Discussing the Frank Beckwith situation

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 at 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 on a Tuesday morning it is

I believe sometime early in May hard to know exactly when May 8th, in fact and As of last

Thursday, it was my intention to just slide right back into the

Shabir Ali Mike like on a debate, but Later in the day

Thursday within a few hours of completing the last dividing line. I started hearing rumbles concerning what has consumed the blogosphere ever since Thursday evening and that specifically, of course the return of Francis Beckwith the

Current or was current president of the Evangelical Theological Society to full communion with the

Roman Catholic Church and All that has come about it reminds me in many ways of what took place when

John Paul the second died we had at that point in time a spotlight shown on the fact that most evangelicals

Do not know why they're evangelicals most evangelicals are what they are just because they were born that way and and that's true for a lot of folks most people are what they are not because they have examined alternatives and have strong convictions about what they are they they are just simply because they are and as a result when

John Paul the second passed you had all sorts of Discussions that basically ended up saying that as long as you're a nice man

As long as you're a nice elderly man and and you you do nice things and say nice things

You're gonna go to heaven that the content of your gospel just doesn't matter. It's it just it's irrelevant and We heard that from a lot of folks and if you dared say wait a minute

I I thought we believed that there was something about the gospel that saves and there's this stuff and you know

It's very unpleasant stuff in New Testament about false gospels and and false brethren and stuff like that There there aren't any false

Gospels anymore Post evangelicalism, I think we need to consistently start using that term

I'll have to train myself to put a rubber band on my wrist and the wrist to slap myself every time I say

Evangelicalism because the words meaningless it has no meaning any longer post evangelicalism, which is this this nebulous undefined body of stuff

Doesn't have sufficient confidence in the revelation of the

Word of God to be able to actually say there is such a thing as a false gospel or false brethren you just as long as someone is nice, they can't be a false brother and as long as they're nice and say

Jesus and Agree with us on you know moral stuff stuff cultural stuff

Then the idea of a false gospel is is just not possible not possible anyway, you can't have it and so in the ensuing days since Thursday evening

Amazing things have taken place. I continue to find it almost impossible to understand

How anyone could object to the public discussion of what

Francis Beckwith did? And why anyone would think that I should sit back and go well now you know the president the

Evangelical Theological Society has has become a Roman Catholic and That obviously is going to be used by those who promote all sorts of false doctrine

That's going to be used by all of the Roman Catholic apologists And and there's gonna be tremendous confusion brought on by this and it's gonna again raise the opportunity to address these things and so, you know, we try to look for the positive in all these things, but I think

I should just sit back and be politically correct and We should just you know, this is this is about people.

It's not about truth. And since it's all about people then we need to be people people we need to be people persons and You know,

I almost looked up almost looked for the Saturday Night Live thing with that one guy

I like me and I like you and I'm a good The whatever the guy's name was,

I don't know I only heard a few times but That's what

I wanted to do it is amazing how few people on either side recognize that this matter isn't about Frank Beckwith and it's not about me and So why

I would I would go well, you know, I shouldn't say anything about this now You know

We don't we don't want to sound an alarm and we don't want to talk about the gospel and and we don't want to have reasons

To discuss these things we should just since it's all about people Then we shouldn't worry about the truth of the gospel

You know, I mean that Apostle Paul he was he was so far out of step of the times how he named names

And he he wrote to churches and said if anybody teaches this they're anathema and we have grown so far

Beyond that now in our love and our maturity It's just amazing.

It is Amazing to me how people can be so blind as to think this has something to do with Frank Beckwith or myself

That's ridiculous It has to do with the gospel. It has to do with the truth.

It has to do with how people are saved If you think that there that you can make a case that well, you know, you just should just let him

You know what at his time, you know Like I said, did he do this behind a screen did they did they change his voice so it wouldn't be recognized

You know use the pixelated thing on his face during the mass. I mean, come on This was this was not done in a corner

It just absolutely amazing to me that anyone even even begins to raise the issue and and honestly all of you who have

You My part I dismissed you immediately because you obviously just aren't even aren't even on the same page in Thinking about what the gospel is or things like that.

So Obviously the moonbat left fringe of of the

Catholic apologetics community people like Dave Armstrong and Mark Shea art Sippo The ones who would have made great inquisitors during the

Inquisition man, they would have been right at the forefront You know pitchforks in hand though, they're out there doing their things and and they're not thinking either so don't have to worry about them too much there they're just doing their thing, but The there's been so much venom vented my direction for making basic statements like This is about the gospel and Rome doesn't possess the gospel and Rome's gospel is fundamentally contradictory to the biblical gospel

And yes, just justification is definitional and how dare you say things like that?

Oh, you're oh, you're just so mean And oh, you're just so arrogant and oh, it's just and I sit here going

Wow Postmodernism has really taken over it has it. I mean in Rome too.

It has has completely Taken over absolutely amazing that that is that is the case

But you know the Roman Catholics the nastiness, you know You see and no one will say anything about the nastiness, you know someone anybody can use my name

They can they can they can they can throw acid in my face as long as it's in the service of Mother Church Then all is well, and no one will raise a word of protest

But if you dare say this person has committed an act of apostasy.

