June 12, 2003

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. And welcome to The Dividing Line.

It is a Thursday evening. We are live here in Phoenix, Arizona, and this evening

I have a special program, well we like to think that they all are, but this one is a little different.

Someone asked me, I forget who it was, asked me, how do you keep up with all the goings -ons, all the stuff that's posted out there on the web, and you know what,

I don't. I really don't. What I do is people, a certain small number of folks, take the time to send me interesting

URLs. And I've sort of learned who is out there and who is finding the best stuff, and they send me good stuff, they don't overwhelm me, but they encounter stuff that I think

I'd find interesting, and most of the time, I do. And so I was sent a link this week to a thread on a message board.

Now message boards generally, and those of you who run message boards, please do not take this negatively, but message boards generally are the biggest time destroyers on the planet.

And that's coming from someone who used to be very big into the BBS scene, some of you may recall

BBSes that existed before the internet did, and I remember our little, we had a high -speed computer, 10 megahertz computer, it wasn't even a 386, it was an 8088, 10 megahertz clock speed, and like, oh

I forget, probably had like a 20, 30 megabyte hard drive, it was big in its day. And anyway, we had a

BBS that we ran off of it, it was 33 and we took it down, yeah 33 megahertz, yeah I know, but we started with that 10 megahertz thing that had, oh it was a 386, yeah, but we started with the 10, the 10 megahertz machine as I recall, and we ran, was it

Prasapalagian? What did we call it? Now I've forgotten, yeah it was called

Prasapalagian, yeah that's our chat channel now, but we had a BBS and we had echoes on it and all that stuff, anyway,

I'm getting off topic, and that's sort of like a message board, because you would write stuff, but at least back then, when you'd write a message to somebody else, it took time to get to their

BBS and to their system and then they'd respond, and it would take time to get back, sometimes as much as days, and so it didn't necessarily overwhelm you quite as much as modern day message boards do, and I could spend literally,

I could spend all day just responding to messages on message boards, if I wanted to do that, it would be very easy to do, every once in a while I've done that, recently

I sort of did, we called it the shock and awe campaign on one particular message board because they were getting inundated by Roman Catholics specifically, anyway,

I was sent a thread on the Envoy Magazine web board, and it's speak your mind, let's see what's this specifically called, if I can sort of go back here just a little bit, there's a specific name, it's envoymagazine .com

slash forum on Patrick Madrid's website, and the planet

Envoy, speak your mind discussion forums is what says the top of the screen, and I started reading through it, and I found it just fascinating,

I really did, in fact I mentioned that I was going to respond to it, and someone who remained nameless said, well why is it upset you so, and I don't have to be upset to respond to something,

I just found it fascinating the kind of comments and the rumor mongering that goes on out there in regards to myself and the ministry that we have and the debates that we do, and this particular thread was begun by a person who identifies themselves as Skyfire, and this was posted on March 27th, good grief, is this right, does it say 2002, that long ago, and that doesn't make any sense, because then the rest of them say 2003, so who knows, the dating looks a little bit weird here, but be that as it may,

I found the thread most interesting, and I hope you will find it interesting too, as I respond to some of the things that are said here,

Skyfire wrote in his article, can any Roman Catholic apologist beat

James White in a debate, I was browsing the internet and encountered a good Roman Catholic site, the site has links to debates between James White and Roman Catholic apologists such as Robert St.

Genes, Tim Staples, Jerry Matic's father, Mitch Pacwa, etc, granted that James White's arguments are flawed and dwelled on misconceptions, but however his skill as a debater is awesome because he successfully, in my opinion, embarrassed his opponents in the eyes and ears of the general public whose knowledge and scriptures are not as extensive to recognize the errors in the contents of James White's arguments,

James White's skill in a debate I must say outweighs many others because his spinning skill with scriptures seemed genuine in the general public's eyes and ears, are there any

Roman Catholic apologists that can face James White and beat him in a debate, well that was an interesting way of starting it, of course

I rarely get to hear anything fleshed out when statements like, let's see, when it talks about misconceptions and things like that, flawed, his arguments are flawed and dwelled on misconceptions, not sure what that means,

I hear that a lot, but I don't see much in the way of specifics and in my experience if I were to write to this person and ask for specifics, and I've done this, every once in a while people will send me urls and I'll sort of pop into the middle of a conversation and someone will just be, you know, they'll be on a roll about how bad

I am and how my understanding of this, that, and the other thing is flawed, and then all of a sudden I just show up and say, hi, my name's

James White and what specifically am I misunderstanding here, and all of a sudden, man, you know, the wheels start smoking with people who slam it into reverse and, well,

I didn't really mean to say that, but I mean, and it's been, and it's not,

I've not done it just once, I've done it a number of times where I have simply walked into a situation and said, okay, you say they're all flawed, show me where, and very rarely do

I get much in the way of meaningful response, but anyway, it seems that the assertion here is, well, he spins stuff,

