November 22, 2005

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

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

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

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

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

James White. Good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line on the 22nd day of November, 2005.

Not too much time left to go in old 2005 and another year heading our direction.

It's going to be a busy one, lots of stuff going on. I have some clips to play and we can take your phone calls as well at 877 -753 -3341.

I happened to fire up good old Catholic Answers again over the past couple days.

At one point it was funny, I was listening to Patrick Madrid who sounded dead tired and sick and he later emitted some gamma radiation.

He admitted he had just gotten back from Japan, had a cold and yeah, you could just tell.

He was really, really enjoying being on the program while Carl Keating and Jimmy Akin run a cruise.

So you can sort of tell who rates and who doesn't when Tim Staples is left hosting the program and they've got a guest person on during the cruise.

But anyway, which by the way, was the identical cruise, same week, same ship, same itinerary that we did the year before.

So they just need to quit copying us. Anyway, they were talking about something, as I recall, in regards to the papacy.

I think it had the Petra's Petra thing. And, you know, it's been how long, how many years since like the 93 debate?

It's 12 years. For a long, long time now, we have been presenting these strong arguments against papacy and they they just they're actually talking about, yeah, you know, it's just there's nothing new under the sun.

We just keep responding the same old arguments over and over again. The next generation's got to do the same thing. Well, how about respond to the arguments that have actually refuted you rather than the easy ones to respond to those that that would really help?

It just amazes me that the Catholic apologetics stays right where Catholic apologetics has always been.

And it and when when arguments are presented that are significantly more complex, historically based, higher level, you don't you don't hear responses.

You just you just hear them going back and playing the same tune over and over, which would definitely get boring after all.

There's no no twist about that. It would definitely get boring to do the same thing repeatedly over and over again.

So anyway. I caught this one program and in light of the debate we did on Long Island this past May, May, June, whenever it was,

I guess it was early June. It was. I don't know, I felt for the poor fellow who was calling in because he's right.

He's he's exactly right. And the the response that Tim Staples offers here. Well, let's let's just listen to it.

And I'm going to comment on the guy right. And Chuck is first from Canton, Ohio, today. Hi, Chuck. All right, guys.

Thanks for taking my call. My question is, I heard a while back here that the

Muslims and Muslims worship the same God that we do. And I went to Catholic school years back in all my life.

I understood there's one God in the Catholic Church teaches the one true God. And I just can't can't believe when somebody tries to come along and say that the

Muslims worship the same God that we do. And what do you think about that? As soon as I heard that,

I just I could not help. And of course, my mind immediately jumps to. All right. Where's Staples going to go with this?

Because if you've listened to the debate that we had just, you know, six months or so ago,

Section 841 of the Catholic Catechism, the church's relationship with the Muslims, the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator in the first place amongst whom are the

Muslims. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with us, they adore the one merciful

God, mankind's judge on the last day. Now, I'm sorry. Language is language.

You can look at the background of Lumen Gentium 16. You can look at Vatican 2.

You can look at the people that were there. You can look at the people that wrote these things. There really isn't any question here about what.

And together with us, they adore the one merciful

God. There's really no question about what that means. It's not tough. It's not really difficult.

And in fact, if you if you read Nostra Aetate 3, it says the church regards with esteem also the

Muslims. They adore the one God. What does adore mean? We had to keep asking that question, what does adore mean?

It doesn't just mean acknowledge. It doesn't just mean, well, they're monotheists. They adore the one

God living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all powerful, the creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men.

They take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God, just as Abraham.

OK, I mean, this this there's no way around this, is there? Well, that's not easy for Catholic apologists to deal with, because let's face it, not only is that not what the church, the

Roman Catholic Church, has taught in the past, but it just doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Liberalism really does.

And so here's one of those situations where Catholic apologists are faced with some real issues, some real difficulties.

And here an honest, you know, just an honest Roman Catholic guy grew up in Catholic schools, and that ain't what they taught back when he went to school.

I can guarantee you, judging by his voice, when did he go to school? Somewhere between the 40s and 50s, somewhere around there, maybe.

And that wasn't what they were teaching back then. And he knows that. And he's well aware of that.

And I think Tim Staples is well aware of that, too. But hey, you know, he's bought into the into the system.

