Abridged Version of Papal Infallibility Debate With Robert Sungenis

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

Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alba 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 in the

Metro Phoenix dialing area, or toll free across the United States at 1 -866 -550 -3915, that's 866 -550 -3915.

And now, with today's topic, here is James White. Good afternoon and welcome to the Dividing Line this afternoon.

My name is Rich Pierce and I'm sitting in for Dr. White today as he does some traveling back in New York State, and in the meantime, today

I've got a special treat for you. It arrived yesterday, the tapes from the debate in October with Robert St.

Genes over the subject of papal infallibility. It is a special treat for us to be able to hear excerpts today of that debate.

I'm going to put it out there right away, not the whole debate, but this is a little bit of a teaser. And there is so much of it,

I want to get right to it. And so Mr. St. Genes will be beginning his remarks as he affirms the doctrine of papal infallibility.

You'll hear the introductions, the whole works, and we're going to get right to that right now. I'm Bob St.

Genes. I'm happy to be here to defend the Catholic position on this very important topic.

Just to let you know a little bit about myself, I was born and raised a Catholic for 19 years, and after that I was a

Protestant for 18 years. And eight years ago I came back to the Catholic Church, and I'm happy to represent the

Catholic Church's teachings, and I can safely say that I know both sides of the issue, having spent equal time on both sides.

I do run an organization, and it's called Catholic Apologetics International, and we teach and defend the

Catholic faith across the country and internationally with books and tapes and lectures and debates like this and all kinds of things.

We have an internet site, and you can call us up any time, day or night, and we'll answer your questions about the

Catholic faith, and feel free to do that. If after tonight you have any questions about what's debated. So with that, as far as my education,

I was educated more as a Protestant than I was as a Catholic. So I went to a Protestant seminary,

I graduated from there, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and so I'm very familiar with Protestant doctrines, how you think, what you believe, and why you believe them.

And I hope tonight to maybe give you the other side of the story. Thank you. It is good to be with you this evening.

My name is James White. I'm the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I teach for the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

I'm an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and author of a number of books, two of which which are relevant here,

The Roman Catholic Controversy and Mary, Another Redeemer. And our work with Alpha and Omega Ministries has given us the opportunity of engaging in, and I believe this is about the 28th or 29th, moderated debate like this on the subjects of Roman Catholicism and giving an answer.

And so I really do appreciate the hard work that has gone into making this evening an opportunity for us to address this very important issue.

In 1870, Pope Pius IX said in Pastor Aeternus, quote, it is a divinely revealed dogma that the

Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all

Christians, he defines by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed

Peter the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals.

And that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves not because of the consent of the church.

Now there are certain criterion for papal infallibility that are listed here, let me go through them for you.

Number one, the Pope must be speaking in his recognized role as teacher for all Christians. Number two, that he precisely defines a doctrine, not merely give general teaching.

Number three, that the definition concerns only matters of faith or morality. Number four, that the definition is commanded to be believed and obeyed by the whole church.

And number five, that such teachings are irreformable and not subject to denial from the church.

Without these criterion fulfilled, the Roman Pontiff does not speak infallibly. If only a percentage of them are fulfilled, then the

Roman Pontiff is not speaking infallibly. Does this infer that when the Pope does speak infallibly that he can and has taught error?

Well, this is one of those have you stopped beating your wife questions that takes a little more than a yes or no answer to answer.

God gives each man a measure of wisdom. Moses, for example, was a great man and had a great amount of wisdom from God.

With that wisdom, Moses made many great decisions for the people of Israel. He commissioned 70 elders with a proportionate amount of wisdom to help in making these judgments.

Solomon, too, had great wisdom. He saved a baby's life from the treacherous hands of a barren woman by using his wisdom.

Yet no one would say that Solomon or his decisions were infallible. In the end, although things are a little different today, we still go by the same principle.

In his ordinary teaching, the Pope will use his God -given wisdom to lead the church. John Paul, too, for example, has written many encyclicals and letters and has spoken about the faith on countless occasions to the world.

Like Moses, his judgments are trustworthy and demand the assent of God's people. When he writes, he writes with authority.

When he speaks, he speaks with authority. Yet not every sentence of an encyclical, for example, if diagrammed and analyzed, would show that everything the

Pope said was absolutely without the slightest tinge of error. But in such teachings, not every word or phrase has to be infallible in order for the general teaching to be in line with the general truth of the

Christian faith, which was passed down through the Fathers and the previous Popes and Councils. But things are very different when the

Pope speaks infallibly. Speaking infallibly means that not only is the general teaching correct, but every word, every phrase, every sentence used to arrive at that truth is without error, for it is a precise definition of a specific issue.

To give you an idea of this in a conciliar document, the Nicene Creed is infallible in every word, every phrase, every sentence it proclaims.

There is not a single item that is subject to error. Christ is begotten, not made, one and being with the

Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and so on and so on.

In the same way, when Pope Pius XII defined the assumption of Mary in 1950, all his words were without error, for they defined a specific issue and bound people to that issue under threat of anathema.

In cases like these, similar to God's other intrusions into human history, the Holy Spirit miraculously protects the

Church from producing any error. In my next section, I will explain the biblical basis for this

Catholic teaching. Why are we here this evening? Why would someone such as myself desire to debate the subject of papal infallibility?

Quite simply, it's because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you may ask, what do you mean? The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the reason why we have this debate this evening.

Fundamentally, the differences that exist between what I believe is biblical Christianity and the

Roman Catholic system of belief comes to the issue of authority in defining what the

Gospel is. It was only a few years ago that I debated another Roman Catholic apologist by the name of Jerry Matitix, and in the course of our debate on the doctrine of Mary, Mr.

Matitix very boldly proclaimed that the bodily assumption of Mary, which is based upon the dogma we debate this evening, the infallibility of the

Pope, as Mr. St. Genes just said in making reference to those things, that the bodily assumption of Mary is a part of the

Gospel of Jesus Christ. And so who has the authority to define the

Gospel of Jesus Christ? Has the Gospel once for all been delivered to the saints, or is the

Gospel subject to addition? Now, Rome does not say that the bodily assumption is an addition, that in fact it is an apostolic tradition, but when we examine those teachings, whether it be the

Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption, the Mass as a Perpetuatory Sacrifice, the infallibility of the

Pope himself, when we examine these dogmas and we find them to be ahistorical, to be things that the

Apostles and the Lord Jesus never taught, fundamentally we come down to the conclusion that we have two differing views of authority.

And the ultimate authority of the Church in the Roman Catholic system results in the proclamation of dogmas that I believe violate the command of the

Apostle Paul in Galatians 1, 6 -8. Therefore, if I love people, including those who are part of the

Roman Catholic Communion, then the greatest act of love that I can give to them is to point out to them the errors of the system that would take from them the

Gospel of grace and add anything to the Gospel that brings men into a right relationship with God.

And so ultimately the only reason that we address this issue this evening, the only reason that we address

Bishop Honorius and Bishop Zosimus and we get into the historical details is to come back to being able to say what is the

Gospel, where do we go to find out what the Gospel is. Do we go to that which is the

Anustos, the Scriptures, and do we confess that they are sufficient to act as the sole infallible rule of faith of the

Church, or is there something more, is there an infallible magisterium that we must follow to know what the

Gospel is. That's why we're here this evening. And so I invite everyone of you, whether you are

Catholic or non -Catholic, whatever your background is, to listen carefully to what is said this evening, because remember, ultimately the system that is being defended this evening claims to have the authority to define the

Gospel by which you will either stand before God or by which you will not be able to stand before God.

The issues this evening are eternal. The issues this evening are vital.

And I'm so thankful that you're here to share in this experience with us. Thank you. I will cover two passages in this eight -minute section.

The first passage is Matthew chapter 16, verses 18 to 19. Here Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom.

This giving of the keys is in itself very important, since the keys to the kingdom are given to no other single person of the apostolic band.

Although in Matthew 18, verse 18, the other apostles are also given the power to bind and loose, they are not given that power in connection with the keys of the kingdom.

