Hatred of God

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha 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 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line. Today is Christopher Hitchens day on the dividing line and No, I haven't been dipping in quite this early

But I am I do want to demonstrate the fact that it is very easy to sound like you know

So much more about theology than you really do Just simply by extending certain vows and adopting certain

Physiologies now now rich you really really I've only seen the man a little bit soused a couple of times

It's not the regular the regular activity of Christopher Hitchens How do

I know? Okay, I'll just I'm just going on what I see But I did notice that there was a rather Darkly colored liquid in his glass as he was speaking at King's College I'm not sure if they would allow that but then again,

I don't know that he would allow himself to be limited by by their puritanical morality he certainly did not limit himself and what he said before the student audience and things like that, but The fact is it's very easy to sound like Christopher Hitchens.

I love and I love the way he speaks and he Many times when he's speaking he sounds he's very erudite and it's it's it's a matter of the words you use and it's a matter of the phrasing that is yours and The nice thing about a

British accent is that you can mumble things and then you can sort of stop for a while for some reason They can stop and and if you're an

American They would think that you were stupid and you were trying to think of something to say, but when when the

Brits pause Everyone just sits silently waiting for the next golden jewel of wisdom to flow forth from his mouth and It also gives you enough time to go and get another sip before you continue your talk and so I Had to turn the comments off on my

Christopher Hitchens video those of you who have not Figured out that I have a YouTube video page now

And so you see these only as they appear on the blog, which is fine. I Need to understand it's that's perfectly acceptable

But I had to turn the comments off because atheists are tend to be very vile people in their in their language and that transfers to their keyboards as well and So I was having to delete entry after entry because of a violation of the profanity standards that would be mine and So I just finally just gave up and and turn the comments off that's that's what it's like I'm seeing someone channel

Screaming that we must stop this, but I think it just sounds Let me give you an example.

Here's his here's Christopher Hitchens speaking. Tell me if you can even tell the difference have to say that Dinesh is

One of those portable debate is I've ever encountered on any subject See it's just exactly what

I was saying and in the same way and by the way, I have two British speech coaches Roger and Justin Brazier, I give all the credit

Only problem is there thousands of miles away, so obviously they don't have a lot of control

Well anyway Seriously though I did have to turn turn the comments off on the

Christopher Hitchens video because Even though I haven't blogged it yet There are a number of people who are subscribing to my my channel now, and I guess they just search for Hitchens they're looking for Christian comments on Hitchens and Oh the vile nature of their they just you know give vent to the the the spirit that is theirs and so I'll just remember in the future that when

I comment on Christopher Hitchens to just Turn the comments off as I upload the video because there wasn't anything worth being said being posted anyways, but just the vile nature and If if you have not heard

Christopher Hitchens, I do want to play something This is from his debate with with Dinesh D'Souza at King's College in Manhattan a few months ago, and it was a very interesting debate and I I did a video blog because Hitchens is just such an incredible fulfillment of Romans 1

I think for many years God has restrained the madness of men and By common grace has caused those who were functional atheists in how they live their life to in essence be somewhat reserved in their blasphemies, but Hitchens and the new crowd are not reserved in their blasphemies at all

And I think the later in the day it gets the less restrained Hitchens becomes in his commentary on on Christianity And he certainly was not restrained at King's College With the things that he said as we will see

And so some of you may actually be Offended by hearing what Hitchens has to say, but if you wish to adopt that head -in -the -sand mentality

I suggest you keep it there because that is the society we live in Today, and that's certainly what our children are experiencing as I certainly have learned in my own daughter's experience with dr.

Lee Carter, but Anyway, the sad thing is someone says my accent is making them dizzy, and I stopped using the accent a few moments ago

That's a bad thing, but anyway The first thing

I would play for you though it was right at the beginning of the debate and honestly despite all of Hitchens Blasphemous statements and circularity of reasoning and and hatred of God.

This is one of the saddest things That I heard in the entire debate this really was but you're gonna have to admit.

You're gonna have to agree With Christopher Hitchens in what he's about to say listen to that he has the further great advantage of actually believing in this stuff

You wouldn't you try it you go up and down the country ask a Calvinist does he really believe in Calvin's theory predestination

Oscar Roman Catholic do they really believe in the virgin birth you get all kinds of life of Brian evasions from them

It's metaphorical really no Dinesh believes this that's very useful That is a high compliment for dr.

D'Souza But it is a sad commentary to be perfectly honest with you On the broad spectrum of evangelicalism.