You got to defend it. So here's prepare for a spin. Right. Well, it's a great question,

Chuck. And as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 841, when it says, the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the

Creator in the first place, amongst whom are the Muslims. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham.

And together with us, they adore the one merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. Now, very important that we make clear here that, yes,

Muslims worship the same God we do in as much as they worship the one true

God. And remember, God is absolutely one. He is more one than Jerry is or that I am.

He is one. And the Jews now and I and I know what's what's coming next.

Of course, they do not believe in God as he has revealed himself to us,

Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He has revealed in the New Testament, in the new covenant, his inner life, that we as Christians have the blessing to have received that that gift of faith so that we know him in his inner life.

But that's that does not mean, for example, that the Jews, let's say Abraham himself or Moses, they did not know

God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but they knew God because they worshiped him as the one true

God. So in as much as the Muslims say, and rightly so, that God is one, that is the true

God. But that doesn't mean we don't need to get the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to them and the revelation of God as he is in his inner life.

And that's what we're called to do as Christians. That doesn't mean, as many will say, oh, that that means, as paragraph 841 says there, that all

Muslims are going to heaven. No, that's not what the catechism says. And that's not what the Catholic Church teaches.

We believe that if anyone is ignorant through no fault of their own of the truth, that is, they've never rejected the truth of the

Catholic faith, it is possible for them to be saved through the graces that they have in ways known to God alone, be it through the legitimate sacraments they would have if they're

Orthodox or if they're Protestant with valid baptism, or, you know, let's take the

Muslim. And as much as they believe in one God, we believe that there is grace there available to them if they will honestly seek

God, given the truth that they have. I hope that's helpful, Chuck. Well, I guess the point

I'm making is we was taught that there is one God, God, the Father, God, the Son and the

Holy Spirit. And if you leave Jesus Christ out of it, I can't see how they're they're saying they're worshiping the same

God as Catholics and Christians worship. I mean, that's a since the New Testament, you know, since we're the

Muslims around here before the New Testament, before Christ came. I just love when folks like that who obviously have no theological background whatsoever, but this is just too simple.

I'm sorry. That's not the same God. Hello. We just did you try to follow what was just said?

I mean, I feel really, really sorry for somebody who has to spin the way that Tim Staples just spun that one.

The Trinity is now the internal life of God. And all we're doing when we evangelize

Muslims is introducing them to the internal life of the God they already worship. That's that's that's really what's going on here.

Wow. I guess we shouldn't expect a whole lot of help from the Catholic apologists in defending against Islam anytime soon.

Any two ways about that. Wow. And here this guy is just going, but if they don't have

Jesus, how can it be the same God? And of course, he's right.

No, no, they weren't. But just just try to keep in mind. And if and if you'd like to talk further about, can we do this off the air, please?

This question, I'd encourage you to call the apologists line at 619 -387 -7200.

And they can talk with with you more about this particular point. But I guess I'll leave the audience with with this thought.

The key is to remember, as James chapter one, verse 17 says in the New Testament, every good and perfect gift is from the

Father of light where there is truth. We as Catholics love truth and we don't run from truth and we can rejoice in that truth wherever it is found.

And in as much as Jews believe that God is one, we can rejoice with him. We can agree with him and say, absolutely.

God is one. Muslims say God is one. We can rejoice with him and agree with him. And that can serve as a beginning point to bring them to the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and to the salvation that we have in him.

So Abraham, I guess, according to this, Abraham's worship of Jehovah God.

And remember, Jesus tells us in John eight, Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it and was glad.

That's the same as Muslim worship, because it's just monotheistic, but it wasn't the inner life of the full revelation of the

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. And therefore it's the same. Wow, what a what again,

I just I feel sorry, I honestly feel sorry for anyone who has to defend something like that.

I mean, that's a mess. There is there is no other way of putting it. That's a mess. And we saw what happened in the debate this year.

It's it's impossible to keep yourself from being tied in logical knots in trying to defend that kind of that kind of a presentation, it just doesn't work.

It doesn't work. Now, just to illustrate this. Hadn't really thought about the direct connection, but just to just to illustrate this.

I was listening to another Shabir Ali debate, this time he was debating a David Schenck on the cross and the resurrection.

So here's a fellow who, according to Tim Staples, we can rejoice that he worships the one true

God. Of course, we've listened to enough Shabir Ali now to know that that means we should rejoice that Jehovah's Witnesses worship the one true

God. Now, maybe who knows, maybe

Tim Staples would say, no, no, no, no. He knows the truth and he's rejected it. I'm not sure how.

