April 12, 2005

I'm casting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight, seven. Seven seven five three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Opening Banter and Listener Call-In Setup

Well, good morning or afternoon, wherever it is, wherever you are. I'm just sitting here reading more interesting Stuff on the web here. I hate when people throw URLs up right as I'm getting started Because then I it's like I have to I have to click on it and then I've ever tried like reading something and Talking all at the same time.

It's Something that professional radio announcers learn to do and I was one but I never got overly good at it. Especially someone starts talking to you and your headphones. I'm sorry, but the natural human thing to do is to go.

Yeah, you know what? You can see that whenever they thanks Gary, you know, I Was I want to meet Gary someday I really do because Gary sounds like he's somewhat of a cross between Archie bunker and What other people do we know of who are just constantly politically incorrect and and You know, they just open their mouth and say the first thing it comes out, you know something along those lines I have to think about who else that might be but I don't watch enough TV anymore to really Know one way or the other.

Anyways, we have any way I'm sorry we have open lines. We have open lines today, I love that cough button I did that just For Gary and the second one was just for Gary too. Anyway We have open lines and we have a lot of folks calling with questions About Roman Catholicism, but I want to make sure That everyone understands that I I definitely want To make sure that we have enough open lines for particular individuals for for folks Who need to be calling in because we we need to talk Doug see from Houston, you know Couldn't call on Thursday, but that sounded like he could call on the previous Tuesday.

And so I've I Hope Doug knows he can call in and we can talk about. You know what? He what he said. He said he now wants to debate John six, but that wasn't what he was talking about initially and There's there's just so many folks GSEC and Catholic dude and all these folks on These Catholic web boards.

I would sort of think if you're gonna type it and you're gonna post it someplace that maybe what that means is you actually believe it and then that would mean that you would then want to defend it and So who else?

But but but me Would say to you hey Our audience is listening 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number and There you go, you can call in and if you really believe all this nastiness that you post About how stupid I am how often I misrepresent Roman Catholic theology.

That's what I'd especially like to hear is the constant guys always misrepresenting us and lying about us. I would you know, here's your chance in front of everybody to to demonstrate Where I've done that, I mean, I'm sure you've read my books and I'm sure you've listened to the debate.

It's hard to say the straight straight face because the fact matter is these folks never have that's that's the whole point of this whole Thing is that they don't listen and they don't read and they just go on second and third hand rumors and just repeat stuff.

It's called rumor-mongering. It's a bad thing and we're trying to help people understand. It's a bad thing. Anyway, it's 877 7 5 3 3 3 4. See, we ain't gonna. Yeah. I know that we ain't gonna we ain't gonna get to Say I I guess they're not gonna be calling today.

I This must be the time I guess If you're a Roman Catholic Tuesday Tuesday mornings and Thursday evenings are just are just bad. It's just just wrong time anyway one last time though 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 there's There's a number you can you can give us a call.

All right, so let's we do have plenty of callers. Just I don't get the feeling that any of them are none of them have identified themselves as Catholic dude or Doug see they gave up the dividing line for Lent.

Excuse me, but Lent Lent's over even extended Lent wouldn't Wouldn't go there. That would that would not be a not be a good thing. Let's talk to Steven down in Georgia. Hi Steven. Dr. White, how are you?

Well, I was doing just fine until I opened my mouth and I started coughing.

So now I sound terrible. But anyway, what's up? I didn't expect to be first out of the gate today.

Well, you first come first serve.

You know watching all the All the events surrounding the death of John Paul and all the commentators on television radio, etc I've just been listening to how many people are saying and not even Roman Catholics are referring to the office of the Pope as Descendant from Peter as ancient.

They even had a friend at work who was saying isn't it great to see all these world leaders honoring the head of Christianity. What do you mean the head of Christianity. Now. This fellow's a Protestant if well.

And in in name, yes. But that's how.

He stopped protesting a long time ago. Oh.

Yeah, that's obvious but but it just shows how our Youth now is really starting to get back toward the way some of us use these terms that tends to legitimize these ideas of antiquity and Succession and things and what really it had been bouncing around in my head.

