July 22, 2004

The world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is

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

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

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

James White. Ah, it sort of requires you to have a topic. I don't have one, so we'll sort of let you handle that at 877 -753 -3341.

I haven't heard of any rolling blackouts today. It is 109 and I don't know about this year has been very odd.

In fact, they're talking about last night on the news, one of the weatherman was saying, I'm hearing all these complaints about how hot it is.

And yet in reality, then you've started putting the stuff up on the screen. I remembered this. I had actually been telling folks that in reality, it's been a good bit cooler this summer than it was last summer, especially in July.

We were seeing 116, 117, stuff like that. And it just, you know, it just hasn't gotten up that high.

In fact, the average so far is like five and a half degrees cooler than last year.

But for me, it has just felt really, really, really hot. And I'm not 100 % sure why it is.

It may be a government conspiracy. Maybe it's a terrorist action or possibly.

Possibly we have something like a Jesuit plot and. In a nutshell, you got five centuries of early fathers that upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Oh, really? Who in the first, second and third centuries taught that as a dogma?

I'd be interested in knowing that was even though 20th century. It's scrolled by there. I guess I could make this a little bit larger window here to do.

So let's go to say otherwise. Obviously, I didn't hold the soul scriptural alone or the scriptures don't seem to say what process say that it does.

So let's let's see if we understand this argument. I'm just reading this in channel. And so, you know,

I don't think we have a anything, you know, sitting waiting to be discussed.

So here we've got a Roman Catholic and channel. And first of all, we excellent illustrations here of how not to read early church history.

First of all, we say we have five centuries of and I'm assuming this is from the beginning to at some point.

I mean, I don't know up through Jerome. That's like five centuries there. But I mean, how does that work?

I'm not sure how that works. But the idea being they all upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary. Well, no, they didn't.

In fact, most of them didn't discuss it. And it arises primarily through the arises together with the concept of monasticism and the unbiblical view of sexuality comes along with that.

So that's wrong. A secondly, well, and since somebody has believed something that means so scriptural must not be true.

Well, if somebody believes something, let's say someone believes, oh, let's use a real let's talk about the pope and some of the things the pope has believed, like when the pope said that Satan had been seen in Germany in the form of a toad that somehow impacts soul scriptural.

Well, it might indicate that that the pope's not functioning on the basis of soul scriptural. That's quite true. And of course, he he wouldn't be.

But does that somehow mean that the scriptures are unclear? Well, he was reading the

Bible. Certainly, anyone who reads the Bible should come up with the right understanding of it.

Really, I know many Mormons who read the Bible and because of, oh, it's an extra scriptural authority.

Oh, there it is. Because of an extra scriptural authority, they don't actually listen to what the

Bible says and what it teaches. So you mean there might have been people who, well, might there have been some people in the early church who were ignorant of the

Bible? I mean, we do have that odd statement that is made in scripture about untaught and unstable men distorting the scriptures.

Seem to have been happening even during the course of the apostles ministry. Hmm. Well, if they were there during the apostles ministry, then what basis do we have to think that maybe they didn't continue in the church?

And you know what? I bet untaught and unstable men could write things. I bet they could write things.

I don't know about you. But look at the internet and we have there clear evidence that untaught and unstable men write things that they can type.

Even if they use the hunt and peck method, they can still type. And so there you go with that.

And so maybe some of these early church fathers didn't know the Bible really well. In fact, you know, in teaching on the development of Tristic theology this last time, we noted that the wide variety of insight and understanding of the

Bible that we could detect even in the very first writings that are presented to us outside the

New Testament. I'm not talking about the Delvey. It's supposed to be devil, I bet.

And a frog. I'm talking about church fathers, I read you the list, who affirm what the Bible or so were told say otherwise.

I have the foggiest idea what on earth that means. That's not in the

English language and it's not a language that I actually can recognize. And so I have been talking about church fathers.

And we have some church fathers who are insightful and know the scriptures.

And then we have other church fathers who don't seem to know the scriptures at all. I think

I asked the same Roman Catholic that if this is a dogma that has been delivered to the church in light of, for example, second

Thessalonians 2, and if he views it that way, then wouldn't that also mean the bodily assumption had to be delivered in the same way?

And can you find those same early church fathers affirming that is a dogma? And of course, the fact of the matter is you can't and it's not there.

Well, anyway, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. Hey, did you see the article?

Someone sent it to me today that researchers, I think it was

University of Chicago or something like that, have come to the conclusion that sometime, but maybe even by the end of this year,

Protestants will no longer be the majority in the United States, that the percentage will drop below 50%.