Oh you unloving terrible horrible person it's the hypocrisy of the response in the vast majority of instances has been staggering absolutely staggering

Just utterly amazing. So In in wanting to talk about this today on the dividing line

Thankfully, I got an email this morning Actually two emails they came to the website

I'm not gonna mention the name here Though people can some people might be able to figure it out

I wouldn't have I don't know the gentleman, but he sort of identifies himself maybe some of you figure it out, but I thought this was probably the best way to To synthesize a number of the points and I'm gonna look at what

Frank Beckwith said There's a particular paragraph we need to look at because I I found it fascinating when he gave his reasons

But let me let me read you this this email and make some comments on because I think it will

Distill down some of the some of the real issues that we need to be thinking about on the dividing line today dear

Dr. White, I don't think we've ever met but we've probably got some mutual friends like Mark Dever I am an evangelical and a

Baptist and Frank Beckwith is a dear friend and colleague From your blog postings. It sounds like you're getting lots of mail and most of it sounds pretty hostile.

That's for sure I certainly hope my notes to you doesn't fall into that category It's a tragedy that Christians can't disagree and argue with one another in more amiable and productive ways

Like you I am reformed in my theological orientation But unlike you I am

NOT troubled by Frank's return to the Catholic Church It's not something that I could do but I think I understand why he and Frankie have done it

I don't know any of these Catholic apologists that you're arguing with but I know enough of John Henry Newman and the like to see

The logic I do know Frank to be a man of impeccable integrity and possessing an extraordinary breadth and depth of intellectual insight

Frank and I may disagree about this or that but I am always impressed and frequently persuaded by the reflection and argumentation which accompanies his

Deliberation more to the point. It would never occur to me to doubt Frank's salvation Frank is a Christian He was a

Christian two months ago, and I believe that he is a Christian today I do not believe that he can lose his salvation now

I've spent a lot of time reading the Puritans and I'm well aware of how fallible human judgments can be made about these sorts of Things especially where friendship and affection are present

But the more important point seems to me to me that the Puritans recognize that within the ongoing process of Sanctification there is given to the believer and ever -increasing capacity for reliable though fallible judgment

I have several questions for you and they are honest questions not debate points While surely it is the case that there are many people who are members of Protestant Catholic churches who have not experienced

God's saving Grace, is it your belief that membership in the Catholic Church is incompatible with God's salvation in short?

Do you deny that Catholics can be Christians if you do not if you do deny the Catholics can be Christians? How do you understand the first 1 ,500 years after Christ?

Do you subscribe to a landmark is to trail of blood thesis of pockets of Christians through the ages if you do not deny?

That Catholics can be Christians and by what criteria should Catholics have reasonable assurance of their salvation You have suggestion in your blog that Frank's church put him under discipline

Surely you would deny that it is possible for Frank to forfeit his salvation even by returning to Rome Is it your belief that he never really was a

Christian or rather that he is a Christian? But in a state of grave sin and cannot be accepted back into his church until repents of it

What is his eternal status if he never returns to a Protestant Church again, it is not my intent to ask costal questions

I would really like to know what you think about these matters I have learned and continue to learn a great deal from my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ We disagree about many things but we agree about far more than we disagree.

Thank you for your time Now again, I I really think that this particular email

Really illustrates the state of post evangelicalism today and it does give me the opportunity of Addressing some very very important things

First of all, he says that I am reformed in my theological orientation, but unlike you

I am NOT troubled by Frank's return to the Catholic Church I Cannot understand that sentence unless what we mean is reformed in my theological orientation means that I view the broad outline of Reformed beliefs as having a better probability of truthfulness than other competing

Views that others can hold equally well and with with equal integrity And if that's what anyone believes it means to be reformed then

I'm not reformed in that way okay, if Because I cannot possibly conceive how a person to me to be reformed means that you have a passionate life -changing soul consuming

Commitment to the gospel of grace that you recognize that side of the truthfulness of this gospel.

You have no hope That outside of a perfect Savior outside of grace that does not simply try to save but saves outside of God's eternal decree outside of a perfect atonement on the cross outside of Justification that involves the very imputation the righteousness of Christ to me outside of all that I have no hope and if that's just an

Intellectual construct for you then again, I don't understand. There's no no common ground between us

Because I can understand how a person can have a feel have a theology It's over here.

And then my standing before God over here there has to be a consistency and so I I cannot understand how anyone can be reformed and not be concerned when someone goes back to the

Roman Catholic Church And again, there is a difference between someone going back to the

Roman Catholic Church and someone just becoming Roman Catholic because You know, obviously

Dr. Beckwith's training was within Roman Catholicism and he always was quote -unquote

Catholic friendly and That raises all sorts of other issues in regards to his profession of the gospel in the first place which you know may or may not ever be answered, but the point is that the gospel of Rome with its imperfect sacrifice and If you don't if you don't recognize

That Rome's Eucharistic theology is the center of her soteriology. You don't know anything about Roman Catholicism I've got all sorts

Roman Catholics telling me how little I know about Roman Catholicism But they can't give me any examples All they can do is just throw out the mud.

