Painfully Obviously Pressing Forward with the 2002 Veneration Debate Part 3

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White And welcome to the dividing line on a

Tuesday morning continuing on with our discussion of review of the great debate remembering these words from Patrick Madrid on Catholic answers live and Recommended primarily because it shows so painfully obviously how?

Really unbiblical the arguments were that were raised against the Catholic Church's teaching

I mean there were many Bible verses cited but they were in no way coherent or cohesive in terms of any type of a meaningful argument against the

Communion of Saints, so It's the painfully obviously dividing line and we have gotten through the opening statements and the first rebuttals now comes cross examination and then the never ending audience question

Where no one really knows how to ask a question and we we do have one example of the lowest cheap shot in In the audience questions,

I doubt we'll get to that today But be that as it may we begin with the cross examination

Patrick Madrid is asking first Could you name for us a single ecclesiastical document from any era

Catholic document in which the Catholic Church says that the terms dhulia and Latria are supposed to indicate the same reverence of Attitude the same reverential attitude toward the

Saints that would be proper to God alone In other words, is there any church document where the

Catholic Church says that the reverence that we are that We owe to the Saints is somehow the same as that which we are to God now

I stop it here because I don't I When I first listened to this again about a week or so ago listening to it once again or a little before that I didn't get it

In the debate I did not understand this question and I do now But I didn't get it then because it never crossed my mind that in essence

What he's asking me is where has the other ever the Catholic Church? Taught against itself.

I guess it's just sort of supposed to be a well. We've always said this type of a thing But he's basically asking me where has the

Catholic Church ever given a biblical view of Which of course they haven't

But I it just I it I didn't understand the first question. It was like why would now

I Do but still I'm going why would he bother asking me? For something like this because it's never been my argument that they've said anything other than this my point and it's sort of interesting

There's the guy who wrote in I responded to on the blog last night. Same thing. My point is so clear

I don't know how people can miss it. The point is the Bible defines worship men don't and Rome or anyone else stands liable to correction by Scripture house

How much more obvious can I get there? I don't know when I first heard this it hit me like a ton of bricks because the question assumes something huge Sola Ecclesia, and the problem here is your standard was from the

Bible His standard was where his Rome ever said this because that's the only thing that matters to me

Oh, yeah that hearkened me back to when Robertson Jenna's sat there in front of you in the cross -examination in his debate and if Rome says it

It's true period no discussion And you are you you've overstepped your bounds to question her in any way shape or form and that just spoke volumes in that question

Well, they're there this debate is excellent for demonstrating the vast difference between those who would recognize that the very worship of God is defined by God and Those would say no.

No, we we get to we get to define this we get to we get to decide these things That's that's just how it works.

And so I didn't get this one I was like what and and you'll see I was trying to figure out

It just never crossed my mind during the debate that his very first question would basically be where did the

Catholic Church ever actually give a biblical view of I Don't understand that question if it sounds like you're asking me where The Catholic Church has said lottery and Julia are what the

Bible reveals them to be and that is Interchangeable is that what you're asking? No, in other words

The church uses the terms in particular ways Now I recognize it.

It's not the way that you use them And in fact the church recognizes that scripture uses the terms in different ways that Julia can be used for humans as well as for God Now remember what is the one example in a religion?

Well, in fact, it wasn't religious context He has not given us a single example in a religious context where that is the case

What was the one example he gave us the servitude of the people of Israel to the Egyptians? Not relevant, yeah, it's exactly right, but that's the only one that's been given but it just keeps getting thrown out there now

There's gonna be a brief delay here for a second because I'm going from one file to another file here in a few moments

But well, we'll just press on there but I'm wondering if you can point to any place where the Catholic Church says that the veneration the

Catholics and Orthodox give to The Saints in heaven is somehow the same as the veneration that is given to God alone

Which makes no sense to me because that would be a kind of Contradiction and I hadn't alleged they were contradicting themselves.

I had alleged they were kind of in the Bible That's the whole point all the way along. Well, first of all, I would say that in the context of what you just said that The UO is in a religious context only given to God not in any other context

But if you're asking me where that has been addressed prior to for example, the second

Nicene Council or something like that I don't believe that it was I believe at least the first dogmatic

Distinction that is drawn is drawn there. Even though I don't know that was actually included in the dogmatic decrees, but at least in the

Deliberations of the council and so I am unaware of any discussion of this in a conciliar setting outside of Elvira And I don't know what the original

Terminology of Elvira was When it spoke of worship and service,

I've not been able to find an original source It would tell me what those original terms were. So no

The read just to follow up and I'll this will lead into my question here The reason

I'm asking by the way, keep a close ear out on who asks questions and who?

stretches the Range of what asking questions really is over and over again during cross -examination

See who's who sort of obeys the rules better than somebody that question is because the assertion that I'm making here tonight is that the

Catholic Church has drawn a distinction between the Way in which we offer

Julia and Latria to God and the Julia that would be offered to the Saints So that's the context of this next question coming up and that is can you name for us any early

Christian liturgies? And we know they abounded from the end of the first century forward Can you name any of the early

Christian century literate liturgies? Dating from the end of the apostolic era that did not contain elements of veneration of Mary and the

Saints and references to their intercession on our behalf Well, actually the early liturgies

You're assuming both in the assertion that you just made you continue to assume the identity of the modern

Roman Catholic Church with the ancient Catholic Church and that is an issue that It has not been established.