I have heard Hitchens in other Encounters with people who never should have climbed into the ring with him

Not only because their rhetorical skills were certainly not able to match his own which are quite weighty but much more so their conviction is significantly less their conviction of the truthfulness of Christianity is

Significantly less than Hitchens conviction of the truthfulness of atheism and That is a sad sad statement, but it's true and As a result you end up with a man who because of his

British accent is able to say the most outrageous things He can call Christianity a vile cult he can refer the cross of Christ as a as a

Filthy human sacrifice, and he gets away with it because of the accent He really does

I mean honestly if it wasn't Christopher Hitchens standing there with his hair going every which direction and his his

Plastic cup of whatever it is. He's drinking up there on the podium And you know you can just tell he just finished a cigarette before he came in and he's already hankering for the next one before he leaves

If it and he has does not have a tie on everybody else does if it was not him if it was an

American if it was if it was a conservative American in a dark suit and a red tie and He said anything even close

To what Hitchens says about Christianity about Islam would he ever be given a podium to speak again in an academic setting?

The answer is no he would not and we all know it We all know the double standards right there in front of all of us but no one's no one's willing to say anything about it, but that's what's what's going on and So he he gets away with saying all these things

But he certainly believes what he's saying. I think he seems to live Semi -consistently with that though his some people would say his rather political conservative political leanings

Fly in the face of his of his worldview, I mean that the man Will talk about how it's immoral

To lie to little children That's why one of the reasons he hates Jesus is because Jesus allegedly from his rather warped understanding of things is the one who introduced the concept of Punishment after death

He thinks that that was an innovation that is to be traced to Jesus And so he is

Jesus is guilty of child abuse for for many many generations but if If he were if someone were to say something about Muhammad similar to what he says about Jesus What would happen to them?

He really does believe that stuff and he'll he'll say it's it's it's immoral to lie to children like that And yet, oh does he does he oppose abortion

I wonder and upon what basis I mean I wonder upon what logical basis a a

Darwinist can oppose abortion. It makes really no sense to me The the the whole thing is rather rather odd, but a bit as it may so keep your eyes out.

I believe Maybe it maybe it came up today Actually, I probably should pop up a browser here and see which one did pop up this morning

I think maybe it did now. I think about I think it may be the current one on the on The the blog is it is it the

Hitchens one this day? And some reason my computer is running exceptionally slowly today it is

Okay I mean I just told to bring up a browser the things that get a two gigahertz processor and it's just sitting there staring at me going

What did you want me to do again? Yeah, I think it's been it's been doing a little

Hitchens stuff too. Yes Christopher Hitchens proving Romans one true with an English accent yes, and He's certainly not the only one he's he's actually a little bit late to the party

Richard Dawkins is Best known over there for his his expression of his hatred of God with a with a wonderful English accent

But you can see that on the blog This morning it came up at midnight last night notice that I forgot to Center it.

I will have to fix that After the program's over if I remember to do so so we could talk about him

Today if you would like or other subjects at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven

Seven five three three three four one is the phone number for the program today a few weeks ago

I had intended to get to this and I just I just never did get around to it

But a few weeks ago. I wanted to Get to Steve Ray I had put so many video blogs up Demonstrating various errors on his part, but we still had yet to play in its entirety or even fully the audio of his comments on Catholic Catholic answers live a few weeks ago now we'll get to that and I Can't let this go too long

I have a This had better appear on the pyromaniac pyromaniacs what in the world is a pyromaniac on the pyromaniac blog site

Because certainly probably the most infamous of the pyromaniacs, and I noticed

I said infamous at that point Is none other than Frank Turk also known as Centurion?

and He sent me since he couldn't call in He sent me a

Question for the program, and I was gonna do it last week, but we got a little sidetracked on the last program and So here it's and believe it or not, and this is what was shocking to me from Centurion is that it was a good question and I mean

Someone who's busy selling trinkets like like he is all time. We call him trinket man in in channel

Came up with a really good question here, and so we're gonna. Go ahead and take a shot at it first before starting with our phone calls

Hey James after watching the transmission video on YouTube last night now Is that the one where I went through how to repair a

Borg Warner automatic transmission or something like that? Rich is going yeah, you sure Rich could do that, but not me no, that's it.

I'm amazed that you know that Borg Warner makes transmissions See now that's that's where you you need to recognize that that is one of mr.

Callahan's Favorite examples that the Bible is not a manual on how to repair a

Borg Warner Automatic transmission, but it does give us the the ground the the world view in which to be able to make sense of such things

That explains a lot because mr. Callahan would know that Warner makes transmissions and as a result of listening to Transmissions to as there's no listeners

Callahan, then I know that Borg Warner does that as well anyway Actually, I would be more likely just to think of Borg as in assimilating people

So that just gives you an idea of where I'm coming from but after watching the transmission video on YouTube last night

Which I believe had to do with a conversation that I had with an English Muslim From the night well,

I must I should take that back. I don't know that he's an English Muslim He's a Muslim living in the

United Kingdom, he could be from Saudi Arabia for all I know But a Muslim who is in the

United Kingdom was put that way We had a chat in channel concerning issues of The transmission of the text and New Testament.