I have a spinning skill, and again, you know, this last debate with Mitch Pack was the 47th we've done, you would think there would be a tremendous body of examples of these basic biblical errors that people could draw from, but I haven't seen,

I just don't see anyone, you know, drawing these things out and providing the documentation, it's most interesting, well, then there is a response posted by skripper2001, whatever in the world that means, his answer is

James Akin, James Akin can beat white in debate and has, in my humble opinion, he did it on Hank Hanegraaff's radio show,

The Bible Answer Man, Catholic Answer sells it in a three tape audio cassette tape set called The Bible Answer Man Debate, let me stop right there, and, you know,

I've expressed to both Carl Keating and James Akin that I think they really should be a little more upfront in at least admitting that this is a

Bible Answer Man program, they seemingly, and this has been my take on this in examining these things a number of times, if a person doesn't simply self -destruct, that means they win, and I found it strange that people who believe that Roman Catholicism is infallible, that it's the only true church, that it's the church that exists for 2 ,000 years, can actually be satisfied that their debater doesn't just self -destruct, that that somehow is a sufficient basis to establish an infallible system,

I found that to be very, very interesting, I would sort of think that in reality, if Roman Catholicism is what

Roman Catholicism claims to be, that it shouldn't be survival means victory, it should be vanquishing those who obviously don't know the truth,

I would think that would be the standard, but that isn't, the standard for victory for Roman Catholics is, was the person still standing and had not made massive gaffes like, pay me now or pay me later, you know, that kind of a thing, that somehow indicates that Roman Catholicism wins the day if their debater isn't basically drooling by the end of the evening, and I just,

I don't find that to be a meaningful standard. How about, how about looking at it, and for example, this is

Patrick Madrid's webpage, and he's actually, I'm going to read his responses down here, someone,

I think the individual actually who sent this to me, I thought made a very you know, insightful statement, when

I wrote back to him, he made the statement, I hope he doesn't mind my reading this on the program, he said the saints and images debate, that was the debate

I had with Patrick Madrid, wasn't even close, when you asked him would the Latria -Dulia distinction have worked in Moses' time, and he said no, then you asked then what was, what has changed, his response was well, the second command dealt with a particular propensity towards idolatry which no one in the modern era has, that lost the debate for him,

I just wish someone would have forced him to deal with the linguistic material you presented on, and then there's a number of words given here, and how they're used over and over together throughout the

Old Testament, he didn't even attempt to touch that stuff, that is what people who listen to debates carefully have commented on a number of times, the first thing that was said to me by a

Protestant after the debate was this man, Patrick Madrid, could never debate Barry Lynn, he could never debate him on the subject of homosexuality, because the entire argument that he used was well, if you find anything that contradicts my position, that was only relevant at the time, there was a special propensity toward idolatry then, that doesn't exist anymore, so it's not relevant to what

I do, well that would very easily be used in response to homosexuality, in fact that's the very argument they used, that the argument against homosexuality was merely culturally based at that particular point in time, and it doesn't have anything to do with the modern situation,

I was just on Issues Etc. barely an hour ago, talking about this very issue in light of the election of the

Episcopalian Bishop, the first openly gay Episcopalian Bishop in New Hampshire, and I pointed out that this is part and parcel of their argumentation, the cultural relevance concept, and that's what

Patrick Madrid used, now if you think that's a valid argument, then

I guess you could say that Patrick Madrid did well in that debate, but the people that I see saying that would never buy that argument from a homosexual, the inconsistency is very very clear, and so it's interesting that this kind of presentation is being made, going back to the

James Aiken thing, we have twice tried to get James Aiken to do the

Long Island debate, I'm actually in correspondence right now with Mr. Aiken on the subject of doing the

Apocrypha, because I think that he'd probably be one of the better people to try to handle that material,

I haven't seen a whole lot of interest on his part as yet, but next year's debate is beyond the Apocrypha, and everyone keeps saying just as what's said here, this person on the web board says

James Aiken can beat White in debate, and he did so on the Bible Answer Man, you know, I listen to those tapes of the

Bible Answer Man program, and I can tell you that a lot of folks that I've heard that listen to that, yes

I'm sorry, that's Jimmy Aiken, I'm sorry, but I'm just used to calling him that name, but he's officially, formally changed his name, and I need to use his official name,

Jimmy Aiken, I don't think it went nearly as well as they do, but I guess the fact of the matter is, since it was a radio discussion that never dwelt on any one subject long enough to get past surface level things, well, we're gonna, you know, we're gonna call it a debate, it wasn't a debate, quit calling it a debate, they insist on doing so because, well,

I don't know why, but they insist on doing so, so this particular post continues on, as you noted above,

White is a skilled debater, wrong -headed but skilled, dare I make the comparison with Satan's skills as a wrong -headed debater, so if you're looking for someone to just demolish

White in debate, that's not going to happen, but if one had to pick a winner, honestly, it would be Aiken. For those reading who are unfamiliar with who

Hank Hanegraaff is, he is a moderately anti -Catholic Protestant, he is also president of a moderately anti -Catholic organization called

