June 10, 2003

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

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

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

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

James White. Well good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line.

We are live today and you may notice that we sound a little bit different than we did a week ago today.

That's because we are not on a cell phone this time around and that makes things a little bit easier

I would imagine for everyone to hear, though I haven't listened to the archive of last week so I don't know how the cell phone sounded.

But it is amazing what you can do these days with those particular little pieces of equipment.

But we are back from Long Island, two weeks away, and it was a wonderful time.

I want to thank Chris Arnzen and Brian McLaughlin especially for their work and making that entire trip possible.

It is a lot of work that goes into that. We visited a number of different churches, Hillside Baptist Church, Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Hope Reformed Baptist Church, the wonderful folks down in New Jersey at Trinity Fellowship Church.

We were all over the island basically at the Massapequa Church of God and just wonderful folks every place that we went and wonderful opportunities there in speaking and preaching.

This past weekend I had the opportunity of speaking on the subject of first in the morning the mission of the church at Hope Reformed Baptist Church and then

Sunday evening I spoke on the issue of new perspectivism and that was at the

Grace Reformed Baptist Church. That was the first time I had an opportunity of speaking at their Amityville location.

They have two churches. They have two buildings because it was two churches that merged together. I've always spoken in the

Merrick location, 36 Smith Street, just south of Long Island Railroad. No, north of Long Island Railroad.

In fact, that's where I went. Even on the website still, I need to pull that page down, but it still says that that's where the meeting was going to be and lo and behold, it was in Amityville.

So I was about five or ten minutes late getting there to get to crosstown to the other location, but it all ended up working out.

So that was very enjoyable and lots of questions from folks. That whole issue,

I think, is not going to go away anytime soon. That's something we're going to have to keep dealing with and keep standing for the truth for a long, long time.

Unfortunately, those who present false teachings on the subject of justification tend to be very, very, how shall

I put it? They have a lot of energy. They don't go away. And so it takes a tremendous amount of work to respond to them.

And so that was a great opportunity to speak with all those folks, to meet folks.

I love getting a chance to travel, meet folks who listen to The Dividing Line a long ways away. It reminds us that we are not alone out here in the desert southwest.

And so I appreciate, again, all the hard work and effort that went into that and all the wonderful people from all of those churches.

Again, I'm not exactly sure when the debates will be available.

They normally show up in MP3 format first, specifically the debate with Mitch Pacwa on the subject of the priesthood.

But I would like to mention that I think, along with the Stravinskas debate on purgatory, this debate will be one of those that those of you who are involved in planning the

Sunday school curriculum for your churches, who are involved in Christian education, and you want to be able to present a video presentation that would allow for, well, for you to even invite

Roman Catholics to attend, because there is a fair representation of both sides.

And yet, in both situations, a very clear difference between the kind and nature of biblical argumentation and evidence that is presented.

I think that these two debates especially would be most useful for that.

And so keep that in mind. Keep an eye on the website. Feel free to drop certain people in the ministry notes.

Remind them that you're waiting, because that will make them feel loved and wanted and will not put them under any undue pressure whatsoever to get that work done.

I'm afraid that miscellaneous, as -yet -to -be -reconnected pieces of equipment are about to come flying around the corner at me, because there's ...

In fact, I was trying to fire up my ... I've got my computer connected to my stereo, which, strangely enough, is all the way across my office, which isn't a long ways, but it's on the other side of my office, and then the speakers come back over to where my computer is.

And I was sitting there. I turn it on, and I'm trying to turn up the volume, and I'm going, what's going on?

And I look over there, and there's one really important connector that goes up over the door. It's completely gone.

It got stolen to go to New York to help with the recording of the debate.

It has not yet been returned. It played a very vital role. A vital role. A vital role.

Yes, yes. Let's talk about stealing from Peter to pay

Paul, or Paul to pay Peter, or whatever it is. Yeah, well, that's how we do stuff around here, folks.

I was so pleased to have found a Home Depot right next to my hotel in New York. That's right.

What did you pick up there? What do you think? Duct tape. Duct tape. Hey, hey. Well, you should have gotten extra, brought it back, and then we would have been able to withstand any terrorist attacks, along with a little bit of plastic tape, plastic stuff on the window.

Anyways, well, it's good to be back, and it's good to know that we got the debate recorded, and despite, by the way, those of you who are concerned about the house sound, the sound in the auditorium, well, it's not an auditorium, it's a, what is that, a room, whatever?

It's a banquet hall. A banquet hall. That's really not going to affect this. I mean, I imagine you can probably hear something in the background, but I don't think it'll impact the quality of what you'll be able to hear.

It certainly will sound a whole lot better than the first few years of the great debate on Long Island, like the one year where they used the house,

I guess, I'm not sure, but it almost seemed to me like the only sound they had was on the camera in the back of the room, an open mic catching the house sound.