So I think that's what he's referring to It made me think about other applications for the apologetic you demonstrated there

For example, it seems to me that you're apologetic There is a pretty strong argument against Q theory When we think about the origin the synoptic gospel since I am not going to be able to call into the dividing line

Is there any chance you can comment whether or not the evidence theory you have proposed against modern

Muslim transmission objections works against liberal objections the origins of the New Testament well, uh Yes, and no

I think that many more serious New Testament scholars who aren't just Repeating the traditions that become popular within their circles recognize that Q is exceptionally theoretical and that the idea that it existed in a documentary phase shall we say that had any type of transmission history behind it is

Pretty much next to impossible to prove there. There certainly isn't any evidence of it. Nothing's ever shown up and you would think especially if you had a document that contained the teachings and examples of Jesus as Q would that the early

Christian community would Transmit it would honor it Would treat it in the same way that you see at the earliest evidence that we have of the

New Testament Around the year 200. I'm leaving p52 out here. It's clearly pre -exists that in the sense of has a transmission history, which the writings the early church fathers helped to testify to You have in Clemens and Ignatius and and all the those second century fathers but when you start getting entire manuscripts start getting p46 and p66 and p72 and p75 and and they are they are becoming collections

Where you have the Gospels being gathered together you have Paul's epistles being gathered together They're being copied together as a corpus when you start seeing that happening

It is Plain that at that particular point in time That that is a text that has that that really is fixed and it's fixed across a large

Expanse of space in other words when you think about Well p46 for example the the manuscript that contains the the writings of the

Apostle Paul Where those writings originate at they didn't originate just one place

They originated at a number of different places a number of different times over at least a decade

Of time and were sent to different places. They were sent to different churches.

And so there had to have been some sort of collection going on of these letters and We see some evidence of that even in Paul's writings remember he more than once exhorts churches to read other letters that he's written to other people and You would think that Timothy for example would have to be the source of first the second

Timothy Titus would be the source of Titus Because these are epistles sent these individuals and so very early on there even those

Private individuals who received those letters had to see in them something that caused them

To allow them to be copied and to be distributed because they're found in these early manuscripts and so It is odd to try to assert that there was a documentary source called

Q That somehow just doesn't get copied. It does not get transmitted over time and just disappears

And that's why if you're going to talk about such things, it's I think significantly more useful

To talk about the collective memory of the eyewitnesses the collective memory of the church

That heard the teachings of Jesus those early disciples Sure, they're only a small number in the upper room on Pentecost But certainly as the gospel goes out into those very same lands

It goes up into Galilee. It goes Necessary of Philippi It goes around the the the Sea of Galilee to all those villages

That had only just a few years earlier heard Jesus speaking it's hard for me to believe that those individuals who had heard

Jesus speaking when they hear of What has been accomplished in his resurrection that there were not many who embraced the gospel there.

And so you have hundreds and yay even thousands of eyewitnesses To the teachings of Jesus and Jesus didn't teach these things just once It is fairly obvious that there were certain themes

About the kingdom of God and what it means to live in the kingdom of God that over a three -year expanse

Obviously is going to be repeated more than once so Since that is clearly

I think the case Then you would have this this eyewitness element

To that that early teaching that is is probably where you get what is called the

Q material today And so in answer to Centurion's question if the liberal idea is a presentation of a multifaceted

Text type in the New Testament where you have Massive redaction going on and and there are many liberal scholars who do

Shabir Ali loves to quote from liberal scholars who you know talk about well you've got proto mark and then you get the first issue mark and Three different stages of John and and of course they have no they have no documentary evidence to to cite in these instances, but be as it may they will make reference to such things and yeah,

I I would say that the The manuscript history causes great questions to be asked about theories like that It's difficult to explain how those theories could

Could match The state of the New Testament text when we first begin to see it with clarity in the historical record

I think that I think that those are perfectly valid issues to raise at that at that particular point in time, so Anyway, but I don't think that well

Yeah Ultra -liberals would be making very similar claims to those being made by modern

Muslims now whether that was What the original Muslims believe or not is a completely different issue, and I certainly don't believe that it was

But that's an area of debate regularly as well eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Let's go ahead and take our first phone call and talk to Steve. Hi Steve.

Oh Howdy, how are you dr. White doing pretty good? Okay, listen, I just wanted to phone first of all

I've been watching some of the videos that you've had with posting up with response to Amity Dutton and Nike and I just want to tell you they have been absolutely wonderful and helpful to me, and I really appreciate

That you've been able to to do that I'm hoping and some of my future endeavors into the mosque to be able to use some of the material

So I want to encourage you to keep up the good work on that Well and of course if you're going into mosques and speaking with folks

That's where the value of those things I think becomes clear a lot of Christians, I don't think realize just how widespread

Especially D dots and Nike is just repeating sometimes D dot word for words like he memorized

D dot speeches if you go if you go into like Islamic bookstores There's always a small section or a section of Amity Dutt stuff, and then when you

Actually, and you can get it on the internet as well. Oh, yeah when you read it. It's just You're going like what planet is he actually coming from?