Now, the problem is what they define as Protestants is basically any semi -Christian religion that has arisen since the time of the

Reformation. So they include the Mormons in there and stuff like that. So if you actually talk about historic

Protestants who actually know something about justification or something like that, then obviously those kind of Protestants are way in the minority.

And it was interesting, it said the no religion category has just skyrocketed as far as percentage goes.

And if you would add into that the number of people who functionally have no religion, not just, well,

I'll call myself a Baptist because I went to a Baptist church once with Aunt Selma and therefore

I'm a Baptist. Doesn't work that way. And if you added those people in, wow, we'd be talking about extremely small percentage of folks who really honestly are

Protestants today. And of course, that group has all sorts of issues as well these days as to what in the world they believe.

In fact, I was reading, in fact, I'm going to bring this up. I was reading a fascinating blog article, and you know how blogs are.

Blogs are very bloggy. And the current blog article at Reformed Catholicism, which again, the wonderful oxymoronic how in the world can we make a sense out of this, reformedcatholicism .com,

has an article from a scholar who teaches at Montreat College, Pennsylvania, and well known to me anyways.

And the first quotation is from 1 John 2 .19, which is rather fascinating.

It says, they went out from us, but they did not belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so it might be made clear that none of them belong to us.

And there is nothing provided there as far as the translation goes.

Maybe it was the authors. I don't know. But that's a very important passage. There seems to be a us and a them.

And it's interesting. We're talking here about people who went out from the fellowship in John's day, and they were teaching

Christological heresies, and yet they were still baptized properly at some point, which wouldn't that make them brothers?

Well, anyway, it says, I've been thinking a lot lately about the state of the church and our relations with Rome.

I find myself very discouraged as I look about me. It seems at times the state of the evangelical church is beyond all recovery, both morally and theologically, and that includes my own denomination, the

PCA. As I look at the ruins which surround me, I often wonder where and when did it all go haywire?

When did the wagon lose its wheels? It often seems like God is not with us, as though we, like the disobedient

Israelites of old, have gone to the battlefield without the blessing of the Lord. We have not listened to prophetic advice. Don't go, because the

Lord is not among you, and you will be defeated by your enemies. Numbers 1442. I'm just reading something on the channel here.

I have a new idea of the value line. We can have Dr. Oakley call folks at home that are in Channel Mass and question.

Now that I think about it, I think we might have a number of these folks' phone numbers that are in Channel.

Honestly, I think we do. Have them call local

Arizona Synod Mass churches and have them ask the church secretaries about the Trinity. That's good.

Okay, back to reading this insightful article. I am reminded of the promise of Jesus. I am with you always at the end of the age.

Matthew 28 20. Why, then, does it seem like Jesus is not now with the evangelical church?

May I stop there and suggest, maybe in passing, that it's the definition of the church that's the problem here and not necessarily anything else.

I have a feeling it has something to do with our relations with Rome. I'm going back to reading here.

That's what the author says. I have a feeling it has something to do with our relations with Rome. Please do not misunderstand me.

I am not calling for us to return to Rome. Got to get that in there. I am suggesting that what the evangelical church needs is to return to Geneva and Wittenberg, and by so doing, we will necessarily change our relationship with Rome.

Geneva and Wittenberg. Geneva and Wittenberg. Oh, Geneva, Calvin. And if Calvin had wandered into Catholic territories, what would have happened to Calvin?

Oh, burned at the stake. That's what would have happened. Okay. And Wittenberg. Yes. Yes, Wittenberg.

We've all read the Pope's bowl of excommunication there.

And something about wild boar and a vineyard and the

Lord arising. And it didn't sound good. It didn't sound good at all. No, it didn't sound good at all.

Anyway, okay. So we have to go back to that. All right. I thought we had made some progress there.

Here's my proposal. God has made a promise to be with his church.

That church exists always in some visible form. It was an agreed premise to the reformers that the apostolic church of the first century continued its visible existence within the developing

Catholic church of the second through 16th centuries. They recognized the true flock of God within the

Catholic church, which it was their objective to reform. Now, just in passing,

I've seen this particular scholar interact with a pastor on this subject and just absolutely get pummeled right and left with extensive citations that Calvin especially had a very clear view as to the flock of God and things like that.

But I continue on. This is where the reformers differed from the Anabaptists. Ah, it didn't take long to get the

Anabaptist term. The Anabaptists lacked a sense of historical continuity with the Catholic church.

They were schismatic to the same spirit as those condemned by the Apostle John long ago. Let's stop right there.

So the Apostle John. The Apostle John is condemning schism.

I thought John had said that there was the purpose that they went out was so that it might be made manifest that they were not of the people of God.

