Roman Catholicism on BAM (White vs Staples - II)

You remember you can catch us on the simulcast on the World Wide Web at equip .org, our bookstore is up on the web, and all kinds of information available, including my speaking schedule.

If you go to equip .org. Today a special broadcast as I welcome back to the

Bible Landsman Broadcast Studios, James White and Tim Staples. They were here some four years ago as we did a little bit of an on -air debate on the differences between the historic, evangelical,

Christian perspective and the Roman Catholic perspective. It is wonderful to have you guys in studio again, hi

Tim. It's good to be back with you Hank. You have gone through a tremendous amount since you were here last, some health issues that you dealt with.

Yeah, I went through quite a few health issues, but praise be to God, the

Lord has brought me through and I'm ready to rock. We're back. Rock, that's sort of an inflammatory term,

I suppose, if we're talking about the Protestant evangelical debate. Anyway, James, it's good to have you here as well. It's good to be back again.

You've done a lot of different broadcasts with me over the years, the King James only controversy, one of the really significant issues that you've dealt with recently.

What's new on that horizon? Well, unfortunately, it doesn't matter how often you respond to the same issues.

As long as you can preach it, people continue to preach it. So I still continue to hear people talking about churches that are split, missionaries having to come back from the mission field because of Gail Riplinger's work, things like that.

So sadly, the need continues on, really pretty much unabated in regards to providing a response to the

King James only movement. The two of you are doing a debate. Tell us a little bit about that. Where is it going to take place?

What's going to happen? What's the subject matter? Well, you know, it's interesting. I was listening to the tapes of the last radio broadcast, and right toward the end of the time,

Tim made mention of the fact that at that time, we were debating sola scriptura. And of course, in that situation,

I'd be defending and Tim would be denying. And one of the things that Tim said was, well, we need to debate papal infallibility.

And so tomorrow evening at Plummer Auditorium, 201 East Chapman in Fullerton, and I remember that from last night, we will be debating the issue of papal infallibility.

And of course, the roles will be reversed, of course, in this situation. Tim goes first.

Tim defines the debate, and then we will debate that issue for, I think it's scheduled for about three hours or so, or 15 rounds, or whoever goes down first.

That's right. Tickets still available? Yes. Actually, you'll be able to, if you show up, we'll get you in.

Okay. If we have to just have you standing up in the back or whatever it takes, standing on someone's shoulders, we'll get you in.

And to pre -register, you can call the Christian Research Institute, 949 -858 -6100, and we'll tell you how you can get tickets, or you can log into the

World Wide Web at equip .org. Let's deal with a significant issue between the

Protestant position and the Roman Catholic position, and that is the issue of authority.

Obviously, that is where everything boils down to. What do you have to say,

Tim? When it comes to authority, how do we know what we are to hold fast as a central

Christian doctrine? Right. This was a big issue for me, as I don't know if a lot of your listeners know, but I was an

Assembly of God youth pastor before I converted to the Catholic faith 12 years ago. Authority was obviously one of many, but certainly a very important issue.

For me, what I see clearly taught in sacred scripture is that we certainly have sacred scripture being authoritative.

There is no doubt. In 2 Timothy 3 .16, of course, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, the

Eucharist. It is God -breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproved correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, and the

Catholic Church believes that and teaches that. However, we also see, not only in sacred scripture, but in history, that the

Church Fathers, along with sacred scripture, also believe, and I believe very clearly so in scriptures such as 2

Thessalonians 2 .15, that there is another source of the one -to -top deposit of faith, and that is sacred tradition.

As St. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, stand fast, brethren, in the traditions you have been taught.

He will repeat using that same word, paradosis, or paradox, as it were, in 1

Corinthians 15 .3, and 2 Thessalonians 3 .6. Stand fast in the traditions you have been taught, either by word or by written document.

We believe Paul is teaching very plainly there, scripture, yes, tradition as well, and we believe that the scripture is equally as plain that, and I would have to agree with you here,

Hank, though I don't agree with you always on, I love your little idiom there, what is it, the main things are the plain things, the plain things are the main things, but I don't agree with you on justification on that one, because I think

Peter disagrees with you in 2 Peter 3 .15, he says that's a tough one, but plainly in verses of scripture we could go to many of them, and, for example,

Matthew 18 .15 -18, our Lord very clearly tells us that if we have a disagreement with our brother, we are to go and confront our brother, like we are doing right here, and if we cannot settle the issue, we take two or three with us, and if we still cannot settle it, we take it to the church.

We clearly see that there is what we call the magisterial authority, the magisterium of the church, and we see that practiced in the

New Testament, Acts 15, with the calling of the Council of Jerusalem. We see clearly the church in authority acting in complete accord with Matthew 18.

Immaculate conception would be one of those traditions that we would hold to if we were

Roman Catholic. Now, as far as the immaculate conception, the assumption which are commonly referred to, and I think

James refers to those in his book, The Roman Catholic Controversies, as examples of traditions that are not found in sacred scripture.

We don't agree with that. In fact, I have a tape set called All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed, where I spend eight and a half hours in sacred scripture showing that, in fact, what

Pope Pius XII said is true. In 1950, in his papal bull, when he promulgated the dogma of the assumption, he said, this teaching is rooted and grounded in sacred scripture.

Now, it's not explicitly in scripture, nor is the Trinity explicitly in scripture, nor is the canon of scripture explicitly in scripture, or the revelation ceased at the end of the first century.

We could go on. Our dogmas, many of our doctrines and dogmas are not explicitly in scripture, but that does not mean that they are not in scripture.

I would argue, and I do, that the Immaculate Conception is in sacred scripture, and the assumption.

Well, I would refer to Luke chapter 1, verse 28, when the angel

Gabriel says to the Blessed Mother, Hail, full of grace. That is one verse of scripture that I use.

Is it absolutely conclusive? No. But I like to go to Luke chapter 1, verses 37 and 38, where, when the angel says to the

Blessed Mother that she is to be the Mother of God, and Mary responds, How shall this be?

Because I know not, man. The angel responds and answers her, The Holy Spirit will come upon thee.