No, he used the microphone on his camera. Yeah, it was horrible. To catch the house sound. Oh, it was almost, you know, almost ruined it.

Fortunately, he was right next to the microphone where the audience lined up to ask their questions, so he was able to spin the camera around, and that's how you're able to hear the audience questions.

Just unbelievable. And then one year, I think the mass debate, the last debate we had at the

Coral House, they did something, something kept picking up a local rock station.

And I remember right in the middle of one of Robert St. Janice's statements, you hear blah! You know, something like that, and it was hilarious.

But anyways, we didn't have any of those types of issues. Though it is strange, it is strange.

I hope when you call that company, whoever made our soundboard out there, it was the exact, well, it wasn't the exact same soundboard, but the same company, same make, just one step above ours, and the very same channel that fried on ours, which happened right here on the dividing line, is what fried during the debate on theirs.

The very same one. Now, that is just too weird. And I hope you mention that to the company when you call them about the fact that ours fried as well, and so they need to replace that.

So, well, anyway, the debate will be available whenever that strange voice that comes in, both during the program and also is attempting to do

Barry White impersonations prior to the program, when the body that hosts that voice gets around to editing the video and making it available.

Actually, I started on that this morning. That's very good. And now, is that going to be available before certain debates from a couple months ago?

Well, since I've got everything wired, I'll probably do them in order, but, frankly, I think it's a better debate, so I'm going to get that one first.

I would happen to agree. I think there would be more interest in the priesthood debate with Mitch Pacwa than either the debate with Dr.

Potter. It's so memorable, folks, he can't even remember what they were about. I was actually, I was going to say, the debate with Dr.

Potter on Mormonism was intriguing, but not exactly groundbreaking, and the debate with Robert St.

Genes on the mass is just simply the two -hour version of the previous three -hour version from a few years ago, with just a few exceptions.

So, you know, I think it would be good to have the priesthood debate available, because that's what people are talking about and things like that.

Well, I should be able to get them done in order, and we'll get the Pacwa debate up there first and then do the other two right afterwards.

Well, that wouldn't be in order then, or would it be a reverse order?

Reverse order. That works. Oh, reverse order. Okay. All right, well, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, 877 -753 -3341, and since we're talking about the

Pacwa debate, someone who attended the Pacwa debate, sat down toward the front along with a couple other folks from New Jersey, is

Steve, and he has called in, so let's go ahead and talk about the Pacwa debate real quickly, and invite your calls on any other subject you'd like to raise, well, you know, within reason, at 877 -753 -3341.

Hi, Steve, how are you doing? How are you doing, Dr. White? Doing pretty good. Good. I was listening to your webcast last

Tuesday on the archive, and you remembered me, and I appreciated the, I'm flattered by that.

I have a question, and it's concerning your question to Mr. Pacwa, where is

Mrs. Pacwa? Yes. And I believe you cited Timothy, or was it

Titus? I think it was Titus, and yes, I was specifically looking to use the term presbuteros there.

And you asked him where was Mrs. Pacwa, and let's admit he had a very good response, didn't he?

That's right. It was very humorous, his response was, my mother died a few years ago.

Yeah, but he turned kind of red before he came up with the answer. And by the way, there was another person from New Jersey, my friend

George was there as well, although we didn't connect that night. Well, and Mike, who called in last week, was there too, so there were the three

Christians from New Jersey did make the debate, it was very encouraging. Well, you had two Mikes there.

Oh, yes, okay, good. So, you had four. Anyway, when you asked that question about being the husband of one wife, and does that imply that a presbyter or elder must be married?

You know, a lot of people ask that question, and of course all I was attempting to do in raising the issue was to just sort of point out that if the argument that he was making was true, and that is that, and just so folks know what the argument was, it's very common for Roman Catholic historians and theologians today to argue that the presbyters in the

New Testament became priests, and historically that's what it was. That office was differentiated from episkopos, which is why

I pointed out you cannot make that differentiation in the text itself, and why he had to basically assume it, and try to come up with,

I felt the only argument he did raise, tried to differentiate between the two, even though Roman Catholic theologians and biblical exegetes recognize they're used interchangeably, was that, well, episkopos is used singularly more often than presbyteros in the plural, and I pointed out, well, that's because it's used singularly in those passages in Timothy, because it's talking about the elder, the qualifications of the elder.

He must be, without blame, husband of one wife, so on and so forth. But presbyteros is used in the singular in Titus, the same thing, so it's not a valid argument.

But anyways, the reason I raised it was not to say, well, you need to be married to be this, but his argument was not what you find in most of what

I've read from modern Roman Catholic theologians. His argument was based on that, well, you couldn't call them priests, and so you called them presbyteros instead.