In fact, right after Jesus gives Peter the keys in Matthew 16, verse 19, the words for you, in the clauses you shall bind or you shall loose, are

Greek singulars which refer only to Peter. There are several distinguishing features of Matthew 16 from which we derive the teaching of the infallibility of the

Pope. First, if we back up a few sentences to verses 13 to 17, we see that Peter is given a direct revelation from the

Father that none of the other apostles receive. What he receives is the knowledge that Jesus is the

Messiah. At Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus says, Blessed are you,

Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven. In other words, no flesh and blood human taught this to him.

It came directly from the Father. Second, still speaking to Peter in verse 18,

Jesus says that he will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against the Church. This shows that Jesus will be continually active in protecting the

Church throughout its existence. Thus, it is no surprise to read in John 14, verse 16,

Jesus saying these words, And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another counselor to be with you until the end of the age, the

Spirit of truth. And again in John 16, verse 13, When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

Hence the protection of the Church is not merely referred to its physical existence, but to its possessing of truth given to it by the

Holy Spirit. By declaring that Jesus is the Messiah in verse 13, Peter has already shown us how the

Father will reveal truth to him through the Holy Spirit. Third, the parameters of what the

Church will receive are detailed in the statement of verse 19. Jesus says,

Whatever you bind, and whatever you loose. The word whatever comes from the

Greek words ho -e -on and means precisely what our translations render it. Jesus says that whatever

Peter decides to bind or loose, then that is bound or loosed. This is the same

Greek singular we find in Luke 22, verses 31 to 32, when Jesus says, Simon, Simon, behold,

Satan has demanded to sift you, singular, like weak, but I have prayed for you, singular, that your faith may not fail, and you, singular, when you, once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.

Whatever one's interpretation of Matthew 16, it must be admitted that, in verse 19,

Peter is given the sole prerogative to decide what shall be bound and what shall be loosed.

Hence, if we as Catholics state that the Pope, who has succeeded the office Jesus gave to Peter when he gave him the keys of the kingdom, has the power to decide what will be bound and what will be loosed, we derive it right from this passage.

If, for example, the Pope decides that in order to establish infallible teaching, all

Peter's successors must fulfill the five criterion of infallibility I listed earlier from Pastor Aeternus, in order for their teaching to be considered infallible, then that teaching stands and all

Pontiffs will be subject to it. No, the Pope is not being audacious here. He is merely following Jesus' declaration that whatever you,

Peter, decide to bind, it shall be bound in heaven. Notice that Jesus does not say whatever Scripture says you can bind, you shall bind, but whatever you,

Peter, shall bind shall be bound. This is why Paul also, in 1 Timothy 3 .15, says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not

Scripture. Fourth, and most important, is how, in Matthew 16, verse 19,

Jesus uniquely constructs the reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth. Not only does

Jesus give Peter full prerogative to decide precisely what will be bound or loosed, Jesus says that whatever

Peter decides the binding or loosing will be, then that binding or loosing will also be bound or loosed in heaven.

Now here is the fascinating and absolutely overwhelming truth that emanates from this reciprocal relationship

Jesus established. God is in heaven. Thus the binding or loosing of Peter is sent to God in heaven.

We know from Titus 1 .2, in the very nature of God, that he cannot lie. He cannot tell a lie, he cannot sanction a lie, he cannot condone a lie, he cannot confirm a lie.

Thus, it is an axiomatic theological truth that God cannot bind or loose a lie.

Yet we are told clearly in Matthew 16, verse 19, by Jesus himself, that whatever

Peter binds or looses, God will bind or loose in heaven. If, since he cannot lie,

God can only bind truth, then this must mean that whatever Peter decides to bind or loose cannot be a lie.

Otherwise this would make God a liar, for he committed himself to bind whatever

Peter bound. The next passage is Acts 15, verses 1 -28.

I don't have time to read all that I have written on this, but let me begin. This is the precedent for papal infallibility because in Acts 15 it opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved.

There was much discussion about this. One Pharisee stood up and said it is necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved.

There was a lot of discussion. No one came to a conclusion. This was especially difficult because Scripture did not predict or even allow the rescission of circumcision.

In fact circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years prior to Moses and the

Mosaic Law. And one might think that it had a special place in the economy of God because it was outside the

Mosaic Law. And to the Jews the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on.

The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral tradition never suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.

But in the midst of this confusion, Acts 15, 7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders.

Three times in his speech he invokes the name of God to back up his singular authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole church.

In verse 7 he says that God chose him singularly to give the gospel to the Gentiles.

In Acts 15, 10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting

God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation, that men are saved by grace, not works of law.

This was an unprecedented moment for the church. Without reference to either Scripture or tradition, Peter makes an irreformable doctrine for the church that will bind the church from then until the end of time.

We know this to be the case since the church, from Peter onwards, has never required circumcision for its converts.

When we consider the claim of biblical evidence for papal infallibility, we have to recognize a number of things.

The argument for the idea that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter is the result of a very long chain of propositions.

You heard a few of those assertions made in regards to Matthew chapter 16.

But what we need to recognize is the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture. Even though there is a letter to the church at Rome, there was no singular bishop of Rome at the time, and in point of fact, church historians,

Catholic and Protestant, recognize that the church at Rome continued to function under the auspices of a multitude, a plurality of elders, well into the second century.

So the idea that the apostles and the writers of the New Testament had in mind a singular successor to Peter, even if all the arguments of Peter were valid, which we do not believe they were, somewhat begs the question of how then that becomes transferred specifically to the bishop of Rome.

Now, I would like to point out, in responding to what Mistress and Janice says later, first and foremost to you what the

New Testament teaches about what our ultimate authority is. When the Lord Jesus taught, the ultimate authority when he would quote from Scripture was the very words of God.

Jesus did bind men to Scripture. He never bound them to Peter, nor did he bind them to anyone else but the

Scriptures. He held men accountable to those Scriptures. He called them hypocrites when they had the

Scriptures and denied what the Scriptures said. The apostles likewise. One quotation from the

Scriptures was sufficient to settle the case in their words as well. But it's highly significant.

Think with me briefly, and time is fleeting, so just write these passages down. When Paul wrote to Timothy in 2

Timothy chapter 3, he warns Timothy that evil men would be coming into the church.

He warns Timothy there's going to be difficulties. And in Acts chapter 20, the

Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that there would be those who would come up within the ranks of the eldership itself that would teach false doctrine.

Now in light of these issues, and here we're specifically talking about false teaching, how to respond to false teaching and false doctrine.

In the light of the fact that the church is going to experience false teachers, what does the

Bible tell us to do about false teaching? Does it say, look to the successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome?

It never says anything of the kind. Does it set up a hierarchy based upon Peter as the bishop of Rome?

No, it never does. What do we see in both Acts chapter 20 and in 2 Timothy chapter 3?

We see in both instances, the Apostle Paul directs the church to the

Scriptures. He says to Timothy, if you want to be a man of God who is able to reprove and rebuke, you go to that which is theanoustos, you go to the

Scriptures. He says to the Ephesian elders in Acts chapter 20, even when men arise from among yourselves speaking perverse things, what does he say to the church in Acts chapter 20 verse 32?

And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

There is no word of a bishop of Rome. There is no word of a pope or a papacy or an infallible authority outside of what

God himself speaks in Scripture. Now if there is going to be anywhere where we find the

Apostle Paul directing us to what modern Roman Catholicism teaches, this is where it would be.

We're not talking about binding and loosing. Binding and loosing has to do with the proclamation of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins.

All the apostles were given equal authority, and the early church fathers all believed that the apostles were given this.

The keys and the power of binding and loosing are the same thing. That was the early church's view. So that was in the proclamation of the gospel.

But what about doctrine? What about theology? Where do we go for that? And when we find the

Scriptures talking about doctrine and theology, what do they direct us to? They direct us solely and only to God's holy word.

That needs to be remembered when we think about the biblical evidence concerning this doctrine that I submit to you was unknown in the early church.