The power of the Most High will overshadow thee. Therefore that Holy One which shall be born of thee shall be called the

Son of God. So, Mary says, Let it be done unto me, in verse 38, according to thy word.

And we believe it is because, as St. Irenaeus says in 180 AD, the disobedience of Eve was loosed through the obedience of Mary, and thus she became the cause of the salvation for all of us.

So we see here a parallel between Mary and Eve. How important is it that I would hold to those particular doctrines of Roman Catholicism?

Well, first of all, Hank, I'd say that it's very difficult with the short time that we have, because I know

James is chomping at the bit here, to really give a full... We're going to have plenty of time, so don't worry about that.

But my point is, just in capsule form, how important is it that I believe that, and what are the ramifications for me if I do not accept those doctrines?

Well, it's absolutely crucial for many, many reasons. One, I like to refer to is, it really gets at the heart of some of the crucial disagreements we have.

James and I disagree on he being Reformed in his understanding of justification.

We as Catholics see that we merit justification, but not the initial grace of justification that comes to us completely unmerited.

But through our cooperation with God's grace, we merit justification, we merit salvation for ourselves, and we can participate in the salvation of others.

As the scripture plainly teaches, all over the place, like in 1 Corinthians 9 .22, where Paul says,

I become all things to all men, that by all means I might save some. 1

Timothy 4 .16, St. Paul says to Timothy, Timothy, take heed unto the doctrine for in so doing you will both save yourself and them that hear thee.

There is a clear understanding of a synergism, a cooperation between us and God's grace.

Even though we cannot cooperate without God's grace, nevertheless, we must cooperate in order for both us to be saved and also for others.

Now Mary is so crucial, because here we see Mary, a little 14 -year -old girl who

God comes to and we believe, in essence, asks her permission to save the world, says,

Mary, I want your hand, the Holy Spirit, as a gentleman. We believe he's a gentleman. We do not believe, as John Calvin does, that we don't have a choice in the matter concerning our salvation.

Mary had a choice. She was entirely free. She said yes, and as a result, Jesus became incarnate and the entire world could be saved.

Now, we're not saying Mary is another Redeemer. Sorry, James. I know that's the title of your book, but that is not what the

Catholic Church teaches. We believe she is co -redemptrix. She redeems with Christ, just as Paul says in 1

Corinthians 3, verse 9, we are co -laborers, sun erge, co -laborers with Christ.

We work together with him, not meaning we're on an equal par, but nevertheless, that sun erge, sun ergontes that you see throughout the

New Testament, refers to our cooperation. That is a key issue when we're talking about Mary.

James, some responses you hold to sola scriptura, you would not put tradition on an equal footing with the

Scripture. No, neither does Scripture, and in point of fact, the early church fathers were very clear about the supremacy of Scripture over any kind of tradition whatsoever.

In fact, you will never find the early church fathers referring to tradition the way they refer to Scripture as being sufficient for the preaching of the truth, things like that.

We heard 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 cited, and it's interesting, this is exactly what we talked about last time, and it shows that this is the fundamental issue.

We've started at the starting place, because looking at the very last thing that was brought up, the bodily assumption of immaculate conception, the

Roman Catholic Church is saying this is a part of the very

Gospel of Jesus Christ, it has been defined, I got a yes on that, it has been defined by papal authority as part of the

Gospel. And so we are being told that we must believe in a doctrine that no one in the first 500 years of the church ever heard of.

No one ever believed as a doctrine, the apostles never preached it, they never taught it, they never bound it upon anyone.

And in point of fact, the first time this doctrine was ever found in church history is in the heretical writings that Pope Galatius in Rome put on the

Index of Prohibited Books. So here is... And Galatius is not an antipope,

Galatius is a pope, and you're saying his writings are heretical. All I'm saying is Pope Galatius took the works in which this idea of the bodily assumption first appears and said they were heretical.

And this is the first place it appears in all the history of the church. And so you have Saint Augustine, and you have

Athanasius, and you have Tertullian, you have all these people living and dying without ever having heard of the bodily assumption of Mary.

And yet today we have the Roman Catholic Church saying it's a part of the Gospel, you must believe it.

This illustrates the importance of Sola Scriptura. And by the way, why is it so important that we hold to a sinless

Mary? Well, that is part and parcel of the entire Roman Catholic teaching about Mary, that again, not only has no basis in Scripture, I mean we just heard

Luke 1 .28, and a greeting of an angel used to build an entire doctrine, and this is what you're forced to do.

In point of fact, Tim, if you've seen Mary, Another Redeemer, I very, very clearly document that those pushing for her definition as co -redemptrix are not saying equal, and I made that very, very clear, and I've been very, very fair in that representation of it.

But this illustrates, Hank, why we have to engage in solid exegesis of the text.

Because once you say, okay, Sola Scriptura is denied, now we have an infallible magisterium that gives you the canon of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture.

Now you have popes saying that John 19, son, behold your mother, mother, behold your son, now

Mary represents this, and he represents the church, and this makes Mary the mother of the church, and therefore, because of this, we have this doctrine.

And anyone who studies the Marian theology realizes it becomes a convoluted mass that is built upon itself that, because of the alleged infallibility of the church, cannot be corrected by the text of Scripture.

The Bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. A pillar and a foundation hold something else up.

It does not say that the church is the truth, but the church presents the truth. So the church has to have an absolute standard by which she is to be corrected, and that's what we have in the

God -breathed Scripture. This is going to be an interesting couple of hours to say the least.

Our esteemed guest today, Tim Staples, he's the director of evangelization for the Catholic Resource Center of St.

Joseph's Communications, and of course, James White, no stranger to our audience, he's the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

We're going to be talking about the differences between the Protestant church and the

Roman Catholic church, and some would argue that we're not talking about monoliths on either side of the equation.

You're going to have an opportunity to ask your questions when you dial 888 -ASK -HANK. So join in on the fun in the next couple of hours as we have a blast right here on the

Bible Instrument Broadcast. We'll be right back with more. Information, it's all around you.

In the air you breathe, race millions of radio and television signals transmitting data. Underneath your feet are millions of cables carrying information by telephone and computer.