They can't give examples I've read enough Roman Catholic theology to know that the

Eucharist is the very center of her soteriological system and if you know anything about the historical understanding of the doctrine of the

Eucharist and You know anything about the Reformed doctrine of the atonement and the sacrifice of Christ and the union of God's people with Christ You cannot

But recognize that this isn't just a variant understanding

This is contradiction To hold to one is to deny the other

They cannot be placed as mere options upon the table that men of goodwill can adopt one or the other and it really doesn't matter and so how someone

Can go from allegedly professing the one To professing the other

That's the issue that's the question what what is really being said? That's what we should be talking about not whether well you shouldn't have you shouldn't have mentioned he was converted or All this stuff is just you know side noise.

It's meant to to distract from the real issues which is what did

Jesus Christ do and Does the Roman Catholic priest who is an altar

Christus another Christ have the sacramental power to call Christ down from heaven and Make him present upon the altar the

Roman Church Not to perfect anyone in that means Not to perfect anyone in that means but to provide a bit of grace some grace and You have to keep coming back and coming back and coming back and coming back and you can come back your entire life and still die impure

That is not the Reformed gospel you cannot hold both of them as having equal validity and If anyone thinks well, you know what?

I think there's a 60 % chance the Reformed understanding is right and a 40 % chance the Roman Catholic understanding is right

Then you're not Reformed Not Reformed. I'm sorry If you want to use the term fine,

I'll go find another one You know, that seems to be how we have to do things You know people start claiming to be something in the very heart of things.

They just can't even begin to understand and so When someone says

I'm Reformed But I'm not troubled by Frank's turn the Catholic Church Then I have to understand have to question

Well, you're either not Reformed or you don't understand anything about Roman Catholicism one of the two that it's the only only direction I can possibly

I can possibly go there now. He makes reference John Henry Newman. Well, you know what? It's funny He doesn't know any of these

Catholic apologists. I'm dealing with even though they're the most popular ones out there But I know it's

John Henry Newman and You know when any when anyone starts talking about Newman I I get a little wry smile on my face because I I just wonder if they know about Newman and papal infallibility

I wonder if they realize the reason Newman developed his system is because he recognized you simply cannot maintain the historic

Roman Catholic claims coming out of the Council of Trent in regards to this this unanimous consent of the fathers and things like that in so many of the

Traditional areas that Roman Catholicism has made dogmatic statements in and I just really wonder, you know, whenever I hear

Be deep in history is deceased to be Protestant. That's what John Henry Newman said I'd I I just I just want to want to go

Yeah and how do you how do you deal with with Newman's opposition to papal infallibility and then his collapse afterwards and his

His embracing of it and they normally there's they're actually going what and I have no idea what you're talking about you know, they've just seen that quote and you know, it's like people saying

I so I went and read the early Church Fathers really you Did huh? Which which of them did you read?

And Did you come up with anything consistent with them? You know that there's a whole mess of that stuff.

That isn't hasn't even been translated into English yet hmm anyway, I made some comments about that on the blog yesterday he says

Frank is a man of Extraordinary breadth and depth and intellectual insight and he may well be there have been many

Roman Catholics of tremendous intellectual insight I know many Mormons of tremendous tremendous intellectual insight. That's not relevant to this issue.

Is it I Mean I I do question some of the statements that he makes on a factual level

I he tells me that his study of in his own statement on his website his study of the early

Church Fathers is a Matter of weeks and I sort of go. Hmm doesn't seem like a real long time to really

Grasp hold of a lot of things. I'd really wonder what sources were being Utilized here not very many people in Frank Beckwith Position have the luxury to just lay everything else aside and dive into a real in -depth study of that particular topic

I bet you he still had other things he was working on. So Hmm wonder what the resources were wonder what the conclusions were.

We'll find out I suppose We'll find out but anyway My correspondence says

Frank is a Christian. Well, okay. I'm not sure how you know that about anyone specifically I we know that Frank Beckwith claims to be a

Christian and Of course, we know that all Roman Catholics claim to be Christians we know that all Mormons claim to be Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be

Christians and we know all sorts of folks who claim things, but the question is how do we define that and And is there any objective way of doing so and in post -evangelicalism,

I don't know there is any objective way left to actually define what is the Christian faith, but these questions were quite interesting to me and You know, you may have had some of the same questions yourself.

And so It'd be useful to answer them. Unfortunately the vast majority of them. I have answered

Repeatedly not only in over almost three dozen Moderated public debates with leading

Roman Catholic apologists on numerous radio programs on this program for decades now and and So on so forth, but I'm a published author and we're not talking about Small books that no one's ever noticed

I've written entire books like the God who justifies and the Potter's freedom And of course this this book called the

Roman Catholic controversy, which I think came out in 1996 Which means it's a little bit out there for 11 years.

It's still in print from Bethany house and it hence is easily obtainable and yet my correspondent it wants me to basically restate everything that I've written in my published works and You know people say we'll just go ahead well, and I'm going to but you know what

I I do I do want to make mention some I when when I know I'm writing to an author I Buy their books first and see if they've actually addressed this before I go.