It was unknown to the apostles, and it was unknown to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. And so if we follow the apostolic example and the apostolic command, then we do not look to Peter.

In Luke chapter 22, when the Lord Jesus reestablishes Peter and says, When you've been turned, strengthen the brethren, the reason in that passage that's singularly addressed to Peter is because Peter is the only one who publicly denied his

Lord and had to be reestablished in his place of leadership. He made a public denial of Christ, and he needs a public reinstatement to that position of leadership.

And aren't we all thankful that God doesn't discard us when we have failures as Peter did because we would all be out of an opportunity of ministry.

I am reminded when we think of the biblical evidence on this subject of the words of Augustine, who will come up later on.

He was talking about scripture, and he said these words when he talked about reading from the holy scriptures in order for our instruction in salvation.

He says, A thing which you ought especially to observe and to commit to your memory, because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors

God has been pleased to put in the scriptures against which no man dares to speak who in any sort wishes to seem a

Christian. I agree with Augustine. God has committed to us in the scriptures that which makes us strong in refuting the heresies and errors that the church will have to deal with throughout her existence.

And we need to recognize that one of the main arguments that other Roman Catholic apologists are presenting today is that, well, you know, if you only go with scripture and you don't have the papacy, then you have no way of responding to all these false teachers out there.

You have all these false teachers teaching this, that, and the other thing, and if you have the Bible alone, you can't refute them.

I do not believe that that is the case at all. The scriptures are sufficient for the refutation of false teaching.

It is not the scriptures' fault that men like to have their ears tickled. In fact, the scriptures warn us that there will be those who are like the sailboats we saw out on the ocean today, blown about by every wind of doctrine.

It is not an insufficiency in scripture to recognize the impact of sin upon man himself.

And so, when we think of these particular issues regarding the assertion that there is biblical evidence for the infallibility of Peter, I remind you that what

Peter did in Galatians chapter 2, when he did not walk straight in accordance to the truth of the gospel, but had to be rebuked by the

Apostle Paul for his not walking in accordance to the truth of the gospel, it was after all these words had been said to him.

And upon what basis was he to be corrected? He was to be corrected on the basis of the fact that the gospel of the

Lord Jesus Christ is not something that is up for modification over time. It has been once for all delivered to the saints, and is that gospel that we stand for and that we love.

Thank you. And we're going to go ahead and interrupt right now to take a short break, and I hope you've been enjoying, again, you're listening to the debate that took place last

October between Robert St. Genesis, a Roman Catholic apologist, and Dr. James White on the subject of papal infallibility.

I think you'll find, those of you who have listened to the Tim Staples debate, a remarkable difference in presentation and even the position that Mr.

St. Genesis is taking as he approaches this subject to that of Tim Staples, something very interesting to take note of there.

So anyway, we're going to go ahead and take a quick break here as we continue with today's Dividing Line broadcast, and then we're going to air another segment of a half -an -hour clip from it, and hopefully we'll be able to get into my favorite part of these debates, which is always the cross -examination, and I'll try to get that section in there for you today as well.

And just a programming note, next week we should be having a couple of guest hosts. Dr. White will be out for another additional two weeks, and we're going to bring in some guest hosts to talk about various subjects, so please be sure to tune in then.

And again, because we're airing the debate today, there will be no phone calls taken today, but we should be back to our regular way of doing things next week.

So let's go ahead and take this short break, and we'll be right back with the Dividing Line. The Conference on Rome.

Over 13 hours examining major doctrines and issues that separate Roman Catholicism from Biblical Christianity, featuring the leading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dulia. Other topics addressed in this tape series, is there something about Mary? Scripture sufficiency, the

Roman versus Protestant view, canonizing the Apocrypha, an assault on scripture, Rome's sacraments, an assault on Christ's gospel, and purgatory, an assault on Christ's perfect atonement.

Look for this tape series and many others at aomin .org, that's a -o -m -i -n -dot -o -r -g, the conference on Rome.

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 laypeople 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 that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

Welcome back to The Dividing Line, and I just want to make a little note here, you can also find on aomin .org

this particular debate. The audio tapes and the video tapes have been made available to you just today, and so in a sense, this is a little bit of an infomercial as we go through, oh, about an hour and a half through this program of the debate contents, and so it's a little bit of a teaser, and we want to make sure that you get your copy of either the videotape or the debate itself on audio, and in the meantime, let's go ahead and get right back to the next section of the debate here on The Dividing Line.

Dr. White has said that the bishop of Rome is never mentioned in scripture. Well, the bishop of no city is ever mentioned in scripture, so it really makes no difference whether the bishop of Rome is not mentioned.

Scripture doesn't mention a lot of things, but we can't make arguments based on its silence. And he's tried to divert the discussion to one of succession, but we really aren't here to talk about succession.

If we were, we would have to set aside another debate to do that. That's kind of hard to do, but I would be willing to come back to do another debate on that very topic.

He said that Jesus never bound the truths of the gospel to Peter, but that's exactly what

Matthew 16, verse 18 says. It says, whatever you, Peter, shall bind shall be bound.

He didn't say that about scripture anywhere in the New Testament. Although scripture is extolled and glorified for the beauty and the truth that it holds, it is never put in a position of being the determiner of truth singly.

That was given to Peter in Matthew 16, which he did not address. Bound to scripture?

Yes, we believe that we are bound to scripture, but who is the interpreter of scripture? Everyone's bound to scripture, but that is the key issue, is who has the authority to interpret what it says.

He says that the New Testament does not set up a hierarchy to determine truth.

Well, I suggest that you turn to Matthew 18, verse 18, and it says, if you have a conflict with your brother, take it to your brother.

If he doesn't listen to you, you take it to the church. Does it say take it to scripture? No, it does not. It says take it to the church.

In 2 Timothy 3 .16, which he alluded to, Noah doesn't talk about controversy there, and that's why the command to Timothy is not dealing with the church in that passage, because Paul is not talking about controversy in 2

Timothy 3 .16. He's talking about teaching people. When it comes to controversy, that's when the church is brought into the picture, as we see in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18.

And where does it direct us for doctrine and theology? Mr. White said it only directed us to the scripture.

Well, that's not what 1 Timothy 3 .15 says. 1 Timothy 3 .15 says that the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth.

He said that Peter denied his Lord. Well, we acknowledge that, but as I stated earlier, that's not a criterion for infallibility.

Infallibility does not mean that the man himself is impeccable. It means only under certain conditions and guided by the

Holy Spirit he can give us truth. So that example will not demote infallibility. He said

Augustine said that that which makes us strong is the scripture. Well, we agree with that in Catholicism. But the extolling of scripture is not sola scriptura.

The extolling of scripture does not demote papal authority. We extol scripture all the time, and Augustine, you will never find in his writings ever once opposing the church's teachings to scripture.

Not once. Well, this is our opportunity for rebuttal, so let me respond to some of the things that have been said.

If you'll look back at Acts chapter 15, you'll discover that the people came to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, not to Peter the

Pope in Jerusalem. Secondly, it was just said that the bishop of no city is ever mentioned.

That's incorrect. Timothy was the bishop at Ephesus, Titus the bishop of the church at Crete. Acts chapter 17 tells us that scripture does determine the truth, and in fact, if you look at what happened with the

Bereans, the scriptures determine the truth even of the apostolic proclamation of the gospel. In fact, the

Bereans are commended for comparing what the apostles taught with what the scriptures to see whether those things were so.

So the scriptures are put in that position. We are told that Matthew chapter 18 establishes this hierarchy of the church.

Matthew chapter 18 tells us you have something with your brother. It's talking about interpersonal matters of sin, and I never said that there is no quote -unquote hierarchy in the church.

There are elders and there are deacons in the church. There is just not a bishop of Rome that is the pastor of all

Christians. Second Timothy 3 .16 does refer to matters of dispute, especially about doctrine.

The words that Paul uses there, especially when he speaks of reproving and rebuking and exhorting in sound doctrine, are exactly about that very issue, and Second Timothy makes it very clear that the bishop in the church is to be able to refute those who contradict.