Feel overwhelmed? Feel like you can't keep up to date on current issues and how they relate to the body of Christ? You need to subscribe to the

Christian Research Journal. Its quarterly publication keeps you up to date on issues affecting you and the church.

Published by the Christian Research Institute, the Christian Research Journal probes today's religious movements while promoting doctrinal discernment and critical thinking.

The journal also provides reasons for Christian faith and ethics. Get your copy of the Christian Research Journal today.

Call 1 -800 -2 -JOURNAL. A one -year subscription is only $24, and a two -year subscription is $43.

Get four issues a year. Call now to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, 1 -800 -2 -JOURNAL, or order online at www .equip

.org. The debate started 2 ,000 years ago. That's ridiculous.

He can't be alive. We all saw him die. Resurrection from the dead is simply impossible.

Those disciples of his are lying, or worse, they're insane. And the debate continues today.

You can't expect me to accept all that nonsense about life after death. Heaven sounds like a nice fairy tale, if you believe it.

Despite what the critics say, Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, and that's the fundamental truth of our faith, found in Resurrection, a brand -new bestseller by Hank Hanegraaff.

Available now in Christian bookstores across the nation, Resurrection will renew your purpose and passion for Christianity, and help you live each day with eternity in mind.

For more information, call 888 -7000 -CRI. That's 888 -7000 -CRI.

Wow, you really know your oldies. Yeah, I keep hearing that great music over and over, so it's easy to learn all the words but you know what

I can't figure out? I can't seem to memorize the Bible. Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, because where your treasure is, your heart will be there also.

Yeah, like that. How do you do that? The same thing as you. I listen to it over and over.

You listen to the Bible? Yeah, Max McLean recorded the Bible on CD and cassette, and I just listened to great verses over and over.

Consistent repetition of God's word is the way to keep it in your mind and heart. The New Testament, narrated by Max McLean.

Max McLean, gifted master storyteller, has performed before audiences in New York and Chicago, leaving multitudes amazed.

Where can I get a set? CRI has them. Call to order the entire New Testament on CD or cassette at 949 -858 -6100.

Also on the web at equip .org. Make an investment that will last for time and eternity.

And welcome back to the Bible Instrument broadcast. I'm your host, Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute.

Delighted that you joined us for the broadcast today, and inviting you to join us on air with your question, the U .S. or in Canada, by simply dialing 888 -ASK -HANK.

That translates to 888 -275 -4265. James White debates

Tim Staples on the subject of papal infallibility, Friday, July 7th, 7 p .m.

at the Plummer Auditorium. And that is, of course, tomorrow night. If you want to find out how you can participate or pre -register, you can call the

Christian Research Institute at 949 -858 -6100, or log on to the

World Wide Web at equip .org. Also, our radio offer of 5 .15, The Roman Catholic Controversy, a suggested donation of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the

Christian Research Institute, authored by James White. A special radio offer includes not only

The Roman Catholic Controversy, which, of course, is the book, but it also includes copies of this interview with Tim Staples and James White.

So you get that as a bonus when you call today, 949 -858 -6100, or log on to the

World Wide Web. This is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine, which we're talking about right now.

Maybe you can do this for me. James, give me an idea of why the whole notion of the immaculate conception or the bodily assumption of Mary is so significant in Roman Catholic doctrine.

Well, you know, it's very difficult to answer that from a dogmatic perspective outside of pointing out just a couple of things.

When people ask me, why is there such an emphasis upon Mary, and hence, why has there been this development of this piety around Mary, out of which has come over the centuries the immaculate conception, the bodily assumption, six million

Catholics asking the pope to define Mary as co -redemptrix, co -mediatrix, and advocate for the people of God, even this very day?

What has caused that to happen? And I would suggest to you that primarily the reason, as I see it, is found in the prayers that you find in Roman Catholicism.

And that is where Mary is viewed as the queen of mercy, and Jesus is the king of justice.

And so Mary becomes this one to whom we can come, and from whom we can gain great favors.

And I would suggest that anyone go and pick up, well, I wouldn't suggest to buy the book, but you can go to the library and pick up a book called

The Glories of Mary. And in The Glories of Mary, a book that's gone through over 800 editions, written by a man who is a doctor of the

Roman Catholic Church. Not just a saint, Alphonsus Liguri, but a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. You will read over and over again, and I can show you out of Mary and Other Redeemer, a number of prayers like this, where Mary is seen as the one to whom we commit ourselves.

We place our salvation in her hands. And in fact, the prayer that opens that book right there,

Mary and Other Redeemer, starts off by praying to Mary and asking her to deliver us from three things.

From the world, our sins, and from Jesus. The wrath of Jesus.

And I remember reading that prayer to Jerry Matitick in a radio station in Boston, saying, Mr. Matitick, would you pray that prayer?

And he looked across at me, this was a man who at the time was a doctoral student at Westminster Theological Seminary, a former

Presbyterian minister. And he looked across the room at me and he said, Mr. White, I cannot wait for the day when you can pray that prayer with me.

Pray that Mary would deliver us from Jesus. And it is that idea of Jesus as the strict king.

There's a whole section there about how Liguri and others would talk about the fact that since he is the mediator of justice, we need a mediator with the mediator.

And no other mediator can be found than Mary, from whom we can receive succor and so on and so forth.

So she needs to be sinless so that she can function in the way that this is developed. And of course, I can only again point out that this is far removed from Scripture because we heard it said earlier that the bodily assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture and neither is the

Trinity. Hey, there's a whole book sitting over there on your bookshelf called The Forgotten Trinity, where I deal with the doctrine from the page of Scripture.

Category mistake, put those two. A Grand Canyon size category mistake because the doctrine of the

Trinity is forced upon us by the literal exegetical reading of the text of Scripture and the bodily assumption of Mary didn't force itself on anybody as a dogma until only recently and didn't force itself on any of the early fathers of the church.

Tim, what about that that that charge that this is a Johnny come lately, that this is a doctrine that has only recently been extant, even within Roman Catholicism?

Oh, absolutely not. First of all, the point that James made that Pope Galatius condemned certain works, which he did, that contained what are called the transitus narratives.