I wanted to point out that if what he was saying is they were the priests, then by apostolic teaching, priests at that time were one -wife men.

So therefore, their tradition, their discipline of celibacy would go directly against the apostolic example that is given there.

Now, that's a different issue than saying, can a single man be an elder? I don't think that you can push that to that point, that a person who was, indeed,

Paul himself very much recognizes that that single state, that person who gives themselves the service of Christ and the kingdom and so on and so forth in 1

Corinthians, that that is something that is very praiseworthy and so on and so forth. I can't imagine that by saying what he was saying, he was saying that therefore all elders must be married men.

I think what he means by that is all elders must be faithful men, and if they are married, that means they're faithful to the woman to whom they are married.

They're not philanderers, and so I personally do not see that it follows that a person has to be married to do that.

It sounded a little bit like, I see where you were going with it, but it came across as if they are not married, and since Paul says they should be a husband of one wife or one woman man, it almost sounded as if the fact that he wasn't married, or that Rome does not allow the priest to marry, is an indication that the priesthood is invalid based on that, not on the...

Well, yeah, the fact that that element of the description of the elder or bishop or presbuteros overseer, the fact that that element has been made irrelevant in light of the fact they do forbid marrying, which

Paul specifically identifies as an element of false teaching, I think is relevant, but it doesn't follow that what

I meant by that is that a single person is precluded from that position of eldership simply because of that fact.

I think that the issue... I didn't even get into that particular subject. Yeah, it brings up a whole bunch of other questions too, and I think the church wrestled with this early on.

If somebody's wife dies, can they remarry? If someone what? If somebody's wife dies, can they remarry?

I think early on they tended to remain in a single state, at least some in the early church, when let's say a widower.

Yeah, no, I certainly would not hold to that position. Paul does address the issue of when a person passes away, the relationship with that marriage ends, and that a person is free to marry only in the

Lord at that point in time. I don't believe that that is something that disqualifies a person from the position of eldership, no.

Of course, the final one would be somebody who has been divorced, of course. Yeah, that's the big argument, and there are people on both sides of that particular argument.

I personally think that it has to do with the nature of the situation. I think, for example, if a person is abandoned, if a person becomes a believer, let's say their wife does not become a believer and simply will not abide the gospel, that that's different on a fundamental basis than a situation where there is a profession of faith.

I'm in agreement there wholeheartedly. And in that position, and in fact, my wife had been married before, and I'm still the husband of one wife.

Right, right. I'm a one -woman man. That's right. But yeah, no, I really didn't, yeah, I wasn't trying to get into that.

I just, I had thought about it before, that was actually a part of the questions that I had written down, and I had written it down because I was looking at the uses of those two terms.

And I thought to myself, if he attempts to differentiate between Episcopos and Presbyteros and tries to say that Presbyteros in the

New Testament actually are already functioning as priests, then this would be a relevant question. Since that is the direction that he went, then that was the question that I asked.

All righty? Okay, you take care. All right, thanks a lot for coming out to the debate. I appreciate it.

Oh, I enjoyed it. You all try to stay dry there. I hear you have more rain headed your direction. It's not raining today. The sun is shining.

I know, but I was watching the news, and it's heading back your direction yet again.

It's unbelievable. I was, when I was out there, everybody's going, man, I've never seen so much rain in my life. And there was all this complaints.

And it has been unusually rainy this spring. Yeah, well, you know, it was gray almost every day

I was there. It was about two days where I saw the sun. But, you know, it really didn't bother me all that much. But then again, I knew I was heading back out to Phoenix, where I'd see many, many weeks of sunny skies anyway.

So it didn't really matter. So anyway, thanks for calling, Steve. All right, you take care. God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341,

Mike, who called last week, also wanted to make a comment on the debate. So let's stick with the theme.

If you have another topic you'd like to bring up, feel free to join us today at 877 -753 -3341.

It's a little tough for me, before we go to Mike, a little tough for me to do programs, you know, only a few hours.

Well, a few hours after just getting back from traveling, especially since I didn't get a direct flight home yesterday and got to spend quite some time at LaGuardia and Chicago Midway, and then on a small 737 with three people packed in my row from Chicago here.

So it's hard to come up with programs the morning after that, other than talking about what you just went through or what's your plan doing in the near future.

Oh, someone just, before we go to Mike, someone just was very unkind and channeled to remind me of crisp meat burritos right before lunch.

That's a very unkind thing to do. And if that person did not have 450 ops level status,

I would wreak havoc. But anyway, let's go ahead and talk with Mike. Hi, Mike. Hey, how's it going?