First Timothy 3 .15 does say that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but we need to recognize something.

There are pillars and there is a foundation in this building right now, and all of those under the balcony are very thankful that they are sound.

Are you not? Because that pillar and foundation is holding something else up. The church holds something else up.

The church does not become the truth because she is the pillar and foundation of the truth. She holds the truth up and presents the truth.

She does not become the very definition thereof. When we look at what Augustine said, he said that what is in Scripture is what makes us strong against insidious errors.

You will not find Augustine saying that what is found in the papal encyclicals of the bishop of Rome is what makes us strong against insidious errors.

That was the reason that I cited that. And finally, in regards to Matthew 16, we discover that the future tense is used in Matthew 16.

Jesus says, I will give you the keys. If Matthew 18 is the fulfillment of that, then all the apostles got them together.

If Matthew 18 is not the fulfillment of that, then we do not even have the Scriptures recording for us the point in time when this allegedly most important and foundational event took place.

In reality, Matthew 18 is when Peter received this authority, equally with all the other apostles, not separate from them.

And so we see that when we look at the Scriptures, we see that they are consistent with themselves and with the form and function of the

Church that is based upon the Holy Scriptures. Thank you. Dr.

White, you said that the missionaries did not come in Acts 15 to see

Peter, but the apostles and the elders. I would direct you to Acts 15, which says that in the first verses that they are in discussion, and for the next verses, from verses 1 to 11,

Peter is addressing the Council of Jerusalem, and only he is speaking. And it was for the very purpose that the missionaries came to the

Council of Jerusalem to get a decision on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. And Peter gave that decision, that they don't have to be circumcised.

So I would ask you why you insist that they didn't come to see Peter, they came to see the apostles and elders, and what distinction, that I would call distinction without a difference, really means.

Okay. 15 .2 says, Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue, which was the citation that I was quoting.

I think you just said Peter spoke from 1 to 11. He actually speaks from 7 through 11.

And then I would respond by saying that if he gave the decision, there was no reason why, beginning in verse 12, the people keep silent listening to Paul and Barnabas as they then relate their experiences in God sending the gospel to Gentiles, and why it is that then

James is the one who gives his judgment using the imperative voice. And in point of fact, this council is under his direction and not

Peter's direction. And so that is the brief biblical basis for the comment that I made, but specifically verse 2 is what

I was referring to just a few moments ago in my comments. All right, let me follow up with that. Peter is not an apostle, is he not?

Yes, he is one of the apostles. Okay, so would you agree that they also came to see Peter? Yes, to all the apostles and elders, yes.

Would you agree that the subject material now changes in verse 12 when Paul and Barnabas start talking about their missionary activity, and also that the subject has changed when

James starts to speak about something other than what Peter declared about circumcision? No, I do not believe there is a change at all, only in the sense that beginning in verse 12 when

Paul and Barnabas speak, they are confirming the statements of Peter. There is a harmony that exists between all of the apostles, and when

James gives his judgment using the imperative voice in the Greek language,

I think he is the one who is summing up the information that has been presented from a number of sources, but we're only given two, and that is verses 7 through 11 where Peter speaks, and verses 12 and following where Paul and Barnabas speak.

Two issues. One is you said that they confirmed Peter's declaration. What does that mean?

That means that they demonstrated through the retelling of their missionary efforts the fact that God had in fact poured out his blessing upon the ministry to the

Gentiles, which is a confirmation of what Peter himself has said in those verses 7 through 11 that you've already looked at.

And doesn't that not tell us that Peter made a declaration and they are agreeing to that? Certainly. He makes a declaration that the gospel is a gospel of grace, and they are saying that they have themselves been declaring that gospel of grace and that God has blessed that gospel of grace by pouring his spirit out upon the

Gentiles who embraced it. Thank you. Embraced it. I'm sorry. In verse 13, you make an issue about the imperative voice when

James says, Listen to me. If I said to you, James, listen to me, does that mean that I have authority over you?

Well, I think it is a combination. I think many exegetes, both Catholic and Protestant, would see that both the statement,

Brethren, listen to me, using the imperative, and then verse 19, Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those, that the two together is very indicative of the individual who is leading the council.

We know that James was in fact the one who was in leadership in the church in Jerusalem. And I don't see any evidence whatsoever in Acts chapter 15 that Peter either led this council or that anyone treats him as anything other than an apostle of the

Lord Jesus Christ. Did anyone make the decision that circumcision was no longer to be required of the Gentiles other than Peter?

They all agreed with it, no, but he's the one who stated it. Did anybody raise an objection to the fact that he singly gave that dogma?

I don't know if anyone raised an objection because it's not recorded. It's only until verse 12 that we hear all the people kept silent.

There does seem to be some discussion that was going on, especially with what Paul says in Galatians, but it is not recorded for us.

Wouldn't it be rather audacious for Peter to assume this position if it was not expected of him to do so? No, since the apostle is simply proclaiming what had been revealed to him in the vision on the housetop.

Now, Mr. St. Janus, going to your presentation drawn from Matthew chapter 16, you would agree with the statement that I made that when

Jesus says, I will give you the keys, that this is in the future tense? Sure.

When did Peter receive these keys? It doesn't say, and it's irrelevant. The point is, in fact, that he would receive the keys.

Okay. Do you believe he received the keys along with the other apostles in Matthew 18? Well, it doesn't say whether they received the keys then either.

Okay. So is it your position that the Scripture never records for us the singular reception of these keys to Peter and Peter alone?

Well, it doesn't say it in Matthew 16 or Matthew 18. I would suggest that other passages like Acts chapter 2 and the whole book of Acts, more or less, basically tells us that these keys had indeed been distributed to the apostles by the descent of the

Holy Spirit. Okay. Now, you mentioned Luke chapter 22, and you talked about the singular uses there.

Would you agree that in Luke chapter 22 that Peter had in a singular way denied

Christ publicly? Yes, but that's not the criterion for infallibility. Okay. Does the

Scripture ever refer to the word infallibility in regards to Peter? Yes, I claim that Matthew chapter 16 does.

If he binds and God says that he binds because Peter bound and God can't lie, well,

God's infallible. So that must mean that what Peter binds and God binds, what Peter bound must be infallible, because otherwise

God couldn't bind it. So binding and loosing in your perspective is synonymous with the teaching of a doctrine regarding faith and morals.

Yes, partly. Okay. Is it your position that the apostles, all of the apostles, believed in the doctrine of the infallibility of Peter and his successors?

Yes. Okay. Has this then been the universal belief of the Church from the days of the apostles?

Yes. Okay. When you indicated early on in your last response that Scripture is never given as the standard upon which truth is to be determined, in Acts chapter 17, when

Paul preaches the gospel in Berea, and the Bereans are commended for their searching of the

Scriptures to see whether the proclamation of the apostles was true, was that a good action on their part or a bad action on their part?

Have you stopped beating your wife? That was a good action, and I'll have to explain it to you, because when

Paul introduces the whole subject to them, he's the one who's interpreting the Scriptures for them. And as a matter of fact, those various Scriptures that he pointed to did not say that the

Messiah was Jesus. And that's the controversy that's happening here. The only way that they know that it's

Jesus is because Paul reveals it to them by a special revelation, because it's nowhere in Scripture. So they could have searched the

Scriptures until they were blue in the face. They would never have found the name of the Messiah, and that's the issue at stake here. So what does it mean in verse 11 when it says that they were examining the

Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so? Because Paul had just told them that the

Messiah was Jesus, whom they had crucified, and they wanted to see if the very passages that Paul pointed to, namely

Isaiah 53, in fact did measure up to the crucifixion of Jesus, and they found it to be true.

So what they did is confirm what Paul told them, that Jesus was the Messiah, by going back to the

Scriptures daily and finding that, yes, he is exactly telling us the truth by the revelation God gave him.

How would someone today be able to apply this Berean test which is commended to a doctrine such as the bodily assumption of Mary?

Well, you can open up the Bible and look in Revelation chapter 12. That's where Pius XII told us to look, and that's where Paul VI said that they got the teaching from.

