're going to see a huge tax increase to pay for optical scanners for every single voting place in the entire

World I would imagine but anyways, that's not why Bill Webster is my guest Bill Webster is my guest because he is the author of many books there is the banner of truth publication called the

Church of Rome at the bar of history and Bill knows as well as I how difficult it is to get almost any

Publisher to touch that particular topic of the 10 -foot pole banner of truth be more likely than most but still

Getting anything published with a national publisher on that level is very good the

Matthew 16 Controversy, and I wonder where did where did you get the idea for a book that ends with the word?

Controversy in the title I I've never heard of a book I Think mine came out in 95 the

King James only controversy so I don't know but that that is a book on Matthew chapter 16 and The patristic interpretation of that great passage so on and so forth many other books that are listed at his website

Christian truth calm Christian truth calm So bill it's a

I'm very thankful that you're joining with with us this evening We've got a little bit of a trouble with the line, but it's clear enough that we can understand what you're saying

I understand that so you're having a little bit of a Cold and a cough like I am so the two of us will just muddle through in the weakness of the flesh

How does that sound? Yeah, it's it's nice to have that kind of stuff going on now

The the main reason I wanted to get in touch with you and and to talk with you we we met personally anyways,

I believe it was Was it 95 or 96 over there in LA?

I don't know if you're getting as old as I am But those things start start slipping away after a while. It's exactly what year it was, but it was at the cure debate there in LA and At that time we were both working in various areas in regards to Roman Catholicism and We we talked during one of the breaks or something that was going on that evening.

I forget when it was about the need to Produce a very solid and important information on the subject of sola scriptura and You have you are now getting close to completion

Of a work. How long now have you been working on on your upcoming project?

This book we've been working on approximately five years Five years so around the same period of time that we first started talking about that is a tremendous amount of time now you are

Actually co -writing this work with someone else that's right friend of mine named

David King It was a PCA pastor in Almany, Georgia, right?

He is writing the section that deals with the biblical defense Of the principle of sola scriptura and I'm dealing with the historical aspect of the defense of sola scriptura

I know that that David has been doing a tremendous amount of research.

And so if That is just a slight Indication of how much work is going into this then the the combined effort of the two of you

Is must going to be produced a very large volume

What what kind of a book are we looking at here? In terms of size, yeah

Well, I'm trying to cut it down we've finished the first rough draft and Now it goes through the arduous task of an editing and that's that's a very arduous task, but we're trying to get it down to 750 pages

So it's over 750 pages in its current form and you're gonna try Try to cut stuff out.

That's not an easy thing to do No, now some people would say well, hey just go the the bigger the book the better because hey

Aren't there Roman Catholic apologetics works out there that are just massive and and huge You know, it's not the size we're not shooting just for size

I mean people can be impressed by size I suppose but what we're looking for is content and the enormity of the subject

Requires a lot of research. We have gone through an incredible amount of documentation and The documentation is what is so it's taking up so much of our space if you will right and So we're trying to sort of balance out what we say in the body of the book and then retain the documentation

Because the documentation is so important. Well, if I can make even a slight suggestion Documentation is vitally important and and I'd rather have it

You know, I've actually read Entire sermons of Jonathan Edwards in that banner of truth edition and you know what

I'm talking about That is I think Maybe six point font or something along those lines, so I'm not suggesting you do the whole book in six point font

But maybe you could put some of the the quotations of the patristic sources in in something small enough to get it all in there

I don't know how to do it, but it's it's a tough job Now the reason for writing this book now,

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but I just today Reach over here and get it.

I just today received from Soledale Gloria publishers the brand new edition of William Whitaker's disputations on Holy Scripture Did you know they had put that back in print?

Well, I know that they were thinking about putting it back in print I didn't realize that they had actually committed to doing it.

It's not only committed. It is in my hands and it looks wonderful That has been put back in in print now.

I Understand that Canon Press up at New St. Andrews Douglas Wilson and the fellows up there are putting out a much shorter work than what you're doing

But also in defense of solo scripture. Have you had any interaction with them? Keith Matheson briefly actually didn't speak with him.

We communicated through email right about the fact that he was considering doing a book along that line because he heard that we were also doing a book on solo scripture and I encouraged him to go ahead and Come, you know do the work and get it out because I'm of the opinion the more the better, right?

Well, I agree a thousand percent as far as that goes. I really think there's a tremendous need

To get this material out there and there's there's It has been a burden of mine obviously the fact that I have engaged in I think

Six debates now on the subject of solo scriptura. And by the way, the title of your book is

Scripture the ground and pillar of our faith Excellent scripture the ground and pillar of our faith, which

I know comes from I believe Irenaeus right and I remember

I remember once having a conversation with somebody in the chat room A Roman Catholic who came into the chat room

And I took that particular Phrase didn't tell him where it came from and just posted his words

Irenaeus's words and let and you know, basically I was just sort of reeling out the rope and The guy went on for three or four lines about off You know

No one ever believed that before Luther and that of that of that and then I posted the reference afterwards and it

Became a very short conversation at that point. But anyways, that's neither here nor there excellent topic obviously a vital subject

I I know how vital it is to me you Obviously have invested a huge amount of yourself in this work

I guess the important question is for you. Why why do this? The purpose in writing this book is to set forth the truth of the authority and the primacy and the sufficiency of God's Word in relationship to Organizations such as the

Roman Catholic Church Which denigrate the authority and the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture and ultimately the reason is because of the eternal consequences that Are involved with men and women because it is the scriptures

Which alone declare to us the means of salvation Right now let me just sort of play devil's advocate just for a second

Does it really matter whether scripture is sufficient or if you have other

You know sources that come alongside As long as it as it leads someone to to feeling good about Jesus does it really matter

It matters a great deal because the scriptures say that the gospel is the power of God to salvation in present -day

Roman Catholic theology and teaching What the Roman Catholic Church calls men to is an implicit and a blind faith and I use the word blind intentionally

Because the faith of Roman Catholicism is not rooted in Scripture. Ultimately. It's not rooted in history

It is rooted in the church And what you are called to is to do is to put your faith in the church which ultimately becomes your salvation and the danger of that type of faith is

Very much similar to what the Lord Jesus Christ dealt with when he spoke about the

Pharisees and the Jews he called the Pharisees of that day blind guides of the blind and What the scriptures call us to Is to an understanding of its essential truth and a response to those truths to the sufficiency of the person of the