I don't know. How's it going with you? Oh, I'm all right. Yesterday, I was able to see the

IMAX version of Matrix Reloaded, so I'm very happy right now, actually. Well, you just lost a few folks that were listening.

They're tuning out now, actually. Yeah, well, that's their problem. You sound sort of tired.

Yeah, I tend to be. No matter where I am, it's very strange. You know, if you're tired of not having crisp meat burritos, you could come to Utah more often,

I guess that's... Yeah, well, there are many reasons to visit a state, but crisp meat burritos, as good as they are, do not necessarily rank at the very high end of that particular thing.

I agree completely. I mean, you get to have them all the time. If you ate them as often as I eat them when

I'm there, you would be much thicker than you are. Right, that's certainly true.

But one of the things about the debate that got me was his argument that Paul and the rest would not use the term priest in terms of Christians, because it would offend the

Jews, because they were not the Levitical line. But when you look at what they do in Acts, in terms of addressing the

Jews, that doesn't ever really seem to be much of a concern to them, because they'll turn around and talk about the

Messiah, who's the most central figure in Jewish theology, and tell them that they crucified him, which

I would think would be somewhat more offensive than applying a term which doesn't have the correct lineage behind it to a

Christian. Yeah, there were so many directions from which that didn't make any sense to me that it was almost hard for me to respond to it, simply because it took me by surprise that Mitch Packwell would use that argumentation.

It really did. Maybe if I had run into it in something

I had read before, I don't know. The fact that he admitted that the writer of the

Hebrews could care less about the very distinction that he made. That is, he admitted, well, certainly, yeah, the writer of the

Hebrews does use that term priest in the very way that his whole argument says that Paul never would.

Then you go, okay, wait a minute. Here you have someone who's writing to Hebrew Christians.

So if this argument was ever going to have any level of validity, it would be right here.

It would be in the very context of the book of Hebrews, writing to Hebrew Christians, and to admit that, well, yes, he did, but Paul wouldn't, when

Paul is writing outside of Palestine to non -Hebrew Christians.

It just made me go, come on, you've got to see how completely off base this is.

And unfortunately, he didn't, well, I don't know if he saw that. I don't know if I explained it clearly enough to him.

I hope that he heard that, but you never know how far you really get in communicating that type of thing.

I mean, I think Mitch does listen to what I say and tries to respond to it if he has the opportunity of doing so.

I don't think he's like a lot of folks, like maybe sitting in the front row, who were not listening to anything that I had to say and wouldn't be able to repeat to you any argument that I presented, even that night, let alone today.

So, yeah, I don't know what else to say other than, yeah,

I was very surprised at the argumentation as it was used. Yeah, I was pleased, though, with the fact that he stayed on topic.

I expected hearing a series of patristic quotes that supposedly support transubstantiation or some of the peripheral issues, but he stayed on the actual existence of the priesthood as an office in the

Christian church, which I was very happy with. I mean, I think it's an extremely valuable debate in terms of evangelism or whatnot, because it didn't go all over the place.

It stayed focused on the topic at hand, and he didn't invent evidence and try and take it off on tangents or something like that.

So I was very pleased with it in that regard. Yeah, at least he didn't end up doing, as I've had some opponents in debates.

For example, Scott Butler quoting from the Arabic canons of the

Council of Nicaea, which everyone recognizes are fraudulent and we didn't have the donation of Constantine or the pseudo -Isidorian decretals being cited as if they were actual evidence and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

So that's obviously a good thing. And so, yeah, he normally does stay on topic.

I thought that there was actually more discussion of related but not necessarily directly related stuff in regards to mass than I had expected, but he would feel more comfortable with that particular subject.

So since it was raised, it would make sense that he would want to really press upon that.

And then we also have to remember the emotional benefit of dealing with that particular subject within the context of the

Roman Catholic Church as well, because when you want to excite your base, I'll never forget the guy in the first Staples debate in Fullerton during the audience questions.

There's a whole line of people standing there waiting to ask questions. And, you know,

Tim Staples, folks, folks, listen to me, folks, folks, you know, my students will tell you that, you know, and he's getting the audience all excited.

And all of a sudden, this guy just can't contain himself anymore. And he just yells out the Eucharist and everybody's, yeah, yeah.

And it's just like, OK, this is this is a pep rally or a debate.

Which one is this one? I've lost track of which one it is. So it does have that kind of of emotional element to it for a lot of folks.

Well, thank you very much for coming. I appreciate your driving. I was amazed when I got back to the hotel and fired up my computer.

You were already in Channel and you live in New Jersey. So I'm not sure if you took a helicopter, if possibly

Romans 13 got a little bit bent. We won't go into how fast we were going on the way back.

We made it back. And that's what matters. OK, well, all right.

Thanks, Mike. All right. God bless 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341.

