Refuting Phil Porvaznik's Article

And welcome to Dividing Line. My name is James White. Our number today is 866 -854 -6763.

I give that number so that folks can call in specifically. I am inviting the authors of a webpage that was posted last evening.

We like to be on top of things. This website was, this webpage was posted last evening, ostensibly in response to the new main page article on our own website.

It's entitled, A Reply to Protestant Apologist James White. At least, I must at least be thankful for the fact that it does not say,

A Reply to Anti -Catholic James White, because that seems to be the only way that some people can manage to utilize such language.

But, anyways, it is A Reply to Protestant Apologist James White. And, even though at the bottom of the page, it gives, as the authors,

Apollonio Latar and Phil Porvoznik, according to one of those two gentlemen, it is

Phil Porvoznik who wrote all this. In fact, earlier today, in doing a

AOL instant message to Apollonio, I was informed that he had not yet read it and that he asked for time to go and get the opportunity to read it, even though it appears on his website and with his name at the bottom.

May I suggest to anyone who posts things on the internet, if it's going to be posted with your name on your website, you might want to take a look at it before, well, before other people take a look at it.

That might be a good thing. But, anyways, it is a fascinating response.

And so, since we like to be right up on top of things, I would like to provide a response to it. And, I am inviting

Mr. Porvoznik, or Mr. Latar, to call 866 -854 -6763.

I'm going to be demonstrating that the entirety of Mr. Porvoznik's argument is utterly inane.

Inane means empty, without any substance to it. And, as I have read through the argumentation, it all keeps coming back to the exact same point that is made within the first few paragraphs.

And, hence, it is inane in the meaning of that term, which means empty. It has no weight.

It has no substance to it. And, if Mr. Porvoznik would like to call in and attempt to rehabilitate his argument, or attempt to explain why he does not believe that God is able to communicate truth through his word without the

Roman Catholic Church, that seemingly the entire argument of a reply to Protestant apologist

James White is, James White cannot speak of truth because he is a Protestant. Since there are people who call themselves

Protestants, who disagree with one another on this issue or that, then nobody knows the truth. Since there are disagreements, since any disagreement can take place, truth cannot be known.

Now, that kind of epistemology is not only completely self -refuting,

I mean utterly self -refuting, but it is also completely destructive of any kind of rational argumentation whatsoever.

Because we can go to the period prior to the Roman Catholic Church and the establishment of the

Roman Catholic Church, and we can then ask the question, how could anyone have been held accountable to God's truth at that time?

Is Mr. Porvoznik going to say that the Jewish magisterium was infallible and hence was the means for knowing truth?

Well, we know that's not the case, because we know the quote -unquote Jewish magisterium had all sorts of traditions that the

Lord Jesus condemned. He said that they were in error, and in fact held them to the higher authority of Scripture.

And so, exactly how will Mr. Porvoznik respond to these things? Well, we don't know, but the number is 866 -854 -6763.

The phone just rang, so maybe it's possible. Mr. Porvoznik will be on with us today, and we'll be able to discuss this, and to demonstrate one of the most self -refuting and yet common arguments of the

Roman Catholic apologists that are running around out there today, especially in cyberspace, and that is, without us, you cannot know truth.

Well, of course, I will turn that around and ask a number of questions. A. Which view of Roman Catholicism is the truth?

Is it Mr. Porvoznik's? Is it Mr. St. Genesis's? Is it Mr. Madrid's? Mr. Keating's? Mr. Hahn's?

Mr. Armstrong's, possibly? Which of the various viewpoints expressed out there?

Is it Ratzinger? Is it Dominus Iesus? Or is it the statements the

Pope makes all the time that are very contradictory to Dominus Iesus? And when this Pope passes on, and we end up with a different Pope, are we going to need to change our views of truth to sort of fit into those perspectives as well?

It's really hard to say, but I would like to know, is Mr. Porvoznik the one who can tell us, since we seemingly need to have an infallible interpreter to know truth, who speaks for Rome?

If you say it's the Pope, then what about all the times that we've had councils say one thing and Popes say another?

Or do you just simply go with the current Pope and hope you can figure out what he's saying? And is Mr. Porvoznik an infallible interpreter of what the

Pope says? Why do so many Roman Catholic apologists, Roman Catholic theologians, and everybody else disagree on their interpretations of the infallible words of Trent or Vatican II?

Why does Jerry Matytix and Carl Keating go head -to -head in regards to issues regarding Vatican II and the binding nature of it?

Is it binding? Is it not? Can anyone tell us which Bible passages, for example, the

Roman Catholic Church has infallibly defined? Can Mr. Porvoznik tell us these things? Maybe he can call 866 -854 -6763.

Now, this particular web address, I'll be glad to give it to you if you'd like to bring it up and take a look at it yourself.

It is, of course, www .bringyou .to That's B -R -I -N -G -Y -O -U dot

T -O slash Apolonio, A -P -O -L -O -N -I -O slash, man, this is small writing.

Let me get a little closer here. Let's see here. A56 .htm.

That must be about a six -point font there. That is really hard to see. In fact, I will just select it here, and I will copy it, and I will put it down here, and I'll go boop, and now everybody in the chat room can just double -click on that or single -click, however you have your

IRC thing set up, and you can take a look at the same article that I'm looking at, and so we can see the kind of utterly destructive epistemology.

Epistemology, of course, being the study of knowledge. The utterly destructive epistemology that is utilized in this kind of material.

And while I would like to think that almost anyone could see through this kind of argumentation, sadly, it has been my experience that the study of epistemology, the study of knowledge, and the study of arguments concerning it is not really high on the current

American Educational System Priority Board, and hence, even what are quite simply horrific arguments tend to carry weight with folks.

And so we're going to take some time to look at this. I was going to be looking at exegesis today, how to do hermeneutics.

We may get to that. Sort of depends on whether anyone calls in and wants to defend this stuff, but we might get to it.

We might not at all. Depends how things are on the dividing line. We just roll with the punches, and the nice thing about being live and doing this kind of thing is that we are able to respond to things really quickly.

This particular page probably has not been up 12 hours yet, and we will have the opportunity of responding to it.

Now, this particular article goes on to talk about various and sundry debates that I have done.

It provides a scorecard at the end which is downright laughable. I've provided a counter scorecard. I found it fascinating.

Not only, and some of you will find this scorecard very, very interesting, especially if you've listened to the debates. It would be interesting for those who have listened to the debates to go down to the bottom of this page and see how

Roman Catholic apologists, and Mr. Povazic, by the way, has on his website, and I mentioned this in an earlier dividing line, he has pictures of a couple of my books, and he has an open challenge to people to engage him in written debate.

And so I wrote to him a while back, and one of the things he wants to debate is the Roman Catholic Church is the church of the

New Testament. I said, okay, let's debate it. I'm teaching Greek exegesis this particular semester, and so that would give me an opportunity to sort of meld things together.

That's something I sadly need to do is I need to meld my projects together so that when I'm working on one thing

I may be able to do a little other study as I'm working along and preparing for this debate or preparing for that article or whatever.

It's actually a rather interesting thing to attempt to do. But anyways, I said, let's do it. Well, I didn't mean you.

No, there wasn't anything on the website that Mr. Povazic said, I will debate anyone who's read these books, but I won't debate the authors of these books.

He didn't say that. But he wouldn't debate. And I'm going down to Florida in July to do a debate against an open theist,

Lord willing, and I said, let's get together and let's do a debate on Roman Catholicism. You're putting stuff out there, you want to be taken seriously, then let's do it.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'll come here, you talk to the open theist, but I'm not going to do that. Amazing thing, actually, when you start really thinking about it.

But notice, notice the second paragraph says, First, although White makes reference to his personality being attacked and impugned by myself,

Phil Povaznic, and others in an online chat at chnetwork .com, I think consisting of about 5 -10 people that night at most,

I virtually dedicate a page to him at my site with his many debates that are available online at straightgate .com.

See that page here, there's a little link you can click there. I hardly attack or impugn his personality there.

The page has been online over three years, initially on AOL. I say yes, listen to and study the biblical and historical issues.

The page includes the audio links to many Catholic conversion stories from the popular EWTM program, The Journey Home. You will find the

Reformed Baptist beliefs, which is a tiny sliver of Protestantism, which White claims to represent, will not hold up either biblically, historically, or logically.

Now, let's apply a little bit of logic here. First of all, he says, well,

I've had a page dedicated to him with many of his debates for a number of years. What does that logically have to do with the fact that I and another

Christian sat in a chat room earlier this week and watched as Mr. Pervoznik, Mr.

Latar, Mr. Armstrong, a fellow named Matt, and a few others, talked about myself, they talked about Timothy Enloe, they talked about Eric Svensson, I believe

Bill Webster's name was mentioned, Rob Zinn's name may have gone by at one point.

I was said to be heartless, to have no spirituality, to be nothing but intellect, but no spirit, no love.

Everything that I have done was impugned. I was said to be arrogant, and, fascinatingly enough, there was a discussion, and the other

Christian came in in time just to see this, there was a discussion about how we should contact, not we, on my side, this is from their perspective, how contact should be made with members of the families of all

Protestant apologists, and specifically Eric Svensson's wife was mentioned, I believe Bill Webster was mentioned, let's look and see what else we can dig up in people's families.

Now, I have mentioned in a couple of different contexts, it has never crossed my mind to look into the families of Roman Catholic apologists, and in fact

I think it is a sign of the desperation of many of these individuals that they would even consider such activities.

I mean, if you can't win on the issues, and you have to go for people's families,

I don't know if I've mentioned this in the air before, but there is one quote -unquote Catholic apologist, at least he styled himself an apologist,

I don't know if you can officially identify what a Catholic apologist is, because I guess there is not really an official designation of such a thing.

But I've had one man who lives in the Phoenix area, who actually is a part of the military, who after constantly writing to me, he's written to the elders at my church, and finally saying, look, would you just stop it?

I mean, I had written him extensive stuff at the beginning to try to be of assistance to him.

He wasn't interested in anything. I had sent him a number of patristic citations, and everything he wrote back said, well that doesn't say soul scripture, that doesn't say soul scripture.

There was no interaction or anything. Eventually I said, enough already. We've answered everything there is to answer.

It's obvious you don't want to listen to these things. Just leave us alone. And so eventually what happened is,

I remember one day I came home and there was a letter for my wife with her, with no return address.

And I didn't really give a lot of thought to it until she then opened it and showed it to me, and here it's a letter from this man, who is a, well he's a colonel in the

Air Force, he's a pilot, and he's writing to my wife because, well you know, your husband may not be telling you about these things.

I couldn't believe it. It was absolutely incredible. It has never crossed my mind to write, to even find out if these people are married.

I mean, I know that some of these folks are because they talk about their, you know, dozen children or something, but it never crossed my mind to do stuff like this.

I mean, this is all out warfare from these people's perspective. It's incredible. And when you face it with them, it's like, oh well, it didn't really mean it type of a situation.

Absolutely positively incredible. The kind of behavior that these people will engage in, of course, having debated people like Art Sippo or Vinnie Lewis or people like that,

I guess I can understand that behavior even ends up in the debates. But here you have it in a private situation, absolutely positively amazing.

But going back to the article here, what does having this link up on his page have anything to do with what was being said in that channel?

Well, logically, absolutely, positively, nothing. So then it goes on to say, talks about these, ah,

Mr. Provoznik is online now. Let me just make sure that he is fully aware of the fact that I am talking about him.

I think that's only fair because, you know, he may want to join us.

Uh, Phil, you all can listen to this. We are talking about you right now.

Please feel free to call in at 866 -854

You know, I'm going to memorize this someday. I mean, how many times have I repeated that? And I still have to look down this little piece of paper down here.

That's a horrible thing. 866 -854 -6763 Well, anyways, then it says, the page includes the audio links to many

Catholic conversion stories from the popular EWTN program The Journey Home. You will find the

Reformed Baptist beliefs, which is a tiny sliver of Protestantism, which White claims to represent, will not hold up either biblically, historically, or logically.

Now, I'm trying to understand what this means. Does that mean that there are Catholic conversion stories from the

Reformed Baptists? I'm not aware of any, but is Mr. Provoznik saying that if you go to EWTN, you're going to find out why

Reformed Baptists can't hold up to examination? And if that's the case, then why doesn't

Mr. Provoznik demonstrate that in debate? I've not quite understood that. I'd be more than happy to, if he wants to address, for example, the form of the church.

Let's debate. Does the New Testament teach that we have elders and deacons, and a plurality of elders in the church, or does the

New Testament teach that there's a difference between elder and presbyter and bishop, and that you have different levels of bishops, and that you have archbishops, and you have cardinals, and you have popes?

Well, I can sort of see why someone wouldn't want to debate that from the New Testament, but, you know, that would seem to be a good place to start.

And by the way, I do not claim to quote -unquote represent all of Reformed Baptists.

I am an elder in a particular local church, and, obviously, I believe that what we believe as Reformed Baptists is the most consistent with the biblical revelation, but later on,

Mr. Provoznik will again demonstrate that he does not understand true biblical Catholicity.