Well, he got away with it. I mean let's face it he some of the most painful debates that I've listened to have been some of the

Christian pastors who Tried to debate him and just they they weren't debaters. They were not

In fact at least one of them. I'm not even sure he was Orthodox, but a very painful to listen to them now

Josh McDowell did a fine job, but you don't see that one being Distributed by Oh, yes, yes,

I would Yes, I've had more than one Muslim refer to Jimmy Swaggart as a great Bible scholar

What I did want to talk about in that sort of bringing it down to a personal level I missed last

Thursday's when this Nadir Ahmed phoned and I'm surprised he wasn't dropped you know two or three minutes into the phone call, but It was

I mean, I mean he was just obnoxious But you know I I just need to point out that he doesn't see that He honestly doesn't see that I that's the that's not the first time

That has been pointed out to neither that to to attack Shabir Ali the way that he does just makes him look really really really really really bad, but he doesn't he doesn't see that I've actually heard him say he's the only

Islamic apologist out there that can defend the Quran and things like that and and I I just Go, okay

You know if you Won't be as rude as he was when when when we speak to them, but you know just in the response of How do you really respond when someone makes it makes such outlandish statements you sort of your mouth drops, and you're wondering

How do I respond to this? well, I'm going to be finding out at the around the

Easter time because that debate will still be going on and so I will hopefully be able to give a an appropriate response no matter what the character of the

Attacks upon the New Testament are evidently they're not going to be textual in in nature from what he has said so I'm really not sure what they're going to be but No, I I know that and and you can't force somebody to to answer questions

But I have to I've always had to rely on the fact That the only people

I'm really debating for are people who are going to be listening carefully to what is going on and Anyone who is is is easily

Be fuzzled by by tricks and and rhetoric

Those aren't the folks that I can be overly concerned about as far as as debates are concerned

I have to trust that people are going to hear and everyone that I've talked to who's commented on The phone call one of the first things

I said was that guy wouldn't answer a question that you asked He just you'd ask direct questions, and and he would just just pontificate on other issues

And and I've just got to go all right for those folks There wasn't any question about what was going on you move forward from there.

That's that's all you can do How would you do that if you were talking to a person like him one -to -one?

Which is like I say I won't ever be debating on that type of scale But I will be I do engage in one -to -one.

How would you respond then well? similarly I mean When when mr..

Hoffman showed up at my church he showed up another gentleman, and I just focused on the other gentleman who claimed to be an agnostic and a couple times

I had to turn to another because he was inserting stuff into the conversation that was in essence trying to keep me from Making a point with this particular individual, and you just you respond to the assertion and then go back to what you were saying

There's there aren't any magic bullets outside of You know recognizing that you're doing what you're doing for a purpose

And really in those situations the the greatest advantage that the Christian has is is knowing your own faith and Being able to respond and really being able to identify

The fundamental flaws in the platform from which objections are being made and And I know

I get criticized a lot by people who say what that's all your apologetic is is that you're a methodological

Apologist well, that's not really true, but given that the the large majority.

I'd say 80 % of Arguments are presented against the faith are methodologically flawed to begin with Yeah, you have to deal with those first And so yeah the majority of the time the arguments you're dealing with are

Presuppositionally flawed from where they're coming from and if you don't deal with that presuppositional nature of it well

Then all you've got is Is going to be a seesaw battle that's never going to accomplish anything.

It's gonna That's what was so helpful about these presentations, especially if you did with the data and on the deity of Christ now

Like I said, I just thought that was so fabulous. Well good. Well. I certainly intend to continue to do that because DDoS materials out there, and I think it's important to have responses made available and and Those obviously are useful for a long time after they've initially appeared on the blog yeah

Well, I guess the one thing is I will be out to hear the Dave hunt Shabir Ali I Won't call that a debate.

I'll just call that a Presentation okay, if you want to call it that I I Would be very very interested

If you're going to be there do two things for me first of all If if you can call in and let us know what happens the next

Next program that would be useful and also if by some chance they have a

Rapid reproduction system set up there and sometimes they do I mean a lot of conferences you come to the next session

You can buy the last session if for some reason that is the case I would very dearly love to get hold of as Quickly as possible the audio recordings of this encounter for two reasons first of all

I'd like to obviously have it available for Use on the dividing line, but also

I I have found that it is always wise To get hold of that material as quickly after the debate as possible because sometimes that material has a way of going bye -bye

Well, we'll try. I'll really make an effort at it. It'll be interesting to notice that they're having it in a

Roman Catholic high school yes, I did notice that and I just want to know if Davis is gonna Have a cow when he walks in there

No, he's got to know this and that and that's just it I believe the moderator is is

Roman Catholic Oh, yeah, Michael Coran. Yeah, yeah Which is wondering whether we should give

Michael a copy of his one of Dave's books, but they've got to know they they there's no

Way that the folks at that school do not know Who Dave Hunt is and a woman rides the beast and and all the rest of stuff

I was blown away Now I would I would debate at a Roman Catholic location too as long as I was debating a

Roman Catholic And I have in fact the debates that I did with Jerry matics in Omaha 92 were to Catholic high school up there in Omaha.