We'll be coming up on our break. That's a perfect time for you to join us with your questions or comments.

Maybe you'd like to look down the road toward the next debates coming up. Next books coming up.

We'll be glad to talk about those. Join us here on The Dividing Line. 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.

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 layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order The Forgotten Trinity 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. 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.

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul II to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

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

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed queen of heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

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

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

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

And welcome back to Dividing Line.

It's about 27 minutes before the hour. That means there's about 25 minutes left for those of you who are just dying to call in to get your chance to break through that constant busy signal that is the, well, anyways.

No, actually, if you have any questions or comments, 877 -753 -3341 had an interesting conversation the day before yesterday.

And I was speaking to an individual who has studied with Jehovah's Witnesses.

And I heard all of the objections rolled into just one quick flurry of objections.

And so we started trying to deal with some of them. For example, for some reason, and this is not normally the direction that I go, we started with John 1 .1.

And one of the things that I have seen over and over again, in fact, it reminds me of something, in fact, I want to bring up an email.

Another example of the tremendous power of tradition. I got an email last night.

Let me see if I can bring it up here. Oops, wrong folder. I got an email last night and it was quoting from a debate.

Now, where did I put that thing? That's not the one I was looking for. I wonder if I left it in the inbox.

No, that's not there either. Well, it was, oh yeah, here it is.

Quoting from a debate between Norman Geisler in 1994 with Farrell Till, a very well -known atheist.

And it was quoting Norman Geisler. And I found this very interesting, especially those of you who have listened to this program, especially we've discussed

Matthew 23, 37 before. Quoting Norman Geisler, quote, and I don't believe that God wants to send anyone to hell and certainly not

Professor Till. Jesus said, O Jerusalem, O Jerusalem, how oft I would have gathered you together as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but you would not.

And if Professor Till goes to hell, it's because he doesn't want eternal life. Loud applause and shouts of approval, not because God doesn't love him.

Louder applause, end quote. And I found that interesting in light of the fact that if you're familiar with Matthew 23, 37, that is the constant miscitation, traditionally driven miscitation of Dave Hunt and Norman Geisler and Adrian Rogers and all these individuals who miscited and say, how often would

I have gathered you and you would not. The whole point of the two different audiences being blurred by various levels of miscitation, normally from memory, but miscitation anyways, impacting how we hear things.

Well, the same thing took place in talking with this individual who had been studying with Jehovah's Witnesses for quite some time.

If you've ever done that, you know that you will hear John 1, 18 thrown in your direction. No one has seen

God at any time. Now, that's only the first phrase of an entire sentence. But again, it was thrown out there.

No one's seen God at any time. We saw Jesus. Therefore, Jesus can't be God. And I said, well, you might want to finish reading the rest of the sentence.

And so she looks it up. And of course, they use a small G with God, the only begotten

God in 1, 18. So I tried to explain the fact that capitals or non -capitals is an editorial thing.

And she didn't believe me at first, but I pressed the point. And then eventually I said, okay, so you don't believe anyone's ever seen

God. Could you please read for me Isaiah 6, 1 out of the New World Translation, which is what she was carrying. And so she looked at it and it says in the year that King Uzziah died,

I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne lofty and lifted up. And I said, so who did Isaiah see?

I saw Jehovah. So what does John 1, 18 mean? Well, that sounds contradictory.

And then I took the conversation over John chapter 12, especially verse 41, where Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and he spoke about him.

I pointed out where the citation was from. It was from Isaiah 6. We know who Isaiah would answer. Isaiah, who did you see?

I saw Jehovah. Who does John say he saw? And the response was, he said,

Jesus. Well, there you go. Well, I haven't ever seen that before. So we're able to make that point.

But then immediately the next response, which is somewhat disappointing, was, well, what about Christmas?

And that makes you go, ah, all that effort. And you really, you have to wonder, you just trust the

Lord will use it. You know, it may not make impact now. But maybe down the road there will be some willingness to look at some more information and some work of the

Holy Spirit in prioritizing the importance of subjects as well. 877 -753 -3341.

Let's talk with Adam in Akron, Ohio. Hi, Adam. Hi, Dr. Wade. How are you doing? Doing pretty good.

Um, I, uh, really enjoy listening to your materials and reading your books and everything.

I wanted to let you know I appreciate it. Well, good. And I also, I had two questions.

You were talking earlier about, uh, marriage in general and about divorce and everything. And I was wondering if you, uh, had a position, uh, of course, there's many people today.

Uh, in fact, I just had a friend who, uh, was deeply hurt because, uh, they were attacked because they were, uh, dating somebody by a book by Joshua Harris.

You familiar with that? Like, it's dating goodbye. I, I am familiar with it. Uh, I'm familiar with, uh, a little bit of, uh, the idea of, of courtship only type, uh, perspectives.

But I, I haven't, uh, it's not really an area that I, I really delve into a whole lot. Would, would you, uh, be willing to say that it's a biblical position for a person, uh, to date and to, for instance, kiss before they're married or?

Um, well, I, since I said that, uh, I haven't read the book, it would be silly of me to comment on, uh, on its nature.

Um, I don't know what it's, how it is differentiating between dating and courtship.

Uh, I don't know what the, it would be just really silly of me to even make a comment on it since I haven't read the book.

And like I said, there's, there's certain areas that I just go, well, you know, uh, that would be a whole lot, uh, more useful if you spoke to your pastor about it than me.

Cause my, my opinion on things that I do not study as a, as a scholar is no more relevant than, than anyone else's.

And in fact is less relevant than your local elders. And so, um, on issues like that,

I go, man, ask your pastor. I don't, it's not something that's relevant to me. It's just, I guess, it gets just kind of annoying to me because so many people have been hurt because of it.

Well, you know, uh, why, why are they hurt? Because, I mean, there's, are they hurt because it, because someone has raised a question that, that makes us think and makes us examine things or are they hurt because someone takes a position and then just simply, um, is, is unkind in their, in the way that they, they apply it to others.

I certainly have seen programs or, or movements that have come into the church and people grab hold of them and they turn them into the, the determining factor of orthodoxy and fellowship and can be very rude and unkind in that way.

There's no, no question about that. But at the same time, uh, I see a lot of folks in the church that are very easily offended when anyone takes any different view, uh, than their own.

So I, I think there's, you know, sometimes it's six of one, half dozen of the other. It could have been approached better, but at the same time, you know, uh,

I, I think Christians really need to learn to not take offense just simply because someone has a different view.

We take it so personally and, uh, you know, if I took everything personally that was said that goes my direction, good grief, uh,

I would, I would be so completely and constantly offended, uh, that I would never want to be around Christians again.

So I've just had to make the decision that, uh, uh, you know, my standing has to be between me and my

Lord. And, and I, I just, I just don't choose to be offended by what most people say, uh, especially if they claim to be a believer,

I'm going to try to hear it in the most positive light that I can. And sometimes that makes me look really naive.

I mean, there are times that, that people are purposely trying to offend me and, and they have to become very explicit because I'm too stupid, uh, to actually take it as offensive the first time around.

So, you know, but I figured that's better than going around mumbling all the time. Okay. And if, if I may,

I have a quick second question. Sure. Um, I was watching, uh, I watched a lot of Roman Catholic programs.

The Witness to Roman Catholic is something that I'm very passionate about. And there was a guy on a program called

Life on the Rock with a name of Jeff Cavins. He hosts, he hosted the program for a while and he was talking about Mary and the motherhood of Mary in Roman Catholicism.

And he said that it came from a particular Hebrew position in the Old Testament called the Givera, uh, or the

Queen Mother. Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. I looked it up. I have a Bible work here and I looked up all the occurrences.

The interesting thing I found was that there was, there was several occurrences of it. Each one was under the condemnation of God at some point and the other one was a pagan.

Yep. But he said that, that it was, it was part of David's, or David's kingdom and it was part of Solomon's kingdom, but I didn't find any.

Yeah, yeah. Is that, you said it with your right hand. Is there any reason they say that? Oh, yeah, yeah, there is.

The reason they say that is because Scott Hahn says it and they never question Scott Hahn.

I mean, if this is, uh, if you'll go back in the archives on straightgate .com and search for, uh, the programs that I did in response to Scott Hahn's book on Mary, uh, this was,

I think, last summer, if I recall correctly, though the older I get, the, the worse

I am in remembering whether it was a year ago or two years ago or whatever else it might be, but I think it was last year. If you'll go back and find the two weeks, yeah, it seems like May or June to me.

I was thinking, I was thinking about a year ago. I did two weeks on Scott Hahn's book on Mary and it had just come out, paperback, 20 some odd bucks, not enough text in there to, to fill a thimble.

But anyway, uh, and I specifically addressed the issue of his queen mother argumentation and I went through the passages that you yourself looked up and demonstrated, uh, that the consistent usage of this phrase is so grossly inconsistent with the application that Hahn was using that it was just simply laughable.

And I, I, I honestly, uh, that, that book to me is just a wonderful example of how someone who is obviously very intelligent can use their intelligence to promote absolute foolishness.

And I said then, this is a subject that, that Hahn would never defend publicly against anyone who could demonstrate the errors that he's been, that he is presenting here.

It's just, it is indefensible. This, this kind of material has to be the kind of material that is applied only within, it's presented only within the context of people who want to believe.