Lord Jesus Christ the Roman Catholic Church has denigrated the sufficiency of that work and has denigrated the sufficiency of God's Word and has

Pointed people to itself as the one that is sufficient And in so doing it is promulgated teachings which are contrary to what the

Word of God teaches with respect to the gospel so if men blindly accept the authority of the church without bringing that church's teachings to the bar of the judgment of Scripture and Looking at those teachings in light of what

Scripture teaches Then they will blindly embrace teachings which will lead them to destruction

Well, obviously then the idea is this is vital to the presentation in fact defense of the gospel itself and That certainly is what has motivated my work in that field in the past as well the

Let me put let me ask you this question I thought about this a number of hours ago and I wanted to make sure to to ask ask the question the necessity of a work like this in light of the

Roman Catholic Apologetics works that are being produced today is the need for it

Due to the strength of the Roman arguments or the ignorance of the

Protestant people as a whole It would be primarily due to the ignorance of people as a whole because the

Roman Catholic arguments Really if they are analyzed have no strength They feel in generality

But when you began to really analyze the claims of Roman Catholicism in light of the truth of Scripture and in light of the facts of history

They fall to the ground but they are able to buttress those claims because People for the most part of very ignorant of Scripture and Secondly of what the church historically is taught about Scripture So the

Protestant this Protestant Church is not really and of course who knows what the world that means anymore, but Even conservative evangelicals are not focused upon The issues that are really being focused upon by Catholic apologists and hence certainly something that I have seen and it's it's very very sad is

To encounter individuals who have already made the move. They've already made up their minds they've already bought into the necessity of the authority of Rome and yet they contact me and Sort of as they're, you know getting out of the

Tiber River on the Roman side they sort of look back and say oh, by the way, and One of the things that they over and over again say is well, you know

I just couldn't defend sola scriptura I had never heard anyone talk about the meaning of tradition in the

New Testament I had never heard any priest when I went to my pastor He had no idea what

I was talking about I went to a seminary professor and the seminary professor didn't know what I was talking about And so it's obvious that there just really isn't any

Basis for this this belief and obviously even if it was true and nobody knows about it

Even even if every no put this another way if nobody knows about then it obviously can't be true If it's so unimportant that there's no sermons on it, there's no discussion of it

They don't talk about it in seminary that obviously can't be can't be true The Roman Catholics must be right

That's what I have heard over and over again. It's it's a very disturbing thing to encounter especially when you know

That the Roman Catholic arguments are internally self -contradictory

You hearing what I'm saying, is that your experience as well? It's been mine to primarily pretty much the same

The arguments that they buy into they'll talk in general terms about what Rome teaches But they can't really defend it.

They can only defend it in generalities and It's it's basically

Rome is able to Promote its claims and its teachings based upon the ignorance of those who buy into those claims

Well, let's talk about some of those claims you have now been working on this project for for five years and You obviously

I I know that especially right after I did a three -hour radio broadcast with Hank Hanegraaff on the

King James only controversy back in 95 right after my book came out and I would almost hesitate to do the same kind of thing today because it's been so many years since I wrote the book

When you've just been working on something your mind is really into it You can you can think and speak with the greatest clarity on that particular subject as time passes

Unfortunately things start getting a little little dimmer for some of us. I know that that's not the case for you, but certainly

I'm just confessing here, but here's here's some of the standard things that are that are said and We can both the comments on on the things that are said because as I as I mentioned

This is a a live call -in program. If you are able to be listening to the link right now

And would like to participate in the program toll free eight six six five five zero three nine fifteen now,

I'm gonna tell you right up front we've never had a guest and Someone who's listening in the chat room just Tried to send me some ginkgo biloba to help me with my memory problems.

Thanks a lot there Katie One of our local listeners. Anyways, I just do these things on the fly

Bill you sort of get used to it And we're a lot less formal on a webcast than we are when when we're paying 150 bucks an hour to be on the air and don't have all that much time

Anyways toll free eight six six five five zero three nine fifteen. I I'm gonna predict right now.

I'm gonna predict right now That We may have some difficulties.

We you know First time we're gonna have to check levels. It's the first time doing it.

So we're gonna you know, take a shot at it According to what I'm seeing here. We actually do have our first caller ready to come online now

Bill if all of a sudden you hear Hang up and let us call you back

Alright because Whenever whenever this happens, I get very nervous.

So let's go ahead Richard. Have you? You ready over there? All right Let's see if we can talk with Johnny in California Johnny, are you there?

Hi, how you doing? Now? The big thing is I can hear Johnny, but Johnny doesn't seem to be able to hear me.

Uh -oh I Can hear rich running around out in there? Can you can you happen to hear

Johnny at all bill? I think he hung up. I Think he gave up on us.

Well, isn't that sad? I could hear him and you could hear him, but he couldn't hear us I could tell that so maybe that'll give you a clue there rich as to what we're what we're up against in regards to trying

To figure out how to get the feed to him. So hopefully Johnny will give us a call back and we will try again, but The arguments that are being used out there,

I'm sure you have muddled through Surprised by truth as I have right?

Yes. And did are you aware? There's a surprise by truth, too Yes But I have not sat down and read through it yet now

I well I haven't sat down read through it either I I just finished a rather large book project myself and didn't have time to Actually mine wasn't sent by Pat Madrid mine was sent by the publisher

Well almost ever I think every single Protestant former

Protestant who gave a testimony in that particular book said look

The main reason I converted one of the main reasons was Sola Scriptura is

Unbiblical it is not taught in Scripture the Scripture never says it says that it is the sole infallible rule of faith

Where do you personally start in? Responding to someone who says

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical simply because the Bible itself doesn't teach it

Well the Bible it does in fact teach it it does not use the specific word

That it alone is sufficient for example, but the scriptures also don't use the term Trinity but when you take the full

Breath of Scripture and it's teaching about itself It's very obvious that Scripture alone is the only revelation that we have

Special revelation that we have from God today There is no other revelation

Scripture alone is God breathed There is no tradition that is

God breathed According to Scripture well now let me let me again play the devil's advocate here and and throw out their favorite passage second

Thessalonians 2 15 says so then brethren stand firm and hold to the

Traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter from us, right?

So doesn't that make those? Traditions they are new stoss God breathed right along with the the letters that he had

He had written to the Thessalonians. Okay two points on this Number one Paul says that he is teaching them orally.