I remember it was frigid. Oh Yeah, but well yes indeed, but I cannot imagine

Doing a debate against a Muslim an atheist and and a Buddhist or is it

Hindu? I think it's a Hindu At a at a Roman Catholic location when you're Dave hunt. It just I'm just left going.

Hmm, okay I mean there isn't a Roman Catholic debate involved is there What was interesting was is that one of the guys the guy

I do evangelism with at the mosque He sent me a one of the things from The Marine Colin apparently

Dave is still not well and that he's behind in his you know in his preparation for the debate

I'm just wondering what you know what's going to happen with this well somebody. I'm sorry, but Somebody was not wise here and and Dave's one of them

But I would think that at Dave's age you would have people around him Who likewise would step up and go wait a minute wait a minute?

You're in a lot of pain. You've just had a hip replaced again I think it's the second time on this particular hip and Standing or even sitting

I don't care what it is debating if you're debating well at all is Exhausting a lot of people don't understand

People who've never spoken in public have a hard time Understanding how physically draining it truly is and a debate is

Double that because I remember back when I was a kid I was involved in the United States Chess Federation as a junior high school

I was playing in in the adult categories in in in chess tournaments, and you'd play three hours and You would be absolutely physically

Exhausted you have hardly moved at all But you've been using your mind so heavily that that you just see people just dragging out of this room

They are absolutely exhausted well a debate is the closest thing that I can think of to the mental draining of an intense chess match but then you add to that you're standing and you're speaking and Speaking is physically challenging you've ever noticed a preacher.

He's sweating like anything There's a reason why he's sweating like anything it really is very physically challenging many preachers

Will take Mondays off just to recover from the physical effort that they put out on the

Lord's Day And so for Dave at his age to debate Three times

I would not do and I am 35 years about no no no but 30 years younger than Dave Hunt is

I would not do And I'm in I'm in good shape. I mean I ride a bike. I row

I lift weights I'm in good shape, and I would not do what he's doing let alone within two months after a hip replacement

So somebody drop the ball Tony Costa has warned them, and we think it's just going to be

Disaster and also that the title Christianity versus Islam is so vague. Oh, it's going to go all over the road.

Yeah Oh, yeah, you know I mean basically what I think it's going to be is that Dave's going to put up.

This is what I believe in and Shabir is going to put up You know I believe in and Hopefully we'll have some good contacts with the

Muslims. We need that I think the only reason that yeah, and the only problem is you may have to sit there and go yes

Well, mr.. Hunt said that but mr. Hunt does not represent the best of Christianity in regards this that yeah, so that's the problem

You know we're sort of trying to undo the damage. Yeah. Yeah, well hey Let us know what what happens and try to stay warm up there, okay?

Thanks a lot God bless my way 877 -753 -3341

I would hope that when you and I are rickety old dudes in the unfortunately not too distant future

That's you know 30 years from now 25 years from now that if I were

Silly enough to try to schedule myself for something like this

That she would go hey dummy Yeah smack is smack smack of you upside the head and Somebody up there at the

Berean College just completely missed the boat on this one. I'm sorry, but that's as just silly. There's You just don't

Put someone that age through that level of physical trauma It is he's traveling, and yeah, we know

Dave's a good traveler, but I'm sorry you're traveling You're not at home three debates

Just totally different subjects just just absolute silliness Yeah, so anyway, let's let's get let's get to Let's go ahead and which one do we want to get to let's let's get

Steve Ray We've we've put Steve Ray off too long even though. I love to do the Christopher Hitchens accent It's it's it's very relaxing actually to speak like this because you don't have to enunciate almost anything at all

You just run it all together and and take long pauses It's Actually you speak more toward the back of your throat

And you really do it in fact. I think it'd be easier to speak like this for a long period of time Because it's very easy on the throat

Anyways I better stop before Micah becomes very very upset because he will become very upset and we need to have

Micah around because because Micah is the king of graphics and If we want the website to continue to look as beautiful as it does today

Then we need to have we need to have Micah as a very happy man I think

I think Micah could even make Christopher Hitchens look good You know what

I think I Think I think we might need to talk to Michael Fallon and see if we might be able to start looking at the the white

Hitchens debate, what do you think? I've got all the time to practice so that he would not have the advantage of the

British accent Maybe I could use a Scottish accent instead Yes, there was

Just just ask Jim Hendyside Jim Hendyside will tell you that my Scottish accent is a mixture of Italian and Pakistani All Right, let's get on with Steve Ray here

Here is some of his I'm just gonna start and stop as we have the want to do some of his comments in regards the early church fathers from Catholic answers live and I plea of Steve Ray Steve kind of a two -part question to get started

Who were the apostolic fathers or what do we mean when we say that and secondly?