Hey, could you repeat your book for me? Maybe I'm weird that way. I don't know. I just way I was raised is, you know, if someone's

Published on a subject you might want to look at what they published might help but Anyway, I guess when you're an apologist,

I think if you were just a plain old theologian, you know One of those folks that you know, it's respectable but apologists aren't aren't supposed to be respectable

At least in many people's minds and that's been my experience anyways, but anyway Is it your belief that membership in the

Catholic Church is incompatible with God's salvation in short you know Neither Catholics can be Christians. Well, we have addressed this many many many times before I have said many times before that the

Catholic gospel is not the gospel that saves a gospel that focuses you upon repetitious sacramental accomplishment imperfect work of Christ Sacerdotal priesthoods purgatory sodas passio intercession of Mary and saints and angels the thesaurus meritorium and All the associated things goes so far beyond anything.

The Judaizers ever dreamed of doing that it boggles the mind and So if the single edition of the gospel that the

Judaizers had led to the anathema of Paul then Paul's gospel the the

Rome's gospel pales in and it's just it's so far beyond that that it's that it's difficult to even draw parallels and So I do not believe that Rome's gospel saves

Therefore if there is a member of the Roman Catholic Communion who is saved it is because they are saved by the true gospel which they have heard in whatever context not by Rome's gospel and Therefore a

Roman Catholic who is a true child of God is so in spite of the

Roman Catholic Church not because of the Roman Catholic Church now does that mean that You know little lady in in Uruguay who

You know, here is a simple gospel message and and responds to that and believes in Jesus But goes to the

Roman Catholic Church because there's nothing else to go to is condemned to hell No, because she heard the right gospel.

She may not Understand what's being said from the pulpit? May not be a language you can understand but but she has a simple faith in Christ and God Will certainly save that individual so it is not the name

Over the door that saves you of the building you go into on a Sunday or whatever other day of the week

It is the gospel that is the power of God into salvation and that's why we have to stand for the gospel

That's why I have to agonize with the gospel That's why I have to continue to address this issue because so many people in a movement named after the gospel don't know what the gospel

Is anymore? That's the outrageous thing that we find ourselves facing today So I do not deny that Catholics can be

Christians I deny that a person can be consistently Catholic and a Christian in other words a person who knows what the

Roman Catholic Church teaches and knows what the gospel is and chooses the one over the other is Thereby embracing a false gospel and placing themselves under the anathema of God so all the questions about landmark ism and things like that utterly irrelevant and and Outside the pale of anything meaningful to discuss

Ask if you do not deny the Catholics can be Christians and by what criteria should Catholics have reasonable assurance of their salvation

Well, obviously I don't believe that any person who comes though The gospel should remain within the

Roman Catholic Church any person would come to me as a Catholic and say, you know, I've embraced

The gospel I'm going to explain to them what Rome says and say by God's grace and for his glory

Get out of her Find leave and and and join a church where the gospel is proclaimed with purity rather than one where it is it is

Perverted as it is in Roman Catholicism and So I would not say that a

Catholic that's that's not the Catholics first problem. It's looking for assurance of salvation They're not gonna find it in Rome's gospel.

That's for certain they want to find assurance salvation The question is are you willing to leave Rome? So that you can honor

God by the the proper profession of the faith is the question

That would have to be asked at that point Then we read you have suggested in your blog that Frank's church put him under discipline and I most certainly did

I don't know how anyone could argue against that fact I don't I don't think anyone has I don't think anyone has written to me and said oh, no

No, no, you've misunderstood the Bible or I don't think anyone have lots of people that I'm angry about it

But no one has argued that the Bible Does not actually teach that it would be the appropriate thing to do

Then when a person leaves your church and embraces a gospel completely contradictory own that you need to put them under discipline and that if they do not repent of that that they are to be excommunicated that No one can argue that if you think you can argue that eight seven seven seven five three three

Three four one be glad to see how how in the world you can come up with that one But then he says surely you would deny that it is possible

Surely you would deny that it's possible Frank to forfeit his salvation even by returning to Rome I don't know

Frank Beckwith's heart And so even speculating on such things is not the point and that's not the point of church discipline either that's why the church needs to be clear in what it believes and Therefore when someone denies what it believes there is a basis upon which to act when someone denies

The central affirmations the Christian faith is laid out in London's bad London Baptist Confession 1689

We at the Phoenix Forum Baptist Church have a ground upon which to act and in fact a duty upon which to act in that situation and so if Frank Beckwith remains

Unrepentant for the sin and it is a sin to deny the gospel of grace This this is where and this is really honestly where our society jumps ship because they say oh, no, it's not

The what what you believe about the gospel is amoral what you believe about the gospel is just it's just we're all free to believe

We want that's where the problem lies. That's where the the non -christian worldview is

Firmly ensconced amongst people is that they actually think that your doctrinal beliefs are disconnected from morality and The Bible knows nothing of that knows nothing of it all

False prophets are immoral for being false prophets for those who present a false. God are immoral They're in rebellion against God and will be punished therefore

There's no question about it so it isn't a matter of someone forfeiting salvation It's it's a matter of We are not given the ability to look into someone's heart.