CRI, he also hosts a radio show called the Bible Answer Man, where he enlightens his listeners with his personal opinions on what he thinks scripture means, he has guests such as White who do the same,

I like that, there is a form of pyrrhonism there,

I guess from his perspective, unless the magisterium tells you what the scriptures mean, you can't know what they mean, but of course, then the problem is the magisterium hasn't told you, so, well, anyway, yes,

I need to turn my timers off here, timers off, there we go, for anyone unfamiliar with who

James Aiken is, he is a senior apologist to Catholic Answers, a Catholic evangelization, apologetic organization based in Southern California, there is someone who has listened to Catholic Answers live a couple times too many, he is also, for my money, the best

Catholic apologist in the country, bar none, including Han, and so he goes on from there, and he says, but anyway, give a listen to the debate, it's good, and Aiken does best

White, of course White scores his debating points, but that's all they are, because he is a good debater, but Aiken actually wins the debate, although maybe not every single battle within the debate, but I think if time wasn't a factor, he could and would prevail on every individual point, well, if that's the case,

I would like to see some debates with James Aiken, we have certainly been open to do so, but so far have not been able to arrange that, the next guy is called

Buddy the Catholic, Buddy the Catholic, and he says, as I stated before in the who is your best

Catholic apologist window, James Aiken is, just the previous person said, get the debate tapes from Catholic Answers, or get them from us, in fact, do we have that in,

I don't think we have that in MP3 as of yet posted anywhere, but maybe we do, I don't know, either that or it might be on Straightgate, I don't know, the

Bible Answer Man program with Jimmy Aiken, let's see, and see for yourself,

James Aiken does a great job not only defending the faith, but gives biblical answers and rebutting every single remark James White gives, well, that, stop right there, that didn't happen, it can't happen because of the format of the

Bible Answer Man, there are times when he got the last word, there are times when I got the last word, so that's an untrue statement right there, and James Aiken even gives callers some things to think about as they question the beliefs of our

Catholic faith, also I would highly recommend Pat Madrid vs. James White on Solo Scriptura tapes, which you can purchase here at this site, and I would like to add,

I think Tim Staples did an alright job also on the Bible Answer Man with James White, but it seemed he was nervous and did not expect

White to be so outspoken, and Hank Hanergraaff to be so involved also, well,

I'm not sure what he was expecting, but clearly buy the Aiken vs. White tapes and you will be relieved to see the

Catholic Church is awesome! That's Buddy the Catholic, Buddy Rodriguez, yes,

I love very fair analysis of things. Then Patrick Madrid weighed in, and he basically said, let me see here, he says,

I can understand that some people might wonder about this, I've attended some of these Catholic Protestant debates and have listened to audio tapes of a few others, and the results have definitely been mixed.

In some exchanges with Matatix and others, James White did very well, though in others a Catholic debater clearly vanquished him.

Not given any specifics there, interestingly enough, and I see a little swipe at Matatix possibly.

Personally, of the dozen or so major formal debates I have engaged in with Protestant ministers, well,

Protestant ministers, that's just misspelled, Mormon leaders, etc. over the years, two of those debates I had were with James White.

The first, which took place in the fall of 1993, Sol Scriptura, about three hours, second debate,

Long Island, and he says, Personally, my view is that Jim White didn't make his case, much less win in either debate, nor could he since both positions he took in the debates, especially the one in Sol Scriptura, are simply untenable.

True, my own performance in each debate had its imperfections and missteps, but overall I believe the Catholic teaching was amply vindicated in each exchange.

So, Patrick Madrid claims to have won both of those debates. He then says he's not obviously objective, he's subjective, so he mentions where the audiotapes are available from, and then you can buy them.

Then someone named 5 .0 Apologist, who says,

I'm a convert to Catholicism and sort of a debate junkie. I have, it's available, oh, it is available on MP3, okay, number 468, that's the one that the

Bible answers. You know, now that I mention it, I remember that. It is available, so hey, you all might want to listen to it, and you can have to wait for a tape to download.

I have tons of debates on tape, and was in the audience of the Communion of Saints debate. I wonder if that's the fellow who

I might be thinking it is, I don't know. Anyway, he makes a number of interesting statements in here.

I've heard Patrick Madrid debate many times, and he always does a great job, I thought he presented a more solid case than did White. Of course, we have the truth, which is the most important aspect of any debate, but match -ups or mismatches among seasoned debaters can heavily influence an untrained audience.

And of course, I wonder, what does untrained mean? Does that mean someone actually following the argument and dealing with the biblical information?

I don't know. White is a smart man and a savvy debater, so it is rare that he will get knocked out, so to speak. Pat uses a nice, relaxed speaking manner in conjunction with a quick wit to present his case.

He has also no pushover when things get a little testy. One of his best lines was on a Protestant radio show when these anti -Catholics were quoting

Catholic inventions and the dates that they were supposedly conjured up by the church. Pat replied, I wasn't aware this was comedy hour.