And what is true biblical Catholicity? It is that understanding that you recognize that there is never going to be in this life an absolute perfection of sanctification in us, and therefore there are going to be areas of disagreement amongst good brothers in Christ.

It will not be on the core issues that define the Gospel, but will frequently be on the application of biblical principles in various aspects of the

Christian life. And hence there are people in our chat channel right now with whom

I have spirited debates on various issues wherein we disagree. But they are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and if Mr.

Provoznik were to come in, he would find that we would all be saying the same things to him, even though, seemingly, if he takes his own perspective, we shouldn't be able to because we disagree on other issues.

You see, the problem is, for everyone who thinks like Mr. Provoznik, you need to understand that we can maintain the unity of the

Spirit in truth while going to God's truth to examine the traditions that we hold.

And that's a wonderful thing to see happen. And do we always model it perfectly? No, we do not. But when we do not, it is not because there is something wrong with the

Word, or something wrong with the Spirit of God, but there's something wrong with us in that we still allow our pride or our arrogance or our impatience to get in the way.

But I'm going to tell you something, when I stand in a debate, in a debate against a

Roman Catholic on the issue of justification, my conservative Presbyterian friends are standing right next to me, and some of the most godly men and godly women

I know of use that phrase, Presbyterian of themselves, and I'm glad we can debate the issues, and we're going to debate the issues in the future.

There's going to be a there's going to be a debate sometime in the future, probably 2003 between myself and another on on paedo -baptism.

And I've had paedo -baptists tell me, thank you for challenging me on this. You've said things I've never heard before.

But the fact of the matter is, when it comes to those things that define the faith, we stand shoulder to shoulder, and we say to Mr.

Porvoznik, you don't provide any answers from the scriptures. In fact, if anyone reads this article, they'll discover that Mr.

Porvoznik's argument is two -fold. A, Protestants can't know truth.

B, I'm going to quote from everybody else's website on early church fathers,

I'm going to quote people out of context and assume this means what I think it means, and therefore you're wrong. That's it.

I mean, that is the entire level of argumentation here.

And I just want to note to folks, I did send Mr. Porvoznik an instant message just now. I've not gotten a response saying, hey, come online, 866 -854 -6763.

If you want to explain, and I've only gotten one paragraph so far, but if you want to explain why it is that having a link on your website explains the type of behavior we observed in that chat, then, oh,

Mr. Lattar says I pronounced his name wrong. Okay, sir, please tell me how to pronounce it.

I would like to know. I mean, Apollonio Lattar is a fairly unusual name. It obviously is not

English in its pronunciation, so if you'd like to explain how it is to be pronounced,

I think that's a fairly decent guess for having never heard it pronounced before in my life. If you'd like to call in,

Mr. Lattar, it's 866 -854 -6763. 866 -854 -6763.

I'm sure you have a phone nearby you, and feel free to call in and let us know how to pronounce it, and then maybe you got it last.

Well, that's what I said before. Apollonio Lattar. Is that not what I said earlier? That's what I thought I said. Anyways, I'm glad you have...

Oh, I was just kidding. Well, you know, it's hard for me to know when folks are kidding.

I remember Gail Ripplinger has made her chief response to me that I had misspelled

Gail, which I'd never seen in print before. There's two ways of spelling Gail, G -A -Y -L -E or G -A -I -L.

I chose the wrong one. That's been one of her biggest apologetic responses to everything else I've said about her over the past seven or eight years now.

So, you know, when someone says you mispronounced my name, I'd like to be able to, you know, talk to them about that.

By the way, since it's on the website, and again, I've given the website in the channel, these folks are online.

And... And now Big Scott has just joined the channel. These folks are online.

If you'd like to chat with them, maybe they'll talk to you. If they won't talk to me, I don't know. But if you look down at the bottom of the webpage, you will see the addresses for both.

And if you have AOL Instant Messenger, Phil Vaz is online, and Mr. Apollonio is online as well.

And so you can get in touch with them and say howdy to them if you would like to.

So anyways, we continue on. He then says the next paragraph.

For myself personally, I happen to like James White since he brings up a lot of issues that Catholic apologists need to answer.

And I am as much a debate junkie as he is, although I don't debate formally in person. Much of White's anti -Catholic material is not new, since it can be found in much older books such as Anglican Divine George Salmon's Infallibility to the

Church, originally 1888, which is capably answered here. And he provides a link. Obviously, I don't think that it is.

But actually, Good and Whitaker and Salmon, yes, they've all said a lot of these things.

But the interesting thing is Mr. Porvoznik is willing to list refutations of, for example, the new

Webster King book when he himself hasn't read it. And in fact is asking for other people to send him things that he can post there as part of his refutation.

I'm sorry Mr. Porvoznik, that's not how you do it on a scholarly level. You actually read things before you respond to them, and at least that's how most folks do it.

Anyways, he continues. I'll quote from portions of White's article in smaller font that deal with some of the biblical or historical issues.

The personal information between himself and his sister we have no knowledge about, of course. We'll just deal with the theological apologetics and debate material, since he challenges his sister to answer it in his article.

Actually, I did not. I had specifically said that over the course of the past year and a half when

I have raised issues with Mrs. Bonds, who is my sister, that they have not been answered.

And the interesting thing is Mr. Porvoznik fails to answer them as well, as we will see as we look at this.

Now, here is the key assertion from Mr. Porvoznik.

I had written in our main page article, and though we have gone through a number of email exchanges since she made her decision known to us, what

I said unknowingly in response to her anonymous email is still what I'm saying today. Nothing has changed.

Since Mrs. Bonds has chosen to go public with her story, I have been forced out of simple love of the truth to address her claims.

Now here is the fundamental response from Mr. Porvoznik.

And if this is wrong, if this is incoherent, if this is illogical, if this is easily refuted, then the entirety of this entire page collapses.

And much of the standard Roman Catholic apologetics that floats through cyberspace goes by the wayside as well.

Here is the response. This is the first reference to the truth. What is the truth in Protestantism really?

Can one define it? What is truth on doctrine in Protestantism? Can it be known? There is really no such thing.

Yes, James believes he has the truth, but so do thousands of other Protestants that disagree with his version of the truth and doctrine.

What is the truth on baptism, for example, on the Eucharist, on the sacraments in general, on the nature of the church, on the government of the church, on bishops, on priests, on salvation and justification, on predestination and free will?

What is the truth on these doctrines according to Protestantism? Does anyone really know? How about on moral issues?

What is the truth on these? Who knows according to Protestantism? They have the Bible, yes, given to them by the

Catholic Church, but they do not know what the truth is." There is the argument that without the

Catholic Church, truth is unknowable. Well, let's just step back and consider a couple basic issues with this.

Let me just lay them out, then we'll take our break, and we'll hope that possibly Mr. Provoznik will give us a call at 866 -854 -6763 and back up what he spent of what

I've been told by Mr. Littar all last evening writing. And let's maybe have a little bit of a dialogue here, or someone else maybe who would like to attempt to defend those things, if Mr.

Provoznik won't. But here is the basic assertion that without Rome, there can be no truth.

Now, seemingly that would mean that there has to be some mechanism for defining what truth was before there was a

Roman Church. Mr. Provoznik assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is 2 ,000 years old, so from the very beginning of the

Christian era, that Rome defined the truth. What about before the Christian era? Who defined truth at that point, or was truth unknowable?

We aren't told. Secondly, given the wide variety of interpretations of Rome's teaching, which of these versions are we to embrace?

Mr. Provoznik's? Mr. Provoznik happens to believe that Mr. St. Genes is in error regarding Mr.

St. Genes's view of the text of the New Testament. Who is right? How are we to know?

Can we know the truth about the manuscripts of the New Testament without the Roman Catholic Church? If I had believed

Pope Sixtus when he gave us his infallible Vulgate, would I have been right or wrong at that time since Mr.

Provoznik no longer uses Pope Sixtus's infallible Vulgate? How do we know these things?

And what does this say concerning the nature of Scripture? What does this say about Mr.

Provoznik's view of inspiration? God's ability to communicate in written form?

Those are just some of the questions we'll be looking at. When we come back, we'll also refute the idea that the

Catholic Church gave us the Bible. No, actually, the Catholic Church was very busy at the time of the

Reformation, trying to get rid of those who were giving us the Bible. We'll take a look at that as well, and we'll hope for some phone calls at 866 -854 -6763.

We'll be right back after this break. The history of the

Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the

Church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book,

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

Scripture texts on this theme. Justification is the heart of the Gospel. In today's culture, where tolerance is the new absolute,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Roman Catholic Controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture. The Papacy, the

Mass, Purgatory and Indulgences, and Marian Doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the

Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomen .org

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

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the Gospel of the Grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of His worship in His Church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

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

And welcome back to Dividing Line. My name is James White and we are talking about an article. I have posted the

URL in the channel and it is www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou

.to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to www .bringyou .to have to come to the Scriptures. Think about what Mr. Porvoznik has to do.

He's not only got the Scriptures but he's got, well think of the things, he's got

Trent and he's got Chalcedon and he's got Nicaea and Ephesus and he's got papal bowls and canons and decrees and canon law and my goodness how in the world could a, you can't even read all that stuff.

At least I've read all the Bible. Mr. Porvoznik hasn't read all that stuff.

So how can he even begin to have even an accurate or sufficient knowledge of what

Rome deems to be authoritative? I have to wonder how can you do that? But you see when

I come to the Scriptures, unlike Mr. Porvoznik and unlike his compatriots,

I come to the Scriptures not with an external system of theology derived from the authority of a human organization such as the

Pharisees or the Roman Catholics, both, but I come to the Scriptures desirous of hearing

God speak. Not in some audible voice but in the way that Jesus used it in Matthew chapter 22 when he said that God spoke to the very men who were testing him, the

Sadducees who were testing him, God spoke to them in what was written back in Exodus.

Because you see unlike the self -contradictory, obtuse, obscure, strange, often strange and biblically inaccurate musings of Roman leaders down through the centuries, the

Scriptures are Theanustos. They are God -breathed. They are

God -speaking. And I make no apology for holding the view of Scripture that was self -evidently held by the

Lord Jesus Christ himself. If you're going to trust him to raise you from the dead, then you had better trust his view of Scripture as well.

I hold the same view as the Apostles who said that God's word is

Theanustos, God -breathed, it is divine in origin.

And I recognize that without any allegedly infallible interpretive authority,

Jesus held men accountable to the Scriptures. That didn't make them infallible, and that tells me

I don't have to be infallible to be held accountable. And there is no logical or rational argument that's going to establish that.

And so Mr. Provoznik, when you attempt in this paragraph to say, what is truth in Protestantism really?

My response is, truth in Christianity is what God has eternally defined it to be in his word which he has exalted above his name.

And Mr. Provoznik, your very paragraph demonstrates you cannot pray the 119th

Psalm. You can't do it because you don't have the faith in Scripture that I do.

That's the difference between us. And so we ask questions. What's the truth on baptism, for example?

Well, my friend, we can go to the word. Oh, but people disagree.

So what? When we have atheists come into the channel, we show them the word, they disagree.

Is that something wrong with the word or with the atheist? When you have people who come into the

Roman Catholic Church and you show them what the Council of Trent said and they disagree, is there something wrong with the Council of Trent or with them?

Apply the same standards to your own arguments. And you see, that's why folks, that's why

I just, Dave Armstrong came into our chat channel after this thing that they had in the

Coming Home Network the next night, which I think was last night, he came into our chat channel and it was a fascinating discussion.

And one of the things that came up was, well, you know, I don't do oral debates and Mr. Provoznik says the same thing here, I'm a debate junkie like White is, whatever role that means, but I don't do the oral debating and all the rest of that stuff.

And I keep telling folks, the reason that I prefer that, there's a place for written debates, but you see, the tremendous validity of the oral debate comes from the fact that in the oral debate, and I didn't realize this in my first number of debates,

I've learned I've learned over time, the tremendous weight and usefulness of oral debates comes from the cross -examination.

And I've talked to some attorneys, we actually have some attorneys we let into our channel, we had to take a vote as to whether we would do that because it really drags things down to have attorneys in the channel, but we have decided to allow them in and we put up with them, it's a sanctifying thing, but we have some attorneys in the channel, and I know some attorneys personally, in fact, one of the pastors of one of the churches

I spoke at back in Long Island over the past couple of weeks, a wonderful man, is an attorney!

And I just had so much fun with that, every time we'd be driving someplace I would just have so much fun with the attorney stuff, but anyways,

I've talked to a number of attorneys and they'll all tell you the same thing, yeah, your opening statement's important, your closing statement's important, but the case will be decided on cross -examination.

And they're right. That's a biblical thing, it's a biblical thing. Proverbs chapter 18, the one who presents his case first seems right until the other comes and questions him.

