Review of Debate on Sola Scriptura & Comments on SDA Doctrine Investigative Judgement

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

Your 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.

And now, with today's topic, here is James White. And well, I'm hoping that we're on the air now,

I don't know, hard to say. I'm just going to go ahead and assume this is the beginning of the program, and it just started eight minutes late.

How does that sound? We'll go with it from that perspective. Welcome to the program. This afternoon what

I'd like to do is give you a brief rundown on what took place this past Monday evening in the debate with Mitchell Pacwa, and then

I have some interesting discussions, I hope, in regards to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh -day

Adventists and modern eschatological wackiness. Yes, I did use the term eschatological.

I actually may address, just briefly and without much of a commitment one way or the other, some issues of eschatology, and some of you who know me are fainting right now.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give that shock to your system, but it has come up in some of the reading that I've been doing, so maybe we'll go ahead and address some of that.

I don't know. If you are new to the program, then maybe you're not aware of the fact that I never discuss eschatology.

But there are certain books that are really popular today that I would like to maybe talk about a little bit.

Anyhow, Monday night was a wonderful experience at New Life Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Diego.

We there had a debate with Mitchell Pacwa on the subject of Sola Scriptura, and I was looking forward to it because of the fact that up until this point in time

I have not had the opportunity of debating Sola Scriptura against a meaningful

Roman Catholic opponent who did not engage in what I call cheap debating tricks.

In fact, the very first debate I ever did was on Sola Scriptura. It was against Jerry Matatix in August of 1990.

In the first 14 minutes of his 20 -minute opening statement, he never even mentioned Sola Scriptura. He engaged in some pretty strange behavior in that debate.

He lied about books, the book that I had written at that time, The Fatal Flaw. And so each time,

Mr. Matatix and I have debated three times on Sola Scriptura. The last time we debated was about the closest I've come to having a debate with someone on the subject of Sola Scriptura, and it actually went well.

It was pretty much just the subject. It wasn't he and I. It wasn't trying to hide the issues.

In other words, it actually focused on the topic. That's the closest we've come. I've debated others.

Many of you have heard the debate that we had with Tim Staples on the subject of Sola Scriptura.

And there have been others that we've debated on this issue. Patrick Madrid in San Diego as well have actually done a number of debates, now four debates in San Diego.

So I was looking forward to this because I knew that Mitch Paco would not engage in what we would call cheap debating tricks, that he would stick with the subject, that he would stick with the issue, and that's exactly what did happen.

We designed a little bit of an interesting format for the debate itself.

We did not do as we've done, well, as every other Sola Scriptura debate that I've done, where you start off and you have a 20, 25, 30, sometimes getting even longer.

I think one debate I did in 1999 had 40 -minute opening statements, which just is,

I mean, that's like listening to a sermon from both sides before you even get started, before you even have the opportunity of having any interaction.

It's just not easy on an audience at all. So instead of doing that, we sort of followed a similar format to the format that I used with Robert St.

Genes on papal infallibility back in early October.

And yes, I know there are some of you going, boy, we sure would like to hear that debate. Well, believe me, so would

I, but we haven't gotten the tapes yet. And we keep contacting folks and saying we need the tapes, we need the tapes, and hopefully they'll be sent out this week so we can make them available to folks and get that debate online.

And interestingly enough, the debate with Mitchell Pack was already ready because we did the taping.

We did the videotaping of it, a three -camera shoot, and that means we have the audio available. All that is already on the website as far as being able to order the videotape and the audiotape right now if you want to be able to get hold of that.

So anyways, we designed a format where we each had four -minute opening statements.

And you say, how can you say anything in four minutes? Well, it was just to introduce why we believe this subject is so important.

Then each one of us had a 12 -minute presentation period, followed by a five -minute rebuttal, and then eight minutes where for eight minutes

Mitch Pack would ask me questions, for eight minutes I asked him questions, so 16 minutes of cross -examination, followed by a break, and then we did a second round where we had 10 -minute opening statements, rebuttals, more cross -examination, another period of rebuttal, and then 10 -minute closing statements.

And so it didn't add up to quite as long as some of the other debates that we've done.

It was only about two and a half hours instead of 315 as we've gotten used to. But there was much more interaction, and we had much more opportunity to dialogue with one another not only in cross -examination, but since there was rebuttals and then another rebuttal and then another rebuttal, there was more give and take.

You weren't just listening to one person droning on and on and on about a particular subject, and I think that's the best way to handle these things in the future as well.

Now Mitch Pack, as anybody knows, is a really nice guy, and we had some humorous interaction during the course of the debate, some humorous interaction about the fact that I can wear very pretty ties and he as a

Jesuit priest cannot. We also had a little bit of fun when he wanted to act like he was going to show a picture of himself sitting in Moses' seat, and I made a comment about how

I shouldn't mention anything about showing pictures of the grandkids. It probably wouldn't fit in this situation, he being a priest, of course.

And there were some good laughs, and one thing I have noticed, and that is as I think about the venues and the debates we've done where there has been the most rancor, the most stuff with the audience getting involved, the two debates at Fullerton which were put on by Roman Catholics and a majority

Catholic audience, by far take the cake on that. Here we were in a Protestant setting, and even though, and people weren't quite sure, we didn't ask people to put up their hands or anything, but we would estimate that at least half the audience was

Roman Catholic. And this is only what, a two -hour drive from Fullerton, so it's not like it was in a different part of the country or something.

We'd say about half the audience was Roman Catholic, maybe a little bit more. Actually I think even though we were in a Protestant church,

I actually think that more than half of the audience was Roman Catholic.

And yet, despite that, since it was the Protestants who put it on in a Protestant venue, there was no yelling from the audience, there was no rancor, there was none of that.

And all those situations where there have been the worst forms of rancor were in situations where the

Roman Catholics had put it on, the Roman Catholics were in the majority, and it was in their back court, in essence, and the result has always been the same.

I've found that to be very, very interesting indeed, but be that as it may, what about the subject?

Well, it was a difficult debate on one level, and that is,

I am accustomed to dealing with the people who believe, like Carl Keating, and individuals like Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid, and the refreshing thing, and in fact

I think the thing that's probably going to provide, make this so useful in the future, is that Mitchell Pacwa was unwilling to use the very arguments, the very arguments that Roman Catholic apologists have used for, well, decades now, at least in the modern era, people like Carl Keating, because he recognized they're invalid.