But what really spurred me to call was listening to a show on the body line shows a few days ago When you were talking with Ben from California, okay, and he was talking about the early writers, right and in particular you had mentioned Gregory the Great right.

And When you said that you you referred to Pope Gregory. Yeah now am I Incorrect in that. I thought that the first like official uses of that term by 800 a thousand so the 1 ,000 80. Now what Gregory have ever referred to himself as Pope or what a contemporary of Gregory has had.

What have they called him that?

Well, yeah, see initially actually you can the the deacons of Rome referred to Cyprian With the term Papa, so that's that's only the middle of the third century now that interestingly enough wasn't Limited just the Bishop of Rome.

It is the limitation of that term to the Bishop of Rome That is a later development, but people within the Church of Rome would have used That term of their bishop much earlier than a thousand or anything like that.

I I don't know the exact day the first use of Papa of the Bishop of Rome by someone in Rome, but like I said if Cyprian if it's if it's used by approximately 250 then That that gives you some idea of how early that is in fact Galatians in 495 uses Vicar of Christ for himself it is the Limitation and consolidation of those terms to where they're only to be used of the Bishop of Rome It takes a tremendous amount of time even even Gregory as I recall.

I'm just doing this off top my head, but Gregory as I recall When he wrote against the patriarch in Constantinople Byzantium back then He ripped into him for Calling himself Bishop of Bishops, which of course becomes a phrase.

It's used the Bishop of Rome later on so That that's the problem with a lot of these resources that you find that have all of these Dates listed out This is the first time this happened, or this is when this happened the vast majority of this stuff is is a fairly long Process it is not something that the church wakes up one morning says oh, we're going to do this.

It's something that develops over time and It's very difficult then to try to Put it at one particular point.

Yeah, go ahead. So. The development of the tool as meaning the Roman Catholic Church. Would that have occurred. It will obviously would have to have occurred after the split with the East. Well not only well.

Again the term Roman Catholic Church there are Roman Catholics who object to even that terminology interestingly enough even though I've heard it being used a lot lately by Roman Catholics, but That's just one of the double standards, but that would not be a term that would have been understandable.

For quite some time I mean Augustine would have never understood what Roman Catholic meant. I mean, that's actually a bit of an oxymoron given the concept of the idea of universality being limited to a particular place and so.

You know that that whole issue again Becomes very very technical because what do you mean by head of the Roman Catholic Church? Yes in the sense of the modern view of the Pope as the head of the church.

That's the mother of all other churches. That would be something that was developing. That's one of the reasons East and West split was the the conflict between the patriarch and the Patriarchs in the East and the single patriarch ie the Pope in the West that's one of the main things I mean when you look at Roman Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy, and you look at their their form of church government.

In the West it's monarchical and in the East you have much discussion of collegiality of the sharing of authority amongst the the great Patriarchs of the Apostolic Seas well where that come from. Well if you look at a map.

And you draw a line down a middle of a map of of the early church. In the first number of centuries you'll see that in the East you have a number of different Apostolic Seas. Antioch eventually Byzantium Jerusalem Alexandria and so they all had claims to apostolic authority.

In the West you had one and that was Rome that was it.

No, that's because of the politics of the time wasn't it. Well.

It's also a simple geographical thing you had a split in language. Especially that it began fairly early for the West is writing in Latin the East is writing in Greek. They're just there's just a lot of different character differences between them, but there was also also due to politics especially once The Roman Empire fell and the the Bishop of Rome basically ended up taking over the functions of The of the Emperor in Rome especially when again things got really bad.

But much more of the Empire remained in the East until of course the the Muslim expansion that took place there. So yeah, there's all sorts of historical things, but each one of those Historical events led to further development of these particular concepts over time and and many times.

And this is where Roman Catholic apologists Roman Catholic laypeople especially make a very very common error. They will read an Early church writer. They'll read Augustine for example, and they will read him with modern eyes.

They will look at him and they'll they they will ignore the context that he was in. They will ignore the meaning of his words in the context which they're written. And they will read them in light of later developments now.

That's difficult for anyone not to do, but it's especially Problematic when you're trying to say that what your beliefs are are being reflected by Augustine. And so Augustine for example, and I don't have time to go into say because our lines are completely full.