There you go. And so I find those who hide behind webpages and stick their head out and throw things my direction, but when given the opportunity, even in their hometowns, where they wouldn't have to travel, they wouldn't have to do anything, they will not stand up and defend in public debate their assertions,

I think they know why. I think they know why. And I'm not saying every single person is cut out to debate, but you see, none of these folks will come out and say, you know what,

I just, I'm not capable of doing it, I would, you'd ask me questions and I would start drooling, you know, if they'll just be nice enough to say that, fine, but they'll never say that, they'll always say, well

I won't debate you because you're too mean, and you're nasty, and you're an a*****e, perhaps, where's that cough button when you need it, well,

Mr. Lattar, Mr. Lattar has just said that I'm very nice on the radio, and we should have dinner together one night and then videotape it, you do not want to videotape me eating, trust me, not only do

I eat only boring stuff, and I, truly boring stuff, but, how do you respond to something like that, anyway, that's taken me by surprise just as, just as much as the

Philippians 2 -5 defense that was thrown at me in the

Muslim debate, Paul was just fooling with them Philippians, I wasn't prepared for that one either, but Mr.

Lattar, since you have noted that, I would just simply say to you that I generally do not have a dinner with Catholic apologists, but since you are a young individual, and I think you've just simply been misled,

I would be happy to do that with you, and it would be a very interesting discussion indeed, and if you want to bring your videotape camera, we can, we can, you know, do that, however, you'll discover that I actually, despite how big

I am, I do not eat a whole lot, I actually eat smaller meals during the day, and so I'll get done quick, and you'll notice that my plate will be replaced with the

Scriptures very, very quickly, and that is the issue that we will be getting to, is what the

Scriptures teach, and then we go from there, so thanks, thanks for the invite, maybe, you know, sometime that'll happen, anyways, oh my goodness, so I would like to submit that the entirety of this argument found in this paragraph, what is truth, is not only utterly destructive of Mr.

Porvoznik's own position, because he can't answer his own question by his own standards, but it is also extremely, extremely revealing of the non -existent doctrine of Scripture, theology, and inspiration that undergirds

Mr. Porvoznik's position, and since that has collapsed, everything else in this whole section has collapsed, there's really nothing left other than some miscellaneous comments regarding early church fathers that I'll comment on here in a moment, but other than that, it's gone, and I do find it interesting that an individual who would have this view of Scripture, this view of inspiration, it's no wonder that he would then judge my debates, and for example, proclaim

Mr. Matitick's the victor in the debates on Mary, and I just ask all of you in the chat channel, many of you have listened to those debates on Mary, many of you have listened to especially one of the most hilarious incidences in my debate career, where in the last section of the

Marian debate, I was pushing Mr. Matitick's on the early church fathers again, because he kept saying, he kept saying, well it's there, it's there, where is it

Mr. Matitick's, where is it, and finally he said, Mr. White, you can't expect every early church father to have discussed this subject, and I said,

Jerry, I'll take one, and the place exploded, I mean, everyone went wild, they all had been wanting to say basically the exact same thing, but Mr.

Porvoznik says that Mr. Matitick's won that debate, isn't it fascinating, Mr. Matitick's doesn't say he won that debate, it's, it gives you some idea of the bias, the incredible bias that is behind stuff like this as well, it's truly interesting,

Mr. Latar admits, I'd choke on cross -examination, okay, well, I appreciate the honesty, that's great, that's wonderful,

I appreciate the fact that you will honestly say that, and anyways, where are we here, so as I said, almost everything else is utterly irrelevant because it's all based on Protestantism can't speak of truth, and you know, the next paragraph, truth in Protestantism, no one knows the truth in Protestantism, da -da -da -da,

James can tell us what he believes is the truth, but any Protestant according to Sola Scriptura is allowed to reject his truth from their interpretation and understanding of the viewpoint of Scripture, no, they cannot,

Mr. Porvoznik, if they practice Sola Scriptura and I sit them down and I say let's walk through what the

Scriptures say, they have to submit to the Scriptures. There's a lady in our, let me scroll down here and see if she happens to be visiting right now, and no, she's not in right now, but she's been in the past couple of days, and I hope she doesn't mind that I use her story,

I've mentioned it a number of times before, but we have a lady who's just a tremendous encouragement to me, she's a wonderful Christian lady, and she comes into the channel, and many people in the channel will remember that,

I don't remember how long ago it was now, two years, two and a half years, three years, you know, when you start getting as old as I am you start losing track of these things, and she came in and we started talking about the doctrines of grace as we very frequently do, and we went into John chapter 6, and we discussed the sovereignty of God and salvation, now she was in a church of Christ, and those people who know the old time church of Christ viewpoints know that they are about as unreformed or anti -reformed as can be, and so I talked with her about John chapter 6 verses 35 -45, and we walked through it, and over the next number of weeks she'd come in and she'd ask another question about it, and we'd answer it, and she'd go, yep, yep, that's what the text says, why don't you keep looking, and she looked into commentaries, and she looked into all sorts of stuff, and she went to her elders and asked, and all this stuff, and she'd even come in a few times and say, you know,

I'm not really happy with you people, I'm not really happy with you people because you're costing me a lot of sleep, and you know if I believe these things it's going to cost me a lot, and in the long run she could not escape from the teaching of scripture, she embraced it, it did cost her something, but that's what she did, and she's happy today she did so, but there was a cost to it, and there is a perfect example of being submitted to the authority of scripture, and that's what

Sola Scriptura is about, and Mr. Provosnick, you aren't submitted to the authority of scripture, you're submitted to the authority of Rome, it is no wonder whatsoever that you can't understand how we can come to a final conclusion on things because you aren't submitted to scripture, you don't know what that's all about, you don't know what that's like, so I can understand that.

So it is simply untrue to make these type of assertions.

Now it's very interesting, he did try to rebut my assertion that most of the stories you hear on EWTN are emotionally driven stories of conversion.

He talks about, I'll just read here, you will not find there, let me just go back to the beginning, this is still toward the beginning, as for the emotionally driven nature of converts to the

Catholic Church, just listen for yourself to some of the stories on the journey home, you will not find there emotionally driven stories but for the most part stories of deep biblical, historical, and theological conviction which caused the convert everything.

Excuse me, but I have listened, EWTN had a radio station out in near Mill Valley, California while I was teaching seminary last summer,

I listened regularly and over and over and over and over again, oh,

I went to the Mass and it felt so wonderful, and I felt this, and I felt like I was home, and I felt this, and that always preceded, and then

I started reading the early Church Fathers, no actually they started reading what Roman Catholic apologists write about the early

Church Fathers, not the early Church Fathers themselves, but then I started reading the early Church Fathers and I started learning so many things, and that's repeated over and over and over again, continuously.

In fact, look at Surprised by Truth, I mean it's even listed here by Mr. Provoznik, look at Surprised by Truth, one of those allegedly

Reformed people who became Roman Catholic said, I remember the day that someone showed me 1

Timothy 3 .15 that says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and I was shocked.

Excuse me folks, if you haven't read 1 Timothy 3 .15 before, maybe you weren't overly well -grounded in the faith in the first place, possibly, maybe, could be, of course, it's amazing.

Look at them, look at Robert St. Genesis' conversion story in Surprised by Truth, he went from church to church to church to church, from Presbyterian to Boston Church of Christ, I mean that's like being

Presbyterian and going to the Boston Church of Christ is as big a theological leap as being,

I know someone who will love this one, as being a Cowboys fan one day and a

Redskins fan the next. I heard the laugh through the wall. Seriously, that is exactly what we're talking about here, and if you can swing back and forth and embrace all these different perspectives and viewpoints, you are not well -grounded in the faith, folks.

Don't tell me these aren't emotional. I invite anyone who listens to these things, listen to people saying, oh well, you know,

I felt this and therefore I started studying. Whoop, wait a minute, wait a minute, there's one of the biggest problems right there.

We've got these emotions and now we start taking these emotions and looking for a basis for them, rather than basing our beliefs upon the unchanging, inspired

Word of God and having our emotions conditioned and disciplined by God's Word.

That's the difference. You know, these folks are always, they said this in the chat channel, oh he has no spirituality, he has no heart.

They can't understand my heart. Earlier, Mr. Latar and I were in AIM, AOL Instant Messenger, and I was telling them, you can't understand me, because you have no concept of my view of Scripture, you have no concept of how

I believe it is God speaking, you have no concept of why I believe I must stand for truth, why

I must love truth. You know, it's funny, I keep telling people, we have all of these sermons on the prbc .org

website. Some of my sermons have been on Paul's teaching concerning the fact that if you do not love the truth, you will end up loving a lie.

Loving the truth, not loving the lie, loving not just believing it, this isn't just an intellectual thing, you must know it.

God made us an entire being, we must know the truth. The truth is a part of the proclamation of the gospel, but we must love that truth.

And if you don't love it, you've only heard it, you'll end up believing a lie. These folks don't understand that kind of theology and that kind of Christianity that drove our forefathers, like Jan Hus, to stand before the

Council of Constance and say, show me where I'm wrong from the Scriptures, and the

Council of Constance couldn't do it. And the Council of Constance, which then healed the papacy later that same year, likewise, likewise burned

Jan Hus. Why'd he go? Why'd he go to the stake? Modern Roman Catholic apologists can't understand that.

Mr. Provosnick, it's 866 -854 -6763, the number's wide open, 866 -854 -6763, we'll be right back.

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free? A New Cult?

Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very

Gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the Gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomen .org.

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how He relates to us.

James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of this significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church says, James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order The Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at aomen .org.

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

Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

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

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

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

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

And welcome back on a sunny, beautiful afternoon in Phoenix, Arizona. 67 degrees and 9 % humidity.

No wonder I'm about to dry up here, and gracious sakes, that humidity looks like what we have in June.

Actually, it doesn't really get moist here again for quite some time, does it? Everything just sort of dries up. Anyways, beautiful day here in Phoenix, Arizona, and we are just having a grand old time looking at a brand new website article that was just posted by Mr.

Phil Porfosnick, a response to the main page article on our website. We've already seen that the very heart of the article is completely self -refuting and epistemologically insufficient, shall we say.

And now we're just going down through a few other little things here about some of the emotionalism of these things.

Again, Mr. Porfosnick says, they recognized the one truth of Protestantism, that no one knows what the truth is according to Protestantism, and so on and so forth.

Well, we've discovered that that is a self -refuting and certainly unbiblical perspective. And then we have an interesting assertion made here.

Let me mention something here. Okay, anyways.

Let's see. I had said in my particular article, without going into details,

I discovered that little had changed since the anonymous email from a few months earlier. The issues were still the same, though it was interesting to be told that she had never been able to listen to a single one of my debates, because I am so mean and intimidating to my opponents, which speaks volumes, since if she had that kind of mindset long before her conversion, she could never have fairly examined the responses

I have made to Rome's teachings. That's my statement. And I'm referring there to the assertion made by Mrs.

Bonds that when I asked, well, have you listened to any of the debates? Well, no, because you're always so mean to your opponents.

And I'd just like to ask folks if you would like to test that assertion, go listen to the partial debate, anyways.

We're the only ones that make this available, the partial debate with Art Sippo. And maybe go listen.

Maybe we should dig these out. I think they still exist out there someplace. The first debate with Gerry Matytix, where he assumed

I was a jack -chick fundamentalist and spent the first 14 of his 20 -minute opening statement without ever mentioning the topic of the debate, and was very arrogant and condescending to me.

Maybe we could go listen to the 1999 debate with Robert St. Genes, where I had a 14 -year -old girl at a church after the debate, where she had attended the debate, and then

I spoke at her church later, and she came up to me and said, Dr. White, why does Mr.

St. Genes hate you so much? Maybe we could listen to some of those debates and find out.

Maybe we could listen to Tim Staples since Mrs. Bonds is in contact with Mr. Staples. Maybe we could listen to Mr.

Staples and how he treated me in the debate on papal infallibility, and maybe the people in the audience that were there at that time as well.

Maybe we could look at those things and fairly evaluate the assertion that I'm the one that is somehow mean to the audience.

For those of you who'd like to read, remember I mentioned this is, yeah, a good point was just made.

I mentioned this is the main page article on our website. However, if someone's listening to this six months from now, that won't be the main page article on the website.

And so, anyways, it is aomin .org

slash Luke, and Luke is capitalized, the first letter is capitalized, 1251 .html.

Luke 1251 .html is the full article if that's no longer the main page article by the time that you listen to this particular program.

Well, anyways, after I have mentioned these things, here is Mr. Porvoznik's response. Let's see how cogent it is.

We have listened to all of your debates except the first one, 19i on Sol Scriptura, which is not available. See the objective scorecard below.

Oh, objective, yes. Okay. I've been inviting Mr. Porvoznik to call in all program.

I'm pretty certain he's well aware of what's going on. In fact, I have the very good sneaking hunch he's listening. 866 -854 -6763,

I would like to demonstrate just how objective it is. I've already mentioned some of them, including saying, for example, making the

Bible Answer Man show with Mr. Akin a debate. It wasn't, it was a radio program. And forgetting all the Tim Staples debates, not even bothering to note them as well.

And I have read all the anti -Catholic books of James White, Roman Catholic Controversy, Fatal Flaw, Answers to Catholic Claims.

I guess he didn't mention the Mary book in there. That's on the subject of Roman Catholicism. The books by Norman Geisser, Ralph McKenzie, as well as books by Svensson, McCarthy, Zins, Ankerberg, Weld, and all of them.

Except for, of course, King and Webster. But that didn't stop Mr. Porvosnik from writing a rebuttal to something he hadn't actually finished reading yet.