His condemnation of those works had nothing to do with the bodily assumption. That would be like saying that a condemnation of a book that contained things in it about the divinity of Christ means the

Pope is condemning the divinity of Christ. No, it may well be that there are other things in that book that are heretical.

The Pope never and I challenge anyone to show me where Pope Galatius condemns or says that Mary has sent.

Sorry, Philip Schaaf, it doesn't exist in history. All right. But at any rate, what

I want to point out is that not only did and by the way, come to the debate tomorrow night because we're going to get into a lot more on Philip Schaaf.

And again, let me just let people know that if you want tickets, you want to pre -register call 949 -858 -6100, right?

Or log into the World Wide Web at equip .org. This is tomorrow night, Friday, July 7th, 7 p .m.

An eye opener, to say the least. Go ahead. Right. At any rate, I want to just make very clear that the early church did, in fact, teach the bodily assumption of Mary.

And in fact, the scriptures do. We have very plain scripture, though I want to say, you know, there's not a video camera.

We don't have a video of Mary going up into heaven because most likely it didn't happen until most of the

New Testament was written. Now, do you believe that she died and then was assumed or assumed prior to dying?

Well, there's a debate within Roman Catholicism on that. That's right. The stronger tradition is, is that she died and laid in state for three days and was bodily assumed.

However, we're free to believe either. And I'm glad you bring that point up because St.

Epiphanius, who is a was a Palestinian in the late fourth century.

We're talking in the three hundreds here in his Pan Arian, which is a reputation of 80 heresies, deals with in heresy 78, a particular heretical sect that was actually worshiping

Mary as a goddess called the Coloridians. Now, in the process he deals with, he refers to Mary as mother of the living, referring to Mary as the

New Eve. And he also says very clearly, how can

Mary, the holy one, not possess the kingdom of heaven in the flesh?

That's meta sarcos in the flesh. She who was not lewd or wanton, who did not commit adultery, was in no way at fault in what concerned the flesh, but remained unsullied.

She goes on, or I should say he goes on to describe her in Revelation chapter 12.

He uses Revelation 12 to say that Mary is the one in Revelation chapter 12.

We believe on the literal level is Mary who gives birth to Jesus Christ in verse three in verse 17.

She continues to give birth to all of us. She is our mother and the mother of Christ. We are members of the body of Christ.

We are his brothers. Mary is our mother. Will St. Epiphanius believe that? He taught that here.

And what do we see in the book of Revelation? We see Mary depicted in heaven.

Now, is Revelation 12 a type of the church? Certainly, we don't deny that in a secondary sense.

But when you're exegeting scripture, you must always begin on the literal level. Who was the literal woman who gave birth to the man child who is to rule the nations of the rod of iron?

It is Mary. And notice here, Mary or the woman has a crown on her head, her head and under her feet.

We have bodily parts being mentioned. Whereas if you go to Revelation six, verse nine, when saints are described in heaven, the martyrs, for example, it is their souls in Hebrews 12, 22 through 24.

It's the spirits of just men made perfect in heaven. Why? Because they don't have their bodies. Mary does.

This is an ancient, ancient teaching that goes far back beyond what Mr. White says, the sixth century.

Here we have St. Epiphanius in the 300s here in his

Pan Arian, which is a reputation of 80 heresies, deals with in heresy 78, a particular heretical sect that was actually worshiping

Mary as a goddess called the Coloridians. Now, in the process he deals with, he refers to Mary as mother of the living, referring to Mary as the new

Eve. And he also says very clearly, how can

Mary, the holy one not possess the kingdom of heaven in the flesh?

That's meta sarcastic in the flesh. She who was not lewd or wanton, who did not commit adultery, was in no way at fault in what concerned the flesh, but remained unsullied.

She goes on, or I should say he goes on to describe her in Revelation chapter 12.

He uses Revelation 12 to say that Mary is the one in Revelation chapter 12.

We believe on the literal level is Mary who gives birth to Jesus Christ in verse 3.

In verse 17, she continues to give birth to all of us. She is our mother and the mother of Christ.

We are members of the body of Christ. We are his brothers. Mary is our mother. Well, St. Epiphanius believed that.

He taught that here. And what do we see in the book of Revelation?

We see Mary depicted in heaven. Now, is Revelation 12 a type of the church? Certainly, we don't deny that in a secondary sense.

But when you're exegeting scripture, you must always begin on the literal level. Who was the literal woman who gave birth to the man -child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron?

It is Mary. And notice here, Mary, or the woman, has a crown on her head and under her feet.

We have bodily parts being mentioned. Whereas, if you go to Revelation 6, verse 9, when saints are described in heaven, the martyrs, for example, it is their souls.

In Hebrews 12, 22 through 24, it's the spirits of just men made perfect in heaven.

Why? Because they don't have their bodies. Mary does. This is an ancient teaching that goes far back beyond what

Mr. White says, the 6th century. Here, we have St. Epiphanius in the 300s.

And I further want to note here that in the earliest centuries, in the first 300 years of Christianity, a lot of our dogmas and doctrines are not explicitly taught because they were dealing with particular issues.

Number one, running for their lives often. But they were dealing with particular issues concerning Christology.

In fact, the canon of scripture would not be settled upon until about, actually, after St.

Epiphanius' writing here. So the fact that we don't have explicit writings on Mary in the 200s, at least as explicit as St.

Epiphanius, we do. As I quoted St. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, referring to Mary as the cause of our salvation and the new eve.

I think that's quite explicit. It sounds like we ought to kill your mic, James, because you don't know a lick about history.

This seems to be an issue that ought to be fairly clear -cut. Either this is a

Johnny -come -lately, or it has its roots in Roman Catholicism way, way, way, way back down the centuries.

Hey, can I make one statement, please? Just 10 seconds. I wanted to say because James misrepresented the church in her teaching of why it's important Mary is without sin.

It is not because Jesus is this wrathful Jesus and Mary's the good guy.

That is not the teaching of the church. In fact, any goodness in Mary comes from Jesus.

The church is very clear on this. She is the one full of the grace of Christ. I want to quote you St. Augustine in the 4th century, who writes concerning Mary when he's dealing with the

Pelagians. He says, except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom out of honor for the

Lord. That's what the Catholic Church teaches. Out of honor for the Lord, I absolutely do not want there to be any question when sin is spoken of.