How that fits with Muslims who clearly know, I mean,

Islam comes after Christianity. Hello. Islam's, Islam's scriptures, though showing tremendous ignorance of the

Christian scriptures and the Jewish scriptures, still directly refute and contradict the teachings of the

Bible. And I want you to hear this section of a very subtle, very interesting attack upon the resurrection.

I want you to hear what Shabir Ali says here. I won't be responding necessarily everything he says, but there are a couple of sections

I want to go to. And it is interesting to to contrast this with what we just heard from Tim Staples and Catholic Answers.

And really, I wonder how would how would Catholic Answers respond to Shabir Ali and to this kind of a presentation?

Now, what about the cross? Muslims believe that Jesus was not killed on a cross. The Qur 'an says that the

Jews boasted that they have crucified Jesus. But the Qur 'an says, وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَاكِنْ شُبِّهَا لَهُمْ

They killed him not, nor did they crucify him, but he was made so to appear to them.

وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ And those who differ concerning him are in doubt concerning him.

مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا تِبَعَ عَلْظَنٍ They have no knowledge concerning him, but they follow only a conjecture, a supposition.

وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينَ They did not kill him for certain. بَلْ رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ

On the contrary, Allah raised him to himself. وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا And Allah is certainly mighty and He is wise.

Now, according to this passage, it appeared to the people that they had crucified Jesus. But they were not sure that they had crucified

Him. They were in doubt concerning Him. On the other hand, what has happened is that it was so made to appear to them.

But God had raised Jesus to Himself. Muslim commentators on the

Qur 'an have said that a semblance was made for the people. Someone was made to look like Jesus and this someone was crucified.

Who exactly was this someone cannot be determined for certainty because the Qur 'an does not say.

Some Muslim commentators had said that Jesus had asked for a volunteer from among His disciples and one such volunteer was put to death after being made to look like Jesus.

Some said that a certain Simon of Cyrene was put to death. Of course, the

Muslim commentators went around talking to Christians to find out what Christians knew about this event.

And they found out that there was a certain report from early on that a certain Simon of Cyrene who was made to carry the cross for Jesus was actually made to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead.

In fact, this story is very old. As old as the Gospel according to John. Because commentators on the

Gospel according to John point out that John has modified the narrative in order to not mention

Simon the Cyrene. It is a very important point. And the reason they say that John has modified the narrative to not mention

Simon the Cyrene is because in John's day there were some people who were saying that this

Simon the Cyrene who carried the cross was made to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead.

Some Muslim commentators had picked up a story that in fact

Judas Iscariot the one disciple of Jesus who had betrayed him, who had turned him over to the enemy was in fact changed to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead of Jesus.

Meeting the same fate that he had tried to plot for his master. Now is there any support for this

Muslim story? Yes. In fact there is support from archaeology which

I do not have time to mention and describe now in detail but just very briefly, Biblical Archaeology Review magazine of August 1995 carries an article by Joan Taylor which will revolutionize our understanding of the arrest scene.

According to that article Jesus was in a cave when he was arrested.

It is very important because the cave has a skylight. And there is a report going back to one of the companions of the

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him which says that Jesus was in a cistern getting washed and when he came out from that cistern eventually he was carried up to heaven through a hole in the roof.

It is interesting that this cave which actually is called Gethsemane has a hole in the roof.

Today pilgrims can go visit this cave in Jerusalem. So here is the presentation.

We are all worshipping the same God, right? I am so glad that I do not have some overarching authoritarian system that can change its doctrine over time and I have to somehow go whatever you say, that is what

I will believe now. Oh my goodness, it is so wonderful to have an unchanging standard and also

I do not have to worry about political correctness because I am not on a radio network that would have a cow if I reviewed the sermons of such and such a person or I made a comment about one of their favorite commentators or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

So here you have argumentation. Now we know, we have mentioned the program, you have heard many times before Sura 4, 157,

Sura 4, Aya 157, that should be something honestly, I am suggesting in light of world events,

I am suggesting in light of current trends in the

United States in growth in the Islamic community, I do not think that we quote unquote

Calvinists should be the last ones aware of what is going on here. I do not think we should be unaware.