So there are very many allusions to the assumption of Mary. I would grant you that it's not explicit, but there's no teaching in Scripture that it has to be explicit in order to be true.

So a person could turn to Revelation chapter 12 and the woman closed with the son.

Do you happen to know what the earliest interpretation of that passage in church history was? Earliest interpretation?

Yeah, there's many interpretations to that passage in early history. And is not the earliest that this is representative of the church?

Yeah, it's one of them. There's another early one that said it was Eve. There's another one that said it was Mary. There's all kinds of interpretations.

So it is your position then that there is an equality between what the Bereans did in Acts 17 and what someone could do today in looking at Revelation chapter 12 and seeing the bodily assumption of Mary.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it's a very good parallel because Scripture didn't tell the Bereans the identity of the

Messiah. And that was their problem. They didn't know who he was. And Revelation 12 doesn't tell us the identity of the woman, but the church does.

And Paul did the same thing to the Bereans. He told them that Jesus was the Messiah. In concluding,

I would say, just to address some of the issues that Dr. White had brought up before that I didn't get a chance to talk about.

In 2 Timothy 3 .16, he said it talks about disputes there, and so therefore we need to go to 2

Timothy 3 .16. But it just talks in general language there about teaching, correction, training in righteousness, and so forth.

And that's not dealing with an actual dispute. That's just preparing Timothy in case he has a dispute. What can he use?

He can use Scripture. Why? Because Scripture is profitable. Does he say there that Scripture is the only source of truth?

No. Does he use a word in the Greek that means that it is absolute? No. He uses a fractional word, a word that means just profitable, not absolute.

You can look that up in your Greek dictionary and find that out. There are many words Paul could have used if he wanted to make it an absolute teaching, that Scripture was our only place to go for disputes.

There are many Greek words he could have used, but he did not use them here. He said that Augustine did not go to the

Pope or say to go to the Pope. And I will refute that proposition very thoroughly in my next section because there are many statements in Augustine where he appeals precisely to the

Pope of Rome to settle disputes, and we'll cover those later. And he talked about 1

Timothy 3 .15, and he said that the church holds up the truth just like the pillars here are holding up the roof, and that's certainly true.

But unless the church has the authority to interpret the Scripture that it holds up, then it basically has no authority.

When you hold up something up, you support it, not just supporting it to lift it up, but you determine what it says for the people who want to listen to you.

That's what Paul means when he says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not just that the Scripture is held up, but it has the interpretive authority, just as Jesus gave to Peter in Matthew 16 .18

when he said, Whatever you bind shall be bound. If that doesn't mean he has the authority to determine what truth is, then

I really don't know what it means. When the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in that single passage in 2

Timothy 3, it was in the context of the fact that he was about to die. And Timothy is about to be left in a position of leading the church there in Ephesus.

To what, Timothy, are you going to turn after I am no longer here? He does not say you're going to turn to the

Bishop of Rome. He does not say you're going to turn to Peter and his successors. He says if you want to be the man of God, able to and be thoroughly equipped, not partially equipped, but thoroughly equipped for every good work as the man of God, you go to that which is theanoustos, you go to that which is inspired, and that is the

Holy Scriptures. Peter himself, recognizing that Paul had been used by God to write

Scripture, said that there were many things in Paul's writings that were difficult to understand, which untaught and unstable men distorted to their own destruction.

There is a danger that God's truth will be misused by untaught and unstable men.

But please think with me for just a moment. If there is a danger of untaught and unstable men misusing the

Word of God, then what does that mean? That means that taught and stable men are able to proclaim it and to proclaim it with clarity within the church.

That is why Paul tells Timothy, commit the things that you've heard me preach to men who are worthy, they're trustworthy to do so.

And that is why the form of the church in the New Testament is not a pope and cardinals and a magisterium.

It is elders in the church teaching the individuals in the church, the flock, caring for them on a daily basis.

And when the man of God in the church of God wants to know where he can turn to deal with any issue, including those doctrinal issues,

God has given us a sufficient revelation in his Word for that man of God.

Thank you. That was the end of round one. Round two is a little bit longer.

We had eight -minute statements there. What we're going to do now is we're going to start half of this round and then we're going to take a break.

This round is on a historical subject and I am going to go first in this round and in the next round.

And we're going to focus solely upon one historical issue so that we don't lose everybody. So I am going to have a 14 -minute opening statement, then

Mr. St. Janus will have his opening statement for this round. We will have our rebuttals and then we will take a break.

So that is what is coming your direction. Honorius was the

Bishop of Rome from AD 625 to 638. In the year 634,

Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Honorius concerning Sergius' attempts to bring the monophysites, those who assert that there is only one nature in Christ, into the

Catholic fold. Now, Sergius was a monothelite. That is, one who believed that while Christ was indeed one person with two natures, he had but one will since the will, he believed, was a function of the one person, not a function of the two natures.

Now, Honorius, Bishop of Rome, in responding to Sergius, provides the single clearest example of papal error.

Honorius agreed with Sergius clearly in his first letter. He wrote to Sergius as the

Bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. He responded as the Bishop of Rome to an official inquiry to the

See of Rome regarding a matter of faith and morals. He wrote to a fellow

Bishop of the Church, and in speaking of the very issue of whether Christ had one will or two, he wrote,

We confess one will in our

Lord Jesus Christ. And make sure you note the use of the plural, we confess.

Honorius did not say, oh, I think maybe it's like this. He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the

Church as a whole. Now, we surely can safely admit that Honorius was not the leading theologian of his day.

He made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved. The biblical standard of the elder or bishop in the

Church is not, thankfully, infallibility. And surely no one in that day believed in papal infallibility.

So to judge Honorius on the basis of modern standards is without merit. His case is famous for no other reason than the glaring and obvious anachronism of Rome's modern teaching.

Rome proclaims her bishop infallible when teaching as the pastor of all Christians on matters of faith and morals.

Obviously, it was the intention of the Vatican decree to say that the bishops of Rome have always had this charism of infallibility, which would mean it is the

Roman Catholic position that this teaching was valid in Honorius' day just as much as it is today.

So it is Rome that has placed the spotlight upon all the popes of history, not Protestants. Now, there is absolutely positively no question that Honorius was, in fact, condemned as a heretic by the

Sixth Ecumenical Council, which met in Constantinople in 680 -681, for a teaching he promulgated in an official letter sent to Sergius as the bishop of Rome.

Here are the facts. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th session near the beginning.

His two letters, which he wrote to Sergius, were ordered to be burned at the same session as being hurtful to the soul.

This includes the letter that contains the phrase, We confess one will. In the 16th session, the bishops exclaimed,

Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.

In the Decree of Faith, published at the 18th session, it is stated that, The originator of all evil found a fit tool for his will in Honorius, Pope of Old Rome.

Further, this Ecumenical Council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine. They said that Satan had actively employed them in raising up for the whole

Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ, our true

God, thus disseminating in novel terms amongst the Orthodox people a heresy.

The papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius, as well as to the statement that Satan himself had used the bishop of Rome as a tool for his will.

The report of the Council to the Emperor says that Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, they had, quote, punished with exclusion and anathema, end quote, because he followed the monothelites.

In his letter to Pope Agatho, the Council says, We have destroyed the four to the heretics and slain them with anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely,

Theodore of Perun, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc. Note that the

Council believed its actions to be in full accord with Agatho's wishes and Agatho's letter.

The Imperial Decree speaks of the unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed and mentions among them

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

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

Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized

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

Cardinal Bellarmine tried to say it had been corrupted. Neither saw in Leo's words any softening of the

Council's act, though some modern Catholic apologists have attempted to find in Leo's sentence a ray of hope.

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

That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the canons of the Council of Trullo, which met less than two decades after Constantinople.

This shows that the condemnation of Honorius was accepted by the wider Church immediately after the

Council and amongst those who were familiar with Leo's letter. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the

Acts the same is said. Honorius's name, this is very interesting, was found in the Roman copy of the

Acts. This means that in Rome itself the condemnation with anathema as a heretic was embraced and accepted.