A great line to answer their ridiculous claims that can so easily be dismissed. I thought for a moment, if I ever said anything like that, whenever I use anything that could possibly be construed as humor, the very same folks will interpret that in the worst possible light, of course.

But anyway, both times that Pat debated White, I feel that Pat presented a more biblical and historical defense of his position.

The only time I saw what I would refer to as a knockout was when Pat and Keating debated soul scripture against Jackson and Nemec.

Well, you know what? I finally get to agree with someone. That's exactly right. Of course,

I would only point out, and this is generally not known, is that that debate with Jackson and Nemec in Denver in 1993 was only arranged after both

Keating and Madrid declined my challenges to debate there. And they just happened to arrange it for a night when they knew

I could not be there, the second night of the papacy debate. Because I can guarantee you things would have been different had

I been able to be there. So I've always found that to be somewhat strange.

Anyways, the Protestant side was terrible. And to be fair, if I were to present this to a possible convert, I'd explain to them that this isn't the best representation of soul scripture from a

Protestant perspective. That's for sure. Keating is a great writer, but not a great debater. Madrid was by far the best debater that day.

I have White debating some Genes, Matitix, Vin Lewis, parenthesis, a madman, parenthesis close,

Father Packwood, Tim Staples, Aiken. The Aiken -White debate on the Hank Hanegraaff show was not a formal debate, as White says, but it was a great interaction.

I also have those two on a radio debate on perseverance, which, by the way, if you'll go back, I don't remember when this was.

It was when a guy named Savon was posting on our chat channel, who called into Catholic Answers Live and asked

James Aiken about the errors that he made in that debate. Specifically, the errors in the notes that he has posted on the

EWTN website, where he mangles, absolutely mangles, the aorist tense, the syntax of the aorist tense.

You'll hear on this program, on The Dividing Line, that call and the demonstration that Aiken has absolutely no foundation whatsoever for the comments that he makes there.

He's been fully refuted on that, but to my knowledge, may not even be aware of that. I suppose

I should maybe, you know, make him aware of that at some point, but I didn't. Aiken is as bright as they come.

I would like to see them debate in a formal setting, though, as would I. Staples -White on solo scripturas won by Tim.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. White spent some of his time whining that the audience was too pro -Staples, which is surprising for such a seasoned debater.

I don't remember anything like that at all. I do remember the audience misbehaving horribly, and people yelling out things from the audience like,

The Eucharist! But I don't remember any whining. Many Catholics go into hostile Protestant venues and don't complain about it.

Oh, well, you've missed the complaints, I guess. I heard Staples didn't do well in a papacy debate with White.

Understatement. I haven't heard it. In the Lost Debate, now this is the thing that just blows me away. In the

Lost Debate, Art Sippo did great against White on solo fide. Excuse me, excuse me, but he said this was only part one and no one knows where part two can be found.

No, Catholic Answers lost the tapes. So how in the world do you know how he did if you only have half of it?

That absolutely amazes me. I would love to hear it. Manitix is a good debater. When he is prepared,

Jerry is brilliant, but scatterbrained. He has done well against White, even though he doesn't claim to have done so well many times himself.

That's me talking. Father Pacwa, a true scholar, knows his stuff, but is almost too nice to soundly defeat

White in a debate. So Janus always has done well against White, whether it be a debate on solo fide, the papers, the math, etc.

Sometimes they can get very snippy with each other, which is fine. Vin Lewis did terrible, I thought, in their radio debate.

In conclusion, I don't think White will ever get knocked out by anyone. He is a savvy debater who is well -prepared. He talks smoothly.

Hey, I don't talk nearly as smoothly as Rich does. I don't have the Rich Pierce pillow talk voice, so I can't talk nearly as smoothly as Rich does.

He talks smoothly so he comes across well and not choppy, but it is a shame that, now here's where I wanted to talk about this, it is a shame that he truly knows the

Catholic position, but chose to follow objective truth. Now that's what it says.

I'm just reading it. It is a shame that he truly knows the Catholic position, but chose to follow objective truth.

That's true. It's interesting. An earlier person said, oh, misrepresentation, misrepresentation.

This person says, no, he truly knows the Catholic position, but chose to follow objective truth.

That's what I did. Now listen to this. Now here's where the rumors go. Father Pacwa told me that Matitix had a talk with White after a debate.

Now let's follow this one here. So this is allegedly coming to this fellow from Mitch Pacwa and allegedly coming from Jerry Matitix.

We had a discussion after a debate. Now I know that Jerry, let me see,

I'm trying to think of discussions with Jerry after debates. I can't think of any. I mean, Rich may remember the discussion after the papacy debate in Denver where both

Rich and I were standing there and all my stuff was all packed up.

I had all these volumes, the early church fathers, and I packed them up in this, in fact, sitting right here next to my left foot, this book bag.

I had two book bags and they were on my six foot table and that was all that was there was two packed up book bags.

The chair was pushed in and we look over at Jerry's table and you cannot see any of the wood of Jerry's table.