I do not think we should be caught unprepared. I think we should be just as aggressive in responding to Islam and bringing the gospel to Muslims as anybody else.

We have nothing to be ashamed of and unfortunately it does seem in my experience so far that for a lot of Calvinists, you listen to this kind of argumentation and let us face it, some of the argumentation,

I mean I did get Shabir Ali's books and they are really bad. I mean the books are much, much less polished than he as he speaks.

They are barely in English. They are very, very poorly argued, very, very poorly documented, just horrible and I think the problem is a lot of reformed folks just go, we draw our little robes on ourselves, we go,

I am used to reading, I am used to preparing to refute Amiraldians and I just read the

Institutes for the 47th time and this is just beneath me. Like we just are not quite ready to get our hands dirty dealing with this kind of stuff when it comes up and it just should not be that way.

And so I do not think there is anything wrong about challenging everyone to be aware just like,

I mean I have known Book of Mormon passages, Moroni 10 .4 and 5, Moroni 10 .32, 2 Nephi 25 .23.

These are things that give you a tremendous advantage in speaking to these folks and the populations are growing.

I do not know about you, but when I go by a mosque I go, that must mean there are some folks around here that believe that and you need to be prepared.

So I do not think there is anything wrong in you going, oh, okay, I need to, even if I do not memorize the passage,

I need to A, obtain a Koran, a decent English translation of the Koran, and I need to know how to look up Surah 4, 157.

And Surah 4, 157 says, They even say, We have killed the Messiah, Esau, Jesus, son of Miriam, the

Rasul of Allah, the Prophet of Allah. I need to know what it says that the

Jews boasted, they said in boasts, We killed Christ Jesus, son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

Now this is written half a millennium later, over half a millennium after the events, far removed from the area geographically, in a different language, by a man who couldn't read, and had no knowledge, direct knowledge of the

Christian Scriptures. The only way, the only meaningful defensible way of defending something like that is to say, this is absolute pure revelation from God, I'm not even going to try to say that there's really any connection with the

Scriptures, I'm not going to even try to argue anything historically, I'm going to go with the

Joseph Smith defense here, this is pure revelation from God, and I'm not even going to,

I'm going to put it completely outside, the realm of anything that's testable.

All right? Got to be able to do that. People are asking all of a sudden, as soon as I said that, what translation of the

Quran should we get? Yusuf Ali is good, one of them here, there's a nice leather bound one, if you happen to like nice paper, so on and so forth, that's a good one to have.

Standing up here, the first one that I had, that's the one

I changed out here, this one right here, published by Princeton, this is the

Ahmed Ali translation, is the one that I got, this is pretty good, many of them come with the Arabic along the side, which to most of us looks like a little more than, you know, a little bit of,

I don't know, decoration. If you can track down,

Aleem 6 .0, that's the way to go. I mean, that gives you Assad, Malik, Piktal, and Yusuf Ali with a transliteration of the

Arabic, all in parallel columns, or actually above each other, so on and so forth.

I could be completely wrong about this, but, as I was trying to contact the folks that made

Aleem 6 .0, I couldn't get hold of them. The email's not responded to, you try to order something, it would come up out of stock,

I don't know what's going on, maybe it's not around anymore, I just don't know, I'm just pointing that out that I had some real problems trying to catch it.

If you want to get some of those Qurans, and I've built quite a library there as well, so just some things there.

Anyhow, these are the arguments that are being made. Half a millennium after the events, someone without any connection, the only way to make a meaningful argument there is to say, look, this is pure revelation, he's not drawing on previous sources, blah, blah, blah, blah, because you just can't defend it from that.

And it sounds to me like Shabir Ali tries to say, well, you know, I've seen that story, no, the fact of the matter is,

Muhammad clearly does not know the Christian scriptures, he misrepresents them over and over again. And from a Christian perspective, this is an illiterate man half a millennium later in a different language who doesn't know what he's talking about.

That's really all there is to it. And the result is what you hear in Shabir Ali, and that is, anything that disagrees with this story that's told 600 years after the events, more than 600 years after the events, is automatically suspect.

You just throw it out. If you find something in the Bible that fits with your story, you can keep it. If you find something that contradicts it, which will be the vast majority of the text, you just chuck it.

You grab the most liberal, Protestant theology you can find, theologians, commentators, you throw them in there to say, see, you're right, this is imperative.