You know, why should we be interested in the apostolic fathers? Well, that's a good question

And when I was an evangelical Protestant my basic response to a question like that is why should we care about these early

Christians? The apostolic fathers my response would have been they're not inspired Jerry. They're not inspired

So why should I care about them? I have the inspired Word of God the New Testament So I'm gonna read that and I'm not so concerned about what guy said 2 ,000 years ago now, of course

Steve Ray loves and then almost all these guys not all of them obviously, but almost all these guys love to market their apostasy

They love to market themselves as apostates You know when I was an evangelical Protestant, well, you know the way he's described his evangelical

Protestant days. He was incredibly ignorant and So, you know, I'm looking at myself trying to go.

I'm trying to figure out where this guy is coming from I mean, I've taught early church history Both at Grand Canyon College and in Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and I care what they believed but that doesn't change the truth of what he just said and that is those guys are not inspired and even

Rome says they're not inspired and If you go into it thinking that they are in some way

You're gonna have a real big problem because they frequently contradicted each other, you know

I've been doing this series on Ignatius on on the blog, which will be going all the way to Leap year day.

In fact, I think the last one posts on February 29th. That's how far out I have things planned on the blog right now and Ignatius has a different view of the bishop and The form of the church then you find for example in Clement or you find actually being practiced in Rome at this point in time

And so they had disagreements with one another they had differences of opinion and they had differences in teaching

What do you do with that? What has what has been the response of people like Jerry Matic's when we have debated the papacy in the past?

And I have raised clear statements from early church fathers that cannot possibly be made to fit with the idea of a

Universal consensus of the early church in regards to papacy. What's the response? Well, he was just a private theologian at that point in time

Well, that's very nice But who gets to decide who's being a private theologian and who gets to decide who's actually the container of tradition?

It's an anachronistic thing to look back and say well, we've defined these things and so We will find in this early church father support

But when this guy contradicts us, we just dismiss that that's in essence what ends up happening in in those contexts and when we knew that many of the

Early people fell away from the faith Anyway, what I do know is that I have the inspired Word of God and that I can trust

I'm not going to worry about the apostolic fathers. Well Yes And when we're talking about ultimate authorities, that's exactly right that that which is the anus toss is representative of what

Jesus taught and what the Apostles taught and His argument is going to be now. Well, Jesus didn't leave us a book.

He left us 12 men Yeah but what do you know and Remember, I asked father Mitchell pack with us and Steve Ray will never debate because he knows he can't answer questions like this

But I asked father Mitchell pack what a very important question in our debate on soul scripture in 1999

Over in El Cajon or San Diego El Cajon San Diego while they're right next to each other But anyway at the

Orthodox Presbyterian Church over there And I asked him a question and I I don't know how many people in the audience really caught it as to its significance

But it is highly significant. What I did is I asked I Asked the gentleman this question.

I said can you give me a single word?

That Jesus or the Apostles uttered that is not found in the

New Testament That is dogmatically defined by the church

In other words, how do you know what those men taught outside of the New Testament? You do not there is no word there is no utterance no statement from Paul or Peter or Jesus that has been dogmatically defined by the

Roman Magisterium as having been Not inspired

But as having been uttered and that this has been dogmatically defined by the church. It doesn't exist.

It's not there It's not there And that's why I asked the question what you just heard and and what you're gonna be hearing this argument is well

He gave us 12 men. Yeah, but what do we know about that? What do we really know about that? Not what other people said about them long after they were gone because we know that Ignatius that the very

The very first not Ignatius Irenaeus that the very first time someone says well This isn't in the

New Testament, but the people who knew the Apostles said that they taught this

The very first time someone says as Irenaeus and everybody agrees what he said about them was wrong

So if you can't get to the first example of it without being corrupted how on earth

Do you expect anyone to seriously believe that dogmas defined? 1 ,500 1 ,800 1900 years later are in any meaningful fashion

Connected to those Apostles that really is the question But in reality that is a very bogus way of looking at it, and I had to revise my theory

As the Lord has shown me things and I've studied history the Apostolic Fathers got their name

Apostolic not because they were Apostles but because they lived during the lifetime of the

Apostles So if you can imagine the way I said this at a conference this weekend as I was standing in the church near the altar

Can you imagine if if you learned about the liturgy on Sunday morning?

And you learned about the mass by sitting there while Peter and Paul and John were up in the front celebrating the liturgy

How much more would you know about the liturgy by watching? Peter and John and Paul and the

Apostles and that's exactly the situation the Apostolic Fathers were in They were disciples of the

Apostles the ones that I'm used mainly in my DVD in my Documentary where I went to all over Turkey and France and Italy and Israel where they were from and we filmed it all on location especially polycarp

Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome these three men knew the Apostles they were trained by the

Apostles They sat at their feet They knew how to celebrate the liturgy on Sunday morning not because they read it in a book or they read it in some kind Of a church manual they knew how to celebrate the liturgy on Sunday morning because they did it with the

Apostles now But the question then becomes how do we know what they specifically taught?