There's yellow notepads and pieces of paper and books half open and all this stuff and then under the table, the only place you could see the carpet was where his feet had been.

I mean, this is, it is a disaster area and we did have a conversation then because he looked at Rich and I who were looking at him and his table and he said, okay, you win the organization competition and we sort of had a chuckle about that.

But anyways, he goes on to say, Father Pacwa told me that Matitix had a talk with White after debate. Jerry said,

James, the cameras are off and the crowd is gone. You can't honestly say that in lieu of all the facts that you truly believe that Peter is not the rock referred to in Matthew 16.

James said, of course, I know that Peter is the rock, but I'm simply presenting the Protestant position.

End quote. Sad if true. Well, let me tell you, let me see, is this 5 .0, 5 .0

apologist, not true. That's called rumor mongering. No such conversation has ever taken place.

And if you'll simply listen to the material that I've presented in the debates with Jerry and with Mitch Pacwa on the subject of the papacy, no, that's not what

I believe. Now, why would someone, you know, what fascinates me is the, is the mindset behind someone who would repeat this fourth, fifth hand.

Why, why even say something like this? Is it just desperation? Is it just trying to explain? Because, you know, think about it from a

Roman Catholic perspective, I should not be able to do what I do. I mean, if Rome is what

Rome claims it is, then I should not be able to go toe to toe with these people. Mitch Pacwa knows 12 languages for crying out loud.

Uh, he, I should not be able to go toe to toe with these people. If Rome is what Rome claims it is to be, it shouldn't happen.

So this seems to be the way that people explain the stat of true to an unknowing audience.

James will twist the writings of the fathers and play to the audience. Any examples given?

Nope. Uh, recently, James, listen to this, recently, James said that Luther never claimed that James's epistle of straw.

That's baloney. I've never said anything like that at all. What I said was Luther did not remove it from the canon.

And in fact, in his later years quoted from the epistle of James numerous times, completely different thing, but getting people to actually say something honest is hard.

Our online apologists like Apollonio and Mike Bernard pointed out with footnotes, this was not the case.

Well, if it came from Apollonio, then you know where it got misunderstood. Uh, and so on and so forth.

Um, I'll go on with the, with the next one here. Uh, when we take our break and continue looking at this fascinating thread and how people hear or don't hear debates, we'll be right back.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many evangelicals are finding the history, tradition and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

The Roman Catholic Controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.

They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomen .org.

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

Mormon missionary examining the teaching and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints.

The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style. James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

With well -defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the

Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

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

Mormon Elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at aomen .org.

Is the Mormon my brother? Bethany House Publishers presents James White's book, Is the Mormon my brother?

In television campaigns, parachurch events and clergy fellowships all across the United States, Mormons are presenting themselves as mainstream

Christians. Is it unloving or backward to say they aren't real Christians? In contrast to Christian monotheism, the belief in one

God, Mormonism teaches that God was once a man who lived on another planet and was exalted to the status of God and that Mormon men can also become gods upon death and resurrection.

In his book, Is the Mormon my brother? James White demonstrates how this fact alone means Mormons and Christians are irreconcilably at odds at faith's most basic level.

Is the Mormon my brother? is now available from Alpha and Omega Ministries Book Ministry. You can order Is the

Mormon my brother? from our website at www .aomin .org.

The history of the Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the

Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book,

The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute,

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. Jay Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout. An outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at www .aomin .org.

And welcome back to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We're just doing something a little different tonight.

We're looking at a thread of posts from Roman Catholics on the

Envoy website about myself and about our debates. It's interesting to me to listen to what people have to say and to see the responses.

The next post is from my sister. Of course, she thinks that Patrick Madrid did real well because my only leg to stand on was

Sola Scriptura, which has no legs to stand on, thus making my whole argument a lame duck. So, I guess demonstrating that Latria and Dulia cannot be distinguished and that Mr.

Madrid's position would then make all of the Bible's arguments against homosexuality and things like that irrelevant is wrong because Sola Scriptura is not defensible.

We are told that the problem with debates is that so often the Protestants come with no actual knowledge of what the

Catholic Church is or teaches. Well, of course, I would say most Catholics come without any knowledge of what

Protestants believe either unless they're former Protestants and even then somehow they frequently get twisted.

They have never understood tradition or church history and so James's arguments sound comfortable and familiar and are drawn completely from the prejudices he and they were raised with.

So, I guess when I presented arguments, for example, drawn from Roman Catholic sources in the debate with Mitch Pacwa a couple weeks ago demonstrating that they say that the concept of priesthood was something that developed over time and that this use of presbyteros was not found in the first century and when

I refuted every use Mitch Pacwa made of Clement, for example, that, you know, that's just my prejudices that I was raised with is my knowledge of the early church fathers.

But, anyway, and then and this is where I wish

I actually tried to get in touch with this fellow. A fellow who has indeed been in our channel, but it's been about 12 days, who comes in with the

Nick Coach, but the O is not an O, it's a zero. C0ACH.