That is a presupposition on your part that I would Reject for many reasons and we can go into that if you wish to do so secondly as far as What you define as a liturgy and will be accepted as liturgies there in the most primitive liturgies you would not find whole elements of these kinds of Concepts of veneration it's not until the martyrs begin to appear in the roles of the liturgies that you begin to see

Requests being made of them. It is a development over time But obviously I believe the most important source of liturgy is the inspired scriptures

And I would say that every single example of worship of God in the inspired scriptures lacks all of the elements that you just mentioned

Well as a follow -up question the cross -exam the early liturgies abound actually every single one of them that's extant

Contains elements of requesting the veneration or requesting the intercession of the Saints and also a commemoration that is venerating of them and the the real question

Behind that question is how do you account for the fact that universally in the early church from the earliest day?

Universally the liturgies and that's the term that the church herself used Contain these elements of veneration honor and asking for the intercession of the

Saints How do you account for that a couple things? I would reject the assumption that every single one of them that means that there is no liturgy in Ignatius But there's no example of worship and there is

I mean his letter to the Ephesians Is filled with liturgical phrases and would be identified as an ancient form of liturgy

And there's nothing about any of that in Ignatius. There's nothing about in Polycarp Clement of Rome There's all sorts of sections in Clement of Rome that would be identified as early liturgical statements

And so evidently you're functioning with a meaning of the term liturgy That is significantly different than what

I would would use in that way because it would in essence Dismiss all the earliest patristic sources we have but as to Finding elements these things no one questions that I said in my presentation

That you will find this development over time What I asserted was that you have to test any development and in fact any activity by anyone

Especially when it's in regards to the worship of God by what God has revealed is pleasing to him moving on first Timothy 2 1 through 4 tells us as we talked about earlier that we are told to pray for Supplicate offer petitions for everyone because this sort of charity and prayer is good and pleasing to God our

Savior It's good and pleasing to God our Savior when we do this Could you explain to us how it is that our praying?

Supplicating and offering petitions to God on behalf of our fellow Christians on earth while we are on earth

If that is good and pleasing to God How is it that it somehow is forbidden and not pleasing to God when the

Saints in heaven do those very things on our behalf? The scripture commands from all Christians. Well, it's interesting when you cite first Timothy 2 that Paul makes no mention here anywhere of Prayers and petitions to Saints or that they are prayer praying and petitioning for us

Secondly when you ask what is prayer praying and petitioning for for example

It says here Kings and all those in authority that we may live, you know, godly and peaceful lives so and so forth

So this is talking about for example Petitioning God that those who are persecuting the Christians would stop persecuting them.

You're not persecuted any longer in heaven Therefore that's not gonna be something you're gonna need to do So there are many things that are good that we do here on earth as I mentioned it is good to pray

For your brothers and sisters, they will strive against sin. That is not something you're going to be doing in heaven Because you're in the presence of God Excuse me.

Can you give us a passage in Scripture that tells us that the Saints in heaven cannot or will not pray for us?

There is no reference to what the Saints in heaven are doing in regards to prayers here on earth because there is no reference to their

Involved with having knowledge of the sinful actions of human beings here upon the planet

The only references that I'm familiar with that anyone would put forward to that in the book of Revelation In reality or apocalyptic passages that require all sorts of assumptions rather than those clear passages and the patristics

I'm sorry the pastoral epistles or or Passages where Paul's talking about living the Christian life in Romans 12 or things like that where you'd expect such things to appear

They do not appear instead passages as I said in Revelation have to be brought into play to try to bring those things up I think you're referring to Revelation chapter 5 verses 6 and 4 and also

Revelation Chapter 8 in which we see the elders now, by the way here here comes up till now remember the the assertion painfully obviously how unbiblical and Incoherent and so on so forth the biblical arguments are so up to now

I'm sorry But I can't see how any rational person would say That that has been demonstrated in any way shape or form and in fact,

I think that I can very fairly say that if you've been keeping track of biblical references and biblical exegesis this debate ain't even close and So here's an opportunity cross -examination sometimes it's you know, it's really where the rubber meets the road that's where you know, and here we go

We've looked at first Timothy 2 Really haven't seen anything there. So now we're gonna go into Revelation.

Here's here's their their big their big argument The bowls containing the prayers of the

Saints So if this is where it's going to be this is it better happen pretty soon because there's not that much debate left

I doubt that it happened in audience questions, you know So this is this is where it should be

So let's listen closely now before the throne of God offering to God the Saints of the the prayers of the

Holy Ones here on Earth now, there's nothing unclear about that and there's nothing that we should

By the way, that's this does that sound like a question to you? That's not like a question me either because it wasn't a question because Patrick was breaking the rules as he knew he was

Take in those passages to impugn these clear readings of Scripture I mean the plain meaning of Scripture is that these men and these elders are standing before the throne of God offering like incense the

Prayers of the Holy Ones here on earth So how is it that we should disregard those passages disregard as somehow being?