Hmm. That's that's odd. I had never seen that as a view of passage. It was condemning schism before.

Well, we continue on. Therefore, God's promise of his presence and blessing could not apply to them as it applied to Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Protestant reformers, the main branches of the visible church.

So here we have being presented to us a concept that says that if you don't have a sense of historical continuity of the

Catholic church, then God's promise of his presence and blessing could not apply to them.

Keep that in mind, because that explains a lot. If that's if that's what you need, then wow.

OK, this is why Calvin Luther opposed the Anabaptists with such vigor. They saw in them a danger, both political order and spiritual health.

There's a lot of reasons they oppose the Anabaptists. I don't remember that being central, but well, you know, we continue on.

Maybe this is the essence of the difference between the reformers and contemporary evangelicalism. Is evangelicalism closer in spirit to the schismatic

Anabaptists than it is the vision of the reformers? The reformers recognize their historical connection with Rome and the

Catholic church, whereas it seems a contemporary evangelicalism is courting the favor and casting its lot in with a version of Christianity which lacks any meaningful sense of its indebtedness to and continuity with the

Church of Rome. Well, that's interesting. The Church of Rome, that would be the modern

Church of Rome with all of its modern creeds and beliefs and dogmas and things like that, which

I thought the reformers, can you imagine what Calvin would have said about the concept of papal infallibility or the bodily assumption of Mary or those types of things that have been defined long after the time of the

Reformation? Oh, well, I'm sure the author meant to get to that, but didn't get to that.

Um, so, uh, we continue on here. Uh, Church of Rome.

Keep in mind the Church of Rome. How is it that the sectarian spirit of Anabaptism has managed to invade the camp?

Could it be that the ease with which Presbyterians get along with Baptists in our evangelical culture is a sign that something is desperately wrong?

Now, if I just completely lost you, don't feel too badly. I want to read that one again, because some of you are sitting there going, you said what?

Could it be that the ease with which Presbyterians get along with Baptists in our evangelical culture is a sign that something is desperately wrong?

Yes, folks, there you have it. You see, what's happened here, of course, is that a certain view of the

Reformation has been turned into what Presbyterians as a whole are supposed to believe, and the

Anabaptists have become the Baptists. Now, in the process, the Christological heresy of 1

John 2 has been transferred in toto with its alleged schismatic elements into the

Anabaptists and into Baptists as well. And of course, this particular author had said earlier that if he were to give someone advice, that he would rather have them in a

Catholic church than a Baptist church. This is a Presbyterian speaking, and that's fascinating.

I continue on here. In other words, like the Anabaptists, evangelicalism has lost its

Catholic roots and displays in its words and actions the very spirit of schism which

St. John Calvin and Luther opposed. Notice that was St. John comma Calvin and Luther, not

St. John Calvin, which would really show an ecumenical spirit, wouldn't we?

We did a debate once where a Catholic fellow said that as a result of the stuff on justification, we could now pray to St.

Martin Luther. That was just one of those interesting evenings.

Anyway, so we continue on here. Let's see. And we wonder why

God is not with us. He has promised to be with his church, the Catholic church, which has existed in visible form through the ages.

God has not promised the blessing of his presence amongst schismatics who lack any historical connection with the

Catholic church. I've been told that if Rome's the mother church, then we all came out of Rome, and therefore we all have that alleged historical connection.

I don't know. I'm getting a little confused here. Therefore, as long as we continue to fail in word and deed, this is a person who teaches in a

Presbyterian school. Let's listen in carefully. Therefore, as long as we continue to fail in word and deed to give all due deference and honor to Rome, our mother, we will not be able to claim the blessing and presence of God.

And I propose that therein lies the key to a second reformation. Whoa, there you go, folks. It is not overly surprising that this same individual does not believe that there is a specific enough clarity to soteriology to remove

Rome's teaching from being considered to be a true gospel. So that should give you an idea of where the reformed

Catholics are coming from. Let's get rid of the clarity of the gospel and go from there.

Someone just asked, is the doc quoting Lance Armstrong? You know, sometimes

I see what people say in channel and I just want to go, what did that come from?

Maybe Lance Armstrong at the very end of a really tough stage and climbing a 7 .9 % grade or something might come up with something like this, because I can assure you that most of his blood is in his legs at that particular point in time.

But I don't know that this is not Lance Armstrong. And I'm really not sure how anybody came up with the idea.

And that does, by the way, raise the interesting issue. Some of us in this odd world do really, really, really enjoy following something called bicycle racing.

And if any of you are aware of the fact that right now Lance Armstrong is only three stages away from winning his sixth consecutive

Tour de France, you might go, oh, who cares? But, you know, it's funny. Americans don't really have a proper attitude and aspect on this.