We don't deny the fact that the Apostles originally taught orally They preached and they gave forth revelation in their preaching right then they also wrote and their writing became revelation the issue is

Are there differences between what Paul preached orally and what is recorded in Scripture?

Well, obviously there could be a great deal of information that he gave orally that is no longer recorded in Scripture But the fact we don't have anything else that he taught

Other than what is in Scripture you ask any Roman Catholic to please give you the list of?

Traditions that Paul is referring to that are not in Scripture that they say are all in nature and they cannot do it

Because they're they don't exist right that that's what I mean by dealing in generalities

There's a claim made but there's no validation of the claim. You can't demonstrate its veracity well, normally the the claim is made under the guise of being a

Necessary thing this this has to be there because if it's not there Then we know that Scripture just results in in in all these different denominations

So there must be this infallible source. There must be an infallible interpreter. So You know, you've either got to take this or you have nothing at all and That that for me has been what people keep saying over and over again

And I just might want to mention I'm not sure if I mentioned it to you when I when we talked about being on the program, but I asked

Mitchell Pacwa That that very question I asked him

I said Can you tell me a single word that Jesus or an

Apostle spoke that has been infallibly defined by the

Roman Catholic Church and He sort of cocked his head and sort of looked around a little bit and he said nope

I can't give you a thing the church has not defined anything like that at all and I said so you would agree that the only place where we can find the actual words of Jesus and the

Apostles is In the scriptures themselves and he said yes, I would agree with that now later

What he said was now we don't have the actual words of Jesus and the

Apostles in tradition, but we have the meaning of Jesus and the

Apostles in tradition is what he said It was interesting. I don't know if I'm sure you noticed that in the book edited by St.

Genes not by Scripture alone That there was a little appendix by Mitchell Pacwa and I don't know if he didn't intend to do this or just what but he actually presented 2

Thessalonians 2 15 as evidence of a Tradition being passed down from Jesus and the

Apostles and yet in his appendix he had specifically cited 2 Thessalonians 2 15 in reference to tradition being used of the gospel and So when

I got up, I cited that and he never said 2 Thessalonians 2 15 for the rest of the debate He's one of the few men who's a

Roman Catholic apologist who does that right? most Roman Catholic apologists use 2

Thessalonians 2 15 and John 20 to Bolster this claim for number one the need well number one that we possess this this apostolic tradition

That's all in nature handed down that's independent of Scripture Therefore Scripture is not materially sufficient

There are truths that have been handed down from Christ to the Apostles and from them to the church Which are independent of Scripture and are necessary for salvation

But again, if you ask well, what are those truths they are never defined Then you have the issue that you brought up a minute ago.

Let me address that you said there's a need for an infallible interpreter Well, in point of fact there never has been an infallible interpreter of Scripture The Roman Catholic Church has never given an infallible interpretation of Scripture It has at most

Infallibly defined if you want to use that term from a Roman Catholic perspective Maybe 20 verses right out of the entirety of Scripture and it let me just quote from one

Commentary that I read recently The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the church is small

It has been estimated indeed that the total of such text is under 20 under 20

So if I want to know the infallible interpretation of a particular verse of Scripture, where do

I go to find it? There is nowhere to go to find it Other than those that may have perhaps those well -known verses and passages that may have been it defined thereby in an official catechism

But they are very very few in number. Yeah Well, and that's that of course is is

I think what what belies the the claim of alleged certainty of biblical interpretation

It's not actually Interpretation of Scripture they're offering it is a theological system that then becomes them the lens through which you view

Scripture Resulting in the twisting of Scripture the twisting of Romans 5 1 the twisting of Hebrews chapter 10

It becomes its own ultimate authority that then determines how one sees

Scripture I have said many times and I'd be interested in seeing if you agree with me I do not believe that the believing

Roman Catholic who understands the ultimate authority claims of the

Papacy can actually engage in the exegesis of the text of Scripture itself

Would you would you agree with that? I would agree 100 % because what is what is what they say constantly against Protestants is that you're using private judgment

Well, unless you have infallibly defined the meaning of a passage of Scripture by the

Magisterium when you go to interpret that text You're using private judgment, right? It's not infallible

I've never heard anyone the only answer I've ever gotten to that Because obviously what we have here is is what

I call an epistemological shell game You're you're saying well we need an infallible

Interpreter to tell us what Scripture says well as soon as the infallible Interpreter opens its mouth you have to interpret the infallible interpreter

So you're not accomplishing anything here You're only moving the question one step back and then trying to sort of cover over the track and the dust

That's made by your by your sliding it back The only response I get when

I challenge people and I'd say hey, wait a minute. You're making you have to fallibly interpret this alleged infallible interpreter is well, but my interpreter is living and so I am able to to access a

Living source of authority and and I'm able to get my answers because it's it's living

Have you gotten that same response? And how do you respond to it? Well, yeah the the new

Theory if you will Of Roman Catholic authority has moved from what was at one time called unanimous consent of the fathers

Which it was promulgated by the Council of Trent of Vatican one Which sought to root the teachings of the church in in the continuity of history that moved from We moved in from unanimous consent to John Henry Newman's theory of the development of doctrine

Which was a convenient way to get around the embarrassment historically of having to prove the unanimous consent of the fathers

Because it can't be done in the vast majority of cases with respect to the peculiar doctrines of the

Roman Catholic Church And now we've moved from that particular Perspective or philosophy towards tradition and authority to what is called now living tradition and Living tradition basically says that because the

Spirit of God dwells within the church the Spirit of God leads the church into all truth, but it does not have to be rooted in history and It does not have to Justify itself by scripture

Allah the teaching of the assumption of Mary for example That has been declared to be a revelation from God.

It's a dogma of the church. It has no roots in Scripture It has no roots in history But because the church today has infallibly defined it

Excavated ex cathedra through pious the twelve It has become a dogma and it is necessary for salvation

Therefore I must accept this teaching even though it is not in Scripture. It is in fact contradictory to Scripture And even though it has no

Historical roots in the patristic theology in fact It contradicts the theology of the early church because it was condemned as heretical by two popes in the late fifth and early sixth centuries

So this this comes back then to what you're saying Is that the implicit belief of Roman Catholicism is that the church and the

Bishop of Rome is infallible? Whatever they teach therefore must be true because I believe that the

Spirit of God dwells in the church and it cannot air And therefore I blindly accept whatever they teach

They would not say obviously I blindly accept because their presupposition is it's rooted in the rational belief that the church is infallible but it ends up being a blind belief because you're never to question right what is said and what you're taught

I experienced that when I asked a Roman Catholic apologist to explain to me the difference between What the

Council of Florence said about Jews and heretics and schismatics and what the Pope continuously says and said again just recently

In regards to even people outside the Christian faith being saved and I was told that well

Who am I to even interpret church history? Only the church can interpret church history infallibly and so as long as the church says that's not what we meant back then

It doesn't matter what those words meant in the context in which they were spoken You now have to take them in the context in which the modern church places them, which is an amazing thing

We have two callers online and a fella in our chat room Who goes by the nick?