And in fact, I'm going to suggest to Rich Pierce that we make an offering where we put the

Staples debate on Sola Scriptura together with the Pacwa debate on Sola Scriptura.

Just like I think we should put the St. Genes debate on papal infallibility together with the

Staples debate on papal infallibility. The reason is, the contrast between the good debates, where the

Roman Catholic apologist is just as calm, and prepared, and focused, is just heightened when you listen to Tim Staples making these outrageous claims.

And then the amazing thing is, you pick up the St. Joseph's communications catalogue, and you'll find

Scott Hahn, and Tim Staples, and even Mitch Pacwa stuff all being offered by the same people.

And what was even more interesting is that Mitch Pacwa recognized that there are bad arguments being used by people today.

I failed to bring my palm pile with me, I would have been able to read you some of the quotes that I had, but one of the things that I did is

I started off with a quotation that I've used in almost every single one of my

Sola Scriptura debates. And it's from a very popular Roman Catholic book by John O 'Brien, and in it he specifically says that reason and experience tell us that the

Bible is neither a safe nor competent guide as to what we are to believe.

And so I start off asking, what's your viewpoint of this, Father Pacwa? Do you agree with John O 'Brien on this?

And later, when he came up, evidently he didn't recognize the name, and he said, no,

I don't agree with that, we should never say that kind of thing. We should never say the Bible is an incompetent guide as to what we are to believe.

And yet every single one of my other opponents agreed with that statement, or kept silent about it, wouldn't say anything about it at all, because in reality they did agree with it, but they didn't want to state it in those words, which

I found most interesting. I have been reminded that maybe some of you would like to ask questions about the debate on Monday night, or other issues related to that.

And you may be out of the Phoenix dialing area, and if you are, you can call toll -free.

I want to repeat that, toll -free. That means when you get your phone bill at the end of the month, there will not be a humongaloid charge that says

Alpha Omega Ministries on it, and the number is 866. Yes, that's a toll -free extension. You probably are aware of the fact that I had to come up with not only 800, but 888, and now 866.

866 -550 -1315. 866. That's wrong.

I caught him. He can't type worth anything. It's 866 -550 -3915. 866 -550 -3915 is the number to call to be on the air, or if you're in the

Phoenix dialing area, 602 -973 -4602. 602 -973 -4602 are the numbers for you to get on the air if you'd like to talk about the issues that we'll be raising today on the dividing line.

866 -550 -3915, or 602 -973 -4602.

So, as I was saying at one point during the debate also,

I was talking about what Sola Scriptura is not, what it is commonly misrepresented as being in Roman Catholic materials, and one of the things

I said was, you know, Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive compendium of every bit of religious knowledge that could ever be had.

The illustration I've used over and over again is that you do not need to know the eye color of each of the apostles.

You do not need to know what the dinner menu was at every apostolic meal, and that is an illustration of the fact that Roman Catholics are in error when they cite from John 21 and the statement of the

Gospel of John that if everything that Jesus said and did had been written down, that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, so on and so forth.

Carl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, quotes from John 21 and he applies that and says, see, this denies

Sola Scriptura. This denies Sola Scriptura because it specifically says that we don't have everything

Jesus said. And I may have mentioned this is an improper application, this is not a proper verse to cite a

Sola Scriptura, and Mitch Packer got up right after I said that and started his presentation by saying, well,

I'm glad I didn't quote John 21 in my presentation, and he never did, because he knows that that is not a valid argument against Sola Scriptura.

He recognizes what Sola Scriptura actually is and attempts to respond to that very differently than Patrick Madrid or Tim Staples or Carl Keating or these many others, and so that's very valuable along those lines.

He also admitted a number of things in the debate. He said the

Church does not create the canon. The Church does not create the canon.

That has been the main argument of Roman Catholic apologists for all the debates we've gone through.

They want to throw out the canon issue, throw out the canon issue, and yes, he certainly believes that the canon issue is relevant to Sola Scriptura, but not in the way that Roman Catholic apologists in the other debates have attempted to say, because he says, hey, wait a minute, the

Scriptures are God -breathed, the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant. I mean, I just about wanted to faint, and I didn't get a chance to bring it up in the cross -examination, but I wanted him to say that he is in the vast minority of Jesuit priests in our nation today that believe the

Bible is inerrant, to actually use that term. That is a vast minority position, and that just blew me away.

But he admitted all those things, said that the Church receives the canon from the Holy Spirit, as Augustine said, and is not the one who determines it, but proclaims it, which is a different viewpoint than many of those that we take on in debates.

Then I asked him during the cross -examination, has the Roman Catholic Church defined any statement of the

Lord Jesus or any statement of the Apostles infallibly?

That is, has Rome infallibly made a statement that says, Jesus said

X, or the Apostle Paul said Y, and these statements are not found in Scripture?

And he honestly thought for a moment and said, no, no, I can't think of anywhere where the

Church has defined infallibly a statement from Jesus or the

Apostles, the actual words that are not found in Scripture. So I said, so you would agree that the only certain place that we know of where the inspired words of Jesus or the inspired words of the

Apostles are found is in Scripture? And he agreed. Now later on, he said, now we may not have the words of the

Apostles in the tradition, but we have the sense of the

Apostles in the tradition. And I think there were a number of Roman Catholic apologists, people with Catholic answers, even though people like Carl Keating, James Aiken, to my knowledge, were not there.

Scott Butler did show up. But I know that there were people in that audience absolutely gritting their teeth in light of the things that he was saying.

And I know of at least one Catholic apologist who specifically has attempted to get

Father Pacwa to not debate. Why? Because he's too honest.

He's too honest. He says the three words that no other

Catholic apologist will say. I don't know.

I don't know. I haven't read that. I don't know. I'm not going to try to give you an answer on something that I don't know.

And I have so appreciated that. He said that in 1991. He did not answer a question.

He said, I don't know. And oh, how some of those Catholic apologists just go nuts when someone says something like that.

In this situation, I asked him, I asked him, well, you know, in light of your position about the

Apocrypha and the canon of Scripture, so on and so forth, what do you do with Pope Gregory the

Great, who rejected the Apocryphal books as being canon of Scripture?

He said, you know what? My knowledge of church history pretty much goes up to about 200

A .D., because I'm pretty much an Old Testament scholar guy, and I didn't know that Gregory held that view.