Not consonant with our discussion tonight. I've never said that they are in any way shape or form to be disregarded

I have said that they have nothing to do with the idea that there are Saints in heaven Who are receiving prayers from people on earth and they are then?

Interceding before God on the behalf of people on earth who have prayed to them There's if you'd like to show me where in Revelation chapter 5

It is said that for example These elders are Saints themselves or that they are the ones who receive these prayers or these prayers were prayed to them

That is not the clear reading of the text at all At least I would not assert that it is now what I what did

I just challenge him to do? Show us first of all, the 24 elders are themselves Saints.

They once lived on earth now They're in heaven show us that show us where the text says that Then show us they were the object of these prayers

They were the ones being prayed to the prayers the Saints are in the bowls They're holding because they were the objects of the prayers

Now, I mean if if it's so painfully obviously That that this is that I'm the one it's unbiblical

But I'm the my arguments aren't a good this should be easy easily done

I mean, come on folks. Remember something keep keep this in mind People sometimes miss a really important fact about these debates

This man claims to be representing the one true infallible Church That has all authority that when it speaks it cannot be questioned

Merely surviving a debate is not exactly up to snuff not exactly up to the standards that one would expect for those who defend the infallible

Church and Yet that's what really the standard has become for most

Roman Catholic apologists If you don't end up crying by the end of it you did good

Is that really how you defend the infallible Church? Amazing, but those are the challenges.

Let's see if Patrick Madrid can answer I would assert that it is the plain reading of the text Rome or Revelation 5 8 when he took it the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the

Lamb Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense which are the prayers of the

Holy Ones Now this is repeated in Revelation chapter 8 So clearly the plain reading of the text is that they did receive these prayers of the

Holy Ones and they are now presenting them before The throne of God, where did he where'd he substantiate that?

He did not But it's a plain read. It's just plain. It's it's plain. You see it's very plain.

That's it's plain. That's the answer It's a very very plain Because they have the bowls the prayers must have been made to them

Right, I'm about to point out where that doesn't work But any attempt whatsoever here to demonstrate that these were saints who had lived on earth

None zero nada that is the plain reading Well, I completely and totally disagree that it's plain reading because that would mean that for example when the angels

Who have seals and bowls that are filled with the wrath of God that means the angels receive the wrath of God Obviously not these are individuals who have a special place before God nothing identifies them as being glorified saints in the first place

In fact in Revelation chapter 4 they are seen as being with the living creatures and they're constantly bowing down before God there's no identification of them as being glorified sent saints a which destroys the parallelism begin with and Secondly, there is nothing saying that it says each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense

Which are the prayers of the Saints means that they received those prayers directed to them There's nothing in the text even begins to suggest that oh

It does begin to suggest it as a matter of fact The only way that they have those bowls of prayers is because they did receive them

Otherwise, they would have no way to have those prayers. The prayers came from the earth They came from the Holy Ones and it came to them next question now not that there disqualification broke the rules

Trying to argue while it was supposed to be asking questions Very very clear very very obvious that that he's willing to do this

But hey, we get to respond now Where does the text say the prayers were addressed to these?

people it Doesn't all he just said was well, that's the only way they could have them. Oh, really?

so all the other things that they do I Mean, I guess they had to build the harps themselves, too.

I mean, come on. This is so absurd That's why these folks don't want to do a lot of debates because when it comes to getting into the text the

Bible They've got nothing to work with They they are they got nothing

This is the best Rome has to offer you're listening to it right now And how's what's the only way they can get around the destruction of their position here in Revelation is to break the rules of the debate

Make a quick comment at the end and rush on Hoping that no one catches that they just Disintegrated just just fell apart.

Remember painfully obviously painfully Obviously, that's why we're looking at this

Jim. If you died tonight. How do you like the start of that one if you died tonight? Would you still be a fully functioning member of the body of Christ according to first Corinthians 12?

And if you would be could you show us where the Bible places any restriction on your participation in the body of Christ after death?

with regard to prayers intercessions Supplications and thanksgivings that are that are proper to the body of Christ and were commanded in first Timothy 2 1 through 4

Can you show us where the Bible two questions? Would you still be a fully functioning member of the body of Christ?