Skyman happens to have shown up Who also happens to be your co -author on the book that we're talking about and he posted a

Quotation I'll read for you here from Pius the 12th from humani generis

August 12th 1950 Quote it is also true that theologians must always have recourse to the sources of divine revelation

For it is their duty to indicate how what is taught by the Living Magisterium is found either

Explicitly or implicitly in sacred script sacred scripture and in divine tradition and Quote and he writes that notice the backtrack post ex facto the dogma

Which is very true when you consider that the Living Magisterium is allegedly the embodiment of this tradition

You you really end up again seeing the the circularity of the Roman Catholic argument at this point, right?

Well, we have two callers we're gonna try it again, we're gonna keep trying so we get it here

We know it can be done, but we're gonna try with Johnny again Let's see if we can get

Johnny on the line. Johnny. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you Okay, and Bill, can you hear

Johnny? No, no, you cannot hear Johnny No, I guess

I guess he cannot hear but you can still hear me right Bill I can hear you too

Bill, James Okay, and I can hear Bill too. All right. Well if Bill if you don't hear the question,

I'll have to repeat it for you Okay, I have a rather loaded question. I don't know how many questions

I'm gonna be allowed to ask Now Bill, are you hearing any of this? I Cannot hear any of that can't hear any of it.

I'm well and you're fading out on me and I'm fading out on you Okay, I'm telling all this stuff to Rich so he can be trying to push some of the levels and things like that Johnny if you can try to be as succinct as possible

I know it's not easy to do with some of these questions. I'll try to repeat them to To Bill.

Okay, Bill if for some reason Johnny all of a sudden appears in your earphone, please let me know.

Okay All right. Okay. Well, I'd like to congratulate you. You did a great debate against Mitchell Pacquan I saw you there.

Thank you. Remember me? Yes, I do But anyway, my question has to deal with the

Obviously the book that I have mentioned to you from time to time by Juergens the faith of the early fathers Yeah, the faith of the early fathers by Juergens, right?

I'm both Bill and I know it well, okay Well in that book, you know how it has the listing of certain citations and things like that, right?

And they give you a context of the first part of my question is that five years ago You did a discussion on Roman Catholicism on the

Bible Answer Man with James Aiken uh -huh, and One of the things that you guys touched on was something that Hank brought up after a break where he pointed out that There was a council.

I think it was Vatican one or so Which said that something about the unanimous consent of the father's right and James, you know,

Hank asked James Aiken to Explain to him what that meant and then

James Aiken said well what it means is that Whenever the church fathers are unanimously agreed on a doctrine that means it's infallible

Okay. Okay. One of them and the one that I'm thinking about right now is baptismal regeneration

That's their favorite illustration of baptismal regeneration. He says that all of the church fathers

Unanimously believed that John chapter 3 and I believe it's Titus 3 Both refer to water baptism as being born again

And I'd like to know and of course that Juergens lists many of those as well Okay.

All right. The first the first question bill if none of that got through to you was In reference to the discussion that I have with James Aiken the

Bible Answer Man quite some time ago Which Bible Answer Man which I'm not Bible Answer Man that a lot of Catholics call a debate it was never a debate of any of any kind actually, but and the issue of the unanimous consent of the fathers came up and James Aiken defined that as the unanimous

Consent of all the fathers on any particular subject if all of them agreed then that dogma is infallible and the illustration that he used was baptismal regeneration and specifically

John 3 and Titus 3 Said that all the early church fathers interpreted these verses as referring to baptism regeneration

Before you comment on whether you believe that's the case or not. There's there's one thing I'd say to Johnny and that is

This this to me anyways Is is a is a rather revealing thing?

because outside of a belief in monotheism, I believe there's only one true

God I do not know of any belief In the early church that everyone agreed on For example, there are numbers of the early church fathers

Especially the most primitive church fathers who never addressed John 3 or Titus 3 or never even addressed baptism at all

It is assumed that they believe that way But I would argue that that would be inconsistent with for example math a taste

His that's a pseudonym that we use for him the epistle to Diognetus I think that would be inconsistent with some some statements with some other people

But the point he's making as well when when anybody actually did address this issue This is what they said if that is the standard

Then everything that Rome has defined in the basis of tradition the past thousand years has to be thrown out

Because many of those dogmas were completely unknown by the early church in any way shape or form

So if that if that becomes the standard It destroys I would say 95 % of all

Roman Catholic dogma as a result, but Bill Any comments that you might have in the reading you've been doing in regards this idea of unanimous consent and especially?

specifically regards the issue of baptism Well with respect to baptism I think I would probably have to agree that that is one of the very few teachings that he would find

That would be universally believed by the early church When when it's a dressing that I have done and have looked into with respect to that subject

It seems like that was a particular subject that was believed by just about everyone when they addressed it

There there are some that don't even address the issue that some of the very primitive writers it I'm sorry

There are some of the early fathers that do not even address that issue But those that did all held that view is what you're saying, right?

That's what I'm saying Yeah It's not an exhaustive thing that you can say because I don't we don't know everything that every church father ever wrote right but it's a pretty safe bet that when you look at Tertullian and Irenaeus and origin and Clement and Augustine and on down the line

They they seem to universally believe and to teach baptismal regeneration Can you think of anything else?

that's that would now fit in that category of The universal consent of the fathers.

Yes the wheel of faith Which is basically the creed. Okay, the

Protestant Church also Universally believe in the rule of faith, right? So if you want to talk about unanimous consent that that would be one another aspect of unanimous consent that this is there was overall

Agreement on the rule of faith and that rule of faith is defined by by numerous fathers from Pharaoh of Jerusalem to Irenaeus to Tertullian origin.

They all deal with the rule of faith. They all mention it and They all give commentary on it in one form or another and These are what they consider to be the fundamental doctrines of the

Christian faith It's what they consider to be the overall Perspective of what scripture taught in its fundamentals and they universally agreed on that.