The papal oath is found in the Liber Dienus, taken by each new pope up to the 11th century, states in no uncertain words, quote, smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy,

Sergius, together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics, end quote.

Every single pope who took to the chair of Peter for 300 years did so by anathematizing his predecessor,

Honorius. In the lesson for the Feast of St. Leo II in the Roman breviary, the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the

Sixth Synod, and the name remained there until the 16th century. Patrick Madrid, in his book

Pope Fiction, erroneously asserts that Pope Leo redefined the language of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

He writes that Leo, quote, confirmed the council's decree but redefined its language regarding Pope Honorius, making it clear that Honorius had not endorsed the monothelitism of Sergius, but had failed in his duty to condemn it.

Officially, therefore, Honorius was condemned for his negligence, but not for heresy, end quote. This is truly imaginative, but it is also utterly untrue.

Leo did not alter any wording of the council. He never said the council had erred in its condemnation, nor did he dream he had the authority to overrule it, even if it did.

Madrid is referring to the letter of Leo to the emperor that I cited above. He uses the anathema and says that Honorius permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.

It is self -evident that Madrid's forced reading is in error for two reasons. First, the Sixth Ecumenical Council specifically said that Honorius and the others taught the heresy.

Was the council wrong? Did Leo say it was wrong? No, he did not. Secondly, it was not

Leo's alleged correction that appears in the Seventh and Eighth Ecumenical Councils, but the words of the

Sixth where Honorius is condemned as a heretic. Madrid follows this with a glorious example of anachronistic interpretation of ancient church history in the light of modern

Roman Catholic beliefs when he quotes Warren Carroll's statement, quote, The fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the

Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning pope, and only in the form that he confirms it.

There is no supreme law prescribing how the pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme church authority, but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow when he should have denounced it, end quote.

Such is utterly without historical merit. The universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome.

That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the pseudo -Isidorian decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the

Sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo. That a belief, first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the ninth century, would have to be read back into the context of the clear and obvious condemnation of Honorius in the seventh century in an attempt to save him as well as to rescue a dogma defined in the nineteenth century is clear evidence of the impossible task facing the defender of papal infallibility in Honorius.

Further, the fact that every possible defense has been offered for Honorius' condemnation proves one thing.

None of those offered are compelling. Thus we see why Newman feared the prospect of having to defend decisions which may, quote, be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts, end quote.

Newman understood that the unbiased observer could not help but conclude that the definition of the Vatican Council was proclaimed without any concern for the truths of history itself.

It would be wise to consider as well that during the deliberations prior to the announcement of papal infallibility at the

First Vatican Council, the Pope, while excluding those who opposed the definition of infallibility from publishing in Rome, allowed those who supported the definition to print their books and have access to the newspapers in the city itself.

One of those works that the Pope allowed to be printed in Rome, and in fact had distributed among the members of the Council while all replies were disallowed, was that of Professor Panacci.

Panacci firmly advanced the assertion that Honorius' letters were ex cathedra, that they were orthodox, and that the

Council erred being made up primarily of Orientals, not Westerners. Bishop Hefala, a member of the

Vatican Council, a historian of whom Philip Schaff said Hefala has forgotten more about the history of councils than the infallible

Pope ever knew, an opponent of infallibility prior to the Council, but one who submitted thereafter, not only refuted

Panacci fully, but had to completely revise his own writings on Honorius after the decree came out, much like Newman did.

I hardly recommend the narrative provided by Philip Schaff of how Pius IX utilized everything short of the barrel of a gun to obtain the definition of his own infallibility, and how completely different was this allegedly ecumenical council in comparison with that of Nicaea.

We should also realize that to expect the men of the past, who manifestly did not believe in the modern formulation of this doctrine, to conform to any kind of specific formula for a teaching to be infallible, likewise is to completely gut history of its meaning.

It is a common defense to say, look, Honorius did not teach this ex cathedra, so it does not violate the definition.

The problem is, no one back then operated on such a modern platform, therefore to act as if they did is to violate all logical standards of historical inquiry.

Further, it is likewise to render every single papal statement of the past safe from the allegation of error.

That is, if you insist that a certain formula be used, you can simply dismiss all papal errors as having not been pronounced ex cathedra, and all is well.

The serious investigator, however, will look at the Vatican Council's declaration and ask, do the facts of history support this claim?

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

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

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

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

How, then, can we know that the recently promulgated papal statement, Dominus Iesus, will not 20, 40, or 100 years from now likewise be burned as hurtful to the soul at some future council?

The fact is, we cannot, and hence the uselessness of the idea of papal infallibility.

What a contrast, then, between this and the unchanging and unchangeable infallibility of God's Word, the

Bible. Thank you. And we're going to go ahead and move forward to the next cross -examination period that took place.

It does skip some context here, but in order to be able to squeeze everything into our 90 -minute program, this is the way it worked out, and it's a good way to do it anyway.

So we're going to go ahead and skip our second break and get right to that now. Mr. Genes, is it your assertion that Honorius is to be excused this error as far as a papal error because he was not, in point of fact, speaking ex cathedra?

Yes. On the issue of the two wills, yes. Okay. Could you please list for us, sir, all the teachings that Honorius taught ex cathedra using the exact formula that you have indicated he would have to have followed to teach something ex cathedra?

I don't have to produce that because it's not necessary to show that he wasn't speaking ex cathedra when he gave the statement on the two wills.

Are you aware of any ex cathedra teachings by Honorius at all? No, I'm not. Okay. Has the

Roman Catholic Magisterium ever infallibly proclaimed that Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra in this instance by name?

Not by name, no. Okay. Has it ever proclaimed, well, you said you weren't aware of any ex cathedra teachings, so there wouldn't be any reason to ask that.

Now, if Honorius did not teach anything ex cathedra, that is, as the pastor of all Christians, did he fail in his duty as a shepherd of the flock?

Was there no pressing matter upon which he needed to teach in his day? He failed on this issue of the two wills.

That's very obvious. And if he could fail on that issue, he could fail on some other issues. There are no issues that we know of that he failed in, but it's a theoretical possibility.

Did the popes who reigned after Honorius but before the Council of Constantinople correct

Honorius' error? Yes, they did. And how did they do that? They stated that Christ had two wills.

Did they say that Honorius was in error prior to the Council saying so? Yes. And you would say that Agatho's letter did that?

Yes. Okay. And the Sixth Council did that. All right. As the Seventh and the Eighth Council did. Is there, in light of your assertion that Honorius, his statements do not violate the doctrine of papal infallibility, does it follow them?

Let me change that. Is there a list of infallible pronouncements from the popes that you could provide to us so that we could go to a book and read?

No, there's not a list. The Church could do that if it wanted to. The Church could do a lot of things if it wanted to.

For example, the Church could determine every single variant of the biblical record.

There's, you know, 5 ,000 Greek manuscripts, and many of them say different things, as you well know.

On some occasions the Church has said that one variant should be in the Scripture, but it hasn't made a judgment on most of the variants in Scripture, but it could theoretically do that.

And it could also give us a list of all the ex cathedra statements the popes have made.

It could list all the errors some popes have made in encyclicals or letters, but it hasn't seen fit to do that.

But on some occasions when the issue confronts the Church on what is right or wrong, the

Church will go back and investigate when she has to and make a decision. And implicitly she did this with Honorius because everybody knows that Honorius sticks out like a sore thumb.

So when the Church makes her criterion for papal infallibility, she's going to take into account what

Honorius did without actually mentioning him by name, which she did do. And Honorius' name was passed around during the

Council. If a person's very relationship with God through the Gospel is affected by ex cathedra infallible teachings, wouldn't it make sense for the

Catholic Church to tell us what is an infallible teaching and what is not? Well, it has.

It's given you the criterion. And Pope Agathos' condemnation of Honorius and the affirmation of the

Six Councils decree against Honorius is one of those instances where the Church tells you that this is what it says.

It is dogmatically decreeing that Honorius made an error. So to answer your question, they have done that.