He posts on this website as Coach McGurk, I guess is how you'd say it.

People's names on websites and boards and in channels are strange, of course.

I mean, mine's Dr. Oakley, so what can I say? I wanted to say that I really appreciated

C0ACH's participation in this particular dialogue.

Here's someone who obviously, I think, has read a lot of my material. He's, in what

I have read, has accurately represented my position in a very fair way and I would just like to say

I really appreciate it. It's encouraging to me to see someone like Coach McGurk out there who's listened and listened fairly and done a really good job and I appreciate that Pete just changed the topic, gave everybody the exact material that I'm reading on the website right now with the

URL and this sound will play when it's time to turn the page. Good old

Pete. I'm almost tempted to reach over here and wake up my Furby and let it talk in the background just to make

Pete a happy man, but that would drive all the rest of you completely and totally nuts. Given the fact that Pete is the one who allows our website to actually post this stuff, maybe

I should do that because he'd be a happy camper. Anyway, Coach pointed out a number of things that I have already pointed out.

He even gave the URL to our website where you can download the debate that we did on Perseverance and all the rest of that stuff.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a, maybe I should, let's see.

What is that? Turn up my computer a second here. There we go.

We have an announcement. We have an announcement. AOMN alert.

I have just been informed, a newsflash, a newsflash. By the way,

I should have the PACWA debate ready tomorrow. Now remember folks, this is the debate on the priesthood between myself and Father Mitchell PACWA, who have just been informed that Alpha and Omega Ministries should have the

PACWA debate. Now I'm assuming you mean an MP3 format, right? You're not talking about the videos. You're talking about MP3 format, right?

He types slowly. Yes, okay. Should have the

PACWA debate ready tomorrow. Ready folks? Just in time for Father's Day.

Hey, there you go. There you go.

I think that's great. So just in time for Father's Day, give your father the debate on the priesthood.

There you go. Please do not use that advertisement on the website. It's one thing on the dividing line, something completely different when it's on the website.

Okay. Oh, that's good. Well, anyway, that will be available.

And by the way, the reason that the PACWA debate is ready this quickly is because on the last dividing line,

I mentioned that you might want to talk to AOMN and tell them you're looking forward to that particular debate.

And so look what happened. It's gotten done. By the way, I just want to mention that it's really hard to actually do the editing when people keep ringing the phone and I have to answer it.

When's the PACWA debate going to be ready? Well, thank you very much for that little insert.

But I should also let you all know that right outside my office here, there's a big thing that has books in it.

And one of the books that it has in it is called, well, it used to be called

God's Sovereign Grace. I don't know what it's called anymore. The Sovereign Grace of God or something like that.

But it's my original. Called the Sovereign Grace of God. Well, anyway, the title of the book got changed, but it's the same book.

It's still God's Sovereign Grace. It used to be a blue book. It is my friendly introduction to the doctrines of grace, my friendly deduction to Calvinism.

So both that and Drawn by the Father are in print. And they're sitting right outside the door there.

And you may go, well, I want to get it. I've wanted to give that to my friends. And we've been waiting so long.

But don't bother going to the website because you can't actually find it there. But you will soon.

And see, the reason I mentioned that is, is because the same person who is just so, so patiently editing the

PACWA debate also is the one who needs to put that up there. Now, I could put it up there, but I can't put it into the mysterious matrix -like realm of the shopping cart.

I really think the beginning of the matrix is actually the shopping cart, the

MySQL database that only AOMIN can touch and that only that disembodied

Pillow Talk voice can touch. And so if you want to get that book, then you'll want to pray for him and send him encouraging emails that says, get that up there, man.

I want to order it. I want to get it out there, see? We have an enjoyable time around here.

Well, let me go back to my little thing here. And oh, no, it woke up.

I bumped it. It's talking to me. It wants to be fed now. It's terrible.

Ouch! It bit my finger. I think it's actually a Jesuit Furby.

Anyway, going back here, I really appreciate what Coach did in providing some good responses here.

And a lot of the things I brought up, and he said, you know, I would really like to see a debate between James White and James, sorry,

Jimmy Aiken and James White. Don't call me Jimmy. And I would, too. And he makes mention of that.

Then someone named Denny, when Coach said, unfortunately, it appears that Aiken is avoiding

White, their response was, maybe he just wiped the dust from his shoes.

Maybe he knows that it is fruitless to talk to a wall. Oh, be quiet.

And, you know, I sort of get the feeling Denny may not like me.

And so Coach responds, possibly, but it seems doubtful since Aiken has spent so much time talking to other walls.

I don't know of any other apologist for whom Aiken has wiped the dust off his shoes, do you? And I just love that.

That is just, that's the kind of response that I practice being able to come up with. It didn't get a real interesting response either.

Let me, I'm scrolling through this because there was something I wanted to encounter, wanted to mention later on.

And it was after Coach responded to someone else. And that person responded, a person by the name of Craig.

And he said, to clarify, I never said he was Satan. My point is that a live debate is not a good test of the truth.