But but the various controversies that he engaged in and especially the Donatus controversy led to a doctrine of the church. That over time would develop into modern Roman Catholicism. There's no question about that.

But to say that he intended that or that he believed those those later Developments is where the problem comes in that's where people like Dave Hutton have just falling off falling off the train because they don't read the historical figures in that way and The ironic thing is I'm always accused of not reading the historical figures that way when I I've done that for years and years.

All of these things that the development of the papacy. Especially if you've had a chance to listen to the debate with Mitchell Pacquiao with Jerry Adetix. You know, these are. These are issues that we can go into.

The early church fathers and we can argue directly from the early church fathers. It's just it's not that the information isn't there. It's just that the best books on the subject are normally out of print.

They're in libraries and this isn't the stuff that sadly most quote-unquote Evangelical publishers want to be putting out.

One problem with with those that I've had. I've listened to the Pacwa debate over and over. It's a really excellent series that you that you have done in these debates and when the early writers are referenced.

It's hard to go and find The some kind of original source document on it. Say, you know, I ran a Justin Martyr. You know those are all mine, yeah, I go and for instance, um, I looked up the references to John Chrysostom in regards to Matthew 1618 right and I had to.

I went actually I went to the Vatican site linked over to church fathers. Went down to him and just by you know time searched through his sermons until I found it. Right, so there's there's nothing. I can't find anything out there.

That's a really good source that says, you know, go here to this document to this right.

Well, look this up. There's there's a couple things there. First of all, yeah Searching online can be a little bit difficult if you don't know exactly what you're what you're looking for. And if you don't on dial-up I won't mock you for that.

But But yeah, especially if you're on dial-up. But obviously like the ages library CD-ROMs when I'm looking for something in Calvin I'm looking for something in Spurgeon. I open up those index files and my that's that's a wonderful wonderful thing.

That's much faster the libraronics search engine and the and the things are available for that all the early church fathers at least and Keep this in mind. The the 38 volume Erdman set is not only over a hundred years old.

But it's also extremely incomplete. There's new stuff coming out all the time and it's it's coming out in volumes that are extremely expensive. I mean, there's a couple times I've purchased some brand-new volumes of Augustin in preparation for a debate and sometimes they're 80 90 over a hundred dollars sometimes up to $150 just for a single volume and so.

Those are not yet available Electronically and won't be for a while and therefore sometimes things that are cited are are Admittedly difficult to find sometimes I have the TLG CD-ROM. It's in Greek sometimes I'll cite something and I translate it myself.

It's not available in English yet. There's there's still early church writings that haven't even been translated into English yet. So Mainly because there just isn't it's it's a matter of money I mean if people were clamoring for this stuff, then it would be you know, it'd be there but who is you know?

Pretty much nobody so. That's one of the things keep in mind as well there's still much more of those writings that we we possess, but they have not yet appeared in English and That's another reason why it's it's somewhat problematic to claim You know the universal viewpoints of early church writers when we don't even you can't do that.

There there may be a whole sermon someplace where where John Chris system Directly contradicts the reading that someone has had of him, you know, you just don't know. That's why those things can never become your final authority and when they do really you're becoming the final authority of that particular.

Right. That's why I always try to keep my discussions just limited to the Bible and I don't use. Often just because of that. They're not as authoritative.

Authoritative but I mean certainly if you're debating what the early church believed. That's what you that's what you have to be dealing and you can do it that way. You really you really can't do it. Hey, honestly, I see an entire board full of blinking lights looking at me.

Hey, so, thank you very much. Thank you very much for calling in today. God bless you. Let's go to. Well, I won't say where because there's so few Christians there. Let's talk to Jeff. Hi Jeff. How you doing?

I.

Could understand you're getting your druthers up in the last couple weeks because myself I I've been involved with Jewish evangelism for a long long time. Uh-huh, and in Besides adding faith or works to faith This previous Pope has I think also abandoned the gospel by basically saying non-believers I could quite possibly be saved by Christ.

Oh, there's there's no question that he did. Yes. Yeah, and yeah, he's done that and my guess I guess my question would be for you. Or if you could pick the mind of the more conservative Catholics would be.