People look at like the Boston Marathon. And what's the winning time, the Boston Marathon? Two something?

Two hours something? Is that about what it is? You know, you run it one time and then you recover and you go do other things.

These guys started the July 4th weekend. There's 20 stages.

They get, I think, three rest days. And like today, today's stage was just over six hours in length.

Yesterday, they did a time trial up L 'Alpe d 'Huez that was nine miles at an average grade of 7 .9%.

That's, let's face it, 99 % of the people listening to me right now would have a hard time pushing a bicycle on your feet, walking up that hill with a bicycle.

Most of, a lot of folks listening right now could not even do that. And so, so to ride up that hill and to ride up that hill at the speeds they do, absolutely incredible.

Today, Armstrong won his third stage victory in a row and did so.

I think he was angry. I think he really was angry. I think something happened between he and Ulrich and Clowden and so he crushed everybody at the end and as he's been doing for quite some time now.

I mean, these people go up these huge mountains and then they come down like 50, 55, 60 miles an hour.

In fact, one of Lance's teammates died back in the mid 90s. He crashed out on a descent, went head first into a concrete abutment and died.

So it's not, it's a 20 plus day marathon that these guys are doing that just in terms of sports, incredible.

And to survive a Tour de France is amazing too. This is Lance's 10th

Tour de France and to win five in a row and if I'm, unless I'm wrong here, the only people ever done that were

Merckx, Hinault, Indurain and now Armstrong. And he's going for number six and he's going to do it unless he crashes out.

I mean, he's not going to have, you know, unless he crashes out in the time trial tomorrow or something, he's going to do it. He's put everybody else way behind him and he's going to do it.

So it's an amazing thing. It truly is. It is just unbelievable in the history of sport.

And I did want to mention one thing. I'm actually going to make an application here. We're going to take our break and then come back with our callers.

But I have to admit that I get a little, I don't know,

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy when some big professional golfer, like I heard, I could be wrong about this, but I've heard some professional golfers who've complained about a cell phone going off.

In fact, I think something happened with Tiger Woods. You know, he was getting ready to do a putt or something and somebody's cell phone went off in the gallery.

And I guess his caddy went over and grabbed the phone or whatever.

And I'm just like, wow. Compare that with what

Armstrong did yesterday, for example, in climbing L 'Alpe d 'Huez. And there are 500 ,000 people lining this little teeny tiny road.

And he literally, he literally has a matter of feet between them. And there are no barriers, except right toward the end.

I mean, he even, even said that in there, I saw stories, he was spat upon by people, yelled at, screamed at.

And he somehow can put all of that off to the side. And still put out this massive, incredible physical effort.

And so I'm sort of like, if he can do that, then why can't you putt through a cell phone ring?

You know, why can't you serve through, you know, somebody yelling something? You know, this,

I don't know. It just seems really odd to me. But the whole reason I mentioned Lance Armstrong is,

I mean, talk about the most incredible display of simply being on another plane.

You know, it's very much like Michael Jordan. When Michael was sick that one time when they were playing

Utah Jazz, and he just, he went out there and how many points did he score? 42 or some outrageous thing like that, even with a fever and the flu and the whole nine yards.

And that's what he is. He's just, he's just on another level. You know, there's all the really great cyclists.

And then there's Lance, and he's just so far beyond them. And for those of you who don't know, he won the first, his first tour in 99, like 18 months after completing cancer therapy.

He had cancer in his lungs and his brain and all over his body, was given a very small chance of survival.

And not only did he survive, but he recovered. And boom, he's won five

Tour de France's and is going for number six. And why do I mention all this? Well, I mention all this because he's not a believer.

And it would, you know, I don't like when people say, oh, it'd just be wonderful if such and such a person, well, it'd be wonderful if anyone becomes a believer.

But here's someone who's just been given such massive gifts and such clear gifts.

And it would be so wonderful if someone could come into his life in such a way as to share with him.

Just share with him, proclaim to him the gospel, that God would be merciful to him. It really, really would be because, you know, here's someone you look at, you look at this guy and man, what an incredible capacity, just absolutely positively unbelievable.

Well, anyway, 877 -753 -3341, our

Roman Catholic participant in channel who was talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary and early church fathers is called in.

So we're going to take time to revisit that subject. And we come back from our break and take your phone calls as well at 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be right back. A godly man is such a rarity today.

So many stars. Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org. Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing

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.

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

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

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

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

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

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

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

p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PRBC .org,

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

And welcome back to the dividing line. My name is James White. We started off the program, didn't really have a specific direction we were going to be going today.