We proclaim the gospel We identify false Gospels over against true Gospels and when people are consistent

Knowingly in rejecting the truth and embracing an error then they are to be treated as unbelievers

But the process has to start and I really wonder if it will start. I Don't know what

Frank Beck was church was no one's contacted me to say what church he was a member of But I would have no problem

Exhorting the elders that church to seek a meeting and to To Do what you need to do to bring discipline to bear and to call the man to repent

That's what elders are supposed to do So is it your believes that he never really was a

Christian or rather He is a Christian but in a state of grave sin and cannot be accepted back into his church until repents of it again

Why does everybody think it's a matter of we have to know who the elect are and we can look into people's hearts.

It's not It's all about persons. No, this is about the gospel. Here is a man in a public situation who has denied what he professed to believe

Okay, what are those to do who continue to believe what he is now denying? Are they just supposed to say well, you know slap him on the back.

Well Frank was still love you, brother You know Bless you on your journey. And that's what all the reformed

Catholic guys have been doing over there Those that group of apostates they're there. They're just oh, you know, the

Lord's just working in his life, you know I can just I can imagine those guys in Galatia man.

They would have been they would have been the odd man out Anyway, is it that what you're supposed to do? is

In our society. Yes, because there is no truth the gospel upon which to stand anyways

But if you actually believe that God has revealed the gospel is the power of God in salvation I don't understand how anyone can think you can respond in that way.

I just I don't understand it Maybe someone can explain it. I don't understand it. So yes,

I believe that he is in a state of grave sin and I call for his repentance.

Yes, that's what his church should be doing and There would have to be repentance Before restoration to fellowship in a in a

Bible based gospel preaching church Yes, there's no question about that, but you don't have to add to that Oh when you're claiming to have knowledge of the man's soul

No, I mean this is this is an objective thing what the gospel is is something it can be identified no matter how

Postmodernists try to avoid that what is his eternal status if he never returns to a Protestant Church? No, there's only there's only

There's only one answer to eternal status. It's whether You as an individual are in Christ and embrace the gospel or not

Now the question is Frank Beckwith has by his public proclamation

Aligned himself with a false gospel now, it is interesting. I'm gonna read this down below He's very careful what he said a lot of people haven't noticed ways that we're gonna get to that in a moment

But a lot of people haven't really noticed what he said He certainly left itself to wiggle room he really did there's some wiggle room in there and we'll see it here in a moment

I Have and then the final statements I have learned to continue to learn a great deal for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ I can't because they're not

Oh You're so unloving. You're so close -minded. No, I Refuse to so betray the gospel as To say that you can deny the gospel but be in Christ as my brother and sister.

I I don't understand the mindset. I understand all the worldly reasons.

Oh, but we can all hold hands together We can cooperate and and all these wonderful social causes if you just be a nice person

Well, I think it's more important to be nice to God his glory in his gospel than to get the kudos of men and Have everybody patch on the back and oh, you're so you're so loving and kind I don't think you're being loving and kind at all

We disagree about many things but we agree about far more than we disagree. Really? You know what that means that means the gospel does not define the

Christian faith That means to say we agree about far more than we disagree

Really? we disagree on The sufficiency of God's Word to define the faith for us.

We disagree on what the gospel is we disagree on what can be defined a fee day as Definitional of the gospel

Rome has added all sorts of stuff to that including the bodily assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception and papal infallibility

So we disagree on what defines the very message we proclaim to the world But we just want to fall back on Oh, but we agree on so much

And as I said to Tim Staples on the Bible and spam broadcast years ago If someone walked up to us outside of an abortion clinic and said what must

I do to be saved we would give Different answers and it is not loving to ignore that That's worldly love that's not

Christian love in any way shape or form but if the sentiments expressed in that email are common amongst post evangelicals today and they are

Then it's fully understandable Why conversions continue to take place in that way?

Fully understandable Now real quickly because we got at least one phone calls been holding of quite some time

Here's what Frank Beckwith said he'd I'm not greed the whole thing, but here's this one paragraph and I want you to listen carefully listen very carefully here listen with discernment and See if you can hear

What's being said the past four months four months that's approximately 16 weeks

The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife as you probably know my work in philosophy ethics and theology

Has always been Catholic friendly well makes sense as PhDs from a Jesuit institution

But I would have never predicted that I would return to the church for there seemed to me too many theological ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable

However in January at the suggestion of a dear friend I began reading the early church fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors

Let me stop him. Oh Which ones? sophisticated What's an unsophisticated work by Catholic author there is so much confusion in Roman Catholicism today about her own beliefs

I mean Rome is not becoming clearer and clearer in her belief. She's becoming more and more muddled There's not clarity coming out of Rome.