That is so to me clearly not just against biblical principles but there's no way say, you know unum sanctum or Trentine popes or pretty much all previous popes would have ever said anything like that.

And I was wondering how they reconcile people and fallibility because I think this made it into the catechism right. How they reconcile people? infallibility with those comments.

Well keep in mind that the next debate that we have with a Roman Catholic is June 9th on Long Island. Which isn't too far from you there? Relatively speaking even. But unless you get on the Garden State Parkway, which is more like the Garden State parking lot then you then you'd never get there, but.

Long Isle, I'm in the godly part of South Jersey, and I really don't like going to Long Island.

If you have to take a bath and you get back or something like that, but I'm just getting through New York City I believe me. I fully understand. I've driven it myself, but The next debate against a Catholic apologist by the name of Bill Rutland.

He's defending the thesis that non Christians can enter into heaven and that's based upon those very sections of the catechism that you're just making reference to and so I I I think I if you're familiar with the massive amount of discussion and debate going on between Traditionalists and you're more still conservative, but not traditionalist Roman Catholics.

You know that they're having debates between each other. I mean, it's funny to see people that I have debated now debating each other over Issues related to the nature of the new mass and the papacy and and all these issues because as Anyone can see I think it is is purely fallacious on the part of mainstream Catholic apologists to try to say that what the church meant at the Council of Florence or what the church meant at Trent or What the papal syllabus of errors is talking about or what the Boniface meant was not Exactly what they said that is they said there is no salvation outside the church extraclesium Noah's Solace.

And they meant they defined the church very clearly there and they defined who they meant Jews schismatics and heretics Will not inherit the kingdom of God so to try to Redefine that in light of the the rise of inclusivism and inclusivistic theology within the magisterium.

I'm sorry. It just doesn't work. And that's what I have meant when I have said that what happens if not maybe not the next Pope but the Pope after that he Goes ahead and and makes in Doctrinally and dogmatically acceptable the concepts that John Paul enunciated in his sermons.

He takes it to the next level he he Accepts that this is the mind of the magisterium, and I would argue the majority of Catholic theologians in the world Would take an inclusivistic viewpoint these days and if if that then becomes the the the papal interpretation What do they do then?

They're stuck. I mean they they now have Such a clear contradiction between the historical meaning of words. And their their current position that it will not be possible for Roman Catholics to do apologetics.

But then again once you're an inclusivist who cares I mean seriously once you're an inclusivist. Is there any reason to do apologetics? I mean if if if everybody gets to go to heaven except those who've explicitly rejected Christ.

We all need to keep our mouths shut anyways you know in essence, so Right now at that is a major area of struggle, and that's why you see you see schismatics. And you see people saying you know set a vacancy saying there is no valid Pope right now because they're they're standing against tradition and So on and so forth so it is a big area.

And it's something we it's it's sort of we're sort of watching the Roman Catholic Church in the same way. We're watching the Mormon Church Which direction are they going to go the next 20 years are going to really Answer those questions I think and they're going to indicate the direction that that they are going to go and that's going to then determine The the direction that we go in responding to them.

Yeah, I agree.

And that's why I would say that you can't really hold that view. You can hold that view but infallibility sort of goes out the window.

Functionally yeah, I mean, but but but let's let's be honest for the how many Roman Catholics today worshipping Roman Catholics believing Roman Catholics Actually believe in infallibility anyways in any meaningful fashion I mean if you ask them to defer a little very few.

I mean if you ask them to define a An infallibly defined dogma. What are they going to say? I mean, they don't they just stare at you with this blank look because it may be taught But that doesn't mean that it actually has any any real meaning for them.

So, you know, can they live with that? Yeah. Especially for the given the fact the vast majority of Roman Catholics or Roman Catholics because that's their cultural Bent to be Roman Catholics and it's not a matter of actual Actual personal faith.

So that's a that probably runs into it.

The Development of the Papacy and Roman Catholic Terminology

You have any contact with like the hardcore traditionalist like say hey, you know, like, you know, maybe you should become Protestant or well, you know the.