She is free from all stain of sin, according to St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and others.

Not because Jesus is the bad guy, but because of the honor of the Lord. Now we see in Scripture, in the book of Job, for example,

God will not accept the prayers of the men who are criticizing Job. He asked them, you pray to Job, or I'm not going to hear your prayer.

It was through the intercession of Job that these other fellows got their sins forgiven.

Now does that mean... James may not know anything about history, but you don't know anything about time. That was a lot longer than 10 seconds, but go ahead.

Your response, James. Well, there's too many things to respond to. Basically, take this with the way it needs to be understood.

Roman Catholic historians disagree with Mr. Staples firmly, and I think unanimously. Merdinger, a very well -known

Roman Catholic historian, admits that Augustine did not teach the modern doctrine of the

Immaculate Conception. He believed that Mary did not commit sin during her life, but he specifically did not keep her from the idea of the stain of original sin.

The issue of the transverse literature, Mr. Staples said, well, he didn't...Galatius

did not condemn the bodily assumption. No, all I said was, and Ludwig Ott, a

Catholic theologian says, and Juniper Carroll, a Roman Catholic Mariologist, they all say the same thing.

The first time in history we have a reference to the assumption is in the transitive

Spiati Maria literature that was condemned by Galatius. I never said it was condemned because of the bodily assumption.

My point was that Augustine preached, and Athanasius preached, and none of them ever preached on the bodily assumption.

None of them ever said it was a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And even Karl Keating, who

Mr. Staples claims is a friend, says, still a fundamentalist, asks, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none.

And so when he says, well, it is found in Scripture, Karl Keating says, there is no explicit proof.

And so we have all of this allegedly implicit proof. And I would point out to you, yet again, we had

Revelation chapter 12 quoted as being about Mary. Yet the earliest patristic interpretation says it's about the church.

And the woman in Revelation 12 gives birth in pain. Pain is a part of the penalty of sin.

But if Mary didn't have sin and wasn't under the pain of the penalty of sin and original sin, why is she giving birth in pain if this is the, quote unquote, literal meaning of the text?

In each one of these instances, we're told we need to go to the literal level of text. Did we go to the literal level when the angel says, hail, full of grace, if that's even what

Kikar Tumene means? When we talk about John 19, woman, behold your son, son, behold your mother, what's the literal meaning of that?

And yet it becomes the basis of Marian doctrine throughout Roman Catholicism. So I would point out that none of the creeds of the early church that said, this is what you must believe to be a

Christian ever made mention of this. Are we to believe they just forgot about it? We're going to find out when we come back from a station break just how deep the rift is between Roman Catholicism and evangelical

Protestant Christianity. Don't miss this next section because it's going to include your questions as well.

Be right back. More than any other time in the past,

Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. But are there differences between the two?

And do they still matter in the Roman Catholic controversy, which is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture?

James White probes these questions by examining the papacy, the mass purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine to get to the core of the issue.

With a balanced critique, the Roman Catholic controversy by James White affirms that evangelicals and Catholics share a common ground on some points.

Yet, there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order the Roman Catholic Controversy when you call 949 -858 -6100 or pick it up through CRI's online bookstore at equip .org.

And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the Bible Answer Man broadcast with James White and Catholic apologist

Tim Staples. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Read it today, 949 -858 -6100.

Hey, Judy, wait up! Hey, Tom, how's it going? Can you believe what they're teaching in Drake's philosophy class?

I can believe they're teaching it, but I don't follow the teaching. What? I know that I can't depend on every word that's taught here, and I keep my ears open for worldly humanistic wisdom.

How do you know so much? I've read How to Stay Christian in College. Here. How to Stay Christian in College by Dr.

J. Budziszewski is an interactive guide through the maze of college realities. It discusses the foundations of the

Christian faith and directly addresses different worldviews and myths that students often encounter at college.

It's a path to follow as they walk through this valley of trial and equip them to conquer the dangers that lie ahead.

A good resource for people who are struggling for meaning and purpose. Call today at 949 -858 -6100 and order

Radio Offer Number 470 for a suggested donation of $15 or more to the ongoing work of CRI.

Or through our online bookstore at www .equip .org.

Apologetics 949 -858 -6100

Before we do, I want to ask both Tim and James what their view is as they look across the table at one another in the studio.

James, do you consider Tim a brother in Christ or are you trying to evangelize

Tim? I believe on the basis of what Tim has said, and of course we don't sit around and eat cheeseburgers together or something like that.

The only actual contact we've had with each other has been two hours in the studio in 1996 and then a debate.

We've had no further contact. Taking what he has said - But when you talk to one another, it's obviously with a lot of affection.

You spoke to one another in the office. There's no animosity, very civil.

You care about one another's health, one another's activities and so forth. He did punch me once. You said you weren't going to say anything about that.

To take simply what he has said and understanding that I believe that the Roman Catholic Church does not possess a saving gospel of Jesus Christ, then

I see Tim as someone with whom I want to share the life -changing gospel of Jesus Christ.

I want to respond to the things that he's saying and it would be my desire to see him come to embrace a finished work of Christ, not the work that includes purgatory and indulgences and the

Mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice. Those things, I believe, fall under the very same anathema of Galatians chapter 1.

Tim, your response? Well, my response is the response of the Catholic Church, of course. And that is that we accept -

The Catholic Church is actually talking about - James White, absolutely. It was Vatican II.

We believe that our Protestant brothers and sisters are just that. If you have received valid baptism in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and water, you are my brother in Christ, separated, painfully speaking.

Pope John Paul II, in his work, Ut Unum Sent, on the ecumenical movement, says that it is our desire as Catholics that all of us be joined together under the one shepherd,

Jesus Christ, and of course, the shepherd that he has given us on this earth. But at one point in time, wouldn't

I have been excommunicated if I did not hold to the Immaculate Conception or the bodily assumption?

Well, you see, you have to understand what excommunication means. Excommunication only applies to sons and daughters of the

Church. This is why in the Lutheran -Catholic dialogue, we have lifted the anathemas and excommunications because though, let's say,

Luther, who was a Catholic priest, was anathema and was excommunicated, those who are raised in a denomination and where they are through no fault of their own, obviously the canons and decrees of councils don't apply to them.