And where does the Bible place a restriction on your ability to do the things described in first Timothy 2 1 through 4 a

A Yes, not only would I be a fully functioning I'd be a more fully functioning member of the body of Christ agree

I'd be in the presence of the Father and be the second question begs the issue because it assumes what has already been refuted and that is that the

Position that one is in has nothing to do with the activities that one takes place For example, you just use first Timothy chapter 2 as I already pointed out that defines as prayers for those in leadership and things like that Which would not be relevant as Mike says can

I finish my point place which would not be relevant to a person who is in? Heaven therefore there is a distinction that is drawn in the text itself

That same distinction is found in first Corinthians 12 the other passage you brought up where Paul is talking about The different gifts given to people in their functioning in the local body

I will no longer function as one of the elders of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church if I Were to meet my end this evening

Okay, now I need to stop right there and explain to you what just happened because if you don't have the video you don't understand

Did you hear that little pop? We were sitting at a table

I'm trying to remember exactly how this worked and I was looking to my member I was looking to my left but Patrick was to my left and we've put this on YouTube if you want to see something sort of funny and Bill Shishko, this is the first year that Bill Shishko moderated the debates and He's an old -style debate judge and he has a gavel and he ends a period of examination with a gavel so Patrick is turned toward me.

I'm to his right but Bill's behind Patrick and Bill has pulled up to Patrick's table.

And so when the time is up bill just goes whack on this table with the gavel

I Was afraid I was gonna have to do CPR On Patrick because he jumped like someone had just shot him and Everybody everybody in the place was was laughing.

So that's that's what just happened. I was paying attention to him Actually, I think we should ask if you don't make it through the evening after Why'd you put him on my side he volunteered

Thank You and if I were I will warn you when we get close to 12 minutes you can turn around before that happens again

I Will I'll stand back there Mr. Madrid, is it your position that the distinction between lottery and Julia would have been a valid excuse had a

Jewish man been found in his tent bowing before a statue of an Ancestor and when brought before Moses had claimed that he was not giving the statue or the ancestor

Latria But only the lesser concept of Julia, no, it would not be my position. Okay.

I Of course would like to go. Why not? How can you avoid that?

Why would it not be a valid excuse? Etc. Etc. Etc If that is not a valid concept in the case of someone before Moses What has changed that it would be a valid concept today?

Well a lot has changed Jim Okay now listen to this aside from again Kim That now this is where I Would like to think

For at least some of the Catholics in the audience the wheels really started coming off because this is where we start getting the well it's all sort of culturally relevant stuff and I Remember when he started talking about how well, you know

Actually, you see people back then they had this predilection for idolatry see and So, you know, they that's why

Moses had to say what Moses had to say, but we don't we don't Nobody and and here comes probably some of the worst

And I cannot help but think that there are Roman Catholics Who hear this and just cringe the same way that I cringe when

I hear Dave Hunt saying certain things and debates Cringe when

Patrick Madrid Looks out to the audience here in a few moments and says hey

Any of you Catholics worshipping statues? No, well, there's your point and you just Yeah You really have to try to keep yourself from laughing

That anyone would seriously think that that's a meaningful response.

I mean come on Any of you Catholics engage in idolatry? Well, that means we're not idolaters then, huh?

And I sat there going I can't believe this is happening I can't believe that someone would do this

But that's that's well You're gonna hear for yourself at the time of Moses if we go back to the book of Exodus We see that the

Israelites had a particular problem with worshipping idols And so the revelation from God in Exodus 20 was a prohibition not simply of worshipping graven images

But worshipping anything that would be a false God in place of God himself So in that particular context it would be especially problematic given what had just happened with the golden calf and all of the the dangers and inclinations towards Towards idolatry, but what we have to recognize

Jim is that since that time not only has God revealed himself more and more fully but the church in the in the church age has

Contemplated and understood the meaning of these passages and also the meaning of what the incarnation is all about now and I stop right there

God has revealed himself more fully. That's true. We have the incarnation. We have the coming of Christ.

It's true So that means the most basic revelations God made in the past are now

No longer relevant. I mean like, you know, he revealed monotheism right from the start.

That's no longer really still central The Israelites had a particular propensity to Worshipping idols.

Well, that's because that's what most of religion was at the time involved Idol worship and it is anything that takes the place of God and Then we have and the church has contemplated the meanings of these passages really

Do you remember what I pointed out that at the second Nicene Council? There was no biblical discussion of these passages what so ever

Where'd the church do these things when who did it? Can't answer those questions because it didn't

It's a tradition that ends up shutting down any biblical discussion of these particular things and So well, you know the church has thought about these things

Well, that's a nice wonderful thing to say to people when who where's the discussions? Can I read them? You you say they were infallible, but wait a minute.

You can't even tell us what things that Rome teaches are infallible I mean like we try to figure out papal infallibility

The the target gets smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller till you have to use a laser to find it so Where has you know, they want to have this they want to have big infallibility

We are the big infallible church been here 2 ,000 years

Marshmallow Puffman type thing but then when you get specific and you want to examine these allegedly infallible statements

Now we're the teeny tiny little infallible church and and it's they want to have both in the debate

It's just a little teeny tiny thing. But then when you watch them on EWTN, we are the it changes between the two

So when did the church do this? Who did it show us the documents?