Are there not Roman Catholic scholars and apologists who would disagree with you on the number and scope of infallible teachings by the

Pope? There may be, but I'm sure there's a lot of Protestants who disagree with you about your doctrines on many issues.

That's true, and I don't claim to be infallible. So if there is infallible—I'm sorry, I didn't mean to throw that in there, but if there is this issue—

But we don't either. We don't claim to be infallible either. That's the issue. If there is anything in—if these issues of infallibility are so important to defining the gospel and there is no list of infallible teachings, then isn't it being left up to individuals to apply some set of criteria and come to their own conclusions as to what is and what is not infallible?

No, because there is a partial list, and when issues come up that people need to know about, the

Church will investigate them. That's, for example, why it took 1 ,800 years -plus to determine the doctrine of the

Immaculate Conception or the doctrine of the Assumption. It took 1 ,600 years -plus to form the infallible dogma of the canon of Scripture.

There's all kinds of things that take time. The Church addresses them when she can. Isn't it possible that further conditions beyond the five that you've listed could be added by the

Church in future years upon, shall we call, further reflection on tradition, which would even further limit the allegedly infallible pronouncements of popes, ones that you'd accept as infallible today, would be defined as not being infallible with the further addition of further criteria?

No. As a matter of fact, that's the issue at stake here, is when the dogma is defined, and that's the key word, that's the operative word here, is defined, that means that nothing can be added to that definition.

That is the dogmatic definition that will stay in the history of time for now until all eternity comes.

So what we have to understand is that up until that point that that definition is made, things can be added, things can be changed, things can be discussed, and they discussed this right up until Vatican I in 1870, but once that definition is made, it is solid and it will never change or be added to, just like Scripture will never be added to.

So when Honorius spoke, is it your belief that the definition that you use today was understood by he and others around him?

Well, implicitly the Church says that that was the definition they were working with, and they say that because the Sixth Council knew that Honorius had made an error in his teaching, and yet they said, the same

Sixth Council said, that Pope Agatha was infallible in declaring Honorius a heretic. So the

Sixth Council understood what the definition of infallibility was. They knew it was not going to be applied to Honorius because Honorius didn't bind the

Church, he didn't fulfill all the criteria, but Agatho did. He bound the Church, he spoke from his Petrine office, he went back to tradition, he got the

Synod together, which is another thing that Honorius didn't do. He didn't have any Synod backing him up. There was all kinds of things that Agatho did that Honorius didn't do, and that's why the

Church can make their definition of infallibility the way she did. And where was that definition of infallibility infallibly defined by a pope or by a council prior to the days of Honorius?

It wasn't. It doesn't have to be. Okay. Now, so Honorius was personally a heretic?

Personally a heretic? What do you mean by personally? Did he teach monothelitism? He taught that Christ had one will.

So is that a heretical view? That's a heretical view. So the pope can be heretical, but it is your position that by some means he will be prevented from teaching officially his heresy.

Right. So are all the popes actually believers? Are all the popes?

I don't know. Some could, some couldn't be. I don't know. So it's possible for the Vicar of Christ to be an unbeliever?

Possible, yeah. That's an interesting view. Now, in regards to Honorius' condemnation by the

Sixth Ecumenical Council, they did say, did they not, that Honorius taught the

Church this? Honorius taught the Church this? Taught monothelitism. They said he wrote a letter to Sergius that Christ had one will, and that doctrine of one will was held by other people like Cyrus and Pyrrhus and a few other people that they condemned with Honorius.

Whether they said it was a teaching for the whole Church or not, no, they didn't say that. Did they not say, quote, that Satan had, quote, actively employed them in raising up for the whole

Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation? Yeah, but it doesn't say that he taught the whole

Church. It says that he was raised up, and if he wasn't taken out of the way, he could have taught that error, but they don't use the word teach there.

So, exactly how is it that the phrase actively employed them in raising up for the whole

Church, what does that mean if it doesn't mean they taught individuals this belief?

Because he didn't bind anybody to his teaching. So, because he didn't use a specific term saying you are to be bound by this, then a person who read

Honorius' letter in that day would notice the lack of these words and therefore go, oh, this is not really a binding teaching of the

Bishop of Rome? That's what the Sixth Council said to us. I read that for you, and that's what Agatha said. That's what the Emperor said.

That's what Leo II said. They said that Honorius did not have these criteria, and therefore they could condemn him.

So, Honorius could write that letter, and for 40 years, if you lived during the period of time between Honorius' death and that, and you read

Honorius' letter, by what means would you personally have to recognize that this was

A, not binding, and B, it was heretical? Well, number one, this is a very esoteric doctrine of the

Church, whether Christ has one will or two wills. So, it's not really a matter for the populace to decide for themselves, number one.

Number two, a doctrine like this really has, if it's not binding upon them, has no bearing on their salvation, as I said before.

So, it's not that, you know, everybody's biting their nails wondering when this doctrine is going to be clarified, because it really doesn't affect the

Church practically. There's many things that happen like that in the Church, where it takes time for the Church to sort all these things out.

But the important thing, I think, that you're missing is that they finally do have a time where they say, this was wrong.

And we can live by that for the rest of the time, for the rest of 2 ,000 years, minus the 40 that it took them to get there.

So, that's the real issue at stake here. Well, but if you died in 660, what's happening today is not going to be overly relevant to you.

So, my question really is, again, if you lived in that day, what mechanism do you offer to us, whereby an individual, upon encountering a papal encyclical teaching

Doctrine X, how can you determine whether that papal encyclical is,

A, meant to be a teaching of the Bishop of Rome, and, B, whether it is, in fact, infallible?

I wait for the Church to make a decision. Until then, it's not binding on me, so it really doesn't affect me. It's not going to affect whether I go to Heaven or Hell, so it's really not an issue.

So, in other words, you don't have any mechanism to know that until and if the

Church makes a special pronouncement on that particular issue. You may never know whether it's binding or not. Me, personally,

I don't claim, and I don't think anybody in the 7th century claimed, to have a mechanism to determine whether the Church is true or false or not.

That's the premise you're working with, because that's your religion. In that day, no one was that audacious in the 7th century.

They waited for the Church to make those decisions, and that's really the whole debate tonight, is does the individual have that opportunity, and is he supposed to do it, or is the

Church supposed to do it for him? Now, we believe that the Church is the one that's supposed to do it for him. If it takes 40 years to do so, well, that's the way things go.

Hey, Dr. White, do you believe that Christ having one will is a heresy?

Yes. Do you believe that Christ having two wills is orthodox? Yes. Could you show us in Scripture where you know that to be true?

That comes from the fact that, as the Council of Chalcedon itself taught, the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is both

God and man, that he is one person with two distinct yet whole natures.

And the Council of Chalcedon was perfectly biblical in teaching that, because it recognized that the will arises from those natures.

And therefore, all the passages of Scripture that refer to, for example, the Lord Jesus in Paul's writings, as they crucified the

Lord of Glory, here is an indication of the fact that Christ is one person with two natures, that the crucifixion is a part that was done to his physical nature, and yet he is called the

Lord of Glory in regards to his divinity. So I firmly believe the Chalcedonian definition is biblical in its foundation, and therefore monothelitism is an error because it, in essence, undercuts that, and results in someone saying that Jesus's human nature was not fully human.

He was not truly a man, and he was not truly united with us, and therefore the entire concept of the atonement is threatened, and that is, in point of fact, what was so troubling to many of those who encountered that particular belief in the days of Honorius and Sergius and thereafter.

Okay, let me pursue this with you a little bit. I couldn't help but notice that you referred, first of all, to the

Council of Chalcedon, but you don't believe that they were infallible, do you? No, I certainly do not. I do not believe that any council is infallible.

I believe that a council's authority is always subordinate to the sources from which they derive their beliefs.

Okay, so then what the Council of Chalcedon said could be an error, is that correct? Yes, it could be, unless it is in line with Scripture.