Where's that coming from? That comes from a Jesus seminar. One tradition being modified by each apostle.

This is straight out of the Jesus seminar stuff. And so, John doesn't quote -unquote modify anything to get rid of Simon the

Cyrene. That's, again, assuming that you've just got one story, you've just got one stream, and they're just slavishly working off of each other.

And even at that point, John may or may not have known of the synoptics.

I think John did know of the synoptics. He has a completely different, that's why he's so different. Why repeat what they had said already?

He's talking in a different context, a different time, he has different purposes. I think he fully knew about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, because he's writing

John. He knew John better than anybody else. But he knew about those things totally different than making the assertion, well, commentators on John, and he has to be challenged, and challenged frequently to actually back up this kind of sweeping allegation.

But then there is a Biblical Archaeology Review article. And it's an interesting article, and I thank

Mark Ennis back in the Midwest there for tracking it down for me.

I'm actually getting all of Barr on disc here pretty quickly because I'd like to see what the responses were to this.

But it's a fascinating article. And what it said it said, and in fact the connections he draws there are way overblown, what the article in essence says is that the picture that we've had of a garden really comes from just a plot of cultivated land, which for us might be a garden, but that actually could be a broad number of things.

And since this is the Mount of Olives, there is a cave, very large cave, there on the

Mount of Olives, right across the Kidron Valley, so in other words it's described just like it is in the Scriptures. And it was a place where they would create olive oil.

They would press the olives and create olive oil. And the thesis of the article, and I'm just very quickly summarizing it for you, is that it seems like this was a place that Jesus and disciples went to and this is probably where they stayed the night.

I mean, it rightly points out that at this time of year it would be quite cool at night with a very heavy dew.

If you stayed out just under the stars you would be very cold and very wet by the morning.

You'd need some type of protection. And this cave would be perfect for that.

It was very large, it was very roomy, people worked inside it, so you're not talking about some little dark type of a situation like that.

It's almost like a house except it was naturally there as far as a very, very wide opening and things like that.

But you wouldn't have dew in there and you'd be able to be much more better protected from the elements and so on and so forth there at that particular place.

And there isn't any connection between Jesus washing himself and being taken up to heaven through a little hole in a roof or all the rest of that silliness.

Instead, it would seem the thesis of the article is that the arrest would have taken place at the mouth of this cave.

Okay, quite interesting but it almost, I wasn't exactly sure what Shaviro Lee was trying to connect there.

I really wasn't. But let's just assume two things one is this earlier story in regards to Jesus being taken up from some cistern or then the other connection is well, maybe it has something to do with it being a cave and therefore they could be confused as to who they arrested.

Now, as I've said before I've seen some of the most incredibly complex and I do mean complex beyond measure.

Arguments that people have put forward to try to come up with Simon or Judas look, let's face it the only way that you can substantiate the idea that someone other than Jesus was crucified would be an absolute miracle.

Don't even try to come up with why, well it was dark and it was at night.

No, come on, think about this for a second. Think of all the places Jesus goes. Do you really think those scribes and Pharisees would be confused after having been refuted by this guy over and over and over again?

Do you really honestly think that they would be confused as to who this guy is and well, it sort of looks like him

I'm not really sure. No, when some guy has been a fool for a long time you're not going to be confused as to who that is.

They've seen him for a long time. They've been right up to his face. There is no way on this earth that they're not going to understand who

Jesus is. You've got Mary at the cross.

You've got John at the cross. You've got Pilate and Herod and you've got all these witnesses and they all got it wrong?

It's ridiculous. You can't play the well, there is some confusion card. No, there would be only one way to make this work and that is a parting of the

Red Sea type of miracle where there is well, remember

Mission Impossible Mission Impossible type makeup where you rip off the mask and all of a sudden well, there had to have been a special effects artist involved here.

That's the only way this could possibly work. Just go with the it's a miracle that's how it happened.

Trying to make connections is absolutely positive. You've got to throw out the entirety of the text of the

New Testament and you have no reason to even speculate about Simon the Cyrene set of standards type argumentation if you want to go that direction too but that's what they're stuck with and as we've already said about Surah 4, verse 157 there's all sorts of different viewpoints amongst

Muslims. What does it mean those who differ there and are full of doubt with no certain knowledge?

This is one source illiterate different language

Christian history and Christian testimony out the window to give the first bit of credibility here.