Second Nicene Council comes to a conclusion, but then the amazing thing is think about the

Marian dogmas Think about the fact that for example in regards to the Immaculate Conception They will admit that the reasoning that was used to arrive at it was errant

But the conclusion wasn't remember Rome says the arguments used can be

Falsified they can be bad arguments. But once Rome says it's true. The conclusion is

Infallibly true, even if the arguments are used to get there were wrong sola ecclesia sola

Ecclesia the church as your final Authority do not question us just believe

Resistance is futile. So that Although it would be problematic for somebody in the time of Moses as st

The Great Eastern Father st. John Damascene said Christ is the icon the image of the invisible

God So he showed us through the incarnation That the ability now to depict

Heavenly realities is no longer something that would be dangerous in the way that it would have been at the time of Moses Now did you catch that?

The incarnation shows us that you know, it's not as dangerous now

For there to be physical representations of God Why because Jesus took on human flesh?

When was last time I heard that remember when? Jonathan pre -gene called in and We had him on how many minutes he got on this program, but And that was what he was arguing was.

Well the incarnation the incarnation That's what that's that's what changes all this stuff. And that's and you're like hmm the incarnation does that so Since God took on physical

Manifestation in the person of Jesus Christ that means that we no longer had the danger of worshipping idols

To see the video I put on my blog last week of The people carrying the idol into the church of people say was a statue see but for four older men carrying this a big old hunk and wooden idol

Into a church. I don't know if it was an Orthodox Church or Catholic Church, but you know The little kids are singing and blah blah blah and one poor little guy on one corner turned the wrong direction

Don't know how the world he did it the poles on this shoulder and he turns this way. Oops Thing falls over.

I don't thought you didn't see this. You're looking me with a blank. Look. You didn't see this man That's very highly commented on my blog

He turns the idol comes off crashes becomes decapitated and the main thing is all the people screaming just the going on in in in the church because the idol has fallen and So what we're hearing folks just just so you understand

Because the incarnation this is now. Okay, how's the incarnation?

This is now? Okay, just wanna make sure that we hear, you know exactly Why this is so is it your position that we don't have the same problems and propensities of idolatry today that the

Jews had? So long ago. No quite the contrary Jim I would say that we have all the same propensities and and tendencies toward idolatry

But ours tend to be somewhat different. Let me ask any Catholics in the audience. You're worshipping statues.

There it is There it is. No, I don't worship statue. Do you hear the audience? No, I know

Patrick I worship and statues you win Remember the

Tim Staples first Tim Staples debate Eucharist Everybody starts

In the middle of audience questions someone just cannot contain themselves anymore just yells out

Eucharist and all the cows are Just you're looking around going

Wow, this is called apologetics. Okay. Alrighty Yeah, let's let's go back here and and catch catch that again because I was talking

I was talking over heavenly realities is no longer something That would be dangerous in the way that it would have been at the time of Moses So is it your position that we don't have the same problems and propensities of idolatry today that the

Jews had so long ago? No quite the contrary Jim. I would say that we have all the same propensities and and tendencies toward idolatry

But ours tend to be somewhat different Yes, we have the same but different prayer capital

P smokey I I Mean if that kind of thing is convincing to you if you find that to be compelling

Yes, we have the same propensity. It's just different Prayer. Yes, that's worship except that's the capital

P not the small P If that kind of argumentation is convincing to you great fine wonderful You're not gonna really find much that I have to say overly over useful, but here we have the appeal to the audience

Let me ask any Catholics in the audience here worshipping statues No, I don't worship statues.

I don't know any Catholic who worship statues duh The whole debate is over whether the distinction between worship and veneration is biblical or not and you stand there and ask the people

On your side. Hey, are you on my side? All right, we win and and this is supposed to be an argument.

I It's pain it's a painfully obviously argument

Yes that I I just had no means of really responding to but I do know people who have a lot of different false

Gods, there are people perhaps in the room tonight Perhaps some of you your false. God is internet pornography

Maybe the false. God is Nasdaq worshipped every day on the big board. There are people who place all sorts of things alcohol new cars that could be

There's so many different ways in which we can worship a false. God. So today. Yes, Jim We have all the same inclinations and all the same temptations that they did at that time

It just so happens that at the time that Exodus 20 was written the particular propensity that the

Israelites had Dealt with graven images that is no longer propensity for anyone that I know or anyone

I've ever heard of living in the modern era so since they had a

Propensity toward the worship of graven images then that's why the law said that but that's not relevant anymore

I mean Just don't be bothered by that little lady over there in the church on her knees lighting candles

Rocking back and forth saying her repetitious prayers in front of that statue

Don't worry about it Because we don't have that propensity

Don't worry about that upside -down statue you found your in your yard Buried there.

Don't don't worry about it Don't worry about the people following after that Monstrance or that idol being carried through the streets in Spain or Mexico.

That's not idolatry Why because Rome says so so the commands of God in the ten sayings and the ten commandments are contextually determined as to whether we are to be

Applying them today or how we're to apply them today Not exactly contextually conditioned But rather we have to understand them the way in which a passage applies to any person in any given time

Okay, I'm not done So in the case of Exodus 20 the application there is specifically with regard to bowing down to and serving idols false gods

But the general context of the passage Exodus 20 that you cited deals with idolatry in any form

He just gave it a particular form as an example of what the Israelites had to avoid Pat do you know of any references to Christians invoking the names of angels in prayer in the inspired scriptures?