Anyways, have them all, read them all many times. I don't think so. Anyways, sorry, they aren't convincing, especially given the contradictory nature of Protestant beliefs.

No Protestant knows what is true on doctrine. So notice, again, you go back to the original argument, which we have seen as utterly self -refuting, and that now becomes the response to this.

No Protestant knows what is true on doctrine, so I don't have to deal with any of the many factual and biblical arguments that are presented to demonstrate that Rome's teachings are false.

They have the Bible and the creeds. Unfortunately, they do not believe in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which the

Bible and creeds speak, the original historical Catholic Church of Christ found on the Rock of Peter, Matthew 16, 18.

Well, Mr. Porvosnik, why don't you explain what I've said about Matthew 16, 18? Why don't you deal with those things?

Because this is merely a repetition of one's faith. This is a faith statement.

This is not an argument. It's, I've read all this stuff and it doesn't convince me. I still believe.

It's desperate. This isn't apologetics, it's desperation. It's absolutely desperation.

Well, anyways, I haven't gotten to some of the most important stuff here. Let me see, let me see, let me see.

Again, almost everything is just truth, truth, truth, truth. You don't know truth. Ah, here we go. I had,

Mrs. Bonds had written to me in anonymous email and it had mentioned liturgy and I had said the following things and I think,

I am just so thankful, I truly am, that the Lord allowed me to not only get the first email that was sent to me, because as I mentioned in the article, it's almost a miracle that I did.

I don't get a lot of the stuff that is sent to my AOL account. I just, I just keep it active for various reasons.

Sometimes I use it when I'm traveling, but, and especially from an anonymous Jane Doe, while I'm traveling on the road with a laptop using a free

ISP that didn't work half the time, the fact that I got it was next to a miracle.

It really, really was. Anyways, in this anonymous letter from a person that I did not know was actually my sister writing to me, a discussion had been made concerning the liturgy and how beautiful it was and things like that.

And I had written in response, liturgy can be very attractive, especially if one's experience of Protestant churches is that of merely attending passively services without any deep passion for the truths of God.

In so many churches today, the sermon is basically a warmed over version of the same theme, the four spiritual laws dressed up in another section of verses.

If that has been your experience, I can fully understand why ceremony and liturgy would be attractive. However, please let me note something else.

Roman liturgy holds no attraction for me. It can't since I know what it represents.

I come into the presence of God seeking to be changed by the proclamation of his truth. That is worship.

Mr. Provoznik responds, again, in the fourth and fifth references to the truth and his truth in this article. One must admit that there is no such thing as the truth in Protestantism.

There is only what you firmly believe to be truth according to scripture with thousands upon thousands of Protestants firmly contradicting your beliefs from scripture.

That is what you really mean by truth and his truth. Let's get this straight. No, Mr. Provoznik, I refuse to allow you to blaspheme the word of God in that way.

Your view of scripture is so sub -Christian that it's not even funny. It is totally contradicted by Jesus' own words.

Mr. Provoznik, your position makes a mockery of scripture and I will not allow you to get away with it.

If you would call in, I would ask you questions. How could Jesus have held men accountable for what the scriptures said on the basis of your position?

And that's why you won't call in. You can't because your position is against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You may claim to be a member of his church, but if you don't follow his teachings, you're not.

Then I had also said in my response, liturgical actions may for a time seem attractive.

Talk to the hundreds of thousands who have fled Rome's liturgy and they will tell you it is as empty as can be. It may for a while seem exciting, but mark my words, in a matter of time, maybe months, probably more like years, you will begin to realize that it no longer excites you the way it once did.

And so at first, you will just try to recapture the feeling by increasing your activity, going more often, and for a brief time, it might work.

But eventually, you will experience deep down inside the realization that ceremonies, no matter how new they may seem to you now, cannot make up for the fact that they do not represent truth.

And at this point, at this point, he goes into some citations from early church fathers.

And we have seen already I think mentioned that Mr. Provoznik generally simply quotes from other people and I have quite literally nailed him on this.

I have directly confronted him on whether he actually has read the context of everything he posts and he has admitted he does not.

And so you have second or third hand citations, but for example, since I mentioned the liturgy, he quotes from Ignatius of Antioch.

This is one of the most common ones. I have responded to it many times. But for example, one of the commentaries, the comments of Ignatius is they, that is the

Gnostics, abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our

Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins in which the Father in his goodness raised up again.

And they go, see? Transubstantiation, the mass, the whole nine yards.

And I go, see? Anachronistic patristic interpretation, inserting into an ancient context a belief that could not possibly have been in the minds of the original writer.

This man was not an Aristotelian. He did not believe in concepts of accidents and substance.

He never talks about transubstantiation and in the context he is arguing against the

Gnostics. The Gnostics denied the physical incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Remember, Ignatius is deeply connected with John the Apostle. And John the

Apostle in all of his writings is concerned about the incarnation.

Without a true Jesus, without a true incarnation, there is no salvation.

There is no salvation. There is no salvation and no redemption. And he uses as his primary argumentation against the

Gnostics the fact that Jesus himself referred to his flesh and blood.

The Gnostics were saying he had none. How then, Ignatius argues, can he establish the supper and say, this is my flesh and this is my blood without him being flesh and blood?

To read into those simple and easily understood words, a concept that did not evolve and come into existence for a thousand years down the road with transubstantiation is simply ridiculous.

And we can prove this and I've never had anyone give a meaningful response to this. Did anyone in the days of Ignatius, did anyone in the days of Augustine treat the consecrated host as if it were

God? I'm not saying, I'm well aware of one or two quotes they give where they talk about Christ's presence in the supper and everything else, but here's where the rubber meets the road.

How do Roman Catholics today treat the consecrated host?

How do they? Well, we all know, don't we? Why does a Roman Catholic genuflect when he goes into the church?

Why? Why does a Roman Catholic genuflect? Well, it's obvious why. He knows that according to the teachings of Rome, God is physically present in the transubstantiated host, in the tabernacle, the pyx, the saboreum, the monstrance, whatever we're talking about here.

And so the person bows in the physical presence of God. It is an act of Latria worship.

Do they dispose of the host? Do they lose of consecrated hosts? Just chuck them in the garbage?

Of course not, because it's become the very flesh of God himself. Who did that in the early church,

Mr. Porfosnik? Nobody. Nobody.

Even the Roman Catholic sources themselves, the Catholic encyclopedia admits that the first construction of a pyx or saboreum or tabernacle for the storing of consecrated hosts comes in the 10th or 11th century.

Why? Because that's when transubstantiation developed. So how then, when

Ignatius does not treat the host the way you would have to treat the host if Ignatius believed what modern

Roman Catholics believe, how then can you say that these words establish your doctrine, when in fact what they establish is that the early church's first and primary enemy was anti -incarnational docetic

Gnosticism, to use nice long words, those people who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh.

Oh, well, you had to talk about all this history and background and doctrine and stuff.

We just want to be able to quote early church fathers and not worry about what they actually meant. And that's what happens all the time.

All the time. Then we have

Justin Martyr, and he talks about the flesh and blood of Christ. Again, same thing.

Were there people like, say, someone such as Cyril of Jerusalem, who while not embracing transubstantiation, all the rest of that stuff that came along with it, developed a very spiritualized concept of sacrifice?

He did. Augustine, on the other hand, it's interesting, he tries to quote him in regards to purgatory and prayers to the saints.

Augustine never developed a doctrine of purgatory. He did have a doctrine of purgation, but it was not until Gregory the

Great that you get anything beyond that, and still it took hundreds of years beyond that. Why won't Mr.

Porvoznik respond to what I said in the debate with Peter Stravinskis? I haven't gotten any responses to that, even though Mr.

Porvoznik says that Stravinskis won that debate. Let me go down here. Nope, nope, he said he didn't.

It was six to four. Okay, so he just barely lost it. Six to four is what

Mr. Porvoznik has to say. Why won't he respond to all that historical information that would refute his use of Augustine on purgatory and the saints?

I don't know. But, interestingly enough, he doesn't quote Augustine on the mass, does he? Because Augustine taught the physical body of Jesus Christ was in heaven, and the church was, to use his words, deprived of the physical body of Christ.

Well, if you believe in transubstantiation, that's not the wording you'd use, would it be? Of course not.

Of course not. So you have selective use. Selective use of this early church father, that early church father, or whatever else it might be.

Fascinating, isn't it? It is. And, of course, what you can do then is you can make your response look like it's huge by just going to these other websites, grabbing these long quotations that you've never read in their context, and put them in.

It makes it look like you've really done your homework. Well, folks, I posted the main page article yesterday afternoon around 4 .30,

maybe, and this article was up, what, 12 hours later?

So folks, don't think that this stuff actually was read in this period of time at all.

So, anyways, that's a little something. I'm just sort of scanning through this. Oh, we do have a caller.

I looked over. There's no lights flashing from what I can see, so I was going along from there.

So let's real quickly let somebody else say something today. And hold on a second.

I'm being damned. Whoa, wait a minute.

I hadn't seen this. Before we bring Johnny up, I had said Rome, Sweet Home is a very poor book, at least for anyone concerned about truth, which

I would defend that against anybody, because that's the truth. And Porvoznik responds, once again, another reference to truth.

Replace the word truth with the Gospels I understand from the Bible are concerned about the truth of my Reformed Baptist faith. Then the sentence would make sense.

Oh, good grief. But truth in Protestantism, now this is ridiculous. Rome, Sweet Home might not be a strong book apologetically, but it represents the truth of the

Catholic faith just as well as your supposed truth. Oh, how about an example? Then listen to this. For more truth, try

Dr. Scott Hahn's 80 ,000 page dissertation, Kinship by Covenant.

There's a little truth here. 80 ,000 pages? 80?

Well, when you start hearing people saying there are 33 ,000

Protestant denominations and the next year it's 38 ,000, and now we know how it works. 80 ,000 page dissertation.

Uh -huh. Okay. That's, yeah. Sure. All righty.

Let's give me a chance to cool off here and talk to Johnny again.

Hey, Johnny. How are you doing, James? I'm doing all right. All right. I hope we didn't give you too much of a hard time Ely and myself last night.

Anyway, my question is on transubstantiation. Now, I've been, I've asked this question to some friends of mine, but I still don't understand this very, very clearly.

Now, it's not so much about the, well, it is about the accidents in the substance of the flesh supposedly, but the thing that kind of boggles my mind is because, see,

Jesus Christ died on the cross in the mortal body, and that mortal body was raised on the third day, and he has a glorified immortal body, et cetera, et cetera.

But in the doctrine of transubstantiation, the host has to be transubstantiated into the flesh of Jesus, but are they representing a sacrifice of a mortal body or of an immortal body?

How does that work exactly? Well, that's a really good question because, well, first of all, remember, because sometimes they'll try to trip you up on this.

They will say something along the lines of, well, remember the host is transubstantiated in the body and blood of Jesus, so that if you get the host alone, you're still getting all of Jesus.

But that's a really good question. I'm not sure exactly how there's any consistent response there because if it is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of Calvary, then that would be a mortal body.

But as you yourself point out, one of the things you hear repetitively over and over and over again is, well, you can't limit it to time because it is not, in fact,

Jesus is now glorified. So it seems like there's an equivocation going on there.

Well, because I don't remember. See, I remember you in one of the debates, well, probably in all of the debates, because you tend to quote from John O 'Brien, where John O 'Brien says something along the lines of, the priest has the authority to command

Jesus to come down from heaven and to be transubstantiated. But the thing is, if Jesus is at the right hand of the

Father in his glorified body, exactly what is it of him that's coming down? Are they representing a glorified body sacrifice?

That's the part that just puzzles me. Well, it puzzles me too, because the argumentation that their best apologists use is based upon making

Jesus an eternal person, and yet what was sacrificed, as you pointed out, was his fleshly body.

So obviously to be present in many places would require, in essence, a divine element to be a part of all of that.

I don't know that there is a final answer to that very question, but I think it's an excellent objection.

That ties in, of course, the fact that to say it's the same sacrifice but an unbloody sacrifice is to remove it from the realm of sacrifice in the first place.

I mean, to say that a sacrifice can be the same sacrifice, whether it's bloody or not, is absolutely ridiculous.

That simply can't possibly follow. But this sort of goes along the same lines, and that is by saying that there's this very mystical element to this sacrifice in its representation does seem to require that we would have to view it as being the glorified body of Christ that comes down, and not the fleshly body, which would be a different sacrifice.

That's a good question. Maybe Big Scott, who's in the channel right now listening in, or Mr.

Lattar, who's listening in, I happen to know they're all listening right now, maybe they can explain your question, because I think it's a good one.

Okay, so the glorified body is presented as a sacrifice. I can't see...how

could it be anything other than that? I mean, if it's present in multiple places, and if they really do have a dogmatic basis for asserting that there is a central element of the sacrifice is its timelessness, how else could that be?

I don't know how else it could be. Well, thanks a lot, James. Okay, man. Hey, I wish

I could give you a consistent...but you know, I don't...you're asking a question about something that obviously historically developed over time.

Have you ever asked a question like this? No, not in that particular way, and I'm gonna.

All right, God bless you, bro. Okay, man, don't eat too many of those cheeseburgers. All right.