And is there a more direct way of knowing what they specifically taught than to just simply run off to well

Then we trace this line over here, and yeah, yeah, okay these guys over here

They baptized differently and they baptized three times facing forward or something like that But I just leave them alone because we don't do that and then we trace over here

And then we trace over here, and is that how you actually get back in a meaningful way? Or do you go with what they themselves taught the churches and felt the churches needed to know

I? Remember you got to go back to what Augustine said when Augustine talked about Jesus He's he when he's refers to the supremacy of the scriptures

He said knowing that a time was coming when they would not have him to have and to hold he gave them the word to have and to hold and That then becomes the very mechanism by which he is truly with them that then becomes the issue they knew

The tradition they knew the teachings of the Apostles we remember that Paul said to the

Thessalonians hold fast To the traditions that I left you whether they were in writing or by word of mouth

And of course we have pointed out many many times that that is a gross abuse of the text

Second Thessalonians 2 15 because of why because the context is indicative of the fact that Paul is talking about the gospel.

It is the gospel go back second Thessalonians 2 13 That was delivered to the Thessalonians in two ways it was delivered by preaching it was delivered by a letter

But it was one body of tradition that the content of the tradition was the gospel And that was what they were to hold to there is no

Evidence whatsoever that Paul delivered to the Thessalonians anything about bodily assumptions the immaculate conceptions infallible bishops of Rome or anything of the type

That would be an external Presentation at that point by that he also means by our example what we taught you while we were there

These apostolic fathers are the authentic witnesses to that apostolic teaching

They were there to see it and hear it and to watch it with their own eyes So when we read their writings and we learn about their life

We go right back to the first century and we see what the Apostles were teaching in Technicolor in a sense we can read it in the

New Testament But when we go back to these first Christians the apostolic fathers We can see the teachings of the

Apostles living out right in front of us Which makes them very important for another reason

Why is it that people like Steve Ray have to insert into them teachings that were not their own?

I? Refer especially to his attempt to insert into the text in Ignatius and his epistle to the

Smyrnians a later Theology that honest Catholic historians recognized was not primitive

It was not a part of Ignatius as context could not have been understood by him in the way

It's understood by modern people Why hat why do you have to read in them? And why don't any of these people hold to the very?

Dogmas that define the modern Roman Communion today Do they look to the Bishop of Rome as the infallible leader?

Why does Ignatius not even mention the Bishop of Rome and he writes the church at Rome? Because the Church of Rome didn't have just one bishop

They had a plurality of elders now the church is an Asian minor had one bishop We see clearly at that point in time two different episcopate theories

Existing side by side, but the church in Rome Catholic historians admit at this point in time had a plurality of elders

Clement was probably one of those elders in the church at Rome That's why the early succession lists don't match with one another because they're trying to read back into Rome a

Singular succession that wasn't there there was more than one elder in the church at Rome in that time

They didn't think it was important to know who the quote -unquote one successor of Peter was Because it is anachronistic to read back into their context these kinds of concerns

But these primitive fathers do not have the Marian dogmas that define Rome today. They do not have the ecclesiastical

Concept the sacramental kind where seven sacraments where in the world is that where do they have this this concept of a celibate?

sacramental priesthood It's just not there at this period in time So why in the world point to them what they do is they say well you see you know they we had these things in Common, but then these others like the acorn that falls from the tree

It has the genetic code within it and eventually it's going to develop that What's what's a good way to abandon the historical field of argument, and that's exactly what they have to do

That's the color. That's why they're so important They are the authentic witnesses to the actual life and practice and teachings of the

Apostle Steve We were talking today about the apostolic fathers Some may have heard the term used church fathers before Or the fathers of the church talk about say the difference between the two and would there be

I? Presume there would be some apostolic fathers who would also be considered fathers of the church church fathers or am

I muddying? They're absolutely correct. They're all they're all Church fathers,

I would say it like this all Bishops are priests, but not all priests are bishops

That's interesting, but that in and of itself also takes us far away from the teachings of those very same early fathers

But we have a call that I want to try to sneak in before we are out of time here Let's go back to Dallas and talk with Frank.

Hi Frank. Hello, dr. White. Hey, don't I have a Somewhat of a question and a comment about there being a bishop of Rome in the early second century

Mm -hmm, and I I did not come to this conclusion on my own It was actually in the context of a dialogue with a good friend of mine

Who is leaving the Catholic Church to become a an Eastern Orthodox? And we were talking about the the evidence in in the early church

For the papacy and I was pointing out to him, you know What I had read on various scholars that there was no bishop of Rome until the mid second century

Well, let me let me stop you there. What you mean is that there was a plurality of elders There was a church in Rome, correct?