I've not ever heard that before. So I don't know. Now, if you listen to the tapes, at that point,

I have a choice. And if Mitch Pacwa acted like Tim Staples, I'd be very honest.

I would have pressed that and pressed that and pressed that. But he doesn't.

And so when someone says, I don't know, I said, OK, I appreciate your honesty about that.

Let's go on to another subject, and we went on to another issue. Didn't press it, didn't try to drive it home. I had presented in my material, in my presentation, what

Gregory had said. And there's another thing, and Rich Pierce pointed it out to me. One of the camera angles that we have on the videotape, and I think you might enjoy watching this more as a videotape than just listening to it and on audio.

Not because of what I look like, because that might actually be a mark against it, but the interaction between myself and Pacwa is very interesting to watch.

And one of the things that was interesting was one of the camera angles, as I'm speaking at the podium, you can see

Mitch behind me very, very clearly. And I only once or twice or turned just a little bit that he was to my right.

So I turned a little bit to my right and sort of saw him a little bit back there as I would be scanning the audience or whatever. I didn't just turn around and stare at the guy.

But I noticed during the debate, and then it was clear in looking at the videos once we got back here to Phoenix, he listened intently to everything

I was saying. And you might say, well, what's so big about that?

I can't tell you how many debates I've been in where my opponent was either clearly not listening to anything

I was saying at all, or, even worse, left the platform while I was speaking.

Didn't even stay there. Scott Butler left the platform.

Robert and Janice left the platform in our debate at Boston College. Didn't even stick around.

They said they had to go use the little boy's room. Well, okay, I guess. Somehow Rob Zins and I managed to survive to the break.

Art Sipo went and got a Coke while I was making my presentation on justification by faith.

It was very obvious why it was. He didn't believe I had anything meaningful to say anyway. So it was really neat to debate someone who actually listened to what

I was saying, and it was very clear he was trying to understand why I believe what

I believe. And he was trying to ask questions of me during the cross -examination that was relevant to my position.

And when he didn't understand it, he asked. That's how debates are supposed to be done.

Those are the debates that are actually meaningful. And so I think you will find that the debate, as it is available now on the website, if you go to www .almin

.org, look at the... I'm not sure. I could probably bring it up here, but I'd be using dial -up to bring it up.

Anyways, I think it's on the main page. It's on the main page, Rich. The tapes, the tapes of the debate.

It's on the main page. You have to go to the Roman Catholic section. Yeah. Oh, the main page.

Thank you very much, sir. So go there. Get these. You might want to order some other tapes for contrast.

But people sometimes ask me, you know, I want to give a debate to a friend of mine, but, you know, they're really sensitive.

They're really... I don't want to give them anything that breathes fire. Well, this doesn't breathe fire.

This would be, in fact, all of the PACWA debates. In fact, I think, Rich, we should put together the

PACWA debate series. Right? The PACWA package. There you go.

Hey, perfect. The PACWA package. Say that three times real fast, and you'll be much more erudite than I am.

The PACWA package. And right now they're before... And by the way, and I'm not sure if even

Rich knew about this, but I got the feeling during one of the discussions, because I kept bringing up the bodily assumption, and as the most recent definition...

Oh, by the way, I was taken aback. And in fact, I need to correct something that I have said in the past.

I'm not sure if it's said on the radio or not. I assumed, I thought for sure that I had seen a article, an article, by Mitch PACWA supporting the definition of Mary as co -redemptrix, co -mediatrix, and advocate for the people of God.

I could, my memory must be going, and Rich keeps saying that it is, and it's become very selective and it's only focused on theological things now, not...

Amen. There, that's... Okay, watch it, watch it very much there.

Okay, now I've got to bring up my wave files now. Anyways, I thought for certain that I had heard, read an article, and in fact,

I even, and this is what makes it a little bit strange, is that I seem to recall the very context in which

I remembered reading that. But during the debate itself,

I asked him about that very issue, and he said, he said, no, that's not the case at all.

I am very much opposed to it, and I am opposed to it because it would, in some way, shape, or form, damage ecumenical dialogue with the

Eastern Orthodox. And he obviously has a real big place in his heart for the Eastern churches, and he goes over to Israel all the time, and yada, yada, yada.

So he was very much opposed to that. I thought for sure that he was in favor of it, but...

So we went to the bodily assumption of Mary as the most recent dogma defined on Mary, and after the debate, when we were talking, we,

I said to him, so I said, so I get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, there's a

Mary debate in the future between you and I, and he sort of got this grin because I just got the feeling that that was something that he would want to maybe address in the future.

And so I'm looking to possibly talk to some different venues.

We've already done a Mary debate on Long Island with Jerry Matatix, but I would very much like to do a debate on the dogmas of Mary with Mitch Pacwa, maybe limited only to the

Immaculate Conception bodily assumption, because these are two dogmas that have been defined only over the past two centuries.

I'm not sure how we'd work it out. I felt the debate we did with Matatix just went way too fast. Four topics in one debate is just not the way to do it.

I think it was a worthwhile debate, but it's just too difficult to follow. So I would love to get

Mitch to do a debate on Mary, because then we'd have the big issues. Justification, the

Mass, the Papacy, Sola Scriptura, and the Marian dogmas. That would be five debates with him on those subjects.

I think that would be a really neat thing to try to figure out and make available.

So anyways, that is available on the website, and if you want to give some debates to people that are not fire -breathers, they're not like the

Tim Staples debate on papal infallibility, maybe you're actually looking at giving some stuff for the holidays.

Yes, for the holidays! We do have folks who, believe it or not, are crazy enough to give debates and books and tapes and videos as gifts to their

Roman Catholic relatives. Yes, that's a certain way to make sure you're never invited back to Christmas dinner again.

If you're thinking about doing that, the ones that you would want to get would be any of those with Mitch Pacwan, because each one of those will be focused only on the subject.

There won't be any personal animosity expressed. And there are two more debates that fall into that category.

Those of you who have heard the Mass debate with Roberts and Jennis will probably be a little bit surprised at this, because that one is not one that would fall into the category of one lacking animosity.

But the two debates that Roberts and Jennis and I have done since then, in fact both this year come to think of it.

In fact, I was adding up the number of debates we did this year, and it came out to, let's see, one, two,

I think it was five or six. It was an incredible number that has taken, almost one every two months,

I think is what it worked out to during this particular year.