There's there's a broadening of the scope of possible understandings I've had

Roman Catholic priests say to me that Jesus isn't really present in the in the in the mass

Because they have their own interpretation of what transubstantiation means and it's a spiritualized thing, but but They're still

Roman Catholic priests Go to Boston College and listen to what's taught under the rubric of Roman Catholicism there

There is such a wide variety. So what are these sophisticated? Where is this Scott Hahn? Is this

Scott Hahn's bringing elements of covenantalism and trying to marry it up with Roman Catholic theology and come up with sort of a his

Own, you know thing here. Is that where this is coming from? Which early church fathers in what form a

Juergens quote book or The actual original Context which ones that's what

I'd like to know. It's only only only four weeks or four months. That's that's a long long period of time. I Became convinced that the early church is more

Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification correctly understood is

Biblically and historically defensible now now again listen to that There are there's wiggle room in here.

There's caveats here There's a lot of caveats here more

Catholic than Protestant Really who in the early church believe what a Roman Catholic believes today?

Who in your church believed in papal infallibility? Who in your church believe in the bodily assumption to marry who in the earth church believe in the

Magna Conception of Mary? Who in your church believed in status passio indulgences purgatory? Hello anybody

The answer is nobody. Ah But what we mean is on these particular issues

We can find people who oh, yeah, everybody believed in baptismal regeneration. So that must that's that's

Roman Catholic see the very issues that define

Roman Catholicism Are the very issues that are much later developments.

So why would you pledge your fealty to a church? That has those later developments on the basis of early church fathers who didn't know anything about these things

I became convinced the early church is more Catholic than Protestant into the Catholic view of justification correctly understood

I'm gonna make a wild guess. I think This is with sort of honey and spin

Which is where you you take Catholic definitions and you lean them as far toward the

Bible as you can and Then you take biblical definitions and lean them as far toward Rome as you can and it leaves a gap that you can leap over if you really try hard enough

I'm gonna make a prediction just Could be right could be wrong. Let's we'll find out we'll find out maybe who knows

Even though I also know this this you do not hear from Catholic answers even though I also believe that the

Reformed view is Biblically and historically defensible. I think the

Catholic view has more explanatory power To account for both all the biblical texts and justification as well as the church's historical understanding of salvation

Prior to Reformation all the way back to the ancient church the first few centuries Wow That's not what you normally hear on the coming home network

You know, I mean Uh, there's there's again a massive amount of wiggle room there

That's not a glowing endorsement of the infallible church. We've got nothing here about I have come to believe in the in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the bodily assumption of Mary in the

Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility of the Pope and you don't hear any of that. It's well, you know, they're both defensible

But you know on the whole 6040 7030, you know

That's that's not a ringing endorsement of the of the historic claims of the Catholic Church to be the one true church moreover much of what

I have taken for granted as a Protestant the Catholic creeds the doctrines the Trinity and the incarnation the Christian understanding of man the canon of scripture is a result of a church that made judgments about these matters and on which non

Catholics including Evangelicals have declared and ground their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Well, obviously

I go, excuse me dr. Beckwith The Catholic Church should not give me the

Trinity the Catholic Church not give me the incarnation The Catholic Church should not give me the canon either

The Catholic Church did not give me a Christian understanding of man If anything Rome has had to try to move toward the

Reformation at that point because her understanding of man is very semi -plagian so every single one of these

I Say wrong And I would challenge dr.

Beckwith to show me a single bishop at the Council of Nicaea who believed what he has to believe as a Roman Catholic today

That's where Newman has to come in because Newman recognized nobody the Council of Nicaea Believed what he was being asked to believe the

Roman Catholic today. So you've got to have this development, you know That's an abandonment of the historical field of battle.

Let's face it. That's what it was Given these considerations

I thought it was wise for me to err on the side of the church with historical and theological

Continuity of the first generations of Christians that followed Christ's Apostles really what kind of continuity there?

but first of all even before I question the continuity even before you raise all the appropriate questions about the vast differences between modern

Rome and the ancient church and and the whole thing of the Pornocracy and the Babylonian captivity the church and all the problems the papacy and all the things that come from church history even before that you know when folks convert and they say well,

I Think it's better to err on this side than the other side. I Go what there's something else going on here folks.

We don't know the whole story here You don't throw your entire life into a tailspin in this fashion

Make this kind of commitment Based on saying well, I think it's safer to err on this side than the other side.

There's something else going on I don't know what it is. I make no claims To to understand what it is

I'm just telling you there's something more It may come out it may not don't know I don't know but there's got to be something more because you just don't make that kind of a move based on You know

Seems to me better to err this direction now. I would there are connections here this whole the whole

Thomistic Type of philosophy to which he's he's committed in the sense of you know, it's the same type of arguments.

We've been disagreeing with here on the dividing line of quite some time where The argument for the

Christian faith is that there's there's better reason it's more likely the majority of the facts tend toward the greater

Possibility of the greater probability of the existence of a God and then you try to go to the Christian God from there

We've tried to decry that we should decry that regularly on the program because that's not what the

Apostles preached That's in the background here, too.