For example, the second Nicene council, which I believe is numbered the seventh ecumenical, if I'm recalling correctly, was very much in error in promoting the concept of the adoration and veneration of images, and you can see this by examining their alleged biblical argumentation.

In that case, their biblical argumentation on an exegetical level is utterly fallacious.

Okay, so you really have no reason to refer to the Council of Chalcedon because you don't know that they were infallible.

No, that wouldn't be true, sir, because as a person who honors the fact that God has been building his church for 2 ,000 years,

I am not one of those who believes you ignore those who came before us. I honor the memory of those who came before me.

I just simply do not invest them with the element of infallibility any more than I would look at someone like a

Calvin or a Warfield or someone else and say, well, unless I believe they're infallible, that I'm going to ignore everything that they had to say.

Well, I'm not saying you have to ignore them, but you said to me that you believe that two natures was orthodox, or I'm sorry, two wills was orthodox and one will was not orthodox.

Right. You really have no way of knowing that from the Council of Chalcedon was my point. All you can do is reference them and say that they believe this thing or that thing.

Now, going on, you refer to Scriptures that talk about the two natures of Christ. Could you cite that Scripture for me?

That was 1 Corinthians chapter 2, as I recall, off the top of my head, the passage that I was referring to.

If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Off the top of my head, as I recall, that was 1

Corinthians, yes, 1 Corinthians 2 .8. The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood, for if they had understood, they would not have crucified the

Lord of glory. And in the work that I've done, the doctrine of the Trinity over the years and dealing with Oneness Pentecostals, this passage and some others, for example, possibly

Acts 20 .28, have been some of the key passages that are used to point out the fact that Christ is one person, a unified person, that he's not two people like many in the oneness movement present, that has two natures, hypostatic union, all those other things that come along with that.

I'm familiar with all those terminologies. What I would ask you to do is show us in 1 Corinthians 2 .8 where it teaches that Christ has two natures.

Well, again, if you're asking for explicit creedal statements or if you're asking for the revelation of God in Scripture, and any creedal statement's authority comes from the accuracy with which it reflects

God's words. And so any creedal statement, whether it's an answer to a specific question that we derive and put into the form of the language of the question, its authority comes from how true it is to the

Scriptural passage. So I am not saying to you that 1 Corinthians 2 .8 specifically addresses the issue of two natures.

It teaches that they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. And when we think about who

Jesus Christ is in the context of Paul's teaching, we know that the Lord of glory is a reference to his deity, and yet crucifixion is something that one does to a man.

And therefore, to distill that revelation into an answer to a question is what theology is all about.

Okay, well, I submit that I don't see that teaching there. I think you're making an implication that it's there because of other ideas that you have.

And if that's the strongest verse you have, I'm having difficulty in seeing how that supports two natures. But the issue here is actually not really two natures, but the two wills.

As you know, in the formula of the Sixth Council, it said that two wills came from a source.

Okay, so it's different than two natures. Could you explain to us then, because you said you believe that Christ had two wills, not one will, where the teaching of two wills is in Scripture as opposed to just two natures?

Well, again, it is an implication that is drawn from biblical facts. The biblical facts are that to be a person requires a will.

A human being who does not have a will is not a person. And so to say that Jesus Christ was one person with two natures, and yet those natures are not full, would be to say that Jesus was, for example, a semi -God but not truly

God, or to say that he was semi -man but not truly man. And this was the problem that was seen in that day.

And again, I would not invest any type of authority in a formulation outside of its faithfulness to its underlying biblical foundation.

Okay, so I gather you don't have a Scripture that points out that Christ had two wills.

You are getting there by using your logic. And I would submit this to you, that the Sibyllians did the same thing.

They used logic when they were trying to define the Trinity, and the modalists did the same thing too. They said, how can

God be one and three at the same time? That's an impossibility. And yet the Church held that even though it sounds impossible, it is indeed true.

So what I'm asking you is, you seem to be using logic to arrive at your decision rather than using some

Scripture that tells you that Christ had two wills. Do you find that contradictory? I read the

Bible, and I do not read it irrationally. I allow it to speak for itself. I allow it to speak as a whole.

I believe that Scripture is theanoustos, which means that every word speaks with the authority of God. And that is why we can do systematic theology, is because what

Paul writes to Timothy and what Isaiah wrote in his Revelation are not contradictory to one another.

And so when you say that the Sibyllians and the modalists and Arians and anybody else, quote -unquote, used logic, what you're seemingly saying is that we're not to use logic in listening to what

Scripture says. I believe that since God is the God of truth, you listen to all that he says, and you do not interpret him in such ways to make him contradictory to himself.

That is the glory and the wonder of Scripture, is that when you allow it to speak for itself, it does speak with one voice.

And in responding to the Sibyllians and the modalists, they did not use logic on every passage because they misinterpret passages in such a way as to make the authors contradictory to themselves.

I find it interesting that you grilled me on the issue of the two wills, and you said for 40 years no one knew whether that was true or not, so what's a person to do?

And yet I'm asking you for one Scripture that talks about two wills, and you haven't given me one yet. And yet you claim that Scripture is your final authority.

You went to 2 Timothy 3 .16, and you said it's profitable, it's theanoustos, it's the ultimate that you go to for any controversy at all, and yet you still haven't given me a

Scripture saying that Christ has two wills. You've given me a lot of verbiage that says we should do this, we should do that, we must think this way, we must think that way.

But the point, in fact, is I'm going to ask you again, if someone's salvation depends on a doctrine of this sort, as you implied, and he can't find it explicitly in Scripture, what is a person to do,

Mr. White? You just made a number of statements as a part of a very long question, and you said that I had grilled you for quite some time on that period.

You're the one making the assertion that there is an infallible authority that we must embrace in the Bishop of Rome, and it has been my assertion that that very assertion itself is ahistorical, and I believe many scholars agree with me on that point.

And so it is not my assertion that the situation with Honorius, historically in his own day, demonstrated that Honorius was a rebel against what had come before.

The problem is that it is your assertion that they believed in papal infallibility in that day, that they had these criteria, and the simple fact of the matter is they did not.

And so if you're attempting to contrast the claim of Rome, that the Bishop of Rome is an infallible authority when teaching ex cathedra, with the clarity and the perspicuity of Scripture in regards to many issues that the

Bishop of Rome teaches on today, I personally don't see any parallel between the two at all. And I see nothing wrong in my challenging you to attempt to prove to us from history, rather than just assuming it, that these individuals believed these things, and my saying that all those individuals in that day did believe that what we have in Holy Scripture today was

God -breathed, and that it did contain the fullness of the Gospel. Okay. You said that I'm making the assertion.

I did back it up for you, because I went right to the writings of Agatho, Pope Leo II, the emperor of the period, and the

Sixth Council, and they all said the same thing, that the Pope Agatho spoke infallibly on this issue and was against Honorius.

Now, the question is for you. Is that a question? No, that's not a question. It's not a question. This is the question. On the other hand, you said

I was making an assertion. You were making the assertion that Scripture gives you the answers for your faith.

And I'm asking you again, show us a Scripture that says that Christ has two wills. Again, I have never made the assertion that the phrase,

Christ has two wills, is in Scripture. I have said that that is a logical and proper conclusion from the biblical evidence itself.

And even more important than that is the fact that those individuals that you are citing, you quote

Agatho, here is someone who, in his teaching, never taught the things that you as a

Roman Catholic today would teach as necessary for the gospel of Jesus Christ, such as the bodily assumption of Mary.

And this is the entire point here, is that what we're supposed to be discussing is, did

Honorius teach in such a way as to violate the doctrine of papal infallibility, and how do we know?

It is an interesting question to ask whether we should have a debate on the issue of the natures of Christ on the basis of biblical evidence, and I suppose we could have a debate to discuss that.

I'm not sure anybody would show up for it, but I suppose we could do that. We've got a little overtime on our program today, so we've got to get out of here.

We'll see you next week. Be sure to get a copy of this at AOMIN .org.

This has been a presentation of James White's Books, Tapes, Debates, and Tracks. Join us again next Saturday afternoon at 2pm for The Dividing Line.