But you would want to add the other two categories. The calm, good debates that you'd want to add to that list would be with Roberts and Jennis on justification by faith.

That was in May of this year. And when we get them, the debates with Roberts and Jennis, the debate with Roberts and Jennis on papal infallibility that I self -moderated.

The moderator said, okay, guys, introduce yourselves, get started and sat down. So it was a self -moderated debate, and yet it worked out fine because we behaved and we behaved well.

So the four PACWA debates, the two St. Jennis debates, specifically justification by faith and papal infallibility, those would all be debates that you could hand to a person and recognize that both men shook hands afterwards.

They never insulted each other. They just stuck to the issues.

In other words, the who is irrelevant. The what is what comes through. So those are the ones that you'd want to put together to be able to do that.

And I see folks in the chat room that are complaining. They're actually complaining that I am mentioning things that you can get for Christmas, as if there's something wrong with that.

I think that's just sad. It just truly is. Well, anyways, I think it's time to take a break.

We've been on for about half an hour. The number again, toll -free, 866 -550 -3915.

866 -550 -3915 is the number to call.

Or if you're here locally, 602 -973 -4602. Let's take a break and we'll be right back.

I had some nice, pretty Christmas music all queued up there. And we ran it over with John Tesh.

There's a pretty Christmas song just laying there in the snow. It's been run over by a guy on a grand piano.

It's a sad thing to see. 866 -550 -3915. 866 -550 -3915.

Sort of wondering if anyone wishes to speak to me today. If you do, please feel free to give us a ring and I'll be glad to talk with you about, well, whatever it might be.

And that might include some of the issues that we've raised in regards to the debate with Mitch Packwood.

Maybe some of you were actually there. You'd like to discuss some of the issues that did not get talked about.

Give us a call, 866 -550 -3915. If you're in the chat room, the Phoenix dialing area, 602 -973 -4602.

Well, there's a report on the subject of the debate.

Now I'd like to go to a little bit of a different subject. I would like to read to you some statements.

In fact, I'd like to see, I'm going to be watching the chat room, and maybe somebody can call in if they'd like, but I would like to see who can first tell me what religious group produced the following words.

What religious group? I am reading from a representative of a particular religious group, and I'd like to find out if you all can figure out who it is.

I quote, someone may say, I thought that when

Christ forgave my sins, he took them clear away. Yes he did, so far as you are concerned.

He promises to make us as white as snow, but this does not mean that the sins are finally disposed of him.

He takes them from us, but the record is still there. We are free because we have accepted him as our substitute and sin bearer, but the record of sin is held in the sanctuary.

Someone else may say, but was not the death of Christ on the cross a complete atonement for sin?

We answer the question by asking another. In the earthly sanctuary, when the blood was brought and killed in the outer court by the altar, was the atonement completed by that act?

No, the blood had to be taken into the sanctuary and brought into contact with the broken law and the sins of the people.

There was a priestly work to be performed after the shedding of the blood.

We have an incorrect guess by CDS Panic that that's

Mormonism. No, it is not Mormonism. So I continue.

So when Christ died on the cross, he had fulfilled the type of the Lord's goat being slain, but the atonement could not be completed until the blood he had shed on the cross was offered before God and his broken law in the sanctuary.

Therefore the death of Christ on the cross was not the completion of the atonement.

It was a part of the work of the atonement, but the priestly work was all to follow. The offering of the blood before the law and before the throne had not yet taken place.

If the atonement was completed at the cross, then why did Jesus become a priest? What priestly work was there to do?

There would be none. The fact that Christ became a priest shows that there was a priestly service to be performed in the heavenly sanctuary in order to make the work of atonement effective and complete.

So far, ah, we found someone who has won the quiz.

Someone here in our own valley, in fact, recognized what the true answer is, but I'm not going to tell you yet.

The people in the chat room know. And a bunch of people are saying Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic.

It is not Roman Catholic. Let's give you the final section here that would absolutely put it away.

But we've already had someone who guessed the right answer here locally. Another may ask, why could not

Christ have immediately blotted out the sins of the people? Why wait until after 1844?

We reply, there must come first an investigation of the records. That is essential.

Here is a man who has accepted Christ. His sins have gone on before him into the sanctuary, but Christ cannot blot those sins out of the record until the man's life is finished, or until probation closes for him.

Why not? Because he may not continue in faith. And we are told in Ezekiel 33, 12 and 13, that if the righteous man turns away from his righteousness, all the righteousness that he has done shall not be remembered.

If he does not continue in faith, all his past sins will come back upon him again. Jesus does not plead before the throne of God in the final judgment for one who has died in sin.

He cannot plead his blood in behalf of one who, though once a Christian, refuses to continue in his grace.

Thus, he has not continued in his grace. Thus, before the Lord can blot out the sins from the record books, a very careful examination has to be made to see whether those who accepted

Christ have remained true. Be thou faithful unto death, says the scripture, and I will give thee a crown of life,

Revelation 2 .10. It is not the beginning of the race that gives assurance of the crown of life.

It is the successful finishing. Now, that is the section that precedes the next section of this book.

It's called In Defense of the Faith by W .H. Branson. It is a publication of the

Seventh -Day Adventists. And this is the section that immediately precedes the single most important discussion in the book, and it is the issue that demonstrates that Seventh -Day

Adventism is a false religion, that it falls into the exact same category as Roman Catholicism.

Many people are confused about the status of Seventh -Day Adventism. They are confused concerning the theology of Seventh -Day

Adventism, especially because there are a number of, how do we put it, there are a number of different viewpoints among Seventh -Day

Adventists today. But the original doctrine of Seventh -Day Adventists, the one believed by faithful Seventh -Day

Adventists, that demonstrates that Seventh -Day Adventism is removed from biblical

Christianity is the doctrine called the Investigative Judgment. And to understand the

Investigative Judgment, you have to understand something about that date that I mentioned, and that is 1844.

Seventh -Day Adventism grew out of the failed Millerite movement of 1844. And here's where the connection to the things

I said at the beginning of the program is. This has a connection to Jehovah's Witnesses, and I would say it has a connection to very popular book serieses that are selling millions of copies today in our land.

And that is, in 1844, the Millerites believed that Christ was going to return.