And so right as the program began, I saw a citation regards to perpetual virginity of Mary.

Some of you will recall our discussions on this subject last year when we had a debate in Salt Lake City and with Jerry Matitix on the subject of perpetual virginity of Mary and beforehand, or was it afterwards?

It was afterwards. We then had a dividing line broadcast where Eric Svensson joined me and we talked with Jerry Matitix for quite some time.

It was a very, very interesting encounter, and that is still available to listen to in real audio or to download the

MP3s, however you want to do that. And so I guess this is in reference to the concept of solo scriptura, something along those lines.

I'm not 100 % certain, but I responded to what was being said in channel at the beginning of the broadcast and we moved on from there.

But Steve, who had posted those comments, has called in as everyone was seemingly encouraging him to do so.

And so we'll start taking our phone calls with Steve and yours at 877 -753 -3341.

Hi, Steve. What? How you doing? Doing all right. Okay. That message really was just for you, and then when you read it,

I just felt compelled to call in. What message was that? The one I read?

Yeah, the one you read. Okay. I bet that's fine. It makes for a lively show that way, I guess. I don't recall that it was a private message.

Well, it was on the... I put it on the board. I didn't private to you, but it was a pre -show question.

Right. Okay. That I was asked. But either way, it makes no difference. Okay, here's my question.

If you remember, I called in two weeks ago along these lines, and I read you that long list of early fathers that affirmed strongly the perpetual virginity of Mary.

As a dogma. As... Well, as a concept.

But not as a dogma, right? As a concept, as a reality. But not as a dogma, right? I mean, for example, you mentioned

Basil, but Basil specifically says it's not a dogma, right? Well, that was... Yeah, but that was one line from Basil.

Okay, so... But Basil was... Wait, wait, wait, no. See, the problem is

Roman Catholic apologists have gotten away with a long, long time with absolutely destroying history and making broad statements that just simply aren't true.

So I'm just trying to make sure everyone understands. Was Tertullian on that list? I think

Tertullian was the only one that I found in that period that said that she had other children.

Okay, did he just miss the apostolic tradition memo, or why would

Tertullian not be aware of that? Well, you know, as you brought up all the way through Acts and into the period where I was referring to, there were heretics.

Okay, so... And I even asked you about these early fathers, did they have the scriptures? And then you start saying, well,

Steve, didn't the Judaizers have the scriptures? And then you started listing off the Arians and everyone else that were gross heretics.

Who had the scriptures? Yes, who had the scriptures. Okay. But the list that I gave you were supposed great church fathers.

In your opinion, possibly. Tertullian wouldn't actually even be considered by Rome, at least in his later writings, as Orthodox, because he became a

Montanist. But going back to this list, was Ignatius on it? Let me see here.

I've got... Now, and this is a partial list that I did two weeks ago. I had Clement, Origin...

Which Clement? Clement of Rome. Where did he say anything about? Well, I didn't bring the book this week, but I have...

I can guarantee you Clement of Rome never said a word about it. Okay, well, Clement, Origin, Athanasius, Ephraim, Epiphanus, Basil...

Okay, wait a minute. Now, I'm assuming that you're probably wrong about Clement of Rome. You're probably thinking

Clement of Alexandria. So you're starting... You've pretty much skipped the first numbers of generations.

So I guess that's a recognition on your part that nobody in the most primitive writings we have, the apostolic fathers, made any reference to this whatsoever, even though they did talk to Mary.

Does that talk about Mary? Not to Mary, duh. They talked about Mary, but they never said anything about this.

Is that true? The earliest one that I pulled out, I think, was Clement. And if that's Rome, then

I would say you're completely wrong. And if you mean Alexandria, both Alexandria, both

Clement and Origin, if you want to start there, that says a whole lot if you know anything about the fact that, as I said, those two concepts are directly related to a very unbiblical and perverse view of sexuality, which was very common in Alexandria and in their writings.

If you've ever looked at the Stromata and tried to figure out any of the Stromata, you would really not want to base your argument there.

But let's be that as it may. So you're starting a century, century and a half, two centuries down the road.

You've got Ignatius and others. You've got these writings. Nothing there.

And then in areas where monasticism begins to really blossom, now you start having this belief.

But it's not viewed as a dogma. It becomes a dogma. When did this become a dogma again, even in your own communion?

I really don't know. OK. Really, I think that's a separate issue. Wait a minute.

Why is that a separate issue if, for example, Jerome... Why are you asking me when it became dogma? Well, because if this is an alleged apostolic doctrine, then what you have to do is to do what

Gerry Matiticks does. And every time Gerry Matiticks makes these broad brush comments about church history, and then you try to pin him down and you say, well, what about this particular person?