However When you get past the wheel of faith and you begin to look at the various Approaches to scripture that the church fathers held to in its interpretation you find a wide divergence of opinion and That's where you begin to get all of these differing interpretations and Contradictions among the church fathers they agreed in generalities about the fundamental truth.

They disagreed in In a very broad way with one another on the the actual

Details of exegesis because they had differing approaches and methods even in their approach to the actual

Interpretation of scripture let alone the the getting into the detail of how you interpret it Can you think of anything bill that the

Roman Catholic Church has defined as a dog? Let's say the turn of the

Millennium the year 1 ,000 that the Rome has bound as a dogma whether it be

Transubstantiation purgatory indulgences the papacy the Marian dogmas Whatever.

Can you think of any of those? dogmas that could even without absolutely

Destroying the meaning of the phrase Be said to have the universal consent of the

Fathers In the With the

Roman Catholic Church There's contradiction there on the whole interpretation of what the

Eucharist means And then you get further down the line when you get into the Marian dogmas

It's much worse than that because there's no agreement at all With the assumption of Mary there is complete silence in the patristic age on that teaching

God When you get into the papal teachings if you look at the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16

You find that it is exactly the opposite of what Roman Catholicism teaches today as it was defined by Vatican one

The the overall patristic view is that the rock is either the person of Christ or Peter's confession of faith in Christ It's the orthodox

Protestant view as opposed to the Roman Catholic view for that if you look at a unanimous consent There is a a sense of a unanimous consent on that verse of Scripture on that passage, but it's contrary to not in conformity with with Vatican one

Caught a papal infallibility and papal rule the early church did not believe in papal infallibility

Johnny if I might and then we'll go to your next question Bill's a co -author in our chat room right now.

Yes posted something That you might find interesting and it is a quotation from Joseph a

Fitzmyer who is a Jesuit scholar And he wrote quote when one hears You can't hear me.

Okay. I'm sorry. This is from Bill's co -author just posted this in our chat room

It says this is from Joseph Fitzmyer Says when one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture There is often latent in it a recollection of church

Documents that spoke at times of the unanimous consent of the fathers as the guide for biblical interpretation

But just what this would entail is far from clear for as already mentioned

There were church fathers who did use a form of the historical The West no one can ever tell us where such a unanimous consent of the fathers is to be found and Pious to 12 finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the

Authority of the church nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous

And that is the quotation that was provided by the co -author of the book. We're discussing this evening.

That's said David King and We are talking with Bill Webster and Rich will take a break here in a couple

But I'd like to continue with Johnny when we can make sure that we can hear him So continue with your next your next question,

Johnny Okay. Well, luckily you answered my question on transubstantiation. So I got to my third one

My third one is of course the doctrine that William Juergens lists

On his book in his books on purgatory and that is that the early church fathers Basically believed in purgatory.

All right, the question that is asked is William Juergens bill has a section of course

Listing early church fathers who believed in purgatory so How do you how do you handle the assertion that purgatory is one of those beliefs that is?

Bears the anonymous consent of the fathers I'll just take a guess here

And I bet you that William Juergens has listed to Tullian as one who believed in purgatory because he teaches praying for the dead

Right. Well, the problem with that is that when you ask the question, what are they praying for? They the

Latin term that is used as refrigarium That is refreshment and what they're praying for is that the

Saints who have departed and who are in the presence of the Lord Will continue to experience this refreshment

This has nothing to do with suffering or expiation for sin. They are not suffering at all they are in glory and They are experiencing the wondrous joys of that glory and the prayers that are being made if they would those joys would be deepened

That has nothing to do with purgatory Agustin Basically said that it's only a possibility

He never said dogmatically that this is something that really exists. It wasn't until Gregory the

Great that we find a definitive and in a sense authoritative Teaching on purgatory itself.

There's a very slow development of that doctrine and it's rooted in Greek philosophical

Thought it's origin really is with Plato and it came to the origin Who's been condemned by the

Roman Catholic Church as a heretic? I'm sorry, what was that?

Tertullian as well was condemned, right? Right. Yeah, and when he became a montanist, right But so the people the church fathers that speak of prayers for the dead

Are they only the ones that believed in the Apocrypha or do the ones that reject the Apocrypha? Also reject the concept of purgatory ah interesting question if I can restate it and that is

Were the ones who believed in a purgatory bill? those who accepted the

Apocrypha as Scripture or is Is there sort of a some did some didn't in other words?

I guess I would I would interpret that question to be how important was that Maccabean passage in the development of?

Of the doctrine over time. Have you ever looked into that? I I certainly haven't myself Okay, I Hope you heard that Johnny and in fact

David King Quoted for us Tertullian denied any such concept of purgatory implicitly when he affirmed that this

This life alone is probationary quote It would suffice to say indeed that there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation except to believe

Whilst it is in the flesh. So true. Is it that the flesh is the very condition of which salvation hinges?

That's found the Ananias father's volume 3 on the resurrection of the flesh chapter 8 And then he mentions the same thing that Bill did the fact that Tertullian prayed for the dead

Refrigerium a request for refreshment to the end that they might experience a greater enjoyment of the bliss of heavenly happiness

There's not in any way support the notion of purgatory our status passio punishment to be undergone or that Refrigerium meant relief from the suffering of an intermediate state and quote sort of weird to have you both here

But we only have David David is existing in and hey, this is neat This is a fulfillment of 2nd

Thessalonians 2 15. We have the written form and we have the oral form Well, I think they

I think they might hey Johnny, thanks for being there at the debates I Thought it was

I thought it was a really good debate I just I I don't know if you were thinking the same thing. I was but I just get the feeling

That there were a number of Catholic apologists in the audience Absolutely gritting their teeth at a number of the things that Mitch Pack was said including admitting that John 21

Is not relevant to sola scriptura And then his disagreement with the statement of John O 'Brien.

I didn't even get the feeling I don't know about you It didn't seem to me like he was even familiar with John O 'Brien

Yeah, yeah is like is like who's that it would sound like it wasn't familiar with that with that quotation

I used so but Very very different debate than the one with Tim Staples on papal infallibility.

Let's put it that way. So anyways, thanks for being there and Thanks for participating this evening.