Well, as you would guess, he didn't. And when people have these eschatological predictions that do not come to pass, there will always be a small believing group that will survive the failure of the eschatological prediction.

And that particular group of people will then spiritualize the prediction.

Seventh -Day Adventism, following the writings of Ellen G. White, for those of you in the chatroom who are wondering who that is,

Seventh -Day Adventists, following the writings of Ellen G. White, take that failed

Millerite movement and they hang onto the idea of something spiritually happening in 1844.

And what they do is they'll almost always end up going into the scriptures and finding some sort of an allegory, some sort of a parallel they can go after.

And find some sort of a biblical basis, quote unquote, it's always a biblical basis without the context of the

Bible, but find some sort of a basis to continue to exist as a group despite the prophetic failure.

The investigative judgment looks at 1844 as the time when Christ entered into the sanctuary and there began a review of the lives of the individuals who believed in Christ.

And I will read you extensive section on the investigative judgment, but first we're going to take our first phone call and talk with Tim over in Newark, California.

How are you doing today, Tim? Alright, hey brother, how are you doing? Doing alright, you hearing us today? Yeah, I mean, listen,

I don't know if it's my computer, but I've been getting some congestion, you know, popping in and out.

Yeah, it'll get better as technology continues to advance. It's interesting,

I knew what you were talking about there, because I've been doing some research on Seventh -day Adventism and it was kind of interesting.

I was listening to this guy on the radio today, which I heard some time back, the

New Year program at two, it would come on at three at one of these stations out here, and this guy was talking against him.

I didn't realize he was Seventh -day Adventist. Then all of a sudden I hear him today, you know, being dogmatic about the

Sabbath, and this guy made the bold statement that he's going to give somebody within the next two weeks that could come up, he's going to give $100 ,000, somebody could come up to give him a scripture that says that the

Seventh -day Sabbath ended. Right. Yeah, that's a common thing with individuals who want to make challenges like that.

The problem is they then get to make up the rules as to whether, in point of fact, that burden of proof has been met, and of course if I had to part with $100 ,000, which

I couldn't part with anyways because I don't have $100 ,000, but if I had to, I could certainly find a way to, shall we say, rig the bet.

Yeah. Yeah, there are a lot of Seventh -day Adventists. In fact, when I go to New York, there's this fella, and I think during one of the debates, or before one of the debates, he started running around passing out

Seventh -day Adventist literature, and we finally stopped him, and then I remember after the math debate with Roberts and Genes, he actually came up on, there's this little platform, he actually came up behind me on the platform, and it really freaked me out that he did this, no one else was doing this, to challenge me to debate him on the investigative judgment, and I almost got in the flesh there and showed him how to get off the platform in a very sudden fashion, but I didn't, but there are a number of them that are very aggressive, there are a number of them that are very dedicated to the writings of Mary Baker, there

I go, you'll see some of them in the chatroom, that's Ellen G. White, that really do believe that she was a prophet and so on and so forth, and so they also tend to be highly anti -Roman

Catholic, and so I remember when Rich Pierce and I went up to Denver in 1993 during World Youth Day and passed out tracts up there, that we were looking for Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid, because we knew they were there, and someone said, well,

I saw him out talking to some folks over this direction, so we went out walking, and there I saw the individuals standing, a group standing around, and here were

Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid debating with a bunch of Seventh -day

Adventists who were out there with signs about the Pope as the Antichrist and all the rest of the stuff, and Rich will tell you that when they turn around and saw me standing there, they thought they had seen a ghost, it was sort of funny, but anyways, that's neither here nor there.

So they're out there and we run into them, and I think this issue of the investigative judgment points out just how very works -oriented

Orthodox Seventh -day Adventism is. It is very much a system that makes the grace of God and the work of Christ dependent upon human accomplishment for its success.

It is the way beyond Arminianism, and I do not believe it is in any way, shape, or form within the quote -unquote pale of Orthodoxy.

It is a false gospel and a false religious group. You know, it's interesting, they try to say, or at least some other answer, man, there's three different ones.

You've got liberals, traditionalists, and evangelical Seventh -day Adventists, but most of them would claim that they're it, and if you worship on Sunday, you're carrying the mark of the beast, and that one guy who carried that on, you know, it's kind of interesting.

I'd like to hear your comment on this, is that they do believe Michael is the Archangel, I mean, that Christ is

Michael the Archangel, but obviously it's probably not in the same sense as Jehovah Witnesses, but it's interesting that Harold Camping is very dogmatic on the

Sunday Sabbath, and also that Christ is Michael the Archangel and he, you know, quotes

Angelos and just says, this just means messenger. Right, right. What do you think about that, and I know it's kind of legalistic in many ways, but...

Yeah, yeah. Well, I know that there are questions concerning the

Orthodoxy of the original, of Ellen G. White, in regards to the

Trinity and the Deity of Christ and issues like that. I know there are questions about that, and I don't confess to being a, don't claim to be an expert on the earliest forms of Seventh -day

Adventism, but, in fact, I got into it because so many of my relatives are

Seventh -day Adventists, and in fact, if I'm not incorrect,

I believe that one of Mary Baker, I keep saying that, I'm going to have to turn that chatroom off, that one of Ellen G.

White's, I think her husband's name was James White, interestingly enough. It was. So it's like, oh, wonderful,

James White, my initials are JW, and I'm in Christian apologetics, isn't that great? But anyways, be that as it may,

I understand those who attempt to make that assertion. I guess the only thing that I would say right now is while I completely disagree with that identification of Christ as Michael the

Archangel, I think what needs to be fairly said, and this is where many Jehovah's Witness apologists,

I think, completely miss it. For example, I remember Rick Stamp coming into our chatroom years ago, well, not years ago, probably last year sometime, maybe 18 months ago, and trying to make the point, well,

Calvin said that Michael's the Archangel, or he'll quote this person or somebody else, and what they will not discuss or admit is that those individuals would then say that that means that Michael the

Archangel is not a created being, that this is a pre -incarnate theophany, that this is

Christ functioning as the logos, in the sense of the one revealing the

Father, that every one of them would say, and I don't know about the Seventh -day Adventists, but every one of them would say that the issue here is that this has nothing to do with the person of Christ as far as his deity, it's talking about an office or a function of his.

And yet, Jehovah's Witness apologists will quote these things as if the person they're citing agreed with them, and that isn't an honest use of those particular issues.