Can you imagine if someone in A .D. 1250 said something about Muhammad that said he had nothing to do with the

Quran in a completely different language let's say, let's throw this person up into England in early

English a guy who's never read the Quran in a different language far removed 600 plus years later says

Muhammad didn't write the Quran how much weight do you think Shabir Ali would give to that person?

Zip! Exactly! And that's about as much weight as needs to be given to Muhammad at that particular point as well.

It's just absolutely ridiculous. 877 -753 -3341 if there's any phone calls at 877 -753 -3341 we will take your phone call and then

I have one other clip to take as well so we'll be right back uh oh, I hear an AK coming from the other room

I hadn't gotten any let's skip the break stuff beep beep beep you were on a roll

I just figured I'd let it run and you're just going like crazy this is fantastic so you're saying just keep on rolling keep on rolling why interrupt?

you don't want to get the people on the channel going who's that lady that did those commercials?

what was the lady's name? Ashley is everyone happy now? Ashley did the commercials years ago

Ashley is now on social security give it up! in fact oh now you're going to find it?

more than any time in the past there's Ashley thank you Ashley she has very good enunciation yes she does alright well then

I'm just going to go ahead and since certain people were not prepared well technically we did run a spot there no one has no idea what that was about then again most of them haven't memorized since we have so many people knocking down our doors on Instagram you know anyways so I'm curious while you're on this subject of Ashley?

not of Ashley what do you think is it just political correctness that moved

Rome to do this embracing of goodness gracious in the last 15 years 10 years even in the way of I mean kissing

Korans he went to a temple in Jerusalem well there were clear pressures put on Rome in light of Catholics being persecuted in Islamic countries

Islam is very good at persecuting other people it's not a religion of peace it's a religion of subjection and submission and the submission of the

Vatican II documents in essence were controlled by German theologians and German theology post

World War II post Holocaust is a theology of appeasement is a theology of apology is a theology of oops we really blew it there and that's why you for example have in the background of the new perspective saying what the

New Testament says about the Jewish people about the Jewish leaders this is the same pressure that came on the passion film to avoid quoting the gospel narrative where the

Jewish leaders say his blood be upon us and upon our children and blah blah blah so you have what we see right now in France the theology of appeasement and so we're not going to send our troops to Iraq because that's

Sharia law you cannot appease Islam because it's just not within it to be able to do it that's why you don't have free

Islamic countries because Sharia law does not allow Muslims to be ruled over by non -Muslims and to share power and do stuff like that and it's a mess when you try to create it as obviously someone's finding out right now so anyways theologically that's where it's coming from is this ecumenical impulse of not so much pluralism but it definitely leads to pluralism there's no other reason why and Roman Catholics will admit this especially conservative

Roman Catholics will admit this the seminaries and the theological education of the

Roman Catholic Church in general have become very universalistic everyone's going to be saved you can find a

Catholic priest almost on every street corner who will say it doesn't matter one way or the other and as that older gentleman recognized that wasn't the way things were in the 40s and 50s but there was in essence a hostile takeover in the late 50s early 60s and that's represented in the documents of Vatican II and there are people who were very concerned that maybe

Benedict XVI would likewise change his viewpoints and would recognize you know what the

United States of America hasn't done anything it's time we start demanding human rights for our people in those countries so that's part of what's lying behind the whole thing that's going on there but we go back now to actually the program

I had mentioned at the top of the show and that is a program where Patrick Madrid at the beginning of the program

Tim was talking about how he'd injured himself playing basketball before the program with the staff at Catholic Answers which sounds interesting but he also mentioned he had been out and about a great deal and I'm still a little confused because we've been inviting him to debate on Long Island in regards to his books and CDs and so on and so forth on Mary and we keep getting told that Carl Keating doesn't want him out so much that they want him in developing new materials but then when we listen to Catholic Answers Catholic Answers is actually writing promos about getting him out to go speak in parishes and that's what he's doing and he's doing all this traveling and I'm just sort of like odd, you know

I mean if you could go out it would be obvious to me but it hasn't worked out so anyway this call is concerning the passage in 1

Timothy chapter 3 it is one that's I'll give you a little background here

I remember reading in the first copy of Surprised by Truth a former

Orthodox Presbyterian Church member in chronicling her well again this is where I get to be politically incorrect except speak the truth in chronicling her apostasy into Roman Catholicism says that she was blown away when she first read 1