What about this particular person? Well, hey, there's always heretics. And so, in other words, if an early church father disagrees with me, he's a heretic.

And if he doesn't disagree with me, then he obviously was holding to this apostolic tradition that I claim comes from the apostles.

And what I'm pointing out to you is that Jerome, for example, recognizes that there were people who didn't believe what he believed on that subject, and those people were actually in positions of authority and leadership at that point in time.

And I think that it's rather odd that in this situation, we look at Jerome and go, oh,

Jerome said this. Give much weight here. But then when Jerome tells us that the

Apocrypha isn't scripture, then we just dismiss him because he's contradicted by later councils.

It's this completely inconsistent use of sources and giving of weight to sources that just drives me nuts.

OK, well, Matiticks may do that. I'm not doing that. What I'm doing is, in your debates, you've cited these gentlemen.

Sure I have. As church fathers. Well, as early church writers, yes. As early church writers.

What you and I mean by that are different things. I'm sorry? What you and I believe about what an early church father is are different things.

An early church writer is not infallible to me. Are not church fathers.

I'm sorry? The people on that list that I just read you are not fathers, in your opinion. I said that what

I think a church father is and what you think a church father is and what that means are very different.

They are early church writers. What does that mean? Does that mean that they are the containers of oral tradition?

No, I reject that. Some of them have better understandings of biblical truths in some areas than other people do.

Some are better in another area than somebody else. Just like today. But just because it appears in someone's writing, just because it appears in Jerome, doesn't mean anything for me unless Jerome's arguments for it or against it have some solid foundation.

And Jerome's arguments on this subject don't. That's the whole point. I examine

Jerome on the same basis that I'd examine anybody else who does not claim to be writing inspired scripture.

They are men and therefore they must be examined as men. And the whole point is this dogma, these dogmas that you want to hold onto and make a part of the gospel itself and bind upon the consciences of men, were not even considered by those who believe these things to be universal dogmas.

And these people, I could turn the table very easily here and say, okay, which one of these men that you've cited believed everything you believe about Mary?

Which one? Surely you can give me one. No. Sorry to disappoint you.

I can't. And neither can any of your co -religionists. Doesn't that say anything to you?

Doesn't that tell you that the claim, and see, Steve, this is why Newman had to do what

Newman did. That is why you can't go back and read the apologetics of the time of the Reformation and come up with the same kind of apologetics you're getting from Rome today.

Are you talking about John Henry Newman? Of course. Okay. He also, the first chapter of the book that I'm reading has a quote in there where he's talking about these principles of Mary, and he's going along with it precisely because it's been handed down from father to father to father.

Including the bodily assumption of Mary? I will get you the quote. Well, if you look on the board, that's what he's saying.

He's saying, I'm standing with this because I'm standing with the fathers. And the point being, of course, that he could not do that with the bodily assumption of Mary.

It would be impossible. He could not do that with the immaculate conception of Mary. It would be impossible. And in fact, there would be no reason why he developed the development hypothesis itself if, in point of fact, the

Roman Catholic apologetics of the time of Trent could give a meaningful defense of the idea that these were things that were passed on from the apostles as apostolic tradition.

They just weren't there. So that's why he developed the concept of the acorn growing into the fully developed oak tree.

So all we have to do is, let's say we can find in some of the early writings about Mary, especially in the fourth century, someone who says that Mary was pure.

Well, we can expand that out and we can say, ah, here is early evidence of the immaculate conception.

Or we can read it in Luke 128 too, but all we need is just a little bit and then we can expand that out.

And that results in this gross misuse of these early writers as if they somehow believed these things were dogmas.

And I don't know about you, but when I talk to Roman Catholics who listen to Catholic Answers Live or read

Scott Hahn books, they actually think that the early church fathers believed what you believe about Mary, because that's the only context they've heard it in.

And in reality, they didn't believe what you believe about Mary, because there wasn't some apostolic tradition that had been passed down from the apostles in regards to the bodily assumption of Mary.

But you, if you understand Roman Catholic theology, have to believe that to be a faithful Roman Catholic.

So the whole point being, I run into people all the time who think that because you can find a statement from such and such an individual saying, oh, here's something that's said about Mary, therefore they read back into these early writers dogmas that did not develop to their modern position for centuries, even millennia of time.

They think that Basil actually believed what you believe about Mary. He didn't. And that's a misuse of these individuals.

And even then, let's say you can find something clear. I mean, I can find stuff. Let's go to the apostolic fathers.