So I was just told that Rick Stamp was last on in July, but I think this was about a year before that that he brought this up.

Anyways, so I don't agree with that identification. I understand why those who've made it do make it, but the fact remains that I don't think that identification, and it can lead to all sorts of other problems.

Anyways, well, brother. Well, I appreciate the dialogue. I appreciate your listening, and glad we have folks listening out there in California.

In fact, we have another caller calling in from Michigan here in a moment, so that will be very nice.

Thank you for calling, brother. All right. God bless you. God bless. Well, before we take that next phone caller, we're going to take a brief break and give me an opportunity to...

Well, you know, I could play some pretty music. I really could. But instead,

I think we'll just go ahead and go on with our next caller, actually, and let's talk with Wayne up in...

Way up in Michigan, right, Michigan? Yeah, that's correct. How are you doing, Wayne?

You sound good. I'm doing well. Yeah. You know, before I ask my question,

I just wanted to, again, thank you for the work you're doing with the Roman Catholics and debating

Mitch Packer and Tim Staples and that. I got Tim Staples tapes.

Yeah. Yeah, and anyone who has them, if you listen to them a few times, the more you listen to them, the more you realize what a slam dunk it was for you.

But anyway... Well, which tapes did you listen to? The ones just recently from... Oh, yeah, from the Papal Infallibility? Yeah.

Yeah. Well, you do know what's going on... Oh, yeah. ...as far as the fact that you couldn't get those from St.

Joseph. I scan through everything I get from St. Joseph. I'm on their mailing list, and they don't ever make mention of it.

And I'm really looking forward to this alleged open letter that's supposed to be sent to me or posted somewhere.

I've not seen it. And to hear this extra tape that's supposed to be added to the debate to make it really fair,

I wonder if you would support the counting of dimpled chad, too. I'm not really sure. But anyway... Anyway, but, you know, as one who was raised

Roman Catholic, I sometimes dial into the Eternal Word network and listen to the

Journey Home. And it's amazing how these people who talk about, you know, former Catholics and current

Catholics who talk about, use a lot of evangelical terms, which...

I have to tell you, I went to Catholic Church. I never heard any of those terms growing up. But I think that's been something recently in the last few years.

Well, I've heard a number of old -time Catholics complaining about these converts that in reality they're still

Protestants... Yeah. ...who've brought their Protestant terminology and their Protestant theology with them and have basically baptized it in the

Catholic Church. Oh. And I think there's some... I think there's reason, for example, for old -time

Roman Catholics to look at what Scott Hahn says about the issue of the Covenant and his being, having been a

Presbyterian, and going, you know, I don't seem to remember ever having anyone heard that said it at all in any

Roman Catholic setting I was in. And I don't remember reading it. And, you know, where are you getting these emphases?

Are you getting them from within the Church, or are you getting them from outside of the Church? And I think that's a big question.

Oh, yeah. I mean, we had a large Catholic family, 13 kids. We have a papal blessing on our wall, and we said the

Rosary during Lent. But I listen to these Catholic apologists, especially converts, and I'm thinking,

I never heard any of this growing up in the Catholic Church. And so I think sometimes it has to do a little bit more with PR than it does with what the belief is.

But anyway, you're talking about the Seventh -day Adventist in 1844 in William Miller's prediction, which did not come true.

But we're starting a study in Revelation. I was curious what the Reformed Baptist position is on Revelation, particularly when it comes to either the

Preterists, the Historicists, the Idealists, or the Futurists' view. Well, I don't think there's any one particular view.

In fact, in our Church, I know that there are Historic Premillennialists.

There are majority, I think, Amillennialists. There are Postmillennialists.

Interestingly enough, there was an extensive study of key passages in the Book of Revelation recently in the adult

Bible study. The problem is, it was taught by the individual who takes over for me when I'm not there, so I didn't get to hear any of it.

Well, actually, I heard one or two grand totals. Personally, myself, when

I especially have preached on the Book of Revelation, I've done so in a historical concept, demonstrating that what was being said in the letters, especially the letters to the churches and in the rest of the book, had a meaning to the people to whom it was originally written.

I think you've got to start there. You've got to start with believing that, as the book was sent out to these churches, that they didn't sit there reading this going,

Wow, this is really weird. We won't understand this until Hal Lindsey comes along and explains helicopters to us.

You know, that kind of thing. Well, I don't think they had a problem with the first three chapters. I want you to step into chapter four.

Right, but even then, I think that we have to first ask what would these things have meant to the people to whom they were written?

I really think when you realize this was a persecuted church, a church under imperial persecution, that we can identify a large portion of who the various symbols referred to that would have been understood by the individuals to whom it was written.

I'm not sure exactly what view that makes me, but I think that... Do you believe that most of the vision was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in 70

AD? Well, that goes to Matthew 24, and I am totally undecided on all sorts of issues like that, but I think as far as the book of Revelation goes, that the vast majority of what is there had an understandable meaning in its time.

That does not mean that it does not have an application to future events. I just haven't worked out exactly how those are.

I've said a number of times that people start asking me about eschatology that there are at least a dozen books that I'd have to read.

Some of them are sitting right over here. They're in my library. I could read them. I just haven't really gotten into them before I could make any really intelligent conversation about the subject.

So, it's hard for me to say. All I know is when I've preached on, for example, letters to the churches, or if I've preached on some of the visions in the book of Revelation, I have preached on them the only way that I know to, and that is exegeting the text as it would have been understood in the context in which it was written.

And I really don't know how to go beyond that to, well, here's how some of the applications would be made.

Oh, sure. I am probably one of the last people you can possibly look to as having anything overly meaningful to say when it comes to eschatology or some of those issues because it's a wide field that I admit

I've really not gone into. Sadly, I know far more about the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification than I do those other things, but that may not be a bad thing.

Well, I used to stay away from Revelation, but there's a blessing promised to people who read it at the beginning, so I feel like as Christians we need to at least study it.

It leads to some very interesting discussions in Sunday school. It certainly does, and I certainly have preached many times out of the letters to the churches because, wow, those are incredible, incredible letters with tremendous messages for us today, so I think they're great things.

All right, thanks for calling in. God bless. 866 -550 -3915.

866 -550 -3915. I see a flashing light, but I'm not really sure what it is.