And they had a church Well, no, you said there was no bishop and I just want to make sure people understand That you know from my perspective the term bishop is used of all of the elders

And so there were bishops of Rome a plurality of elders, but the idea of a monarchical episcopate

Did not develop till around 141 45, right? Right. Okay. All right. Just want to make sure people were following that You know that but people listening may not know that right and so some of the common

Or basic evidence that I pointed out to him was when Ignatius Addresses the Church of Rome.

He unlike the all the the other churches. He doesn't make mention of the bishop there Also in claimant

There there is no mention of a bishop of Rome, but it's constantly in in the plural, right? We are writing you we write

But he pointed out something that was really interesting and this is not something that he studied at all It was just in the context of our conversation.

It kind of came out and he said but but if Ignatius mentions clearly that there's a three -part structure of the church and he mentions that the bishop sits in the place of God and Without the structure there is no church

Then if we're going to be consistent he said then that means that Ignatius did not recognize

Rome as a church if it didn't have a Bishop well that that obviously does not follow because that would assume that that time in history

There was some mechanism whereby a particular theory of church government could be enforced all across the the known world

And that simply would not follow certainly in Asia Minor The monarchical Episcopate had developed very early on and you see that in his writings to those particular churches, but to say that well if It would have to follow then that Ignatius was of such a non

Catholic spirit that if Rome has a plurality of elders And he he recognizes this that means he rejects

Rome as a Christian Church that smacks more of the attitude of Victor At the end of the second century

Whereas you know Irenaeus basically had to tell him to cool his jets because he wanted to get rid of the folks in the east because the quarter -decimant controversy and when you when you celebrate

Easter and so I don't believe that he was of such a spirit as to Make that kind of assertion that doesn't not mean that he's not going to use his own

Theory as an example as he does in regards to what you just mentioned in regards to the offices in the church

But it that it would require you to then mean and he was of such a narrow spirit that he therefore meant

That everybody who would disagree with him on this he's going to excommunicate or something out He clearly does not do that He says the

Church of Rome has has the the presidency in that area But it's a presidency of love not of jurisdiction, and it does not involve any particular individual wielding monarchical power

So I just can't can't agree with the assumption That's being made that so well since he thought it was important that meant that he automatically could not believe that someone who did not see it as important as him or believe as he did on that is automatically to be to be dismissed because That would mean that I could not have fellowship with my

Presbyterian brothers Just because I think that the issue of baptism is very important. I disagree with them No, I do, but I recognize there are some things that are more important than other things and that our fellowship in the gospel is such that We can disagree on these other things.

I certainly will defend my position I will I'm not gonna back down of From preaching on baptism in my own church or something like that just as Ignatius didn't

Back down on using his examples, but it does not follow that that means I would say oh, but they're not a true church

I don't how does how does that how does that flow from that? So are you so you think that for Ignatius the structure of the church was not and it's central

It was anonymous. Well, it certainly wasn't definitional I mean that there isn't any question historically about the fact that a he does not refer to any

Bishop of Rome and B there is no evidence from that time period that there is a monarchical

Episcopate in Rome, but the it does not follow then that he does not recognize that there is a church of Rome He recognizes that there is but he refers to them differently than he does to the others

So, where does he where does he give evidence that he viewed the issue of how you viewed the

Episcopacy as? Definitional of what is and what is not a church? Where's the evidence from Ignatius? Well, I mean,

I'm no, I mean, I'm not a scholar, but it just the language that he uses is so Harsh, I just want harsh wouldn't be the right word.

It's just so Blunt like especially when he says like the bishop resides in the place of God And he makes this this link and there were multiple bishops in Rome and he recognized that there were multiple bishops in Rome He just doesn't single single one out.

He recognized there was a difference of view on that. It does not follow There is absolutely no evidence that it follows that he would then

Excommunicate the Romans as he goes to Rome for disagreeing with him on whether you have a single bishop or you have multiple bishops

Where's the evidence of that I mean Because they they had in Asia Minor the the monarchical

Episcopate had developed by that time Everybody recognizes there were two different views that existed side by side

That's all there is to it. I mean, there's no evidence that he excommunicated the Romans It does to say well, there must have been just one bishop because he would have kicked all the

Romans out If if if that were the case, I'm sorry, I don't know anybody

Who comes that conclusion at all? Nobody at all. There's no reason to all right. It's the

Thursday Yeah, Thursday's next time we're on right? Yes, I think so and Who knows you can never tell when you open the phone lines what you're gonna end up talking about But we'll we'll probably continue all the little

Christopher Hitchens It'll help my voice a little bit as well And I'll get some feedback from my from my coaches over in England as to how they felt it went today

And we'll be back again on Thursday. Thank you. Shelly who? The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks