The Dividing Line, September 30, 2008

The Debate’s Progress and the Question of Fundamental Doctrine

But we continue on with that demonstration. We are in, we're over halfway through the debate now, thankfully, so we do plan to be done by Christmas at this particular rate.

But let's continue on. In this town, actually in San Diego, and look at all the different books with all the different opinions dealing with fundamental doctrine. There is not just a panorama of different views, there are fundamental disagreements over key life or death issues that affect the Christian, that are going to have an effect on his eternal destiny.

And I brought up two of them, and Mr. White neglected to deal with either one because I think he doesn't know how to answer it. Baptismal regeneration and the baptism of infants. I'm not equating the two as having equal importance.

I could bring up many other examples, and I'll do that later in the evening. Yeah, I failed to deal with them.

Accusations of Changing the Subject and the Charge of Self-Refutation

Now here's the man who said, now, don't try to change the subject by forcing me to defend tradition, even though I'm using it to attack soul scripture. And I'm going to resist the temptation to get into another church.

But let me throw out baptismal regeneration and paedo-baptism, and if you don't chase after the rabbit that I just released, then you're failing to deal with them. So if I stay focused on the subject, and I demonstrate that his argument is internally incoherent, that it refutes his own position, because his own position does not provide for unanimity of opinion on all sorts of subjects in Roman Catholicism, well, then I'm the one failing because I don't know how to answer it.

Now, of course, I've actually debated the subject and did so consistently with soul scriptura, but hadn't in 1993, but have since then. But again, I find that kind of argumentation, again, self-refuting.

The fact is, Mr. White has no answer to that. He can only say that he goes by what his opinion... I gave an answer,.

Demonstrated how he doesn't have any grounds even to make the objection, but I have no answer for that particular objection. ...is of scripture.

That is a misuse of the Bible. That is not what Jesus intended for scripture. Mr. White is, unfortunately, part of that vast majority of people out there who see the Bible as their private play toy. Now, if that sounds pejorative, I'm sorry, but that's...

Private Interpretation, Roman Catholic Tradition, and the Claim to Inspired Interpretation

It is not only pejorative, but it, of course, is false. And Mr. Madrid is slightly less than honest in his argumentation and hasn't improved much, unfortunately, since 1993 on that level. Of course, it would be really easy for me to say, well, Mr. Madrid is amongst that vast majority of Roman Catholics that view the Roman Catholic tradition as his private playground because he has to privately interpret it.

He has to interpret it, and he interprets it different than other people. Like I said before, I sat in the Catholic Answers offices and I listened to he and Jerry Matitick's arguing over the issue of predestination from different viewpoints amongst Roman Catholics.

So, why use this kind of pejorative, emotional argumentation when it refutes your own position? If your position is so strong, why use such bad argumentation? ...the fact.

Mr. White will quote the Bible to teach what he wants to be taught. He will teach what his position is over against what other Protestant ministers say, with equally good credentials, say, who are also going to the Word of God.

It boils down to a dispute over Mr. White's opinion versus their opinion.

Now, you hear that? What's missing? Well, if you take that assertion to its logical conclusion, nobody has any idea what the Bible actually says. Unless you follow Rome. And we immediately say, and Rome provides us with this inspired interpretation.

Where? Well, it doesn't. It doesn't provide the inspired interpretation. So, in reality, don't follow the Bible. Just follow what Rome teaches. It's this idea of even wanting to go the Bible that's really the problem as far as Rome is concerned.

Romanism, Biblical Clarity, and the Charge of a False Gospel

Here you see Romanism in all its ugliness. In all of its anti-biblical, anti-Christian attitude. And I consider that an anti-Christian attitude. When you can sit around and you can destroy people's confidence that God has spoken the Word of God.

You can destroy people's confidence that God's Word speaks with clarity to the issues of salvation. That we can go into it and debate these issues. And in its place, want to present a false religion like Rome, that puts you on the treadmill of indulgences and penances and a false gospel.

That's evil. That's just wrong. Especially when you use it and you're doing it with such bad argumentation.