Thank you very much. All right. Thanks for calling. God bless Alrighty, we're going to take a little bit of a break here and let rich let you all know about the

Conference on Rome in fact and listen closely here a day Bill and you'll be able to hear

David preaching in our promotion for the conference on Rome and We're gonna take a little break wet our whistle and be right back here on the dividing line

And welcome back to the dividing line, my name is James White and we have online a special guest this evening

Bill Webster And how'd you how'd you like that build that sound? Whoa? What was that?

Do we still have Bill? I? Can hear you. Unfortunately, I think we have clear evidence that aliens are invading

Over the phone line that we have you on as well It's I've got all sorts of Line noise and everything else there.

So tell you what to rich you want try to reestablish that line Yeah, he's gonna give you a call back bill.

We'll be right back with you and I think I can hang on for just a Few moments. We try to reestablish that line.

I thought we'd you know in our modern age gotten rid of most of those Types of phone lines, but that one sounded really really bad

Just to remind you what we're talking about this evening on the dividing line. We get Bill Webster back We will be talking with him about his new book that he is co -authoring with David King on the subject of the sufficiency of scripture and That work along with others that in God's providence are appearing these days.

I mentioned earlier the fact that William Whitaker book disputations on Holy Scripture has been put back into Print by Soledad Gloria publishers, by the way,

I'm not sure if we actually got the link up there But we will very soon have this book on our website available

For you to purchase. This is one of the finest works on solo scriptura

That has been written in history. I know that I had this work in photocopy format until this

Very nice printed edition came today, and I'm very thankful to see that online, but That it's been put back in in print disputations on Holy Scripture There is the

Soledad Gloria book on solo scriptura that came out about four or five years ago then we also have

The work coming out from Canon Press, which I'm hoping to get some information on as to how we can carry that and We also then are looking at this work coming out from Bill Webster and David King and then somewhere down the road.

Yes, believe it or not I am contracted with Bethany house publishers to write a book on solo scriptura myself

I promise I promise that I will not make it 750 pages in length but instead

I will attempt to Get the get the word out Shall we say to the popular audience and it'll be so nice Truly so nice to be able to refer people to these other works

And I think it's vitally important that we have this information available to the church

And I think I can hear we have bill back. Is that right bill? Yes. Oh, she sounds so much better than you have all night

Yeah, there's no static. No. Ah Wonderful. We must have been on an old phone line and now we're on a fiber -optic phone line or something

I don't know but you sound you sound great and I was just promoting all books on Whatever they might be.

So David King just said I didn't know Whitaker had been republished. Yeah, I just got it today David and we're gonna be selling it on the website rich.

Do we get that up there? Oh rich Not yet. Okay. We'll have it up there pretty soon on the website.

And if you just can't wait to get the the

Webster King book well while you're waiting you can get the William Whitaker book and then it'll just wet your appetite to go on from there.

So Anyways, let's go ahead and see if we can All right.

Here we go. Let's try to get Dave on the line and see if we can make this all work and hopefully maybe to where Y 'all can hear each other

That's a that doesn't sound like Dave, but Dave you there Hello Dave Well, we get you back sounding good and we can't get

Dave on the line Anything with Dave going once going twice

Dave you there? Nope. He's not there. Well, we'll keep working on Dave and continue on with something that You know,

I'll tell you though we used to we inherited this phone system that we have here in the office we found it in a box at a at a

Drug store type place that are a Yellow front. I know it's called yellow front.

What did yellow front sell? I don't remember they sold anyways It's the exact same phone system that they had at the radio station.

We did our first radio programs at and They we had the exact same problem with them then too.

So, you know, hey, they were free We found them in a box, you know, they were just given to us And so we sort of fight with a few things like that.

But do we want to try a day one more time? Hey, there is Perseverance now the question

I have is I can hear Dave clearly but can Bill here David all

I think I heard him say something more Dave Oh, mr. Webster, are you there?

Can you hear me? I can No, you're

Okay, we can hear you go ahead You know, I think my question will be a lot shorter than Johnny.

He had like a three -part question But mine is are you going to make a sequel to this book that covers?

How the Protestant Church as a whole or maybe a part has disregarded

No, I have no plans to do that, but it would be that would be an interesting study to do because most of the problems that exist

Within evangelicalism are because of that very problem, right? well, actually Dave I can tell you that when

I Discussed when I presented the Concept of doing a book on sola scriptura to Bethany house one of the specific things that they asked that I do address is the undercutting of sola scriptura within evangelicalism and Protestantism and So I know that I'm not exactly sure of the order of books that I'm going to be writing, but I think

I'm writing right now. Of course the project I'm working on is is in regards to homosexuality I think after that I'll be doing a youth book on scripture and I hope that the book

I do after that will be that particular Project where I will be addressing that and will be

Undoubtedly offending large large groups of very influential Protestants in the process

But when you think about it, and I'd like to get Bill's comments on this too Sola scriptura and our discussion this evening is only really relevant to a small portion of Protestantism today because if you don't believe in Supernaturalism if you don't believe in Inspiration if you don't believe that the scriptures are inspired to begin with this subject really isn't relevant to you to begin with hence

Honestly, Bill. I'm Imagine you would you would probably already have come to the conclusion you and David you have a limited audience here

You're you're not going to find a lot of liberal Protestants overly interested in what you have to say

No, but I never had a you know that was never a concern with respect to doing this work anyway, because my concern is for people who are really interested in truth and And the gospel right so for that reason

I mean, I cannot help the fact that you know a large body of professing Protestants have no interest in this

You could say the same thing about Catholicism The vast majority of Roman Catholics have no interest in tradition or scripture or the dogmas of the church for that matter

That's a small minority as well who are really interested in what the Roman Catholic Church really stands for right?

Well, I know that you you're concerned about truth. It's just a sad thing to observe that there are many

Who need to read this? but Who probably will not because of the fact that they've

Already in essence abandoned sola scriptura and the beliefs that flow from it Dave.

You have anything you want to add to that? Well, I just like to say that I left one of those very large

Protestant denominations Right one of the largest in America. It was a Methodist Church I left that because they were starting to do things that I didn't quite agree with they were quite in line with what scripture was saying

So I had to leave. I didn't have a choice. I mean, it's either I stay there or I go somewhere else so that's what

I was concerned with and I'm going to a Somewhat scripturally aligned church right now, but I will be going somewhere else soon enough

All right, Dave. Thanks for calling and I'm awful glad. Hey you uh, You are the first one to get an opportunity to to actually talk to the guest and that's

That's a good thing. All right. Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot, Dave Alrighty now,

I'm not sure Rich we've got more callers online, don't we? No, we do not have more colors online

Someone in the in the line is saying that's in the chat room is saying the lines are loaded But they may be trying to call.