I can find stuff in the apostolic fathers, especially in stuff like the Shepherd of Hermas or Barnabas or something like that, that is just grossly unbiblical.

Rome would not accept any of this stuff. Why don't we apply the same standard to everybody at every point?

It seems that if you find anybody who's saying anything that sounds remotely like a later doctrinal development in Rome, all of a sudden, all the bets are off, all the standards are off, and that particular passage is no longer to be examined on the same basis.

As an example I've used many times, when Irenaeus said that he had an apostolic tradition a tradition coming from those who knew the apostles, that Jesus was in the sixth decade of life when he died.

He was arguing against the Gnostics. He was arguing against a misapplication they made. He was wrong, but he was arguing against them.

And he claimed, on the basis of John 8, and then, to my knowledge, the earliest claim of any early writer to have apostolic tradition.

Here's a tradition that came from the apostles themselves, that Jesus was more than 50 years old when he died.

Now, there's nobody who believes he was right about that. He was trying to do a good thing. He was trying to argue against heretics.

But you know what? Sometimes when people do that, they really stick their foot in their mouth. I understand, but you can pull out one quote from somebody here and there.

What I'm going back to, I'm not talking about the Assumption. I'm not talking about Queen of Heaven.

I'm talking about perpetual virginity. And when you have all these great

Christian, you want to call them writers? Writers. That's fine. Of that era. Of those decades.

And they all defend it ardently. And then here we go. We've got the

Reformists and the people that practice Sola Scriptura. Oh, that's not what it says. And they just brush it aside like it's foolishness.

Okay. How many of these people? Now, we've already admitted that this actually starts, like, in the 3rd century.

And you had to admit that about the earliest you'd go might be, and we weren't certain who you were claiming, whether it's

Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria. But let's say that's the end of, let's push it all the way back to about 180 or so.

Okay. All right. So you've got some folks there, and you've not been able to tell me whether they actually defended it as a dogma or not.

We know that Basil said it was not a dogma, even though he believed it. And so you've got these individuals.

How many of them read both Greek and Hebrew?

Well, I don't know about that, but I know that they read the scriptures because they actually comment on the scriptures. But you don't know if any of them did?

I really, I wouldn't know. I mean, you ask questions, and I really do my best to answer them.

I understand. But there are some things that I wouldn't have a clue at it. Are you aware of the fact that...

I'll take you at your word. Now, how many of them do you know in their argumentation that actually deal with the meaning of adelphos, adelphi, and its usage in the

New Testament? Again, I have to give you the same answer. So what you're going with are secondary sources that are saying to you, well, these early church fathers believed

X, Y, and Z, but you're not actually aware what level of knowledge they had of the actual biblical issues about the subject, do you?

You don't really know, do you? No, but I'm relying on history, and history tells us... No, no, no. You're not relying on history.

History would be the first level facts. You're relying upon secondary, seemingly

Roman Catholic sources that look at those facts and say, in my opinion, whoever it was that put this together, such and such a person believed this, but they don't even seem to comment, or you're not aware of whether they do comment or not, or know anything about whether that particular writer actually knew anything about the argument concerning what adelphos and adelphi means, things like that.

Let me give you an example. Well, before you do that, just let me say this, okay? If I'm doing that, so are you, because you're using these guys as references in public debates.

You're doing the same thing. You seem to misunderstand what I was just saying. I was not saying that simply citing someone is...

Is there anything wrong with that? For example, when I was talking about Basil, I have his original quote in front of me, in the original language.

What I'm asking you is, have you looked at the context of where these men allegedly said this was true to determine whether, in point of fact, they were even aware of what the biblical evidence on the subject was?

That is, what adelphos means, what adelphi means, the other words that are used for close relations, whatever their theory was.

And the fact of the matter is, I don't run into very many Roman Catholics who have ever done anything like that.

And I think it's relevant to weighing the testimony of any particular individual, whether he's simply repeating something he was told by somebody else, or whether he has actual biblical knowledge, because you're the one that raised the issue.

Weren't these guys reading the scriptures? Well, were they? Unless you know where they're dealing with those topics from a scriptural perspective, you haven't answered the question that you've asked me.

I think the last time I called in, I said to you, did they have the scriptures? And you said, yes, they had the scriptures.

And then when I actually read their quotes, it's got the little citation down there, the little endnote, where it's got in their writings, in the paragraph, where you can find this.

And then within the quote, they talk about the verse in scripture that says, until...

And then almost word for word, what Mattox was saying, one of the fathers that was reading last night, or a couple nights ago,

I should say, was using the exact same thing, until doesn't mean anything after. It was just up until that point, there was no relation.