Uh, you know, right now I've been trying to get a particularly, uh, forceful Catholic apologist who, who is, uh, uh, very, uh, blunt in his, uh, statements, uh, to defend the

Marian dogmas in, uh, in public, uh, debate. He will not do it. Uh, this is a person who's constantly said that I'm afraid to debate him, but he will not debate this issue because he is smart enough to realize it's a no -win situation.

It is indefensible. It can't be done. Every time that they've tried it in the past, when I debated, uh,

Jerry Matitick's on it, even Matitick's admitted that he lost that debate. When Matitick's debated

Eric Svendsen, Eric Svendsen, uh, rolled him over. It was, it was a, it was a clear victory for, for Eric Svendsen.

It just simply isn't defensible. So this stuff can only be presented within the context where people want to believe it and no cross -examination can be allowed.

And, uh, so, uh, yeah, you're exactly right. You, you did the exact right study that you needed to do.

Uh, the queen mother concept is, is truly in, in opposition, uh, to the usage that is used.

But the reason that Jeff Cavins, and Cavins is, is the student of Scott Hahn. Uh, he got this from Hahn.

Uh, he probably has never questioned it and let's face it. That's the exact same mechanism at work there that is at work when, um,

I was speaking at a church on Long Island, uh, last week. And I was talking to, uh,

I was discussing Dave Hunt. And, uh, I was discussing the fact that if you take, uh, his interpretation of 1

John 5 .1 and you apply that, uh, to the other direct parallel passages, grammatically parallel passages in 1

John, that Mr. Hunt would have to believe that we are born again by loving

God and by doing works of righteousness. And I had a, a person, uh, a big

Dave Hunt fan in the audience literally speak up in the middle of my presentation, interrupted me, but he never said that.

And I, and I said, I said, I know he didn't say that. That, however, is what he would have to say to be consistent, uh, in his interpretation.

It's the same thing when, when dealing with, uh, well with, with some of Norman Geisler's students.

If Dr. Geisler has said it, it must be true. They've, they've never gone back to check those things themselves.

And I certainly hope, uh, that one thing I've communicated very, very clearly, uh, on this program and through my writings is

I hope no one does that for me. I hope no one just simply repeats what I have to say simply because I've said it.

Feel free to go back and check these things for yourself because I am not infallible and claim no infallibility and, uh, and learn from others.

And, uh, so I, I, I never want to see that happening in, in reverse. But the fact of the matter is that Pete, the reason you use here,

Jerry Matitix and Steve Cavins, um, and I, you know, I don't know who developed it first, whether, whether Hahn or Matitix developed it.

Uh, but they were both utilizing that argumentation back in the early 1990s. And actually the late 1980s come to think of it.

One of the things that was really bothered me about Scott Hahn is he uses something called typology. Oh yeah.

And it, and it, when he explained it on, I believe it was EWTN, a series about Mary, I said, doesn't that sound something like exegesis?

Well, again, you need to realize he's obviously not functioning on the same foundation that you and I are in, in determining methodologies of exegesis.

He, uh, he obviously is in a situation where the historical

Rome has utilized typological argumentation, the development of Marian dogmatics, and therefore he simply can't hold to a meaningful form of exegesis.

He has to adopt a typological perspective, even when there is nothing in the text that directly indicates the need for the use of typology.

And when it's very obvious that you cannot use any particular consistent method of typology to come up with the

Marian dogmas. I mean, when you look at the situation with the woman in Revelation chapter 12 and his, his monumental efforts to try to come up with some means of, of making this into Marian, making this connect while ignoring all of the disconnects in the text itself.

I mean, the woman is in pain in childbirth. Pain in childbirth is a part of the curse, but Mary was allegedly protected from the curse through the

Immaculate Conception. So that clear typology, which would destroy the point he's trying to make, is simply ignored.

Well, not ignored, but it's dismissed. And this just, again, illustrates the, the reality of, of sola ecclesia, the fact that the text is not the final arbiter of its meanings, but what

Rome has defined it as, as its dogma becomes the final arbiter of the meaning of the text.

That's why I've said many times a faithful Roman Catholic who wishes to remain consistent with the dogmatic teachings of the church cannot engage in meaningful exegesis of the text because when the text runs up against Rome's dogma, then his ultimate authority being that dogma, he has to abandon the meaning of the text.

It's very, very clear, and I think Han's book is an excellent example of that. Yeah, I see what you mean, especially in many of your debates.

Well, yeah, I mean, look at, well, you haven't had a chance to yet, but when you hear the last debate with Mitch Pacwa, when you discover that the strongest arguments for the concept of the priesthood are that, well, in the

Lord's Supper, do this in remembrance of me, do this as an imperative, and it's used in sacrificial context in the

Old Testament, I mean, that is the standard word for do. Can you imagine how many different contexts that's used in the

Old Testament? It's used in every context imaginable, just as our word do or work or accomplish would be used in English.