Okay, see you later. Get your cholesterol checked, Johnny. You're gonna die someday. Well, aren't we all?

Well, anyways, we've got an interesting conversation going on in here. Mr. Scott Windsor is accusing me of avoiding him and all the rest of this stuff, and I've tried to explain to Mr.

Windsor. Scott, I've answered you so many times on so many things, and you just don't listen, and I'll refute you on something, and then you'll repeat it six months later, and eventually you just...you

throw your hands up and you say, folks, it just doesn't matter what I say, and to be honest with you,

Mr. Windsor, on most of the things you address, you have no idea what you're talking about. You just don't...you had to go to Mistress and Janice on the negative in the

Greek, and he was wrong on that, and I've never gotten you to say, yep, you know what? You're right about that, and all the rest of that stuff,

I just...eventually, you just have to throw your hands up and say, there just isn't enough time in life to respond to everything that could be responded to out there, let alone to the rest of this.

But those of you who've looked at the URL, check out the fascinating and tremendously objective scorecard at the bottom of the thing.

The Official Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Forensics, by the way, is another way of saying

Phil Porvoznik, and so on and so forth.

And yes, Scott, on many claims, you're exactly right, because there is no end to the issues upon which you are confused.

That is very, very true. But I have a long, very long history of having refuted you over and over again, and it just doesn't sink in.

So no, what can I say? I do my best. Anyways, the Official Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Forensics is

Phil Porvoznik. So I think that was meant to be a joke. It doesn't look like that on the website, but that's the way that it is.

Well, hopefully that's been helpful to some of you folks. I hope you'll look at the main page article or the other article that is there, and we will be back next week with more on -topic discussions of whatever is going on in the field of apologetics.

We'll be seeing you then. Bye. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona 85069. You can also find us on the

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

Join us again next Saturday afternoon at 2 p .m. for The Dividing Line. 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 and 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 -866 -854 -6763. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good afternoon and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White.

That is a name you can repeat if you wish to, even though there are some folks who evidently have a problem pronouncing that particular name.

And what are we talking about? Well, of course, we're talking about Monday evening's presentation of The Journey Home on the

EWTN Network, where my sister Patti Bonds appeared and talked about her conversion to Roman Catholicism.

But it was a fascinating program, not so much for what was said but for what wasn't said,

I guess you might say. I'm trying to turn sound off here. Okay, there we go.

Anyways, and that is, many references were made to myself, though a name was never attached to me.

I'm not really sure what exactly that's all about. I guess that's sort of the Envoy magazine way of doing things.

So you may recall a few years ago, Envoy magazine, I was on the front cover, though it wasn't me. They put something in front of my face and did a whole article refuting what

I had said in a footnote in an article I did on the Doctrine of the Trinity. But they never bothered to say who

I was. They didn't give any references. You couldn't go look anything up. I found it absolutely amazing. Well, that has continued.

And of course, in a fascinating way that I think communicates some stuff to us, it's actually rather encouraging.

Let me give an example. We're going to be playing sections from the program today and making comments and responding to them.

And then there are various individuals like Phil Provosnick and others that we have challenged to call into the program at 866 -854 -6763.

And if there are some things we say you'd like to take issue with, you can call that number and we will be taking your phone calls today on the program later on.

But much to get to, what I found truly fascinating in this first clip is before Mrs.

Bonds said word one, Marcus Grodi said this.

Our guest this evening, Patti Bonds, is going to talk to us about her journey of faith, journey into the

Catholic Church, and I need to tell you something about Patti. Patti, you may not recognize the name

Patti, but if I told you the name of her brother, you would probably recognize. She's the sister of a prominent, well -known, anti -Catholic apologist.

If I mentioned his name, many of you would be familiar with his books and tapes. And I would say that in that sense,

Patti's conversion to the Catholic Church was very difficult for her because of those pressures, being the sister of a well -known apologist.

So we need your prayers tonight. This is going to be a difficult time, but she's here to share her journey. Nothing was said whatsoever by Mrs.

Bonds prior to that introduction, and I am a prominent, well -known, anti -Catholic apologist.

Well, of course, we've gone over the gross inconsistency of the constant use of anti -Catholic by Roman Catholic apologists.

They would, of course, object to the constant use of the phrase anti -Protestant. If I were to refer to Marcus Grodi as an anti -Protestant, he would go, no, no, no,

I think Protestants are Christians, and even though I affirm the anathemas of Trent, yada, yada, yada.

We've already discussed the fact that this is a term that is used to attempt to poison the well. It is something we've called them on over and over again, and it's just something that, evidently, they are more than happy to continue in the hypocritical use of this term and not engage the subjects in a fair way.

But it is interesting. Prominent, well -known, anti -Catholic apologist.

You would recognize his tapes and books, but isn't it interesting that one of the things that does not come out in this program is that the guest has not listened to any of those tapes and only began to read some of the books as a part of the conversion process and even them in a very emotional fashion by her own confession.

That, I would think, would be relevant to the issues at hand, but unfortunately it did not come out and was not mentioned in the process of the program.

Well, anyways, we move on. I have 13 clips I'm going to play today. I'm not going to try to dwell very long on any one of them, except maybe the last one.

And we do want to be able to take some phone calls today, so I do invite folks to get on the line when they have an opportunity to do so at 866 -854 -6763.

One of the ironies that I have pointed out to my sister in emails once it was announced to the family that she was converting, and for those of you who haven't listened before I have not read the article on our webpage, which is www .aomin

.org slash luke1251 .html. It's also the main page article right now.

If you just go to aomin .org, but as you listen to this on archive, that will change. One of the things that I have mentioned is that as she went through this process, she did not talk to me.

She sent me one anonymous email. That anonymous email is posted with my response on the website.

And by the way, I do need to say this. I want to thank the many people who have sent emails this past week, giving your testimony of how blessed you have been by that article.

There have been people who have just been tremendously helped by the response that I wrote to my sister's anonymous email.

I did not know it was my sister. I did not know who this person was, but I felt constrained to provide a rather full response to the email.

Of course, the Roman Catholics who have responded haven't responded to any of the substance of the email at all. That is the standard way that things work in that particular situation.

But many others have been very helped by what was written there, and if that's why I ended up doing it, then that's great.

I just want to thank all those people, the tremendous outpouring of support that has come across the electronic wire, shall we say, over the past week.

Tremendous support for what we have done, the stance that we have taken in standing for truth, and so on and so forth.

So I did want to say that. But anyways, after finally it came out, and there is a section in the word of play for you where my sister talks about how it did come out that she was converting.

When it finally did come out, and I contacted her by email, and I started challenging the beliefs that she was adopting.

One of the things I pointed out was that my sister has been baptized three different times, and each time that involved, in essence, the repudiation of what had happened before.

Each time she felt, I wasn't saved before. It wasn't real before. Now it's real.

Now I've come to an understanding that makes this baptism real, et cetera, et cetera. And what's fascinating, one of the things

I pointed out and never really got a response to in email, was that from Rome's perspective, her first baptism justified her.

Her first baptism is what made her right before God, even though she has twice said that it didn't, which

I find fascinating. Here's her comments on that. I can remember learning the basic tenets of the gospel as we understood it, and reciting them back to my parents, much to their glee.

And when I was six years old, I made what we refer to as a profession of faith. I prayed with my father and asked

Jesus to be my Lord and Savior. And later, just a little less than a year from then, he baptized me.

So that would have been the first initial experience of justification from the

Roman Catholic perspective. One of the many reasons that we reject the

Roman Catholic perspective. Now one of the things as we Monday evening sat around and watched the program that made everyone who was watching sort of stop and eyes get real big and people started looking at each other, was the description that was provided of the church that Mrs.

Bonds was in until her conversion to Roman Catholicism. That church is a member of the missionary denomination and we've been in contact with that church as well.

And it was fascinating to hear the description that was provided of that church.

Here's how it went. The particular church I was going to at the time, which was a wonderful church, and I owe them much as far as having taught me what it meant to follow

Christ. But we kind of saw ourselves, I think, as being the very few people in the world who really understood

God properly and his word properly. Did you use the word remnant? Oh yes.

We were very Calvinist Baptist and saw ourselves as that chosen few who really understood him well.

And it was a very narrow world. In a sense your small group of believers, based on the idea of scripture alone, as the foundation, yet on top of that believe that your small group had the one true, would that be a caricature?

No, that's definitely true. Now I can pretty much guarantee you that if we stood outside that church

Sunday morning with a little clipboard and had all the people coming out, take a little survey, and we put

Calvinistic Baptist as one of the choices for description of that church.

If there were a thousand people there, if two of them chose that, I would be somewhat surprised.

I really would. Now things have changed a little bit over the past couple of years. There used to be more Reformed folks there than there are now.

But I've never, I've been there a few times, I've never heard the term remnant used. Someone else just mentioned who was a member there for a while, they never heard the term remnant used.

I've never heard any of the elders use that term. I have no idea really where Marcus Grodi was trying to go with that particular comment either.

But be that as it may, we all found that to be just a really strange way of describing that particular church.

We're not really sure exactly what that was all about. Well anyways, moving on, it was interesting, Mr. Grodi seemingly wanted to emphasize some of the key arguments that Roman Catholic apologists used, especially against Sola Scriptura.

And so in this section he talks about the disagreements that exist amongst Protestants. At the time, did it bother you at all that the

Lutheran church in the corner believed differently, or the Presbyterian, or even another Baptist? Did that ever cross your mind?

Well like I said, I kind of was just very thankful that I was one of the chosen few who understood better than they did.

And I even questioned their salvation. Again, not really sure where that one's going either.

I titled that one Lutherans and Baptists, oh my. Of course the first thing that crosses my mind when

I hear Marcus Grodi saying that is I want to say, well does it ever bother you that there are

Dominicans and Augustinians and Franciscans and you have all these discalced Carmelites and you have all these other viewpoints out there within the

Roman Catholic church that has disagreements on this, that, or the other thing? And does that somehow mean something?

And of course that's why they don't have me on the program very often I'm sure, because that really wouldn't accomplish what they were looking for.

Anyways, now this next one, this next one, when I first heard this and we had to go back and we had to listen to it and unfortunately he didn't say what we thought he said.

But actually, listen to the description of me.

I feel like saying, I feel like changing my name to, hello I'm Mr. Sibling. I no longer have a name,

I'm just Mr. Sibling. But this description of me by Marcus Grodi, see if you can figure out what he's saying.

Now let me play that one again because the story goes by pretty quick, it's only a seven second clip. But what word is describing

Sibling here? Now what's that word again?

Ah, there we go, vehement. We thought he said behemoth. I sort of thought that was sort of cool, you know,

I sort of thought, wow. Yeah, vehement, a vehement sibling. I had never heard of a vehement sibling before.

But I guess what he's trying to paint the picture is of this just raw type of person out there that's just constantly doing nothing but chasing nuns around, you know, behind the church or something and just wants to convert.

The vehement sibling, which again, for simple honesty, you would think that it would be brought out a vehement sibling that you never bothered to talk to about this and in fact wrote you a lengthy email in response to an anonymous email you sent to him and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But that, of course, didn't come out. But what was emphasized, unfortunately, and I did,

I was concerned about this because this is important, this is important to the use that Catholic apologists want to make of this whole thing, is they have to come up some way, with some way, of maintaining the idea of a connection here so that the idea is my sister had knew all of my books and had attended my debates and was a supporter of the ministry and all the rest of this stuff but then she saw the truth of the

Catholic faith, yadda da, yadda da, yadda da. That's not what happened and my sister to this day does not have responses, as we will see in the last clip, to the most fundamental objections to the

Roman Catholic position and was unaware of much of our work before him.

But notice how in the questioning, and it did seem to me and to others as well, that Grodi wanted her to go there and she didn't want to go there.

He kept bringing the issue up, she'd move someplace else. If she had wanted to say much more about me she could have but it seemed he wanted her to say more.

Listen to the way this question is phrased here. So okay, given all that background, your anti -Catholic background, not just your past but the constant influence of your sibling, whatever opened your heart to the

Catholic Church? Now did you catch that? Your constant, let me play it again. The constant influence of your sibling.

The constant influence of your sibling. Well, constant influence, what does that mean?

Does that mean that there was a connection to where there was, she'd discover some brilliant insight from Scott Hahn and would say, well what do you think about this?

And I'd go, duh, I don't know. And that's why she converted? No, that's not what happened.

Instead you have no contact going on whatsoever. So I don't know what...

The constant influence of your sibling. I don't know what that means. There wasn't any constant influence of Mr.

Sibling. I feel sorry if anybody has a name. Hi Mr. Sibling. That seemingly is what

I am anyways. But there was no constant influence of a sibling there.

I would have obviously, had she contacted me and said, you know, I'm starting to look at this stuff,

I would have been more than happy to talk to her about it. But she did not.

Well, what did she do? Well, instead she went off and she found another source of information.

And what had happened was a few years earlier, and I had heard about this too, a particular individual who does some sort of what should supposed to be missionary work in France had spoken at Northwest Community Church, which is the name of the church she was going to.

And this individual had made some comments about Roman Catholicism even at the time that had gotten back to me and I hadn't really thought much about it and my sister didn't think much about it either.