That's an interesting question and What I'm gonna do here is I'm gonna answer that then we're gonna if it's if the guy next door can do it I want to take a break because line six is gonna be a long answer and so I don't want to get into it stopping and continue on but Here's the here's the the quandary I'm up against at this particular point in time that is for example there is a a traditionalist who is a volunteer or a part of a traditionalist apostolate.

Quote-unquote. Who has responded to some comments that I made in my book on justification now? It's not that these are overly challenging comments. It's not that they're overly difficult comments to respond to but the the problem is a lot of these real small apostolates, especially the traditionalist type they only exist when people will pay attention to them and so if I invest the time to respond to this particular individual Not only do they want me to do that.

That's their bread and butter. That's that's how they prove to their very few followers that they're very dependent upon that they're doing something wonderful and great. Um, but not only that any time I spend and invest in responding to them The mainline Roman Catholic folks will say big deal.

They're they're not they don't represent us. Anyways, they're off on their own there. They're out denying the you know the Authority of the current Pope or whoever the next Pope is and so on and so forth.

So who cares so I haven't responded and the reason I haven't responded is a I don't want to help them stay in existence and be. If I do invest that time the others are gonna say that's irrelevant to what we're actually talking about.

So I was just looking at a blog today of one of the biggest mainline Catholic apologists and he makes some comments Soteriologically speaking that I I wanted to respond to and I would figure that Investing that time and that is significantly better than the others.

But no those guys those guys don't you know, at least with the traditionalist. Yeah, it's a matter of truth error. So on so forth, but there also tends to be quite honestly a level of fanaticism there.

That's that makes meaningful Meaningful dialogue and conversation pretty difficult. No, no two ways about it. At least they're consistent. Yeah, that's for sure. Hey, thanks for calm. All right. Thanks.

All right. God bless eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we we now have a couple lines open for all of our For Doug C and GSE seeing Catholic dude, I was about to say Calvin dude, but he's on our side.

All those all those folks who have just been so quick to To be ready with a word of discouragement. Now's your time eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We're gonna take a break here at the bottom of the hour and then we'll be back with the your calls.

We'll be right back.

Justification by Faith and the Meaning of Hebrews 11

Try to save your soul from death. It's all works righteousness, you know.

The unspoiled land of nature and immensity both in its realities and its possibilities. Alaska can stir our hearts and minds like no other place on earth. Join us this summer for the 2005 Alfred Omega Ministries Alaskan cruise as we cruise the inside passage to the great land of Alaska with dr James White and Christian recording artist Steve camp as they explore the great doctrine of solo scriptura.

For our guests the journey north is an odyssey of glorious landscapes and majestic Wildlife as we sail on the luxury five-star Sun Princess by towering glaciers into some of the most remarkable points on earth.

All this and a price is beginning at six hundred twenty four dollars per person plus port taxes and fees. Half the price of other offerings to Alaska with other groups. Contact us today at a omen org or at eight seven seven SOV cruise.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God. James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

In a readable and responsible style author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a Omen org. 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 a omen org.

And welcome back to the dividing line. We are taking your phone calls today at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We have invited Doug C and Catholic dude and all those guys, but they are just so busy with with.

Well, they're just busy. Okay, yeah, they're on the way to Rome for the conclave. They're gonna be they are leading candidates for the. For the next yeah, right. Mm-hmm. Anyway, it's Seven seven five three three three four one.

Let's go to the uber special line and talk with Brett. Hi Brett.

Hey, dr. White. How you doing? I'm doing okay. Okay. Yes, sir. Um, well, the question is the same one is last week. It's on Hebrews chapter 11 verse 8 which speaks of Abraham's faith. Yeah, and I know in your book the God who justifies you've got a section on that and you.

And your argument is that he was actually justified in Genesis 15. And so that's explore and therefore it's a saving faith. Can you just can you go a little further on what? Hebrews on why I can't be the case that he had saving faith.

Well.

You know if if he had saving faith in Genesis 12, then that's when he would be justified and Paul's entire argument Concerning the chronological relationship of faith and law and works would collapse in Romans 4.