In the inspired scriptures none comes to mind right off hand our angels members of the body of Christ Angels are members of the body of Christ in the sense that they are part of the communion in heaven but they are not members of the body of Christ in the way in which you and I are because we have been baptized into The body of Christ so the mystical body of Christ in the sense that we're speaking of in the

New Testament does not extend to angels, so how can any of the arguments you've used this evening concerning the communion of saints and communion between Christians be relevant to a

Prayer where you seek the invocation of Michael the Archangel? yes, well, it's relevant in the sense that the angels are the ministering servants of God and just as We we recognize the power and the ability of the saints in heaven to intercede on our behalf

We also recognize that God's ministering servants the angels also have power And they also have duties to perform such as in Luke chapter 2 when the angel

Gabriel comes to the Blessed Virgin Mary God could have done that act directly but yet he sent an angel to do it and Similarly Mary who is a woman of God could have responded to God directly

But yet her yes to the incarnation was carried back to God through the offices of an angel So the angels are very important, and they do fulfill offices of guarding protecting praying for guiding human beings here on earth and none of that has anything to do with establishing why it's appropriate to seek the invocation of An archangel or whatever, but I'd fill time the second

Nicene Council convoked nearly half a millennium after the first After promulgating is the dogmatic decree on the veneration of images provide the following canon if anyone rejects all

Ecclesiastical tradition either written or not written. Let him be anathema. That's Denzinger 308 if you'd like to look at it

I've got all those cannons right here Okay Now if I could ask you how could anyone in that day or hours?

Know if they are rejecting an unwritten tradition of the Roman Church so as to avoid anathema now let me stop right there because the answer you get here is gonna take a while, but Keep something in mind

There were dogmas That a Roman Catholic a faithful Roman Catholic today believes that no one at second

Nicaea had yet even thought of These must have been in the unwritten traditions and Therefore no one could have known them and No one was actually believing them and This what this question gets to is this again the sola ecclesia aspect what?

How can this be functional? You cannot test Rome You cannot test your claims you cannot test your teachings

And you can't really ever know if what you actually are believing is true because 50 years from now 50 years after you're dead

Things might be different than they are now I mean I can imagine most Roman Catholics alive in the year 1900 if They were to see the state of the

Roman Catholic Church today and see what is taught in most Roman Catholic parishes today They wouldn't hardly be able to recognize it as well.

They're doing something similar but the priests don't believe the same things and the priests aren't saying the same things about heaven and hell and Punishment and everything else so what in the world has happened but you just never know and so this council which defined the veneration of Saints and angels and images and things like that and it was part of the iconoclastic controversy so on so forth at the very same time

Talks about these unwritten Traditions, which is a wonderful way of saying

Scripture is not enough We'll tell you what to believe They would simply have to listen to the church that told them what the traditions were and you were you were disparaging the idea of Catholics assenting to the authority of the church well

I am proud to ascend to the authority of the Catholic Church The reason is the Catholic Church is the church that Christ established and in passages such as Luke 10 16 where he said he who listens

This will work a lot better if we had some real pretty orchestral music behind it You know because all you're getting here is once again

Let's rah -rah the Catholics because the Catholic Church is the one true church and blah blah blah you listens to me

I recognize that the church has an authority to speak with Christ's own authority so when the church says

We must do this we must not do that Then I believe that this is Christ speaking through the church you may call it sola ecclesia

But I recognize that this is Jesus Christ acting authoritatively through his church

So if at the time let me ask you let's let's look at another thing that since we're talking about tradition here and an unwritten tradition

Was at the time of the second Nicene Council the bodily assumption of Mary for example an unwritten tradition and would not

Not believing this unwritten tradition amount to a rejection of it at that time you may be having difficulty with the phrase unwritten tradition

Unwritten tradition doesn't mean that it's not You may be having difficulty with a term that we use in 47 different ways

Depending on how we want to find in any particular context something that is not written down for example the church fathers write about Various things that we would assign to tradition rather tradition in its proper sense means the lived understanding of the church of the deposit of faith that had been once for all handed on to the

Saints, so a Doctrine such as the the doctrine of Mary's assumption

Which which I think is the one you're raising if the church said as it did that this is worthy of belief and this is something that is part of the the

Deposit of faith and a Christian were to deny that and say I will not believe in that then that person would be as you say

Refusing to assent to one of those traditions, so was it a part of the deposit of faith at that time

It's always been a part of the deposit of faith did anyone at that time believe it At the time of the second

I seen counsel definitely who? Why this is not a debate on the assumption of Mary?

How many times have Roman Catholic apologists blundered into this one now I mean remember the

Jerry Maddix debate over and over again. How about 2nd century Jerry? How about 3rd century Jerry? How about 4th century they love?