I'm not sure. Anyways, that number by the way is eight six six five five zero thirty nine fifteen eight six six five five zero thirty nine fifteen

Bill Webster's co -author says any major doctrinal differences that exist today are not the result of solo scriptura

But rather the rejection of it indeed Not all who reject Rome are in reality adherence to the principle of solo scriptura

Charismatics and Pentecostals who look to the extra biblical sources of modern -day prophecy are by no means proponents of scripture alone end -quote so I thought

I would throw that in there because We honestly bill we tried to get

David to call You still have a good one. We tried to get David to call. Okay, but he just won't do it

Now if you said, ah, come on David call in he would call in. Hey David I'll watch the chat room and let you know what he says

He he says now now folks, you know He says people don't like the way my voice sounds and I actually

I love To listen to David King preach I just I just enjoyed that to no end when

I got to do the Conference on Rome back there on Long Island. And have you have you gotten hold of those tapes bill?

Okay, good good then you got to hear him preach too and I just love when when people preach with a

With real conviction in their in their hearts that thing now I don't know if I asked you this and we only have about 19 minutes left

I Think you mentioned earlier on but we've had a lot of folks come in since then really how

I should put it the book we're talking about Scripture the how do you put it?

So which translation is the ground and pillar of our faith? You're hoping and praying toward having that available when hopefully by March hopefully by March and You actually do most of the work yourself, isn't that correct?

That's correct That includes typesetting in the whole nine yards Doing the cover

I don't print the cover I have that done outside and then I actually did the printing and the binding

Wow, that is a tremendous amount of work. I I Typeset the King James only controversy, but that's all

I did and that was more than enough work I don't know how you you do a secular job and and this at the same time

It's tremendous and if folks want to get in touch with you if they want to you have a tremendous number of excellent

Articles online and all sorts of resources on your website. How can they get hold of you?

How do you got that one that's a that's a good that's a good you are I was rather amazed myself.

That's a very good. You are all they have actually so far. I hate to tell you this But sky man is ignoring us what's what's he's he's doing is he's flooding the channel with all sorts of quotes and And the idea is gonna be when we get done.

He's ago. Oh, oh, were you all talking to me? That's exactly what he's good. I could I know the man and I know what's gonna happen.

So anyways Mike Mike in Ogden, New York now now

Bill you got to be careful here because Mike is a pop -up thief and He has stolen all of my pop -ups in the channel and all of sky man's pop -ups in the channel

Okay, so he knows probably more than you and I combined Right Mike. Ah, well,

I should make a confession before I ask my question Mr.

Webster. I do have your chapter on the Nature of the scripture in the canon as well as the small section on Transubstantiation from your book the

Church of Rome at the bar of history in one massive pop -up Yeah, it took me an entire evening to type that out

But I do have a question and it is regarding Arrhenius again Arrhenius against heresies in book three chapter three and One through three where it seems like he is describing what our

Catholic friends would Consider apostolic succession and gentlemen, I would like both of your thoughts on that Well, it would help maybe if you had

Obviously you have it there and I don't know that I have that in a pop -up if I do you stole it from me So could you possibly read it for us?

Okay, let me just pull it up. I would be quoting it He says that in it

He says and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul as also by pointing out the faith preached to men which come that which comes down to our time by means of the succession of the bishops and he goes on to mention to him succeeded and goes on and on and on to Clement to Alexander and Sixtus and so on Hegeneus and a bunch of names that I could not pronounce even if I wanted to Alrighty now you're familiar with that that passage bill.

Yes. Go ahead. I'll I'll follow you Dealing in this work with Gnosticism Gnosticism claimed to be to be in receipt of An apostolic tradition that was independent of scripture.

That was all in nature. It was they it was diva Bo say is the Latin phrase which means living voice and they

Taught that you could not understand scripture and you did not have the truth unless you had their tradition

And unless you could understand the overall scriptures from their perspective

What our name is doing is he is establishing the fact that the church Has a an historical continuity with the

Apostles The Gnostics don't have that Therefore they cannot claim to have received anything from the

Apostles He goes on to talk about the fact that These bishops have faithfully handed down the tradition

Which has come from the Apostles and then he defines what that tradition is and he defends it from scripture

He is not saying that just because there is apostolic tradition. There's excuse me apostolic succession as he would put it with that immediately in a carte blanche way in a blind way just you are to Kneel down and accept anything and everything that these men teach because they teach the same thing

They universally teach the wheel of faith and he defines those doctrines for us

So yes, he can say there is a succession it Undermines the claims of the

Gnostics to have received truth from the Apostles who because they have not been in contact with the

Apostles they are fundamentally contradictory to the teaching of these bishops and these bishops teach

Universally the same truth the same doctrines These doctrines can be confirmed from scripture because they're all rooted in scripture

The Basic argument that then is applied by the Roman Catholic Churches.

We are in direct succession With the early church directly to the

Apostles. Therefore you must accept and believe anything that we teach That is a false

Application The teaching of Rome today has added to what

Irenaeus says is the rule of faith They've added doctrines that were never taught in the early church so we are to take as Irenaeus would say everything to the bar of Scripture because he said that while the

Apostles preached orally initially at a later time They're teaching within scripture rated and scripture has now become the pillar and the ground of our faith and Everything that is taught and this is a universal teaching of the fathers

Every doctrine that is taught must be able to find its confirmation and its validation in Scripture.

That's right Well as one of the pop -ups say that I've stolen from Skyman quoting Augustine where he says what we assert

Let us prove from Scripture, right, you know, I let me just let everybody know

I I keep an eye on the our worldwide chat room while we're on the program and I posted in there

Irenaeus's definition of what tradition is the rule of faith. He says these have all declared to us

There is one God creator of heaven and earth Announced by the law and the prophets and one Christ the Son of God if anyone do not agree to these truths

He despises the companions of the Lord nay more. He despises Christ himself the Lord. Yeah, he despises the father also and stands self -condemned

Resisting opposing his own salvation as is the case with all heretics and quote Ananias and fathers 1 414 to 415 and that obviously that Rule of faith is sub biblical.

That is it is derived from Scripture it is not something passed on outside of Scripture, but it's interesting to note that I think we have a

Roman Catholic fellow who's come into the channel and Is illustrating what

I said to you earlier bill and that is he came in and asked?

well ask Bill Webster isn't this isn't the church the pillar and foundation of the truth and Of course your co -author is in channel.