That's part of this But there's there's there's more of this story

Maybe it'll come out me, but I don't know. I don't know. So there's some of the thoughts that I wanted to share today and Obviously for many that will just make people all the more angry

I was looking through some quotes. I'll go to the call in a moment, but I just happened to as I was looking through some notes

I had I found this from Charles Hodge who Honestly on some issues was far more friendly to Rome than I would ever be but he certainly recognized for example regarding papal infallibility

Which was a Novum in his day There is something simple and grand in this theory.

It is wonderfully adapted to taste and wants of men It relieves them a personal responsibility Everything is decided for them

Their salvation is secured by merely submitting to be saved by an infallible sin pardoning and grace imparting Church We know that when

Christ was on earth men did not believe or obey him We know that when the Apostles were still living and their authority was still confirmed by signs and wonders and diverse miracles and gifts the

Holy Ghost the church was distracted by heresies and schisms if Any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing

All must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant the erring and the wicked must be an evil

Inconceivably great the Romish theory of true might be a blessing if false.

It must be an awful curse And quote systematic theology volume 1 pages 130 and 150 just thought

I'd throw that out there I have challenged a number of people to call today Only one person is called and I don't think that this is one of the people that I challenged to call me anyways,

I could be wrong I suppose but Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number.

Let's go ahead Alan has been waiting for a long long time. Let's talk with Alan Alan you there

I Hit air and it didn't come up. Mr. Pierce Yeah, I can't bring it up.

Do do do do do there Alan? How are you, sir? Yes, doctor. What are you doing? Sorry, I'm not one of the guys you challenged to call in I apologize

Could you roleplay one of them? Well It's been amazing to me.

I guess the the fact that people cannot see this isn't about Persons, this is about the gospel.

I just I just I just I just can't believe it But it's all that the you mentioned something about the follow -up the phalanx of Calvinist who descended upon the blood.

Yes I went over there and commented actually and I said I counted three I'm Bill. Sorry, if you think of phalanx, you know, it's constituted of three people.

I Know it's amazing it's and I haven't even made note of all the stuff that I've seen on the web that just You sit there and you try to chuckle but after a while you just you it's depressing to see how people think these days

But anyway, you can either laugh or cry. Yes, that's right Well, my question is this I'm debating an Eastern Orthodox friend on my blog and one of the areas that we're talking about is on the canonicity of Judith and I use the arguments you did against the

Machuda in the cross -examination of your debate related to the dating of the temple and everything as a ruling in Nineveh, etc And so he brought up some numerical errors in the

Old Testament. I pointed out their scribal errors Obviously, he asked me well, why can't I assume the errors in Judith are results of scribal errors and textual corruption over the centuries?

So I brought it up over at the NTR men forums and dr Svensson said you'd have taken a different approach from the start in terms of Canonicity and arguing that I was wondering about your take on that Well, first of all the the issue of numeration and what you brought up in regards to textual issues the

Hebrew language utilized letters for numbers and hence It is well known that especially differences between ten one hundred one thousand that kind of numeration is something that is is difficult, especially for ancient

Hebrew given what it was written on and the mechanism that utilized to transmit with with great clarity the texts in Judith that speak of How do you how do you have a textual variant with Nebuchadnezzar and and Nineveh?

I mean, that's that's not even that that that's not even a possibility to try to make those things mesh

It's not a matter of how many horsemen or something. We're in a battle This is wrong

City wrong King wrong time wrong century And that it's so wrong that that the best argument that Rome could come up with is well, obviously, it's so wrong

No one could ever be that stupid to have said it in the first place. They obviously have not watched jaywalking at all, but I'll wait for a moment for that one to sink in.

You know what I was talking about right Alan. I apologize You don't know what jaywalking is. Well, you mean walking across the street?

Okay, we have a true Christian here and I have demonstrated that I am a pagan Jay Jay Leno of The Tonight Show does a thing called jaywalking.

Oh, is that where you ask people like the Ten Commandments? Well, sometimes so he'll ask questions like You know, when was

George Washington president and people will say things like 1955 that kind of stuff and so I was just demonstrating that that people when it comes to History can in fact be this bad.

I didn't quite catch the you know, such a worldly reference. I apologize I'm you know, I'm really sorry and I I will seek to emulate you in the future and no longer

Watch jaywalking, of course you I bet you a lot of cultural references go flying right by you

If you're not catching at least some of that, but anyway So I don't see a parallel there at all now

I'm not sure sure what Eric's talking about and obviously when I talk about canonicity, I talk about canonicity in two ways

I talked about sort of on the macro level theological level but you also have to deal with the specific historical issues of the differences between Carthage Hippo Trent the the streams of understanding regarding the apocrypha down through the centuries

Jerome versus Augustine people who could read Greek in Hebrew against people who couldn't read Greek in Hebrew, those are all relevant issues and You could argue that you have to start with the presuppositional approach in essence first the theological approach which

I do But you also are going to engage The the specifics of text such as the one you had as well

So I'm not sure what Eric was meaning is it was he saying that you you can't argue against the canonicity of Judith Or you shouldn't point out trying to give me advice rather He would have taken a different attack just in terms of what to talk about first what to emphasize

Yeah But the problem is that blog debates tend to you know Be very very narrow in there

They should be anyways given the given the format fairly narrow in their focus and if you know

You could argue it would be best to address how we know what the candidate is before you start addressing specifics

Sure, that's fine. But the apocrypha, I mean, that's a defined thing in a defined context in regards to Roman Catholicism and so, you know,

I Don't see anything wrong in approaching it from there But hopefully that will help you at least as far as those comments because I you cannot create a parallel between any

Old Testament Numerological issues in regards to Hebrew and the plain text not a variant text the plain text of Judith that is just simply completely

Outside any possible historical fulfillment. Thanks very much for your time. All right down. Thanks a lot.