And so is there any of those folks who actually address the fact that words do not appear as singular items in language, as singular units, they appear in phrases, such as heos hu?

It wasn't that technical. Okay, the point... They're writing simple points that they take as a fact, and you better believe it.

And the point being there, that therefore, they are to be judged on the very same basis as anybody else, and even more so, if they're making comments upon a language that they actually don't know, which, especially in Western theology, became very much the standard during the period of the greatest development in Marian theology, when

Latin became the standard instead of the original Greek, and in point of fact, all the way up to the

Council of Trent, when the Rome defined as the official text of the church, a secondary translation in Latin.

So that, of course, becomes even more important as later developments take place. But the example

I was going to use of basically what you're saying here is when Jerry Matitick stood in front of the audience in our debate on the papacy in the early church in 1993 in Denver, and opened to the index of a

Roman Catholic work on the early church fathers, Juergen's work, and sat there, stood there, and read names off from the index as if that somehow was indicative that, well, if Juergen says they believe this, they must have believed this.

You see, that is a tremendous misrepresentation of what any of these individuals believed.

And you may speak of, well, they strongly defended this. Well, there's a difference between strongly defending something and saying it's a dogma, first of all, and secondly, upon what basis and for what reasons, and thirdly, were their biblical arguments compelling?

I am consistent in applying those standards to anyone, whether they lived back then or today.

A Roman Catholic cannot be once Rome has taken that particular perspective and has dogmatized it.

You cannot apply the same standards to something that Rome has said is a dogma to something

Rome has not said is dogma. Can you? Can you? No, I guess. I guess not. No, you can't.

And so that's my problem. And when you look at these early church sources, when you look at these fundamental sources back there, that's why

I keep saying here's what's called anachronism, taking something later and reading it back into an ancient text.

I mean, most of the time, well, not most of the time, but there are many times, let's be honest, where these early church writers are not even addressing the subjects that we argue about today.

And so to try to even force them to address many of the things that we'd like them to address is simply unfair.

It would be like taking our writings, taking the logs of the channel where we've had discussions before.

And, you know, a thousand years from now, when there's topics we've never even imagined being discussed, asking us what we would have believed about those things is not fair.

And let's say that development takes place in what people believe over the next thousand years.

Is it fair to take that development and read it back into what we believe now just because we may use some terms that they're going to use that far down the road?

Of course not. That's the whole point of historical anachronism and reading into these early church fathers' full -blown concepts that simply were not theirs.

And, you know, the fact of the matter, you were at least honest enough to admit you can't look at anybody in that same time period and say, here is someone who believed, as dogma, everything

I believe about Mary. Because there wasn't anybody. There wasn't anybody.

Either that or you have to say, well, there were, they just didn't write anything. Well, not yet. Number one, I'm not done with my research.

And number two, whether the fact she was assumed into heaven or not, to me, what's the weight of that?

Not much. It's a dogma. I know that's the way the Roman... I'm talking about between us and Christian.

What is the real gravity? No, I'm not. Okay, she was assumed to heaven. I mean, I've read all those early books.

Adam and Eve was there. The guardian angels were there. I've read all that stuff. Now, is it folklore or is it true?

But I think it's a big difference when you talk about the perpetual virginity.

Well, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. The same... So you would agree, or you would disagree deeply with Jerry Matatix when he said that the very same source of authority that we have to know the resurrection of Christ is the source of authority we have to know the bodily assumption of Mary.

What's he saying the source is? The church? The church. The church. Well, as a

Catholic, I'm pretty much... I have to believe it, don't I? So what

I'm saying is when you give me the task of go and read the early fathers, and I'm thinking about this,

I'm thinking, boy, this Protestant minister really must have something... He really has a good point here.

And then I go back and I read them, and they're all really holding on to this belief. I think

I verified it to my own satisfaction without the cherub

Peter. So if those individuals likewise held to other traditions that are not dogmas for Rome, will you hold them to them as dogmas?

If they... You can string together a similar list of individuals who did not believe these things were dogmas, but they had certain beliefs back then in how to baptize or things like that.

Then will you hold that without the cherub Peter as a dogma as well, if you're going to be consistent? Well, I guess

I would, but I'd have to see who's disagreeing and why the church is saying not to believe these people.

Okay. All righty. Well, we're out of time. I appreciate you calling in, Steve. We've had a good conversation for about half an hour here, and we will let the folks who listened in, hopefully they were blessed by the conversation and the issues that come along with it.

We will, Lord willing, see you all next Tuesday morning. 11 a .m.

Mountain Standard or Daylight Time or whatever. Hey, it's 2 p .m. Eastern Daylight Time.