They've never heard of them. So there is a big difference for us, a big difference between James White and Martin Luther.

Someone who is in the Catholic Church like I am, if I reject the teaching of transubstantiation, then

I would be a formal heretic. Two things, Hank. The last time we were on,

I asked you a question and I felt it was very useful. In fact, I've made reference to it many times since then. And I said, if you and I were standing outside of an abortion clinic, protesting the murder of unborn children, and someone walked up to us and said, what must

I do to be saved? I said to you, would you agree with me that the answer that you would give would be substantially and fundamentally different than the answer that I would give?

Yes. Okay. I want to make sure that that had not changed. We don't change it,

James. Well, that's an interesting point because what I wanted to point out was that the Council of Florence, viewed as the 17th ecumenical council by Roman Catholicism, made the following proclamation, quote, it firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the

Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

That's right. Unless before the end of life, the same have been added to the flock and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only those remaining in it are the sacraments of the church of benefit for salvation and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions.

So the church has changed. No, no. Because as Catholics, we have to understand the canons of councils in the context of all.

But I'm just saying, based on what he just communicated, would he not be more than a separated brother?

Let me explain, all right? The teaching of the Catholic Church is that, though you cannot be saved apart from the

Catholic Church, we have never taught, the Catholic Church has never taught that this requires a formal union with the

Catholic Church, only a salvific union. Baptism is necessary for salvation, but the

Catholic Church has always taught the possibility of baptism of blood for martyrs who are not yet, who have not yet been baptized, baptism of desire for those who have not yet been baptized, but have a desire for the truth.

This goes all the way to St. Justin Martyr in his First Apology, talks about the

Greeks who are Christians, they just don't realize it, and seeking after the logos, or truth.

This is a part of our Catholic tradition. So though James, we absolutely agree, and he knows this, in Lumen Gentium, the very texts that he's referring to are referred to in Vatican II.

However, we must qualify as the church has, even before Vatican II, Pope Pius XII, for example, in 1949, has always qualified that statement by saying that those who have a desire for truth, and they have not rejected the truth, the

Muslim who rejects the teaching of the Catholic Church is lost. The Jew, the pagan, whoever, who has rejected either the witness of God in their hearts, the revelation that is a natural law, or the revelation given through the

Catholic Church, is in fact lost. What does this mean? I'm reading from the Catechism of the

Catholic Church. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator in the first place, amongst whom are the

Muslims. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us, they adore the one merciful

God, mankind's judge on the last day. The reason I ask you that is I've asked so many

Roman Catholics what that means, and I've always gotten a different answer. Well, I think you read it, and we believe exactly what it says.

What it says is this, that a Muslim has the possibility of salvation if they have not rejected the truth of the

Catholic faith. If they have, they're lost. Cornelius is a great example in Acts 10, verse 4.

Cornelius, who was a God -fearer, never heard of Jesus Christ. But a Muslim can be saved even though they have a different God.

Well, they believe in one God. But a different God, obviously, in terms of the meaning poured into the word.

Well, if they have not received the fullness of revelation of who

God is, that is, he is three persons in one God, they can be saved by their desire for truth through grace.

It's the grace of God that comes. It's not a Pelagian sort of thing where they work their way to heaven. It is by grace.

But if, and I want to emphasize this, they believe in one God as we do. We believe in one

God. They believe in one God. If it has not been revealed to them, just as the case with the Jews, if it has not been revealed and they believe in the

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but if it has not been revealed to them that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, there is, and I emphasize, a possibility.

If they have, what 1949 the church declared, Pope Pius XII directed the congregation doctrine of faith and declared is that if they are invincibly ignorant, that is, like Cornelius in Acts chapter 10 verse 4, they are not responsible for their ignorance.

They have some union with the Catholic church, possibly in potential. I'm running short of time, but one of the things that I struggle with when

I read this in the Roman Catholic Catechism is that I need an interpreter. I can't just read this and know what it means.

So it seems that as long as I need an interpreter, I might as well have the problem with scripture rather than the

Roman Catholic Catechism. All it's doing is moving it one step farther beyond that. As soon as you have an infallible interpreter, as soon as he interprets that for you, now you have to interpret his interpretation.

And on and on and on. It does not solve anything. In fact, what we just saw,

I think, is a brilliant illustration of this. Because if we went back to the Council of Florence and asked them if what

I believe would cause me to be a heretic, and hence under the anathema and a curse to the church, they'd say, well, of course.

And if you ask them, would I be able to have eternal life? They'd say, well, of course not. Ask the

Inquisition. But today, now you have the church interpreting what? The church.

You have the church going back and saying, well, that's not what was meant. What you need to understand is this fuller orb. And on September 9, 1998, the

Pope said in Rome, every true prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person.

Through the practice of what is good in their own religious tradition and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively.

In John 15, 22, if I had not spoken to you, then your sin would not remain.

I have spoken to you. Now your sin remains. How does that apply to saying that Jesus Christ didn't come to save those who were lost?

He came to lose those who were saved. No, actually. Well, I'm just reading the words of our Savior. I mean, that's the logical conclusion of that remark.

No, I just quoted Jesus, okay? I know, but what Jesus said. But we need an interpreter here. And you know, that's a very important point,

Hank, because the fact is we need an interpreter for sacred scripture. The reason why we have,

Hank, I was a former Protestant minister. I know of the 30 ,000 denominations that exist, as you do quite well, and the thousands of different interpretations that exist today as a result of a reformation where you don't have an authority to speak for Christ.

But it's obvious that the Roman Catholic Church is not a monolith either. Sure. What do you mean a monolith?

Well, I mean, you have all kinds of different interpretations to wit. I can take one reading out of the

Catechism of the Catholic Church and get a whole bunch of variant interpretations.

But we're going to have to put a comma here, not because I want to be rude to either one of you, but simply because I'm out of time.

I wanted to get the questions desperately. We're not going to have an opportunity to do that in this segment. But both

Tim Staples, James White are going to stay in studio for an extra hour once we go off the air, and we've only just begun.