Timothy 3 .15 which in case you're wondering says but in case I am delayed Paul is writing to Timothy I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God which is the church of the living

God the pillar and support of the truth and I remember sitting back reading this lady's statement that she was blown away she had never seen 1

Timothy 3 .15 alright I assume that my good friends in the

OPC would say that she had never seen this before it sounds a little bit odd is there some level of truth some place that the annunciation of this passage church of the living

God the pillar and support of the truth pillar and buttress of the truth in the ESV is there has there been a diminishment of that viewpoint within evangelicalism no question no question about it you've heard me speak about that many times

I'm a churchman I bemoan the fact that many apologists are not churchmen they have a very low view of the church yeah an

OPC elder just said nope no way we only encourage reading well so much for his future in the

OPC anyways this is nothing new to listeners this program if you're new maybe you haven't heard me talk about it but I've talked about it many many times there is this tremendously low view of the church amongst many interesting enough

OPC wouldn't be amongst them Reformed Baptist wouldn't be amongst them consistent Calvinist would not be amongst them that's what makes this odd but certainly in the church shopping realm that's true you don't hear people talking about the church as the pillar and support of the truth you don't hear that kind of thing and I've defended that viewpoint in writing my own church government book and so on and so forth yeah we're planning on archiving this one don't worry about it

I didn't mention your name I could mispronounce it but anyways we won't go there be as it may we certainly have defended the truth that 1

Timothy 3 -15 announces but what is it that it announces is this some over arching no let's back up just a few verses what's 1

Timothy 3 about it's about elders and deacons 1

Timothy 3 -8 deacons likewise must be men of dignity not double -tongued or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid game but holy to the mystery of the faith of the clear conscience these men must also first be tested then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach deacons must be the husbands of only one wife and good managers of their children and their own households for those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and a great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus I am writing these things to you hoping to come to you before long but in case

I am delayed I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God which is the church of the living

God Timothy is not in Rome no,

Timothy is not in Rome he is in Ephesus this is a local church he is talking about the offices of the church which by the way conspicuously do not include celebrate sacramental priests cardinals or popes you have elders and deacons that's all elders and deacons that's the offices he talks about and when he went around to the churches strengthening the churches he didn't strengthen the churches by saying just follow

Peter he strengthened the churches by establishing in them the biblical offices of elders plural not elder, pastor, king, etc elders plural and deacons that's how he did it so that's the context the context is in the household of God which is the church of the living

God the pillar and support the pillar and buttress the grounding of the truth it happens in the local church where the ministry of the word takes place where God by his spirit makes the word of God to come alive in the hearts of the people when they gather together for the prayers and the ministry of the word singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs and woe be to anyone who decides they're just going to change how the

Lord designed things that's what 1st Timothy 3 .15 is all about let's listen to the phone call you're welcome, thank you here's the question this is kind of a

Keith Petros kind of question one of the apologetic arguments that has had the most persuasion for me was it's 1st

Timothy 3 .15 that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth yes and I'm a convert about 8 years ago and I've had people pulling me

I'm rock solid but I'm rock solid largely for a lot of reasons but largely because of 1st

Timothy 3 .15 and the question I have for you is the only argument that I've heard that and I think it's lame against 1st

Timothy 3 .15 is that the use of the word church in that verse is based on the

Greek word ecclesia and that is meant in a generic sense of the word church than in a physical building and I'm not sure

I'm articulating my question very well but my question for you is would you please explain to me the origins of 1st

Timothy 3 .15 and the proper use of the word church now immediately it sounds like that's a request for a meaningful exegetical discussion of the context of the passage which would be a good request

I don't understand ecclesia building stuff like that what the issue is is that the term the description here is of the local church not a specific church in Rome or the church as the church universal the head of the universal church and located in such and such a place maybe someone repeated that argument that I've presented in some form or something the response is well typical

Roman Catholic apologist great question yeah very good question well keep in mind first of all that here we see in the

New Testament the church in its mustard seed form its infancy which means that the church in those days did not have a supply of readily available theological terms that it had fashioned to describe different things so it had to be somewhat rough and ready and use terminology that later became sort of fixed in a certain meaning but originally may not have had exactly that meaning here with regard to this word ecclesia referring to the church we see it a few times we see it for example here in 1