But she dug up his email and began corresponding with him. And here is what she says about that.

I'm really not giving it a lasting thought because it just wasn't relevant to my life at the time. But I knew that there was one person who had investigated the church to some degree.

So I knew I couldn't go to my pastor because I kind of knew what I would get, you know, run, repent, stay away from all that.

I knew I couldn't go to my family because I already knew where they stood. I didn't have to ask, I already knew. Well, that isn't the case.

Notice she says she didn't go to the pastors or church, even though we have been told that she was confronted on these things, probably not at that particular point in time but a little bit later.

And she did not go to her family. She did not go to her father. She did not come to me.

As I said, actually this is even in the period of time before the anonymous email that she sent to me.

Instead, she contacted a man, I'll go ahead and tell you who it is, by the name of David Bjork. And Mr. Bjork is a missionary,

I guess that would be a missionary missionary, because he was, is, I don't know, with the missionary denomination in France.

And that's where she was getting this kind of information, which I'll go to the next clip here.

She describes in the following words. And in retrospect, I look back at everything he told me in the several months that I pretty much picked his brain and he never once told me anything that wasn't totally accurate about the church.

So even though he's not Catholic himself, he was objective. And it just gave me, this is what

I understand the Catholic church to believe. And he cut church documents, cut and pasted church documents, and early church fathers.

And what it did to me really was show me that my previous beliefs about the church were based on falsehood, that I didn't really understand the

Catholic church. Well, that increased my desire to understand. I just had to know what was really believed.

Now there's a number of things that go on there. There is and there will be a repetition of this in just a moment.

And someone just asked, is that the missionary alliance? No, it is not. It is a different denomination.

But the assertion is going to be made that my books and my materials misrepresent the

Roman Catholic church. And see, he provided to me, she says, these church documents and so on and so forth.

Well, so does the Roman Catholic controversy. But evidently, if it was being provided by David Bjork, that's one thing.

But if it's being provided by her brother, that's another thing, even if it's the same document. And as the email that Mrs.

Bond sent to me indicated, when she tried to read my books, she said a dark cloud of depression came over her.

Well, no matter what else you say, that clearly indicates that what I have written was not looked at fairly.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that anything on the website on Roman Catholicism, including the documentation of numerous errors on the part of Roman Catholic apologists, including those that she has chosen to be her favorites, has ever been even seen, let alone looked at, though she certainly would know it's there.

And remember, she has informed me that she has never been able to listen to a single debate because as soon as they start,

I am so mean and so unloving and so nasty that I intimidate my opponents.

And so she won't listen to those debates. Now, all of that clearly indicates that there's significantly more going on here than just an analytical examination of facts that are available, so on and so forth.

So this individual then, David Bjork, provides this information, again, only coming from one particular perspective, and none of this is brought to anyone who could provide any type of response.

In fact, I guess one thing that's nice is that if this is the final form of the testimony and it's not going to move from there, then it's very clear that from the beginning, she never took the claims of Rome to anyone who could provide an answer because she just simply assumed that she knew.

However, it does not follow that she did know what the answers truly were to those issues.

Now, this next section is most interesting, this next quotation. It's about a minute and a half, and this is where I can start understanding what's going on because here she discusses what happened in July of 2000, and that, if you've read the document on our website, is when

I received the anonymous email that I did respond to in regards to the attraction of the

Roman Catholic Church, so on and so forth. Listen carefully at the beginning concerning this particular...

Just listen carefully to what's said, probably about, let's see, looking here, about 15 seconds in. So part of me was excited and part of me was worried, and I knew that the toughest thing

I could put myself through was to read my brother's works. And, in fact,

I've heard from many a convert since I came home who said that was their last gauntlet as well, is we knew that the toughest thing to get through, if we could get through your brother's books and know that God wanted us to be

Catholic, there was no doubt in our mind, and I've had many letters like that. I didn't know that at the time, but that was the gauntlet

I threw down for myself as well. So I spent early July waiting through a couple more of his books, and I'd already read the book on Mary earlier.

It was a tough time because the things he was saying no longer rang true. I knew too much about the faith.

I knew what I was watching was someone do a very good job of destroying a church that didn't exist. Explain that.

That's interesting the way you said that, that he was doing a good job of destroying a church that didn't exist.

Well, his arguments against the church are based on misunderstanding of what the

Catholic Church actually teaches and believes, but he does a superb job of defeating the arguments he perceives to be what the church is.

And so they are troublesome to a lot of people, and if Catholics don't understand what they believe, or an outsider doesn't understand what the

Catholic Church really teaches, it sounds very effective. Well, that was sort of the meat of the program,

I would say. At least we got into some really important things.

Now Mrs. Bonds neglects to note in this entire program that she wrote the anonymous email that appears on our website.

I think that would be important. It would not have helped to say that she was not in contact with me during this time, nor that she has always refused to listen to a single debate where the two sides can be heard side by side, because such would speak rather loudly.

Next, in the emails Mrs. Bonds has sent me, she has accused me of many things, mainly of being arrogant, egotistical, and unloving, especially when

I would bring up any Roman Catholic teachings at all. But what she hasn't done is attempt to make a case that my arguments are straw men.

I mean, how could she? Straw men get ripped up in debates. Indeed, the constant refrain of the better Roman Catholic apologists is that what sets

Alpha and Omega Ministries apart from the jack chicks of our world, aside from our Reformed theology, is the accuracy of our representations of the

Roman Church's teachings. Now it is a constant accusation that we misrepresent those we deal with, and just as constant is the failure of such people to document from the huge amount of material available such misrepresentations.

The careful listener will note that this program never gives a single example of a misrepresentation on my part.

Mrs. Bonds said she had read the book on Mary, but she has never offered a single word of rebuttal or criticism of it.

And the person who reads the anonymous email she wrote at this time will note that her response to reading one of my books, she did not say which one it was, at the time was not, you are misrepresenting the church, but, quote,

I was overcome with a cloud of depression, end quote. That is an emotional response, not a critical response.

She later said that this time caused her great distress. Yeah, reading the truth and not having an answer while continuing toward Rome does tend to cause distress.

Next, I truly rejoice in her statement that she has had many, many letters about people finding my books to be the last hurdle.

I am sorry they did not have ears to hear the truth, but I am greatly blessed to know that many others have. Indeed, for many others, that hurdle was a

God -given obstacle to their emotionally driven run in the arms of Rome. Ironically, some of the nastiest emails this week completely contradicted the premise of this show, which repeatedly emphasized how they, anyway, viewed the work of Alpha and Omega Ministries as well -known, widespread, and challenging.

The nasty -grams of the past week, including the words of Mark Shea, a Roman Catholic apologist, attempted to say just the opposite.

I do wish they had managed to get their story straight amongst all of them. Ironically, Marcus Grodi then went on to say that Luther completely misunderstood

Rome and raised the issue of salvation by works, saying that Luther was responding to the idea that Rome taught that you are saved solely by works.

What's ironic about that is anyone who has read my works or listened to my debates knows that I have never misrepresented

Rome on this point and have always attacked its synergism. I always point out that Trent condemned anyone who would say that you can be saved by works alone.

Trent anathematized that. The problem with Rome is its synergism, its attempt to join

God's grace and the human will. I am a monergist and I, of course, have been very consistent on that.

And if, in point of fact, there had been any reading and understanding of my position by Mrs.

Bonds, that would not have been an issue. 866 -854 -6763.

I see that Apollonio Latar just left the channel. I'm going to have to scroll back up to see what nasty things he said.

Allegedly, he can't listen today. His real audio is messed up, but he said something about a response.

We'll have to take a look at that. He said last week he was going to call in, but that happens very frequently.

We're still waiting for Phil Provosnick to call in. Having had a week now to respond to what we said last week, maybe some of you would like to call in.

866 -854 -6763. We'll be right back. The history of the

Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture. The Papacy, the

Mass, Purgatory and Indulgences, and Marian Doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the

Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at AOMN .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions, please reach out to us.

If you have any questions, please reach out to us. If you have any questions, please reach out to us. If you have any questions, please reach out to us.

If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions,

If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions,

If you have any questions, If you have any questions,

If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions,

If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions, If you have any questions, that one of the well the thesis really of the book

I mean I do spend a lot of time on soul scripture in that book but the thesis of the book is that Rome's gospel cannot give you peace

Rome's gospel because it is man -centered because it is focused upon what man does because God's grace is is unable to truly provide the the real grounds that the gospel requires in Roman Catholicism because of that the one thing you cannot have is is peace and that was one of the first things that I said to mrs.

bonds when I contacted by email is you know someday when you want to when you want to know peace you will you will not be able to find it in the system that you are now that you're now embracing and hence

I found it's ironic to listen to this section that was a real blessing because through through the first well the last few months before that phone call

I'd had two requests of God I said during I know this is of you

I know you're doing this in my life I know don't know where you're headed with this but I know this is you that I'm dealing with I'm asking for two things during this journey one is peace asking for one thing actually two things peace the other one was joy but asking for peace and it just is utterly ironic to go from having once professed the completed work of Christ to now professing the incompleted work of Christ the repetitive sacrifice of the mass that cannot save it cannot perfect etc etc etc it's just a truly an amazing thing that that someone would would exchange that that would seem to indicate that there was never truly an understanding of the grounds in the first place that allowed for true peace with God in in the true gospel but it is it is interesting now here this next section is is how her choice came to be known to us we sort of found out

I mentioned on on the website I found out my wife called me on my cell phone while I was in well

I was in Clearwater Florida actually and the events that she describes in this clip had taken place that day back here in Phoenix they kind of found out by accident

I used to keep my crucifix in my shirt and it was discovered one day and so I kind of on off the cuff had to explain what was going on and it was very difficult very painful and I felt very it's very hard to explain because having been on where they are and believed what they believe

I understand the grief of their heart and I hurt for them and at the same time

I wish so much that I could give them a glimpse of what it's like over here so that they would know they have nothing to fear but they they can't see that at this point well can't see that or are unwilling to grant the primary thing that mrs.

Bonds has constantly insisted upon and that is we have to grant the validity of the

Roman Catholic position to start and once we grant that well you know there's all sorts different views and this is a valid point of view

I want to grant that that we can talk well if you're truly a biblical Christian a biblical believer you don't grant that kind of alleged neutrality and you don't forget the history of Rome you don't forget the

Inquisition's you don't forget the mass you don't forget the different gospel you don't forget the denial of solo script or the teaching of paper the the papacy and purgatory and indulgences you don't forget all of that kind of stuff you don't put that off to one side and say we're not going to worry about that that just simply isn't something that can be done and so it's not that they quote -unquote are not ready it's that mrs.

Bonds lays down an impossible compromise to make to allow the conversation to even start my email files are filled with the emails that I have sent and I've kept every single one of them the emails that I have sent raising issues about the cross about purgatory about the mass about anything that she's raised

I have responded to and as we're going to see here in a moment we'll see what kind of responses that those those types of discussions have actually gotten only two more to listen to that means you can get online at eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three we have one person online and we can take your phone calls as well at eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three this next section is rather interesting because it's in essence demonstrates

I've got to stop reading the channel when a certain person by name of Java is typing anything because it's really hard to stay focused when when things like that go on by but anyways this this next section

I think really demonstrates from mrs. bonds own own words the fact that she has really never been a part in any way shape or form of Alpha Omega ministries and when you hear the end of her comments you will see exactly what it is

I'm referring to I believe truly that the anger that you sense in any anti -catholic attack or information has its basis in an underlying knowledge more than likely a subconscious knowledge that they're in rebellion from God's one true church

I just find that especially in ex -catholics who come after the church there's just this anger and a lot of my

Catholic friends asked me why are they so angry what are they so angry about and I said I think it's it's the need to justify the fact that they're not home and so there's a stiff -necked rebellion going on that says

I'm not I'm not going there and I will not to submit to that Pope and so you feel that in what they have to say and that that spirit of rebellion where most

Catholics when they relate to someone of a different opinion usually do it with them a bit more tolerance of various opinions

I've never been never had an encounter with a Catholic that was remotely angry like that I've never had an encounter with a

Catholic that was remotely angry like that well y 'all y 'all might want to talk to Rich Pierce about what he's been seeing in the email over the past week and a half and I'm going to be putting a an article up on the website just giving you the words of Mark Shea the words of Art Sippo you can read the website articles up there right now with the words of Steve Ray dripping with with pure hatred and anger and ad hominem personal attacks upon me as an individual these have nothing to do with the issues at hand they are completely focused upon me as an individual and how mean and nasty

I am but you see I she is right she was never here to see that stuff we never had a discussion concerning the way that I'm treated by Roman Catholics on a regular basis so she didn't know but I don't know if that's what they want to communicate was that she didn't know

I think that just sort of snuck out and probably in hindsight they would rather that that hadn't because that proves in light of what we can document concerning the behavior of many

Roman Catholics and I'm talking about you know you know Tony who called you know writes us an email says hey

I don't like what you're doing to beat you up I'm not talking about that I'm talking about the individual who is a published apologist people like Mark Shay people like Steve Ray who are on EWTN and they're published with Ignatius and and and they're published in the various magazines and so on so forth and they go off I mean it's just just it just you know the the acid in the face routine just nasty as can be and so it it truly truly is amazing as to rebellion against the true church that's that's a fascinating fascinating assertion of course as we're about to demonstrate every time

I have attempted to point out that that Rome's claims to be the true church those those particular claims have have collapsed and I I've tried to point those out to mrs.

bonds but she won't listen to any of those debates because I am so mean and nasty that she can't listen to them and I'll let people judge themselves what what that means this last clip is most interesting and I'm going to read a

I'm gonna read an email sure that it was epistemologically silly and one of the quotes

I think the only quote that I had a chance to actually well no actually it was more than one but the one quote I spent the most time on was a quote that's constantly repeated by Roman Catholic apologists in various contexts and it is a citation from Ignatius of Antioch from around 107 the year ad 107 and it is utilized to assert that Ignatius believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation in the mass and so on and so forth now

I took that quote on last week with mr. provost Nick and demonstrated that is a gross misuse and so on so forth and so it was just slightly ironic to then sit down and watch the journey home and listen to this and just that little crack in the door was enough for me to begin to read the early church and I remember the first time that I read the words of Ignatius of Antioch about the flesh

Eucharist being the flesh and blood of Christ I remember pushing my chair back away from the computer and gasping I've been robbed

I've been robbed well isn't it ironic that that's the exact same citation that I had dealt with last week

I said well yeah but she's not gonna listen last week she wasn't even around probably or she was getting ready to leave her well

I started thinking about and I started going you know what I have dealt with that passage with mrs.

bonds and I dealt with it long before the journey home on Monday night and so I started doing a little digging around and I was right

I'm gonna read an email to you all this is an email sent to my sister the date

Friday March 9th 2001 so this was 10 months ago

Friday March 9th 2001 Pat if I responded to that email message now let me back up a second

I am referring here to an email message she sent me that made reference to Scott Hahn and I had sent it to her

I think maybe the day before something like that if I responded that email message fully would you read it would you read my discussion of Ignatius his words

Augustine's doctrine of the physical nature of Christ resurrection body Hahn said the following in the article you referenced in it and here's a quotation from Scott Hahn so we have testimony throughout all the first centuries of the church this effect you're hard -pressed

I would say it is practically impossible to find a single statement by anybody in the first eight centuries of the church where you have a denial of the real presence of Jesus Christ flesh and blood body soul and divinity there in the

Eucharist I remember when I first discovered that I was still anti -catholic but boy did that bother me because I wondered how could

John's disciple get it so wrong how could st. Ignatius say something so patently false and superstitious after spending all this time to feed the beloved disciple st.

John now I'm convinced that he didn't get it wrong now I'm convinced that Vatican to got it right when it said in the sacrament of the

Eucharist the unity of believers who formed one body in Christ is both experienced and brought about we are in a sense what we eat we're only in the supernatural body of Christ because in the

Eucharist we receive the supernatural body of Christ that's the end of the quote from Han are you in a position to find out he's an error this is my continuing

I'm sorry just reading something in the in the channel this is me continuing now after the quote of Han speaking to my sister

I say are you in a position to find out he's an error or would I be wasting my time for example check out the text of a recent email on this very subject and then

I insert the text and the first three paragraphs are quote from a Roman Catholic and I'll tell you when it switches over to my response the question was about the words of an early first century witness the apostolic faith

Ignatius look at my first post it was and is a very simple question Ignatius writing in about 110 said of certain heretics they confess not the

Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins in which the father of his goodness raised up again clearly he did confess what the heretics did not the question is can you wholeheartedly confess what

Ignatius confessed and certain of his contemporaries did did not specifically that the Eucharist the flesh of our

Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins in which the father of his goodness raised up again look at the end of the

Roman Catholic here's then the response to that person that I included in the email if I could comment please the passage you cited reads as follows let no man deceive himself both the things which are in heaven and the glorious angels and rulers both visible and invisible if they believe not in the blood of Christ shall in consequence incur condemnation he that is able to receive it let him receive it let not high place puff anyone up for that which is worth all is is a faith and love to which nothing is to be preferred but consider those who are of different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us how opposed they are to the will of God they have no regard for love no care for the widow or the orphan or the oppressed of the bond or of the free of the hungry and or of the thirsty they abstain from the

Eucharist and from prayer because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the father of his goodness raised up again those therefore who speak against this gift of God incurred death in the midst of their disputes but it were better for them to treat it with respect that they also might rise again it is fitting therefore that you should keep aloof from such persons and not to speak of them either in private or in public but to give heed to the prophets and above all to the gospel of which the passion of Christ has been revealed to us and the resurrection has been fully proved but avoid all divisions as the beginning of evils then

I continue my commentary after quoting the full context of Ignatius and I said it seems to me the context is proto

Gnostic heretics especially the settics Ignatius was obviously influenced deeply by John and John's concern over the reality of the physical incarnation is well known so I'd suggest that the original context the passage is speaking to the reality of the incarnation so that the reason the heretics refused to partake of the supper is not due to some rejection of transubstantiation or any other such concept that developed long after this instead they will not partake because they deny

Christ had a body to be represented by the bread the wine participation in the supper includes an affirmation of the reality of the incarnation hence their unwillingness to do so I wonder though if you're familiar with this quotation from Ignatius as well that I quoted from trolley and say it would says wherefore clothing yourselves with meekness be renewed in faith that is the flesh of the

Lord and in love that is the blood of Jesus Christ and quote and I finished my email that I'm quoting to my sister by saying is there a way to consistently interpret

Ignatius in both passages that does not require an unnatural insertion of a later development into his thinking

I think so then going back to what I that's the end of the quotation now going back to what

I said to my sister you don't often see the folks at the

CHN that's coming home network quoting Ignatius and trolley and say do you nor do you often read these words of Augustine either then

I quote Augustine his attract dates on John number fifty ninety two one oh two and one eighteen in these words in other words in respect of his divine presence in the flesh it was rightly said the disciples me you will not have always in this respect the church enjoyed his presence only for a few days now it possesses him by faith without seeing him with the eyes he left the world by a bodily withdrawal he proceeded to the father by his ascension but he forsook not the world in the ruling activity of his presence the

Lord Jesus in the discourse which he addressed to his disciples after the supper when himself in immediate proximity to his passion and as it were on the even eve of depriving them of his bodily presence while continuing his spiritual presence to all his disciples till the very end of the world then

I also gave another quote from tractate twenty five twelve which says who is the bread of the kingdom of God but he who says

I am the living bread which came down from heaven do not get your mouth ready but your heart on this occasion it was at the parable the supper was set forth low we believe in Christ we receive him with faith and receiving him we know we know what to think of we receive but little and are nourished in the heart it is not then what is seen but what is believed that feeds us therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense this is then to eat the meat not that which perishes but that which endures unto eternal life to what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach believe and you have eaten already to which

I then continued since historians like Philip Schaaf recognized that Augustine's view of the physical body of Christ and resulting spiritual nature of the

Eucharist had to be overcome for transubstantiation become dogma 700 years after Augustine's death

Hans assertion is proven to be how shall we put it a tad bit inflated indeed you quoted

Cyril of Jerusalem in your note back in July of last year I think you took it from Hans lecture be that as it may

I have a favorite Cyril quote too and then I finished with this quotation in regard to the divine and holy mysteries the faith not the least part may be handed on without the

Holy Scriptures do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments even to me who tell you these things do not give ready belief unless you receive from the

Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce the salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning but from the

Holy Scriptures that of course is Cyril Jerusalem catechetical lectures 417 and then

I had my my citation just got a call from a guy upset because any complaints about Scott Hahn I wanted to bait him yet na won't debate thinker are you serious oh okay well mmm that's that's fascinating there's a there's a there's interesting interesting comment well anyways now the point of course of this that we're gonna take a break then take start taking our phone calls so get in line before I got at least one online and it certainly would have been interesting to have that guy on on the line because we'd love to discuss thinker the lady

I think it's lady anyways who is on IRC that's just fascinating truly is anyways the point of course of citing the email is that I never heard back on those citations just one thing

I did hear back this my sister informed me that she would send my citations from Augustin to Timothy Staples yes

Timothy Staples graduate of the Jimmy Swagger Bible College who lost the debate at Fullerton on papal infallibility in probably the more glowing colors than anyone else that ever debated but that's going to be the source for her response to the

Augustin citations so it's obvious that when on the program she pushes her seat back from notice it was the computer not from a book notice that it was merely this is this was undoubtedly a snippet it wasn't in its context there wouldn't be any background there wouldn't be any of those things that I offered when she did that did she ask me no she says she knows what

I would say no she didn't because when I then told her what I would have said she has no response that's a sad thing but you see what it also tells me is that if and when and it's that it's not if when

Rome's sacraments when Rome's ceremonies become empty when the newness wears off then she knows in her own heart that she didn't listen she never asked and she will know in her own heart that there is one group of people that showed real

Christian love by never compromising the only gospel that can give her peace she'll know who she can talk to and she'll know that there's lots of things we have to say that that in reality in reality she's never heard and we'll be ready to share so that is a good thing we're going to take our phone calls right after this break eight six six eight five four six seven six three is the phone number and the job a man is up first when we come back after this break what is dr.

Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios no dr.

Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism he insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom

James White replies to dr. Geisler but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply it is a defense of the very principles upon which the

Protestant Reformation was founded indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and layman alike can appreciate

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme Calvinism defines what the reform faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen but free you'll find it in the reform theology section of our bookstore at a omen org the

Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith it defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us James White's book

The Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters it refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian and amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit the Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike highly recommended you can order the

Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a o min org incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth letters to a

Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary examining the teaching and theology of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well -defined arguments

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon the prophecies visions and teachings of Joseph Smith the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS Church this marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons letters to a

Mormon elder get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at a omin org and welcome back to the dividing line my name is

James White's and we have just given a response to the journey home program from Monday evening and now we're taking your phone calls by the way just another announcement

I have sitting next to me the galleys to the same sex controversy my next book co -authored with Jeff Neal for Bethany House Publishers 250 pages biblical refutation of the homosexual position the revisionist position that says the does not condemn homosexuality and we're finishing up the the edits the galleys is the last thing you see before it goes to press so it's on the fast track and we should be able to announce to you hopefully in a matter of weeks when that is going to be available and make it available on the website for pre -publication orders so you can get your copy and that will be coming out real quick 866 8 5 4 67 63 let us begin with our first caller the

Java man how you doing Java I'm doing pretty good for an old man you know when rich asked me what

I was going to ask it was very reminiscent of your first comments to me I had to get a handkerchief to wipe the flowing tears now now you know someone someone such as yourself who can do things who can do such tremendous things like you know well sing why can't

I hear this why is my computer down my computer is down there is a familiar you gotta be careful man

I do know how to move files from CDs to computers so I've got all the stuff available anyways that's not why you were calling it no no

I have a about Swedenborg you know so actually I wanted to say that we've been doing these debates out here for seven years and although my memory is not quite as good as it used to be being an old man

I cannot recall ever hearing a Catholic opponent of yours claim that you were misrepresenting the

Catholic Church the only thing that they've ever challenged you on it was your you know dating of when certain doctrines came into existence but I never

I don't recall I may I may be wrong but I just don't recall ever a Catholic opponent saying to you dr.

white we do not believe that in the Catholic Church so I was I was I was that immediately came to my mind when

I heard your sister say that you were quite expert at destroying a church that doesn't exist well this church doesn't exist

I've heard many Roman Catholics in public defend the things that you affirm they believe right right well and and of course that has been one of the things that in the few articles that have appeared were actually my name appeared as well one of the things they've said is well you know this type of material is is different than most of the stuff we deal with because it's more scholarly or or it's is a better representation so on so forth you would think given the number of books and debates we've done that if it was my general modus operandi to constantly misrepresent the people that I was disagreeing with that there would be just reams of documentation but there isn't and in fact when individuals do try to take on for example the

Roman Catholic controversy of Stephen O 'Reilly has tried to do in the pages of this rock magazine I've been able to refute each one of his assertions and he wasn't saying

I was misrepresenting he was saying that I misunderstood church history I wasn't taking into account this element of church history whatever else it might be but the idea that I that's a stall straw man argumentation my sister had never even said that to me until this particular situation so my prayers are with you and your sister and the

Lord saved me you can save your sister and bring her to her senses that's most most definitely the case and I think

I mentioned to you the fact that it's been extremely encouraging seeing the emails that have been coming in from all sorts of folks who have read that article and have just been tremendously encouraged to witness to their families many people who are the only people who've been saved out of Catholicism in their families have written and they've been encouraged by it and I got a very touching one from a gentleman in Florida who talked about how he's had an attraction to the liturgy and things like that and how the response really helped him in that way and he's a good good friend of mine and and that those those gentlemen will have no idea how encouraging those things were to see that you know

I didn't when I put that website web article up I wasn't thinking along those lines

I mean maybe that's that's definitely wrong on my part I wasn't thinking about how there would be lots of folks to be encouraged to witness to their families because of this

I was just trying to testify to the truth of how this situation has been handled and lo and behold the

Lord turns these things to his glory anyway so as I've heard you say if the Lord can save you he can save anybody right that's right now one last thing

I wanted to say there's there's one Catholic I can think of that I would love your sister to actually sit down with and that's the

Catholic seminary student that has come to several of the debate who had a completely different description of you than your sister had yep and in fact

I sent his email to my sister and where he says in his email he says you know well how would how would you characterize it he basically you know is is just gushing about the accuracy of my presentation and you've made me think about all sorts of things so on so forth your

Christlike behavior right exactly and then you may recall what was the name gentleman the name the name of the gentleman who at the beginning of the debate

Americans United for the Pope Arnold Pilsner at the beginning likewise had some kind words and I even offered

I said I said Pat I'll send you the the the tape

I'll send you the tape I'll let you you know watch this tell me you know how this does not testify to the truthfulness of what

I've said but she has no interest in in receiving that information or looking at information and so you know it's it's not going to go away and I believe that there will be a time there will be an opportunity in the future to do that and you know patience is a good thing when you're as old as you and I you know get way up there you know and that's at least you and I wish you and I are only about half as old as Skyman so one thing is very interesting about that journey home program is that the testimonies are almost identical because I don't think that they want to talk about doctrinal issues they want this this mushy gushy sentimentalism because I think that's they know that that's why people convert to Catholicism right right yeah

I've when I was listening to EWTN a lot last July when I was teaching they have radio station in San Francisco the all

I mean the voice has changed but the the words didn't and it was it was just the constant there's

I think there's they they know that people need a reaffirmation of this because eventually eventually it gets old eventually the the newness of the of the sacraments and all their all the pageantry and stuff after a while you've seen that before it gets old it does not satisfy and so there needs to be a reaffirmation of yeah you did the right thing yeah you did the right thing but it's you know once the

Spirit of God starts so working on someone's heart that'll never that'll never keep the spirit of the spirit at bay that's for sure well anyways thank you very much mr.