That's going to be aired right here tomorrow on the Bible Intervention Man broadcast. We want to mention once again that if you live in Southern California, an opportunity to see

James White debate Tim Staples in the flesh on the subject of papal infallibility, a very significant issue.

You already get a little bit of a grasp of how significant this issue is as we have broached some of these subjects on the broadcast.

The Plummer Auditorium is the place. 201 East Chapman, corner of Chapman and Lemon, Fullerton, California.

To pre -register, to buy a ticket, call 949 -858 -6100.

We'll give you all the details on how you can do that or log into the World Wide Web at equip .org. One quick note, you have an article in the

Christian Research Journal, James. Tell us quickly, in about 30 seconds, what that's all about.

Philippians 2, 5 -11 is one of the most important Christological passages in the New Testament. And I'm very thankful the journal allowed me to provide an exegesis of that and then to apply it to various apologetic situations that arise with oneness,

Mormons, and other people. If we know that passage, we can communicate to the Trinity people with great clarity.

And that is a very significant issue. It must be interpreted then, right? Okay. On the basis of its own text. And by the way, the

Christian Research Journal 800, the number two in the letters of the word journal, you can get a one or a two -year subscription. I think a one -year subscription is $24, a two -year subscription, $43.

And then we have the Roman Catholic Controversy, a book by James White, been very popular over the years, radio opera number 515, a suggested donation of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the

Christian Research Institute. When you get the book today, you get this interview plus tomorrow's interview as a bonus.

Dial 949 -858 -6100 or log on to theworldwidewebtoquip .org.

Tim Staples, James White, both going to stay in studio for an extra hour.

So if you're hanging on, we will get to you. If you're dialing in, remember the number in the

US or Canada, 888 -ASK -HANK, translates to 888 -275 -4265.

Thanks so much for joining in today's discussion. We're going to be right back tomorrow with more.

Don't miss that broadcast. See you then. And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the

Bible Answer Man broadcast with James White and Catholic apologist, Tim Staples. The Roman Catholic Controversy.

Read it today, 949 -858 -6100. Up on the web.

All kinds of resources available on the web. My speaking schedule is on the web and so much more.

Today, a special broadcast following on the heels of a broadcast that aired yesterday.

I have Tim Staples and James White in studio. Tim Staples is

Director of Evangelization for the Catholic Resource Center of St. Joseph's Communications.

And James White is the Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Both of them have previously been on the broadcast.

And I'll tell you, so often, Tim, when I tell people I have eight kids, they ask me if I'm Roman Catholic.

It's great to have you in studio again. Good to be back. James, as always, it's nice to have you here as well.

It's good to be back with you, Hank. I have appreciated your scholarship and your friendship over the years and appreciate your contributions to the

Christian Research Journal, your writing, and so much more. Today, we're talking about the

Roman Catholic controversy, which is the title of one of your books. And that is our radio offer.

It's radio offer number 515, a suggested donation of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the Christian Research Institute.

When you order today, you not only get the book, but you get yesterday's tape and today's tape of the

Bible instrument broadcast. They are informative, to say the least. James, before we actually go to questions today, and I have to go to questions because yesterday we did an entire program without a single question, and we have people absolutely trying to get through from all over the world right now.

We're going to give them an opportunity to speak directly to both you guys. But before we do, give me just in capsule form what this debate is all about, the debate that's taking place tonight in Southern California.

The debate really is the flip side of the debate we did in 1996. In 1996, I defended the infallibility of my rule of faith and the sufficiency of my rule of faith.

Tonight, we turn the tables, in essence, and deal with the issue of papal infallibility because if the pope and the papacy and the magisterium of the church does become that infallible authority that can define for us that we must believe in the bodily assumption, the immaculate conception, purgatory and indulgence and things like that, then the simple fact matter is, does history bear out a belief in the infallibility of the pope?

And I believe firmly that the facts of history will demonstrate without question that Cardinal Newman and Bishop Heffala and Von Bollinger and all these great

Roman Catholic scholars before the first Vatican council were right. Announcing papal infallibility would be a tremendous mistake, and it was, and the facts,

I think, show that. Tim, you're obviously going to give the flip side of that argument. That's right, and I think even more than just papal infallibility,

I think it's important for us to understand, those of you who heard yesterday's broadcast, James made the statement that none of the early church fathers spoke of tradition as the

Catholic church teaches today. I strongly disagree with that.

I think it's important for us to understand that the Catholic church teaches the scriptures are the inspired, infallible, and word of God.

It's not as though we're saying the pope has all the authority. The scriptures mean nothing, and we're misrepresented at times by Protestant apologists on that issue.

The scriptures are authority. Include James, of course not. However, I would like to say, for example, just to refute what

James said yesterday, that we have many, many fathers like Saint Irenaeus, who teaches very plainly in his book against heresy, book three, chapter two, he says concerning the

Gnostics, when however they are confuted from the scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same scriptures as if they were not correct, nor of authority.

So he first appeals to scripture, but in the next chapter, just a few lines down, he says, but again, when we refer to them to that tradition, which originates from the apostles and which is preserved by means of the successions of the presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition.

This is indeed to blaspheme their creator. It comes to this. Therefore, these men do now consent neither to scripture nor to tradition.

Saint Augustine will repeat that. I won't quote it, but in his letter to Januarius, he says essentially the same thing, that scripture and tradition and magisterium.

As Saint Irenaeus will say in that same work there, just another chapter later, he then goes on to describe for us the authority of the

Bishop of Rome. He says all other churches must agree with this church because of its special place of preeminence.

And that's what you're going to debate tomorrow. That is really the crux of the issue for tomorrow night. You want to give a quick response and then we have to go to phone callers.

Two things. Yes. I do not want to be to be hung up and left out to dry. Exactly. Two things.

A, if you read what was just read and you read the whole context, Irenaeus is saying the tradition.

What is that tradition? That there's one God in Jesus Christ's son. The tradition that Irenaeus defines is sub -biblical and comes from scripture.