It's obviously very, very wide in its application. So you've got that, the idea that Paul would never call a

Christian priest a priest because that would be offensive to Jews, and the fact that there are 24 elders, these heavenly creatures that are surrounding the throne, since they offer incense, and incense is associated with the

Aaronic priests in the Old Testament, then elders have priestly functions, and therefore you can connect that with the presbyteroi, which become the priests.

When you look at that and realize that's the best Rome has to offer, and that is, that's the best she has, then you start realizing, wow, there's more to this sola ecclesia thing than it seems

White's letting on, because I think

I coined that phrase, I could be wrong, but I certainly don't remember borrowing it from somebody else, it just seems to me so descriptive of what we see when

Rome attempts to interact with the text of the Scripture on an official level. Her dogmas, since she has made herself infallible, have to be her ultimate authority.

There can be no other way of approaching this, and it destroys exegesis. I guess the next question

I would have to ask then is, how do you then approach a Roman Catholic when you're talking to them, knowing that they hold the sola ecclesia, what manner do you do to help them take off the glasses of Rome?

I mean, I know it's God's work that ultimately does that. Well, yeah, that really is what you have to trust is going to take place.

But in reality, the best way to try to deal with that is to provide them with multiple examples of it, demonstrate what's really going on, illustrate it clearly and consistently, and hope that the repetitive demonstration of it eventually gets through.

But the fact of the matter is, generally what you're struggling with is disappointment, because you can talk to a person that seems initially to be so very willing to listen, and so in other aspects of their life they can be very logical, very rational.

You get to this area, and all of a sudden that logic and rationality goes out the window, and what this person would never accept in argumentation in other areas of human knowledge.

All of a sudden here, boom, there's this complete inconsistency, and it can be very, very frustrating.

But you simply have to press on, speak the truth, and hope the Lord eventually brings that person to an understanding of what they're doing.

Okay? I enjoyed talking with you. Okay, thanks a lot, Adam, I appreciate that. God bless,

I guess. Okay, thanks a lot, God bless, bye -bye. It is a fascinating thing to consider, and I hope if you did not hear the programs we did,

I think it was May or June of last year, if you did not hear the programs that we did in response to Scott Hahn's book on Mary, I would strongly encourage you to go back and track them down, and to listen to them, they're worth the time to do so.

If you can, and if you have a weak stomach for puns, it's going to be pretty hard to even listen to a review of that book, because let me tell you something, the worst puns, subtitles ever placed on paper are found in that book.

It just absolutely is enough to, oh, it was bad stuff.

Well, I appreciate those calls today, those were excellent phone calls, excellent subjects to be raised, the importance of exegesis, and it is interesting that what we are dealing with in many instances today, and I noticed this when people will walk up to me, people walked up to me after the debate, and they would very confidently,

I remember this one man, he walks up, very confidently begins to throw out these arguments. Now, these are basic level arguments, they are arguments that have been refuted for generations on end, frequently they're even arguments based upon misapprehensions that better Catholic apologists wouldn't even use today, but because they're still found in the popular material, they're just thrown out there, and when you begin to respond to them, and you can do so, sometimes very quickly and almost devastatingly in a matter of sentences, the reactions are really basically, well, it's impossible that you would have a response to this argument because such and such a person said there was no response, and I trust such and such a person, and I could even make a statement about the original languages,

I could have my Greek text open in my hand, and as long as their ultimate trust was in this person,

Scott Hahn or those he has trained, Jerry Madetix or Steve Cavins or any of the people on EWTN, I mean, every time

EWTN was mentioned in the debate Thursday night, there was this you know, this, you could just hear people going, hey,

EWTN, rah, rah, it truly was very clear to me that for many individuals, the idea was, if I've heard it from those folks, then it must be absolutely positively true.

There can be no other way in which you must be lying. I mean, my honesty, my integrity is questioned regularly, simply because I took the time to say, no, this person's wrong about that.

How dare you say they're wrong? It's not a matter of what the facts are. It is simply a matter of, you know, what is said by one of these people.

It really becomes an issue of a personality cult, and that person just simply could not possibly be wrong.

And I understand where that comes from, and I never, ever, ever want to see that amongst anyone who holds the truth, the

Word of God. Well, Lord willing, Thursday evening, we'll actually be here for once.

It's been three weeks, but we'll be here Thursday evening for The Dividing Line, 5 o 'clock

Mountain Standard Time, that's Pacific Daylight Time, 8 o 'clock

Eastern Daylight Time, for those of you who struggle with the issue of time, and we'll see you then.

God bless. Bye -bye. ...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.