All right. God bless. Bye. Bye Hey, at least that worked Some reason, all right, let's see if if we can get plaid man on the air.

Hello. Is this plaid man? I Guess I cannot you've messed me up in there You've you've you've you've can't hammered me.

Is this plaid man? Am I here? Yes. Yes plaid man I'm so thankful to have you. Yeah, we are honored sir to have you join us today because your insights now no one outside of the

Midwest knows of your your superhero status, but Those of us who have been there are very thankful to have you with us.

I'm sorry. Hi Eric. How are you? I'm very good this whole situation with Frank Beckwith, I guess and Especially the letter that you read on the air today

It makes me think back to Paul when he called the Ephesians the

Ephesian elders to him. Yes And he said to them beyond guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the

Holy Spirit has made you overseers To shepherd the Church of God which he purchased purchased with his own blood and then he goes on to warn them

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you not sparing the flock and From among your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things to draw the disciples after them.

And I just I I think of how Paul was warning these men

Just of the great personal anguish that they would feel In seeing men that they had

Worked with that they administered with that were there. They're good friends and yet we're we're changing we're

Changing the message to to draw men after them And I can

I guess I see the same The same sort of thing. Maybe people are still working through that with with the

Frank Beckwith Yeah, there's no question whatsoever that a lot of this has to do with when someone goes hey

I Benefited from what person X did they had a good argument on this or I I know that they have been close with this person

Who I have great admiration for etc, etc It is very natural very understandable for people to go.

Well, I I want to extend the greatest possible Length of Reasonable doubt or something along these lines and what

I'm calling for people to do and I know you're hearing this and hopefully others are too is

Paul knew that Paul had experienced this Paul had named people who had been a part of his inner circle and yet they were now opposing his apostolic authority and his apostolic message and yes,

I'm certain that he cried tears over that but in Galatians 2 Twice he uses the phrase the truth of the gospel and he said we did not put up with these false

Brethren for even a moment. So the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

He had the right priorities and unfortunately post evangelicalism can't have the right priorities because You have to believe there is a truth of the gospel before you will stand firm for the truth of the gospel

Agreed agreed. Very good. Thanks, James. All right. Thank you very much, sir. God bless All right, so let's try to bring

Lawrence up real quick Lawrence how you doing? I'm doing good. Thank you. Yes, sir

I had some some comments briefly on the issue of the canon especially from an orthodox perspective and also

As you know being relevant to people saying that the church You know made the Bible and things like that as you may know we were in touch very briefly

I'm the editor for the EOB, which is the Eastern Orthodox Bible project You were in just just a few weeks actually and I think it will be a fairly

Semi -official document with the lengthy introductions on this complex matter

Lawrence could ask what translation does it use NKGV? Well, no, this is actually from scratch as far as New Testament is concerned, so it's going to be really

Going back to the Greek and trying to do an Eastern Orthodox Translation really take it into account

You know our terminology like better and and having some Things like that and they're trying to look at you know, what's been done by other?

Committees, but the the Old Testament, of course is a major difficulty in terms of canon and text and so basically the introduction includes an article by a professor from from Thessalonica in Greece and the view in the end is that The Orthodox are still

Reflecting on the canon basically it was on the agenda of the council that didn't take place in the 60s, but what

What we do is that we say that we have in the Bible basically all the books of the

Septuagint, but in that Collection of books only some are canonical and we use their of course

Athanasius list and we declare the other books to be Ecclesiastical books or to be read but to use the similar expression similar to Jerome's the terminology

Yes and in fact We have therefore councils that have either You know put them in and some put them out if I refer to the recent catechism of st.

Icon And Philaret of Moscow in the 1800s that particular

Catechism which was official for the Russian Church Said relying on the opinion of Athanasius we only take the

Hebrew canon And so just and that's pretty recent at the same time the Greek tradition says

Well our text is the two agent and and that comes with these books which the father's of course quote from and so in the end we have that that Open view and two different levels of authority that we recognize interesting.

Hey, hey Lawrence I appreciate that insight on that real real quickly. What Greek text is used Well we go back to to the

One used by Brenton as far as the for the septuagint, but what about the New Testament well? We use actually the

Midori text and the Hodges tradition the Hodges farstad or the The one the other one

No, we use the one that was used by the King James later And we take into account and you and also interesting yeah, okay, all right.

Hey, thanks, Lawrence As you can tell by music we are out of time I appreciate your insight on that and everyone's calls today.

Thank you very much for listening to finally we back on Thursday. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 460 to or write us at PO 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 r g

Or you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks join us again this