Java man for calling today we'll have to have to start I apologize we haven't been promoting your your musical works as much as as much as we need to but you know maybe you know sometimes oh there look at that there's there's one now

I I don't know how that would all of a sudden just start playing like that but okay well that you know

I'm still expecting some professional recordings of some other songs yeah okay man thanks for calling all right a six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three some of you have not heard those songs

I have played them they are in the in the archives someplace but right now

I think our archives are sort of hard to get hold of yes debate debate is in the night yes

Java man came up with the great one a couple weeks ago debate is in the night exchanging insults it's great but see

I'm already starting to sound like him it's a terrible thing let's see eight six six eight five four sixty seven sixty three is the phone number that David in Austin Texas called let's talk with David hi

David hey James how you doing you may know me as MD Hughes in the channel ah yes sir

I didn't want to say because I don't hear Microsoft jokes well actually the way that your your your comments or your question was given to me in private message from the other side of the wall basically seemed to indicate that I thought that you were going to be saying that I sound like Oprah Winfrey so I was like what in the world is that all about so no

I just wanted to point out I saw the program myself and it reminded me

I expected to see Oprah Winfrey opposite of her Java made a good comment it was emotionalism it was just nothing was was based on anything solid or objection objectionable it was objectionable right but objective it was it was all just how she felt how you know about being converting

Roman Catholic and I can definitely see how a lot of people get sucked into that but yeah well it's very attractive in in a subjective society where religious decisions are based upon allegedly how you feel even though and I didn't play it

I almost made a clip out out of it this morning but I I didn't there is one of the calls asked something about had her feelings waned since her second conversions on so forth and she made a fascinating comment and that was she said we we can't live our lives by emotions our feelings have to be based upon fact and I'm sort of sitting here listening to that going my missing something here because that's what

I've been that's what I've been saying from the very beginning here let's let's get down to these facts let's talk about these things and that's why

I still hold out that that great hope that that that time will come and that's why

I've been very upfront about these things obviously we didn't discuss these things until she made the decision to to do this program to get out there and to you know start putting her testimony on websites and things like that we in fact the folks here at the ministry will tell you if you want to check this out you can talk to him the folks of the ministry will tell you that just in fact

Warren's on the other side of the wall here and I forget how long ago was it wasn't that long ago maybe a month month and a half ago rich comes over to the

Monday night workout you've heard about our Monday night workouts we get pumped up and we do theology between sets and he was getting hit with all these questions about Patty's conversion and so I like to do some competition

I knew he was going there and sometimes he beats me sometimes

I beat him but the competition really helps us to push each other well we were doing what are called

T bars where you it's a it's a back exercise and I've got a t -bar row and Rich was saying look

I really want to put something on the website I said look people listen to me we're not putting anything on the website until my sister does something publicly and they kept pushing it

I said look I'm in charge of this ministry and I'm putting my foot down and I stopped my foot down and Warren will tell you because he will never forget this he was sitting there going oh no they're getting him mad and see we're in a competition so I got all cranked we had the maximum amount of weight on the thing

I did like 20 reps or 22 reps or something like that and Warren did too so I was

I was angry and rich will tell you he said we ain't we ain't doing nothing until she goes public well it wasn't what three days four days later the web article showed up where she was putting your conversion story out there and then we discussed and then we found out about the the coming home and so on so forth so we didn't want to go this direction we wanted to you know give her every opportunity to in essence come to her senses and to to leave those doors open so you know yes 22

I believe yes it was sir 22 yeah 20 20 reps to 2 reps yes so forever and always that my failure will be people will okay you beat me 20 reps to 20 reps to 2 however however last week even after you had been sick and on antibiotics you did three reps on incline bench and on the on the incline curls and I only did one so that you tripled me on that one so does that make you feel better okay your reputation for being fair and objective is still intact okay rich turn off his microphone okay then afterwards we did standing curls

I doubled you up but anyways I'm sorry we're doing this to you

David it's just you know just let you know we have fun here on the program and we're just not hey yes from what

I understand you're getting your exercise right now chasing around people that only go up to your knees that's that that's a back workout let me tell you something you're getting a back workout every day with all little ones so anyhow but you are exactly right it's it's very much focused upon the emotional and that's why

I say the emotional fades the newness goes away and that that's my hope that the

Holy Spirit will then utilize that opportunity in the future once that's a raw emotionalism is gone to start looking for something that's it's solid ground because as you and I both know emotions are not the basis for anything like that a quick follow -up question

I didn't come out of the program I'm not really sure was she encouraged by somebody other than herself to come forward maybe in among Roman Catholics or was it something she decided to do really good question she didn't say it is self -evident from the emails

I've received that she has for at least six months been in contact with Timothy Staples Scott Hahn Marcus grow died

Steve Ray art suppose says that he was in contact with her early on and so the entire

Roman Catholic apologetic community has been just licking its chops over this and I should say and I mentioned this in the web article but I'll mention again very early on father

Mitchell Pacwa told me what he had told Pat and that was don't insert yourself into the apologetic realm don't don't get involved that kind of thing don't be used that way obviously his advice eventually was not followed but at least he was one of the few people who didn't do what

I'm sure others were strongly pushing her to do but as to who it was I don't know was it a group of people

I would I would assume that it probably was what was the timing not sure not sure thank you thank you for calling

God bless I don't see that light going bye -bye

I don't see other phone calls 866 -854 -6763 866 -854 -6763 is the phone number if you would like to get involved in the program today we still have enough time for probably one more good call coming in in regards to some of the channels trying to talk to me while I am talking on the air it's a difficult thing to do but Tess in channel is asking you what

I think of Calvary Chapel and I suppose that's a good time to reannounce the debate that I'll be doing against George Bryson of Calvary Chapel on the subject of the doctrines of grace probably specifically is there a divine decree of election at Biola in March sorry

April 2nd over in California and once we get more details as to time specific location it's supposed to be they're talking multiple thousands of people as far as attendance here and I you know

I've heard that before but you know who knows but we will be letting you know which direction it will go and make sure that you have the opportunity if you're in the

L .A. Area to be on what I would like to see happen quite honestly I think the way to air this best and we're going to we're shooting for this and I I am open to do it and I think

I'm really hoping this is going to happen I'm just throwing this out so you all can pray that it does happen but since Mr.

Bryson I just finished a written debate in the pages of Christian Research Journal what we'd like to see happen would be prior to the formal debate at Biola an appearance of myself and Mr.

Bryson on the Bible Answer Man broadcast to debate the issue that way that would be

I think the best way to do it when Mr. Staples and I have done that we did three hours on the Bible Answer Man and then a three hour debate that allows you know a good a fair amount of discussion of issues

I've been told that these debates are follow the Bonson -Stein format and are only about 90 minutes in length which is very very fast very very demanding and that length of debate always leaves all sorts of questions that would be going from another direction someone else just asked did you say last week you might be doing a debate on paedo -baptism well eventually there has been a discussion of doing one on the

East Coast and one on doing one on the West Coast in either case those are not yet scheduled and who knows if they'll happen and when and so on and so forth but I can tell you one thing those particular debates will be done in a

Christian manner they will be done as an intramural debate because I embrace my brothers and sisters in Christ who are

Presbyterians as brothers and sisters in the Lord they are my some of them are very very close to me and so those those types of debates are very very different those are where we get to sit down as in in the bond of love and discuss what the scriptures say concerning that very important issue but we still get to do that within the bond of love and that's how we've done it in the past and that's the only way that I will ever do it because that's that's the only way to do it and so that would be something

I'd be looking forward to I have addressed that issue of recently last July in fact at was that August I think it was

August at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church there are some sermons on that on our website there are lots of sermons out there from the other perspective so I suppose it's fair to have a few from from the this perspective as well and someone's yelling out the covenants in yeah that's my response to the covenant the new covenant but then we won't get into that on the program today but anyways lots of stuff coming up debates on open theism inclusivism

July 11th the debate against Patrick Madrid on Long Island at Lord willing the Huntington townhouse on the subject of the veneration of Saints prayers and veneration of Saints that's going to be

I think a very important debate and I hope that everybody will be praying about that one as well lots of preparation still trying to find time in the midst of everything else to finish up this book on Harold campings false teaching concerning the church a book that Calvary Press is publishing entitled entitled that is not the right word it is titled thank you very much entitled is a different verb isn't it yes it is a different word thank you titled dangerous airwaves and anyone who wants to say hey where do you get those cool titles well guess what

Java man came up with that one as well dangerous airways we will give him proper credit and by the way

I haven't mentioned this and I'm very very bad bad bad man for not having done so if you go to a omen org you will see in the upper right hand side yes

I pissed you I understood what you were doing and I appreciate that in the upper right hand side you who is debating from a theism

John Sanders will be my opponent for that on the upper right hand side of the website you will see a really pretty cruise ship floating down a beautiful section of ocean next to the

Alaskan wilderness and we have a cruise coming up and if you'd like to go on a cruise where I will be speaking on apologetics issues and be pampered and treated like royalty for seven days for about half or less of the cost that it is normal normally charged to cruise the inside passage because we lock these rates in just a few days after 9 -1 -1 that's the link to click on because that particular cruise is coming up at the end of August and so you need to if you've been thinking about it or didn't know about it whatever go to a men dot org click on that link and take a look at it and see if that might be something

I know that we've gone on two cruises now my wife just really wanted to go on a cruise really really bad and so much so that when the first offer came in she said we're going on that cruise whether I have to teach or not so we we went and we loved it and the

Christian fellowship is just awesome on those those cruises it truly is

I don't get much in way vacations don't really get vacations at all but anyways it's it's just the food alone is just a tremendous tremendous thing

I now sound like a MacArthur promo well he goes on until but you know what can

I say tell them about me oh well my daughter's name is summer and she's in the chat room what about you that you were you're on your junior high school volleyball team and you're undefeated you went on the cruise yes you went on the second cruise and you thought that it was just the cat's meow that it was the greatest thing that you've ever done and you're all excited about going on the next one and so everyone who wants to go on a cruise and meet summer don't worry about me don't worry about anybody else but if you want to meet summer then you need to sign up soon and get ready to if a men buys me a cruise

I'll debate JRW on baptism if I lose you can throw me overboard well that would be that would be a good way but what happens if you win we're in the midst of a whole bunch of water so what do you get a splat you know try to splash at me or something like that you know that doesn't make any sense anyways you you come on you come on along there pissed you oh and you'll you'll enjoy the enjoy the cruises do they need opera singers oh it's interesting watching the things in the channels they as they scroll by it is a lot of a lot of fun being in there anyways

I hope the discussion today has been of assistance to you has helped you to understand what the issues of truth really are and I hope that as you go back and listen to these last two archived programs you will see that our greatest concern is for the purity and integrity of the gospel because that is the power of God into salvation despite the fact that our world is extremely confused on these issues the only way to show true

Christian love is to speak the gospel and to speak it with clarity and so don't buy into the strange ideas the world around us don't buy into the humanism of the world around us many of those who've written complaining that I would even address this subject truly have embraced humanistic concepts if we read the

New Testament for what it says then the greatest act of love that we can show to anyone is to preach and proclaim to them the gospel of Jesus Christ and to do so without compromise that's what we've attempted to do and by God's grace we will continue to do it thanks for listening and God bless the dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org that's a o m i n dot o

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