I'm not sure if we've got anybody else calling in right now, but please feel free to do so if you are here locally.

602 -973 -4602. 602 -973 -4602. Now I was talking about we do have a caller online.

Well, let's hold on just one second. I was talking about the investigative judgment, and here is some of the things that this work has to say on that subject.

The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary necessarily is a work of judgment, just as was the cleansing of the earthly.

When this work is completed, probation will close and Christ's priestly ministry on behalf of sinners will cease.

There are two phases to any work of judgment. One is the trying of the case, the searching of the records, the hearing of the witnesses, and the pronouncing of the sentence.

The other is the work of executing that sentence after the case has been fully tried and the decision rendered. The first is the investigative judgment.

The other, the executive judgment. And so what is being said is that the...

Here's a continuation of the quotation. Quoting from Revelation 14, interestingly enough.

And hence the final appeal from heaven for men to prepare for that great and solemn hour when their own names will be called and reviewed before God.

This message announcing that the hour of God's judgment has come was due to go to the nations in A .D. 1844.

For that is the time pointed out by the prophecy as the starting point of the judgment. And it was in the year 1844 that the pioneers of the people who are now called

Seventh -day Adventists discovered this mighty truth and began to herald it to the world. So here's the connection to the angel heralding this message in Revelation chapter 14.

They believe, therefore, that they are literally fulfilling this prophecy of Revelation 14, 6 and 7, and that they have as solemn a commission from God as did

Jonah when he was sent to warn Nineveh of its impending destruction. Then they say that Daniel describes the opening of this judgment in 1844 in Daniel 7, 9 and 10.

It talks about the opening of the books, so on and so forth. And it says, The record of the sin remains against them.

During the judgment, the names of those who were once Christians but who have given up their faith in Christ are blotted out of the book of life.

And so here you have this concept presented in the idea of the investigative judgment that since 1844 what

Christ has been doing in the heavenly sanctuary has been examining the lives of all those who have trusted in him.

Then, if they've trusted in him, they have to remain faithful. They have to remain faithful in what?

Well, right after this, there is a discussion of the necessity of keeping the

Saturday Sabbath. If you don't do that, then you're not faithful. Now the question that I would have to ask is, in reality, how many people have truly believed in Christ in the way that Seventh -day

Adventism describes it in this teaching? And why in the world has it taken 156 years to look at all these lives?

I mean, isn't Christ omnipotent? Couldn't he do it instantaneously? Why does it take a century and a half to examine these names, especially given the rest of the teaching in the book that's a pretty small list?

That is, of course, one of the problems with all of these systems that engage in prophetic speculation and prophetic date setting.

And that brings us to the next issue that I'd like to discuss, and that is the big changes in the Watchtower society because of the date issue.

And then maybe we can finish that up by looking at the fact that we've got folks running around selling millions of books, also playing upon the idea of eschatology.

But first, we're going to go back and speak again, this time with Michael from back in Ogden, New York.

How are you doing, Michael? Very good, sir. How about yourself? I'm doing all right. Well, I have a couple questions that I'd like to ask.

First, what is the problem with papal succession in the light of Martin V and that little, shall we say, lapse into history with the papacy?

Well, let me try to shift gears here in my own mind from the subject of the investigative judgment.

Are you referring to the Babylonian captivity of the Church? Well, what

I'm referring to is the battle between successors and how Martin V would actually cut off the line of succession with modern popes.

Yeah, it's pretty much modern individuals. Well, as far as the actual succession, the idea of succession goes,

I really think that the truth of that matter was decided by this famous statement.

It's dead, Jim. Yeah, it's dead, Jim. So that might be one way of describing it. But what's being talked about here is the fact that if someone is pushing for a literal succession over time from Peter to the modern pope, the problem is if you study history itself, you discover that there are all sorts of big holes, periods of time where there was no pope, periods where anti -popes reigned, and then you have the issue of the

Babylonian captivity of the Church where the papacy was moved to Avignon, and then you have the setting up of a papacy in Rome and one in Avignon, and then you have the

Council of Constance or another council coming in and creating another pope, and so you have, in essence, three popes taking place there, and then finally when you get done with all of that, what ends up happening is the

Council of Constance has to come in and, in essence, decide a new pope by getting rid of all three of the previous ones, and how then can there be a meaningful succession?

How can the word succession itself have any meaning in light of the historical reality?

And I think the Roman Catholic would, in essence, say, well, you need to understand...

modern Roman Catholic, not the more traditionalist Roman Catholic, but the modern Roman Catholic, the somewhat ecumenical

Roman Catholic is going to go, well, Michael, you just need to understand that this succession, it's a spiritual thing.

And you know that the Church, it's been through so much, and actually it being through so much is actually proof of the truth of the

Church because there's been so many bad popes and saints that in reality the fact that the

Church still continues to this day is evidence of God's providentially sustaining it.

And so you're looking too much at history, Michael. You need to look at what the

Spirit's doing in the Church. And I think if you just come to Mass that you would feel this and you'd understand this.

Have you run into what I'm talking about? Yes, talk about emotional reasoning. But if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the

Catholic Catechism basically say that Boniface, I think it was

Boniface XIII, he was deposed by the Council, and the Catholic Catechism basically says that no council can depose a pope.

Right. Clearly the issue of the reestablishment of the papacy on the basis of the

Council of Constance is a glowing red flag to anyone who would want to look to Rome as some infallible leader that has some infallible ability to interpret

Scripture in light of the papacy and the apostolic succession and all the rest of that. It is a major, major problem, and the only way to answer it is to fall back on that phraseology that I've used many times, sola ecclesia.

That is to say, well, the Church interprets history, the Church interprets Scripture, the Church interprets tradition, the

Church has said that the succession survived, and therefore it has survived. That's all there is to it.

Yes. I have another question. I was listening to the papal infallibility debate you had with Tim Staples, public blogging actually, and he made reference, when you talked about Honorius, he made reference to Martin I, and I think

Leo II, and if I'm not mistaken, Eugenius I, within his comments basically saying that they embraced

Honorius as orthodox if I caught what he was saying. I believe that he was attempting to make that assertion.

It was very clear to me that what was going on there as far as what

Mr. Staples was doing is he was reading, presenting something that I don't think he himself has ever really looked into and said, okay, did they actually deal with the issue of Honorius' teaching or did they just simply ignore it and accept him as a wonderful predecessor or whatever it was.