This isn't about Mary however, I have said universal 12 times so far in this debate

So I can say that the church's beliefs have always been this way

Don't point out to me that what I'm saying actually isn't true

Because my followers like to hear me say that it's always universally been the faith the church

But then when you point out that well, it's not Ignatius, and it's not inclement. It's not and stuff like that Well, that's that's that's not fair The point that I'm making is that The council anathematizes anyone who would reject unwritten traditions the problem is when you try to find out what those unwritten traditions are you cannot find a

Constant answer through church history and not only that but what are the unwritten traditions today?

Is the fifth Marian dogma an unwritten tradition today? Is it going to be defined no one knows if?

It is defined in the future, then it's an unwritten tradition today But but how many people are not in the

Roman Catholic community are not believing it? You see we keep asking Catholics this and this is this is the

Achilles heel to all of their constant Argumentation against sola scriptura they always want to raise questions about the sufficiency of the

Bible they always want to go after Scripture But then you turn it around and say let's ask some of these same kinds of questions of you

You want to talk about? Unwritten tradition you want to talk about these things tell us.

What's in the unwritten traditions? Well, we can't do that. Why not well until it's infallibly defined

Wonderful So you know you don't get bodily assumption until the middle of the 20th century

And you don't get papal infallibility to the end of the 19th century and You know middle the 19th century for you know other

Marian dogma What is this stuff? What is tradition? They can't tell you and That's the whole point, and that's why

I made the point earlier in the debate Why aren't these statements against images and against these things part of the tradition?

because Rome gets to define what is and what is not tradition sola

Ecclesia Rome defines what the Bible is Rome defines what the

Bible says Rome defines what tradition is Rome defines what tradition says and Every time one of these folks tries to dig out from the hole in which their own

Epistemology places them all they end up doing is burying themselves ever deeper in it

That's why I let them keep trying because they don't like that. They don't like that phrase. No no no it's not solo

Ecclesia Well, no no we're under the authority of the Bible and tradition

And then you just start pushing them and let them illustrate for everybody who has eyes to see and ears to hear

That Rome is no more under the authority of scripture and tradition Then she's just not she just rejects she makes it up as she's going along basically and that's

What's going on instead and I and I'm contrasting that with the fact that when the Bible anathematizes someone it does so on the basis

Of a very clear knowledge of what it is that they're rejecting yes, I agree with that But I just wrote a book on tradition.

I'd be happy to send you a copy It's called why is that in tradition, and I addressed that very issue a signed copy by the way

Jim I In the book I point out the fact that many non

Catholics have a misunderstanding of what tradition actually is It's not this amorphous cloud of you know this guy over here said this and that fellow said that and you know what seems good to us now rather it is a consistent and persistent handing down of What the church understands the original deposit of faith to be in now just to stop just for a second

I know this isn't the topic of this debate, but it is relevant because it all comes back to this all the time How can that be?

when the major Dogmas that have been defined on the basis of this alleged tradition are things that were not believed

For five hundred seven hundred a thousand years in church history, what do you mean persistent?

It's non -existent not persistent How on earth can that be a meaningful definition it sounds great sounds wonderful, and if the person is you know?

There's someone who wants to continue to believe Looking for an excuse to believe okay. I'll accept that But it makes no sense

It's just absolutely amazing including Inferences drawn from the explicit evidence that we find in Scripture So for example when

Jesus says in John chapter 6 if we can use this as an example My flesh is real food my blood is real drink the question is not so much are those words in the

Bible but rather what do those words mean and so with regard to Marianne and I would say you determine that Oh By looking at what the original writer

Intended them to mean that's how you do it. That's where you differ shoes or the

Saints a communion of Saints I just laid out a rather Specific and concise seven points explanation of why the

Catholic Church recognizes the Saints being able to be Venerated and it is the lived understanding that the church has always had so I could furnish for you if there were time copious examples from the early centuries of the very

Church Fathers That you yourself turned to in your book on to defend the Trinity showing them as being authoritative

And the main exit I already took care I I know rich is going wait a minute, but you already pointed out where he was wrong about that And yeah, but remember when you're

Roman Catholic you can't be wrong about Let's just repeat it. He did it.

Let's not worry about the rebuttal It was provided as you said I Could show you from all these fathers and many more that they did indeed hold the

Catholic view not the view that you are Representing here tonight that we should not venerate and that we should not seek the intercession of the

Saints in heaven The Council of Elvira meeting even before the first Council of Nicaea said it is ordained that pictures are not to be in churches

So that which is worshipped and adored shall not be painted on walls Given that this statement is nearly 500 years earlier than the statements of the second

Nicene Council Why is this not a part of Christian tradition now here here we go?