Timothy also in Matthew 16 and Ephesians and other places the word ecclesia means a community or a group that's called forth or called out as the church established by Jesus Christ now where do the apostolic writers do that in 1

Timothy 3 .15 if that's going to be the assertion then we're going to see where that's established it's true that it has nothing to do with a building so it's not referring to a church structure but to the church meaning the mystical body of Christ so here in 1

Timothy when St. Paul speaks about how the church is the pillar and the foundation of truth a loose confederation of like -minded groups that call themselves

Christian he's not referring to some philosophy of a nice teacher named

Jesus he's referring to the church established on the rock of Peter by Jesus Christ and you know

Pat let me just stop right there was there even an attempt even an attempt to deal with the passage in context

I see none was a verse before even read nothing absolutely nothing not even an attempt and is that going to cause this fellow a problem is he going to go no wait a minute

I noticed that you didn't actually do that no of course not because that's not what they're accustomed to hearing they're accustomed to this kind of you know off -the -cuff completely non -exegetical response and I want to take a look at the

Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 751 and 752 it gives us sort of a history an etymology of the word church and a lot of folks don't know this

Charles but the word Ekklesia is also found in the Greek Septuagint and is used for the liturgical assembly of the people of God so it's not as though they're speaking

Jews now again the fact that Ekklesia can bear broader or narrower meanings when it's the church at a particular place okay fine not even a question no argument there but didn't this caller ask about a specific passage here's an excellent illustration of why

I've said over and over again Roman Catholics can't do exegesis it's not that they don't want to do it it's that if they're going to be consistent with their own epistemology and the infallibility of the

Roman Church they're shot they can't allow these texts to say what they say and when they do they're then branded as liberals in essence there's no question about what

Ekklesia means the question is where is rock okay and you get that from where in 1

Timothy 3 .15 you don't, you get it from tradition you mean the preceding verses aren't clear enough to tell us we don't need to listen to the preceding verses that's what you

Protestants do that we're acquainted with the Septuagint so the idea of church being used as the people of God and as a definitive community liturgical, complete with hierarchy and authority is not alien to the

Jews before Christ which no one would argue which has nothing to do with the text at hand very important to point out and then when you look in the

New Testament you see that as Patrick was mentioning the church has a definite hierarchy and I always like to go to Ephesians chapter 4 verses 11 and following where St.

Paul tells us that God has placed in the church apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, teachers he's given us a definite hierarchy this is not and of course we're missing cardinals and priests and popes in that particular list well let me shut up we'll go to our next caller yes well ironic statement there the eisegetical response given there and that was it they went to the next call if the caller had any if that didn't answer his question we don't know but it is so sad honestly with the word of God right in front of them and yet there is this filter that exists between them and the word that keeps it from speaking it's right there read the words but it can't speak it can only say what the filter allows it to say nothing more that's a sad thing in eternity but it's a tremendously sad thing he who has ears to hear you have to have those ears open that's a divine work not in Mr.

Madrid's case I remember Mr. Madrid's the one who argued in our debate on veneration of saints and angels that yeah the bible does tell us not to bow down to statues and things like that but that was because those people had a propensity toward that kind of idolatry which we don't have today so the application thereof would then mean that many of the commands of the

Old Testament aren't really relevant anymore because we don't really have that danger anymore we're not liable to that kind of sin which is an odd thing not in the case of Patrick Madrid but in the case of Tim Staple who

I think is an Assemblies of God youth minister or something like that so okay not likely too many

Assemblies of God youth ministers have a real solid foundation in biblical history and exegesis and things like that let's be honest with ourselves but at least

Madrid is to my understanding a lifelong Catholic whereas these converts some of them were and will be held to a very very high standard in regards to their apostasy and what they were aware of or what they could have or should have been aware of and then turning and denying those things and that is indeed a heavy heavy burden to bear well

Thursday evening is Thanksgiving and at the time that the dividing line is supposed to be on Thanksgiving I will be sitting down to a wonderful turkey and dressing dinner with my family so I'm not going to be here and I wouldn't expect most of you to be there either for that matter so we'll be back a week from this morning on the dividing line hope you have a wonderful time of Thanksgiving with your family

I plan on doing the same thing God bless you all thanks for listening good day this has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at aomin .org

where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks join us again this