Debate skills are not equivalent with truth. Well, that may be true. And in a single debate, that,

I think, would have a valid argument. However, over the course of 30 debates and more on the subject of Roman Catholicism, I don't know that,

I don't know if that really follows in that particular situation. Secondly, he said,

I jumped into a conversation on a web board, don't know anything about that. Then, this is the point

I wanted to respond to. Yeah, sure. Send Matt in and let Matt play with the, get, the neat thing would be to get that Furby out there to talk with this

Furby in here, but just do it out there. Then they can talk to each other. They're actually supposed to be able to talk to each other.

And that, that would be nice because, and he needs to, if he could feed mine, mine's hungry and it keeps biting my fingers.

So if he could come get it, that'd be fun. But this is the point I want to get to. Number four, the point about atheists and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are good, and I'm glad he chooses to minister in these areas.

Stop. I hear that all the time. Oh, I'm so glad that he ministers to those people. Um, you've never heard me say,

I'm so glad that Roman Catholics minister to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

Why? Well, I think I'm pretty consistent in not believing that they would be ministering the true gospel to them.

So it always strikes me as a little bit interesting. Do these folks believe that I have at least enough of the gospel to sort of minister to them or something?

I mean, is it better to be a Protestant than to be a Mormon? Uh, is that, Oh, hello. Is that the argumentation?

I really haven't been able to follow that particular, that particular argument, but he says, bye -bye little Furby. Um, the point about atheists and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses are good, and I'm glad he chooses to minister in these areas, but any

Roman Catholic worth the label would find his unabashed hatred of our church distasteful.

In his eyes, Roman Catholics are not different from these other groups. And that was some, that was probably reading that and the alleged conversation with Jerry Matitix and the rumors involved with that was one of the main reasons

I wanted to discuss this because I, you know, I understand where this person's coming from.

Um, if he is a, a standard, uh, post -modern

Roman Catholic, then I can understand where he would take my passion for the gospel and assume that means hatred.

You know, it's like, it's like taking my passion for any biblical truth, say for the biblical truth of, of how

God has created men and women. Homosexuals think that that's hatred of homosexuality and of them as individuals.

Well, I guess I do in a sense, hate homosexuality in the sense that it's a perversion of what's good.

And in that sense, isn't that the very same sense in which the Bible says that we are to hate injustice, that we are to hate evil, that we are to hate sin.

And so I guess in that sense, but that's obviously not what this individual's referring to. Uh, his unabashed hatred of our church.

Well, would the inquisition be an example of Rome's unabashed hatred of my church?

Is that, would that be a fair, you know, I've always tried to find out what, what does this person, this person does not hate perversions of Rome's teachings, does not hate denials of Rome's teachings?

I don't know. Uh, this, this is where my discussions, these folks frequently get way off base because the, the postmodernism that is so much a part of most of these people thinking really loses me.

It's difficult for me to follow exactly where they're going here. Uh, when he used the term unabashed hatred of our church, what does he mean?

Does he mean that, that I understand what that church teaches and that I have fairly examined what that church teaches, that I find it completely out of harmony with both the

Bible and in many instances anyways, history itself, and therefore out of love for the truth and concern for those who are, who are trapped within Roman Catholicism, I speak the truth?

Is that what he's talking about? I don't know. Uh, when he says in his eyes, Roman Catholics are not different from these other groups.

How can anyone listen to me fairly and not recognize the fact that I recognize the fundamental differences, but I also recognize the fundamental similarities.

I do not place Roman Catholicism in the same category as Mormonism and anyone who has listened to me knows that.

Uh, one of the things that coach had to go over over and over again, this, this thread eventually developed into a discussion of my use of the phrase sola ecclesia and coach very properly pointed out that I, when

I discuss this subject, say over and over again, Rome doesn't use this term.

Roman Catholic apologists deny its applicability. Uh, and yet it is absolutely positively accurate.

And every time a Roman Catholic apologist attempts to get out of that description, he only proves once again, how right it is.

Uh, and it developed into that and coach did a good job in pointing out that every time in this thread, someone tried to get around that, uh, they ended up proving its validity.

And that is that the, this particular, uh, epistemology that Rome has developed.

Rome claims to define the extent of scripture, the Canon and the meaning of scripture, infallible interpretation, the extent of tradition and the meaning of tradition to what source does a

Roman Catholic go to get infallible certainty regarding all those things, the magisterium of the church.

So how can the magisterium be under the authority of scripture when she defines what is and what is not scripture, what scripture does and does not say or tradition when she defines what is and what is not tradition and what tradition does and does not say, how can she be corrected by anything that would come from those sources when those sources depend for their very existence and interpretation upon the magisterium of the church, that's sola ecclesia.

And every time that issue comes up, you see over and over again, people struggling to get out of that description.

And yet in the process, proving that my assertion, my allegation is true.

Well, of course, then it became, well, you know, he's misrepresenting is misrepresenting us. I didn't find any examples of misrepresentation.