We really didn't get into that. I think that came up. I got the feeling it came up late enough in the debate that it was probably a note that had been passed to him or a reference in a book that was given to him or something like that, and we really didn't get into what it was he was attempting to say.

I'm certain that if he ever does get around to producing this tape, that that would then explain exactly what it was he was attempting to say.

Yes, if I'm not mistaken though, didn't Eugenius I, Martin I, and also

Leo II take the papal oath that anathematized Honorius as a heretic?

I'd have to have the list in front of me as to the specific dates. I thought maybe he was trying to get some of the popes that were between Honorius and the 6th

Ecumenical Council. I didn't even have time to look them up at the time it was taking place. If they were after that period of time, then they would have had to have taken that oath for the next 300 or 400 years and anathematized him, yes.

Yes, Martin I was approximately 25 years after Honorius. That would be before, however, the 6th

Ecumenical Council. Yes, the 6th Ecumenical Council I think occurred around 680

AD, but of course actually that shows how his point is invalid because if he says that these popes embraced him as orthodox, that was before the council rule.

Well, the problem is, and one of the interesting things is, is if you take Robert St.

Genes' position, that causes even more problems because, see, Staples is arguing that Honorius was orthodox, yet St.

Genes admits that he was not, and so if he was not and those popes embraced him as orthodox, then here you have allegedly individuals who are infallible teachers not correcting a false teaching.

Yes, sir. Well, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. Alright, thanks for calling in. God bless. I have about 10 minutes left before we'll be wrapping things up here.

I know, I know, it's not a full, you know, we sort of got started a little bit late and all, but we've got, you know, someone's asking in the chat room,

I guess I can try to address this just a little bit for a moment.

Oh, yes, yes, before I do that, before I do that, what we're going to be doing, and I didn't have an opportunity today to contact the person

I want to have on, so watch the website, but what we're probably going to be doing this week because of the fact that I will be out of town this coming

Saturday and it's pretty difficult to take care of this, do this kind of a program with me on the phone, especially for 90 minutes.

Not only would I microwave my brain to death on a cell phone, but would probably fry about three cell phone batteries in the process, but we're going to, again, do a live program on, we're going to try to do it at 7 p .m.

this Thursday evening. And my hope is, I'm just going to tell people this is my hope, I don't know how I'm going to be able to work it out, but my hope will be to get hold of Bill Webster, and Bill Webster is right now writing a tremendous work along with David King on the subject of Sola Scriptura, and I would very much like to get him on the program so we can talk about this vital issue, he can tell you about the book, when it's going to be available, we hope, and also take your phone calls live on the dividing line.

So mark your calendars for Thursday evening, 7 o 'clock is when we want to be able to doing it.

Main thing is, since you're listening on the internet, that means you can get to www .aomin .org

and when you do that, that's where we'll be able to keep everyone up to date as to exactly the time and everything else we're going to be doing.

So keep hitting that webpage, keep taking a look at the announcements concerning the radio program, the live internet broadcast, and go from there.

Now one of the questions... Yes, webcast,

I know it's a webcast, whatever it is. I could, of course, start kicking people out of the chat room, just for the fun of it, because I own the chat room and I can do things like that.

But a question has been asked regarding the subject of sanctification.

I just kicked a Southern Baptist pastor out of the chat room. The question that has been asked is, is progressive sanctification monergistic or synergistic?

Is progressive sanctification monergistic or synergistic? And my assumption is that the use the phrase progressive sanctification is meant to be differentiating that from the idea of being sanctified perfectly in a positional way in regards to the work of Jesus Christ.

That is, the sanctification that we experience in the course of our lives is that a monergistic or synergistic thing.

And specifically, to define those phrases, monergism and synergism, monergism means one source, one power.

Synergism means two sources, two powers. And generally, the terms are used in regards to regeneration.

And that is, is regeneration monergistic or synergistic?

Is it only God who regenerates or is it a cooperation between God and man? Then you have the idea that, well, once a person is regenerated, once there is the act of regeneration and an individual is spiritually alive, then isn't the result, the resultant act of sanctification through one's life where we are conformed to the image of Christ?

Is that not synergistic? Well, first of all, I don't like the use of those terms in regards to sanctification because we have a clear -cut issue when we talk about regeneration because there is no second quote -unquote will involved there in the sense that man's will is enslaved.

It is true that Christians, as Christians, do what they do by the grace of God, that they are prompted to have holy desires, they are prompted to love

God, they are prompted to do all of the things that we do. We are empowered by God's grace through His Spirit to do every good thing that we do.

And so there is a sense in which you could utilize both words in saying that we can do nothing of ourselves and therefore it is monergistic, that is,

God is going to accomplish in the lives of the redeemed everything that He desires to do so in their lives.

And we could also refer to it as synergistic in the sense that now that our will is freed from the slavery of sin, then there is the desire to cooperate with God's grace.

What I'm hesitant to affirm in any way is the idea that God's grace is ever at any point dependent upon the action of the human will for success.

Our wills as Christians do what they do because of the work of grace in our lives.

And I don't believe that grace is ever dependent upon human will in the sense of what

God actually desires to accomplish. Now some might say well don't we like resist grace when we don't do everything that would be perfect and right and so on and so forth.

Every time we sin are we not quote -unquote resisting grace. I'm differentiating that very general statement from the specific statement that God is going to accomplish in our lives what

He desires to accomplish. And I do not believe that God's grace, that is

God's power that is specifically intended to accomplish what God desires to accomplish that that is ever limited to a cooperation with man's will so that God's intention is

X but because of the failure of man's will to empower God and His grace the result is not

X but Y or whatever else it might be. So that's one of the one of the issues that I have with the idea of using those same two terms because I think they could result in some confusion because the context isn't the same because of the difference between regeneration and sanctification.

Well I hope you've enjoyed the program this afternoon. We ran over a few rough spots in the road but for most folks

I think that we were able to get the majority of the information out there to you.

Please remember this coming Thursday evening we'll be doing the program live

Lord willing at 7 p .m. Mountain Standard time. If that changes in other words if I have to change it to get my guest we will announce it on the web page right on the main page so keep that in mind and I hope you'll be with us then and if you're not with us then you'll be able to listen next

Saturday anyways but keep us in your prayers we continue to seek to serve the Lord. Thanks for being with us in the