My point in the debate was never and I never would have Defended that nobody in church history did what modern

Roman Catholics do because that would be absurd My point was there is no universal testimony that can be identified as tradition and I provided individuals

Citations who said otherwise who would not have agreed with mr. Madrid and I provided this council's words

Now listen to what? Mr.. Madrid does with the words of this ancient

Council actually the Council of Elvira is part of Christian tradition And it's invoked with some frequency the particular canon that you're referring to Let's remember for one thing that the

Council of Elvira took place in Spain and at that time Spain was predominantly pagan and so the scholars who have studied this issue have

Pointed out that there are different ways in which we can understand that particular canon We don't have any ancillary material from the council itself that tells us with more exactitude what they were referring to But the pagans in the area worshipped

Images they worshipped false gods, so it's it's very possible that this canon was there to discourage

Christians from aping the pagans It was a pastoral move designed to prevent them from following down the path of the pagans

Which of course is what I identify what modern Roman Catholics do is aping the pagans

In bowing down before their statues, so I guess that does apply But I've never heard

I wonder if I can get away with this. I think I should I should Quote this in a future debate and and go well hippo and Carthage Well, you know there are certain things going on in Egypt at that time and and so we need to contextualize there

Nicaea and I see is in modern -day Turkey and we look at we need to look at the Count the count the context of the council and in Turkey at that time and then the

Trent now Trent you know Is this how where does this come from all

I was doing was demonstrating. There is no consistent tradition that is substantiate able here and of course once the biblical case has already been made and we're getting ready for the closing statements and the painfully

Obviously debate is just that it is painfully obvious But it's the exact opposite of what

Patrick Madrid would like his listeners to think we haven't gotten to the biblical Demonstrations here yet at all

We're closing statements are coming right up. Maybe it's in the audience questions. Maybe it'll be the next time We'll see there's another way to look at it, too, and that is that it was possible that the pagans themselves

Would wind up giving false worship and thinking that Christians were doing the same thing

So as a way not to cause the pagans to be Scandalized it was a a pastoral move designed to make sure that this problem didn't arise

But interestingly if I could just put this final touch This is the only example in the early church where you will find a regional synod of this nature

Saying that Christians were not to have icons or not to paint them in on the walls in the church

Wow and You have nothing in the 3rd century 4th century 5th century 6th century 7th century 8th century 9th century 10th century 11th century 12th century about the modern

Dogmatic teachings that Rome itself has defined on the basis of tradition Consistency Not much.

I find that very interesting, but is that not then an illustration. There is no universal

Tradition to which you appeal appealed before in light of that not at all because if you look at the different regional councils that existed here and there before and after the different Ecumenical councils like a bone

Carthage yes for example you'll find Variations and opinion on things that were not later accepted by the ecumenical councils what was stated at the

Council of Elvira He was not a secured I'll end it there

The whole the whole reason for that again was I saw Bill Shishko reaching for his gavel and of course

Patrick it was into answering his question, but I knew that if I didn't warn him

He's gonna ask why didn't you warn me you promised you would warn me so I was warning him And that's how that all ended right there at at the end

I've only got just a few moments here and so to go into the closing statements would be a little bit unfair

But we do have I believe let me see here looks like oh Actually those look like they're about seven

Yeah, seven or eight minute closing statements approximately yeah right at eight minutes eight minute closing statements and Then the audience questions started, and you know it is interesting.

I'll just fill the last minute or so with this It is interesting to me that the way that I remember debates

And then going back and listening to them. This was a much clearer debate than I had remembered it to be

Since mr.. Madrid is out there. You know talking about how painfully obviously unbiblical the arguments were

This debate wasn't even close on any meaningful debate level as far as biblically historically

If you just if you put rhetoric aside and just look you know do a flowchart, and here's the points

Here's the thesis don't don't you know get off track as to what it is It was it was a clear victory

There there's no way that logically mr.. Madrid can claim to have substantiated positions in this debate

But when I had thought back on it. It's interesting the the primary things that that came into my mind

Had to do with other things that took place during the debate or during the audience questions You're gonna hear a man who takes a really cheap shot and Patrick's could take a cheap shot during the audience questions

I remembered that and I'll talk about that when we get to it next week and Then I had an encounter with that man out in the lobby afterwards, and it was interesting to see him

Backpedaling as fast as he could possibly backpedal, but then just an hour later I heard him making the very same arguments He had made against me and then backpedaled them

But now he's making him again to somebody else and so here you have someone who just clearly doesn't have any love of truth and then we had

Technical problems, and that was one of the main things stuck in my mind was the first thing I hear after the debate is over is

During I think the closing statement that's coming up here by Patrick Madrid the character generator fritzed out on us and Caused a problem with the recording of the video and so we had to Go and talk with Patrick and tell him what had happened, and I could just you know

I've always worried about someone Accusing us falsely accusing us of trying to do something to these videos or something like that when it's

Our our experience is always bad see other folks doing that But those are the things that had sort of crowded into my thinking and sort of put the debate off to one side

It's been interesting for me especially to listen to this once again. Hopefully for you as well, so next time on the dividing line

We'll have the closing statements some of the audience questions. Maybe all the audience questions I don't know we'll see but we'll continue with this next time on the dividing line.

See you then 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 six oh two nine seven three four six zero two or write us at P O box three seven one zero six

Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine you can also find us on the world wide web at a Omin 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 Join us again this