I didn't find any examples of, of wrongheaded biblical argumentation, any of those things.

It just seems to be enough to make the assertion. Well, we know he's wrong. Okay, let's get specific about it.

Well, we just, we just know he's wrong. To me, this was one of the reasons I want to do this is it's just fascinating to me to sit back and listen to people talking, not thinking

I'd ever see these things, not thinking that I would ever interact with this particular thread or, or do a program like this and read these things and just hear how people understand, uh, you know, the next person in the, in the, uh, list fell by name of Evan.

He says, I very much appreciate James White's work with Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, King James only. Somebody has to deal with these people and I'm glad he does, but in the

Catholic church, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. Again, I, I sit here shaking my head.

How could a Roman Catholic appreciate my work with Mormons or with Jehovah's witnesses?

Okay. I guess I can understand Jehovah's witnesses. We're talking about the Trinity, but as soon as you start talking about the gospel, I'm going to be saying the same things, the same allegedly false gospel.

And does it cross these folks' minds? Why aren't there Catholics doing these things? You know what?

That, that, that leaves me, you know, um, white likes to make a big stink. Uh, the fact that he reportedly doesn't misrepresent the

Catholic position is therefore night, not like all the other anti -Catholic apologists. Let me stop right there.

Uh, I've never said all the other anti -Catholic apologists. Um, you know, there are folks like, uh,

Bill Webster and David King and Eric Spenson that I have specifically named as individuals who are doing important work in these fields.

I haven't said I'm the only one out there. I have very clearly disagreed with people like Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera and have repudiated those things.

Uh, but you know, and then of course he tries to defend this idea of anti -Catholic. Yeah. Yeah. And yes, he's anti -Catholic.

He believes that any knowledgeable practicing Catholic like myself is not Christian is going to hell. So if I believe that you have a false gospel, doesn't say that makes me anti -Catholics.

That must mean that you believe that I have a true gospel. Well, enough of it.

Now we can start examining this and it, the logic of it will, will collapse.

Um, he will not give up that sola ecclesia diatribe, but that is so manifestly not what we believe and has never been claimed by the church.

Sure. He may think that this is what our theology comes down to, which is his opinion. But the point is that he's explaining to people what he thinks we believe and not what we say we believe he doesn't qualify it with.

This is what they believe in my opinion. Uh, folks, all of you who have listened to this program, who have listened to the debates knows that's not true.

And all of you who have looked at, uh, my published works or the website knows that's not true.

Uh, why not stick with that? Why not allow me to speak for myself?

Well, I don't expect that on a Catholic web board. Uh, that's not something that's, uh, that, that I would expect, but every once in a while you do run into folks who, who do that.

Um, then, Oh, I'm glad I got to this one. This is the bottom of the page. I almost forgot about it. Almost ran out of time. Uh, Betsy Betsy writes a few years ago,

I got an email debate with a Benny Diaz who was associated with James White. I visited James White's webpage. He claims that he has won all the debates he has had with Catholics.

Really? Okay. I, you know, it's interesting. She gave the web address, but then at that point, no reference is given.

Uh, I thought I generally let people determine that for themselves. There were some that were real obvious, but I generally let folks determine that for themselves.

Um, but as has already been pointed out here, he hasn't actually won. He refuses to accept that he is wrong and that has been proven by Catholic apologists that he is wrong.

He rejects anything that shows such proof. Okay. Then he reminds me of Jack Chick.

Years ago, I came across some of Chick's pamphlets in a comic book. The comic was supposedly about a former priest named

Alberto. Both the pamphlets and the comic book were full of lies about the Catholic faith. Chick's claims are absolutely absurd.

So are James White's. End of post. Well, you know, you, you feel for someone like that.

Uh, it's very obvious. Here's someone who has never even, even contemplated actually studying anything.

Uh, and it's, you know, it's, I mentioned that, uh, Trinity Fellowship Church when

I was there, someone asked about debates. I said, you know, when I go into debate, I know that there's a certain spectrum on my side and a certain spectrum on their side.

That's not gonna listen to a word I have to say. And there's nothing you can do about it.

And there isn't. And here's Betsy and Betsy has no idea what she's talking about.

Uh, it's obvious to me and anyone else that knows anything that she has no idea what she's talking about, but there's no getting through to the

Betsy's of the world. Only God can do things to get them to start thinking. Um, I know there's people on my side that the exact same way they've never listened to a word that anyone has said.

And I do not think that that's necessarily right. Uh, but that's the way it is.

Well, interesting to hear how people hear things or don't hear things or only hear what they want to hear.

Isn't it? Well, they spoke their mind on Planet Envoy and I don't think they had the idea that I'd ever review what they had to say.

It'd be interesting to listen to this and maybe find out the truth about some of these things.

Hope so. Hope you've been blessed by the discussion. Next Tuesday morning, I am teaching at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley.

I won't be here, but we'll be here eventually on the dividing line. Keep listening. God bless. You can also find us on the worldwide web at AOMIN .org.

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