So the the when I look at Romans chapter 11, I asked myself the question is this a discussion as Paul is offering of The what we would call something that's relevant to the Ordo salutis something that is going to specifically have that kind of Chronological connection is that what is even being discussed here is how Abraham in Hebrews 11 was made right before God and the answer is no it these are this is a description of What people did on the basis of faith and I I think we're importing an issue into Hebrews 11 that is not the point of of the apologetic argument of of Whoever the author might be Paul Translated by Luke whatever.

And that's where we come into the problem is that with when we try to make Hebrews 11 a corollary to on the same plane as discussing the same subject as Romans chapter 4 there's there's no way to fit the two together.

You just you just can't do so and when you look at The fact that and I think this is something that Paul was was trying to point out the first Use of the term believe in the Old Testament is Genesis 15.

So whatever is being discussed in in Hebrews 11 is not the same thing as being discussed in Romans 4 and what is being discussed? In in Hebrews 11 is what people do For example in the very next verse says by faith.

He became a sojourner in the land of promise. Well that we're talking here about obedience. We're not we're not talking about The the faith that is being discussed there. We're talking about it about what faith does and how it acts and when you look at Sarah I mean, it's it's pretty difficult to to read the Genesis narrative and Come up with the concept of a Saving faith model when you say by faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed, you know I I I don't see that I see by obedience I see by acceptance of The existence and and power of God, but I don't see that going in the direction and when you go all the way through Hebrews 11 it it very much follows very very much along the same lines in Talking about the nature of faith By faith Isaac blessed Jacob at Esau verse 20.

Well, that's not the first time Isaac believed Very clearly that's this is something later on in life. This is application. So I think it's the the mixture of what you have in Romans 4 which clearly Paul in verse 9 says now when did he do this?

What let time frame time frame time frame? He brings that at that point. That's not a part of Hebrews 11. He's talking about character. He's talking about obedience and I don't see how the how the two can be put together because they're not talking about the same things.

They may use the term faith, but let's let's face it. There's a number of different Utilizations of a lot of those words faith grace. All of those terms can have a very different meaning depending upon the context in which they are being they're being applied so that's That is one of the the debates.

I know people who would disagree, but I honestly think that's that it's impossible to come up with a Meaningful exegesis or understanding of Paul's argument in Romans 4 without the temporal element and I don't think that the temporal element is is brought out in Hebrews at all in regards to even trying to discuss the subject of the relationship between Faith justification works law just completely different context similar to some of the issues that have to come up in looking at James chapter 2 and what the actual purpose of the writer is that particular point-in-time.

In in Romans chapter 4 Could you not read it as the argument going when was it credited because I know is I know there's a difference between separate Justification from the imputation of Christ. It seems like he says that there's for him being credited.

You know, he's got the Genesis 15 6 but then again in verse 22 in Romans 4 it's speaking of a later point in time. It says it was credited to him as righteousness that faith then do you know? And now I've listened to dr See what his argument was.

Well, and then in the first, you know instance of his faith. There's all the following instances of Acorn in the tree example. And he says the God can look at any point on that tree and say that kind that faith right there I credit that faith is right.

Can you say something about how it is? Periods of time. Well, I didn't hear three. I only heard two. I'm referring to James chapter. Oh I see. Yeah, I.

Obviously do not agree that James chapter 2 is addressing the same issue that Paul is in Romans chapter 4. I rather fully explicated that in in the chapter on James chapter 2 so and I and I don't agree and I'm.

I read just yesterday the Citation from Dr. Piper's ministry and I noted the date on it was 1985 and I even made a comment in our channel that I. I wonder especially in light of the controversies that have developed since then if There isn't a forthcoming amendation or something of the statement on the Desiring God website that utilizes that terminology.

In fact, I think I might. Mmm, you see if I still have that hiding someplace here. I there is a specific Citation. Yeah, there it is. Let me pull it up here. If I don't knock us off the Broadcast in the process.

There is a specific citation that really Concerned me and it was in that same section. Where? What you were just citing from or at least something in relationship to that. And I was going for the one from 85.

I actually have the other lecture he gave and it was that. Is that the same time period?

Yes, it was what he's done to of the you know to and one of them we did back and I think 85.