So he quoted Irenaeus's statement We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us

Which they did at one time proclaim in public And in later period by the will of God handed down to us in the scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith

But then after that Asked the question Do all church?

Do all churches who hold to solo scriptura agree on all matters of faith is?

the question that was asked and We'll go to that one in a second Mike I didn't want to over overrun you there

But I just wanted to let folks know that we are having some questions asked of there as well was was that?

The answer your question Mike. Yes, sir, and thank you for giving me the answer now. I have another pop -up to make

All right. Thanks for calling. Thank you. All right. God bless. Bye. Bye. Bye Rich we have anyone else on line right now?

No, okay good. Here's the here's the question again Someone who

I guess is using somewhat of the Nick Athanasius Asked the question to all churches who hold a solo scriptura agree on all matters of faith.

How would you how would you respond to that? No Not necessarily.

Well, let me put it this way Yes with respect to the rule of faith and the essential truths with respect to salvation

It's if you go back to the early church the early church believed in the rule of faith they all agreed on that They didn't agree on every other aspect that related to the

Christian walk and the Christian faith the Fundamental the fundamental truth behind solo scriptura is that there is one revelation from God It is the written scriptures that we possess it is the authority for defining for us the central truth of salvation

That doesn't mean that we're all going to agree on every aspect of the interpretation of Scripture We can have differences of opinion that was endemic in the early church but we must agree if we're going to be true

Christians on the essential truths of the gospel and that is the the fundamental

Message Behind the New Testament and the whole ministry of Jesus Christ.

You can get off on all sorts of rabbit trails That are not essential But when it comes to the essentials of the faith of who

Jesus Christ is and what he has done So let's go to in terms of the revelation of who he is and what he's done

So let's be day in terms of the application of that message and how that is applied to my life

Right, and I would add to that the fact that the the major source of the differences between denominations is not the practice of solo scriptura it is the ignoring of solo scriptura it is the the allowance of traditions and things that contradict scripture to determine a

Non -biblical hermeneutic or to a cause a person to place undue emphasis upon one passage over against another it is my experience that it is ignoring solo scriptura not following solo scriptura that leads to that kind of difference in the vast majority of Situations here's here's the next statement from our

Roman Catholic friend. Don't reinvent the fathers There is no soil in the fathers for solo scriptura only the heretics particularly the arch heretics

Affirm the novel idea of reading scripture by itself apart from capital

T Tradition now again. I hear this kind of thing and We can assume that this particular individual in the chat room has not heard

Everything that we've had to say this evening, but be that as it may this is repeated

So often in this rock magazine Envoy on EWtm that it becomes a mantra

It's like count every vote, you know, eventually you actually start you actually start thinking there's some truth to this statement as if they hadn't been counted

How do you respond when someone? Reads back into church history something as anachronistic as a capital

T tradition That was non -existent with respect to the interpretation of Scripture the church fathers as you quoted from Fitzmyer earlier

Had basically two fundamental approaches a methodology to the interpretation of Scripture and they were not infallible

One was the Antiochian view, which was the literal historical Approach to Scripture the other was the

Alexandrian which was heavily oriented towards allegory And what's interesting? Is that Clement of Alexandria and origin both use the term?

the rule of the canon of truth if you will or the ecclesiastical rule of tradition and what they're referring to is a a very particular approach to the interpretation of Scripture and If you read not by Scripture alone

Joe Gallegos sort of goes in there He just brings together the statements of men like Athanasius and Irenaeus and Tertullian and origin and Clement of Alexandria He lumps them all together

Because they all talk about interpretation and he says, you know They're talking about a tradition a capital

T tradition here that they had to look to with respect to Understanding how to interpret

Scripture. Nothing's further from the truth They did not have a board that they went to called the church

In which they submitted their interpretation of Scripture They were private exegetes and they had a philosophy of exegesis that they brought to Scripture They all agreed on the rule of faith, but they had great differences of opinion with respect to The interpretation of Scripture.

However, they all agreed on this Scripture is inspired and infallible

There is absolutely no one who did not believe that Secondly that it is materially sufficient that all the truth necessary for salvation are in Scripture Thirdly, they believed it was formally sufficient that it was it with respect to the essentials of salvation that Scripture is

Clear it is perspicuous. It is not obscure. It can be understood by the common individual

Who comes with an open heart to the Lord and will be taught by the Lord himself

This was universally taught throughout the church. These are basic fundamental principles that they held you

But to say that there was that they did not believe in full of scriptura Shows an incredible ignorance of the teaching of the early church because they taught specifically

No doctrine could be taught that could not be validated by Scripture Scripture alone was the source of truth

Scripture was sufficient to proclaim the truth if Scripture was silent on an issue that it could not be known

You could not Just sort of speculate on what something might be if you could not validate it from Scripture It was simply speculation.

It could not be considered dogma or truth Scripture in the minds of the Church Fathers was always the final arbiter

Yeah for every controversy and Scripture was the final judge of all tradition of or of what claimed to be tradition

Jerome said this the other things also which they find in pain of themselves without the authority and Testimonies of the

Scriptures as if by apostolical tradition the sword of God The Word of God and the

Scriptures strikes down. Amen Well, I really appreciate you being with us this evening bill

In fact, we had some folks in the chat channel say, please Please thank bill for the time he spent with us this evening

And of course, we archive these so that people can hear these on the web at their own

Leisure as well Again, how can folks get in touch with you on the web and access your information?

Maybe drop you an email the web address is www .christiantruth .com

Www .christiantruth .com and I'm not sure if you're aware of this bill, but we have two links to your website off of our

Roman Catholic page So we send folks sometimes unhappy folks over here direction all the time.

We've been talking about The new book that's Lord willing will be coming out in March by Bill Webster and David King on the sufficiency of Scripture If you've been listening to this and you want to know if that is out make sure to go to our web page

We will we will be letting people know the instant that it is available

We will be having it right on our front page The first thing you see when it comes up because we want to get this into people's hands

It is vitally important and Bill. Thank you very much both you and David who hopefully can still hear us

That's for all the work that you're doing. I know it'll have eternal reward eternal

Results. Thank you very much for being with us this evening. Thank you for having me James. All righty Bill Thank you very much folks.

So we will be back on our regular schedule Lord willing that means we'll be on The Saturday before Christmas at 2 o 'clock here on the dividing line on a