Therefore, that passage does not establish the idea of a tradition that exists next to scripture. And since Augustine was just quoted,

I think this is one of the most beautiful quotes and I'll make it fast Hank, but this is beautiful. Listen to what he says. All things that are read from the holy scriptures in order to our instruction and salvation, it behooves us to hear with earnest heed.

And yet even regard of them a thing which you ought especially to observe and to commit to your memory because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors,

God has been pleased to put in what? The scriptures against which no man dares to speak.

Absolutely. Any sort wishes to seem a Christian. Listen to what he goes on to say. When he had given himself to be handled by them, that's

Jesus, that did not suffice him. But he would also confirm by means of the scriptures, the heart of them that believe.

Why did he have to do that? For he looked forward to us who should be afterwards seeing that in him, we have nothing that we can handle, but have that which we may read.

Amen. You will never find him saying that about the Bishop of Rome or the tradition of the

Bishop of Rome. Sure he will. Not once. And you're going to hear more of that. And I've got a note right here. Friday, July 7th, 7 p .m.

And you're going to hear a response by Tim Staples, but you got to show up here in Southern California.

You got to show up Friday, July 7th, 7 p .m. Plummer Auditorium, 201

East Chapman, corner of Chapman and Lemon, Fullerton, California. You can pre -register.

And by the way, we'll get the tapes and offer them right here on the Bible Answer Man broadcast. So if you're not in Southern California, we're going to try to accommodate you.

Stay tuned for more information on that. But dial 949 -858 -6100. Find out how you can pre -register.

It's tonight. If you don't have much time, call right away or log into the World Wide Web at equip .org.

The phone line is Bobby Stone, Mountain, Georgia. You're up. Hi, Bobby. Hey, evening.

Thank you very much for the great privilege to talk to you guys. An opportunity. I didn't believe I'd be the first person on.

You're on. My first time calling in 10 years of listening. Thank you. Believe it or not, I just listen and learn.

But I do want to make a plug, since you're plugging some of James's books. Okay, but you have to get your plug and then get to your questions as quickly as possible.

A lot of people trying to get through. I'd like you to bring him on again to discuss the Potter's Freedom, if possible, even with Dr.

Geisler. Okay, good plug. My question, how it was regarding the issue of the contradictions between the popes.

I don't have a whole lot of information regarding that, but if there is such a thing as the contradictions between these different popes as they spoke at the cathedral, how then do you respond to that,

Mr. Staples and Mr. White? Well, first of all, I would say there are none. They simply do not exist.

And I speak from experience as one who... Only when they're speaking at the cathedral, right?

Right. What I am speaking from experience as one who attempted to disprove the

Catholic faith, that's how I became Catholic. Obviously, that will be the subject of the debate tomorrow evening will be, are there such a thing?

I believe that there very clearly are, and that history documents these things over and over again.

And obviously, the most important one, in fact, Mr. Staples is well aware, it's the most important one because he spent,

I'd say, a tape and a half on it in his tape series on papal infallibility, was the condemnation of Bishop Honorius as a monothelite heretic by the 6th, 7th, and 8th

Ecumenical Council. And that will obviously form a major portion of the debate tomorrow evening.

But in that situation, we each have a half an hour to present our side and then provide the documentation, then do interchange and things like that.

So you're saying there are definitely contradictions... Most definitely, most definitely. And of course, my response is he was, number one, the council never said he was a heretic.

He was condemned. But Pope Leo II made it very clear when he ratified the council that he was condemned for negligence, not for teaching error.

And that's very, very important because he never made an ex -Catholicist statement. He never made a statement as pope that was in error, and he was not condemned for that.

What he was condemned for is being, first of all, he wasn't up on all the details.

He was deceived by Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. So the first response to Sergius, you could see that the pope did not even understand what the problem was going on.

His second response was in no way, as St. Maximus Confessor made very clear, and he was the great defender of our

Christology, made very clear that even what the pope read was not heretical. But what it did was it was somewhat ambiguous.

And so by his inaction, his negligence, you could argue, and that's what the

Fathers of the Council did, by his negligence, he didn't stamp out the heresy. And for that reason, he was condemned.

When did ex -Cathedra come into vote? Well, I don't know when the actual statement ex -Cathedra...

Well, I just mean the concept. Yeah. Well, the concept itself from saying... From the chair.

Yeah, from saying, well, you can find it in St. Cyprian. St. Augustine actually refers to, and I will be referring to this in tonight's debate, but St.

Augustine uses Matthew chapter 23 when he is refuting the Donatists as an example.

And in particular, it's very important because the Donatists were attempting to use

St. Cyprian against the pope. And St. Augustine says, he appeals to the authority of the

Bishop of Rome. And he says, if you don't like the Bishop of Rome or things that he did, he says, you must obey.

And he quotes Matthew chapter 23 verses 1 and 2, the famous text where Jesus, referring to the

Old Testament authority, said that you must obey them. You obey, however, you don't do after their works, for they say, but they do not.

So St. Augustine uses Matthew 23. And that, you know, from that will come that understanding of an authority speaking from the chair, just as in the

Old Testament, the Old Testament authority sat in the chair of Moses. So in the New Testament, as St.

Cyprian points out very plainly, and I will again tonight, please come. I'm going to make this very clear tonight.

St. Cyprian points out that it is from the chair of Peter. That is the Bishop of Rome and not other bishops.

The Bishop of Rome who sits in the chair of Peter. So you can exonerate Pope Paul V, who believed in geocentrism and condemned

Galileo's view that the sun does not revolve around the earth because he wasn't speaking ex cathedra.

No, that's a misrepresentation of history. Pope Paul V, in fact, it's fascinating that you bring that up.

I was just reading about this. And the fact is the church never condemned a geocentric or heliocentric view of the universe.

This is a matter of science, not a matter of faith. It's obvious when

Copernicus, who was a Catholic priest, dedicated his work to the

Pope, that the church was not against this scientific principle.

What the church was against was Galileo. And the Pope made this very clear. He was given a chance to shut up.

And he wouldn't shut while he was silenced for a while. And then he kept running his mouth about denying scripture.

He said scripture and revelation must be subservient to the physical sciences.

He used the example of Joshua and the sun standing still. Galileo says that's wrong. Scripture is in error because the sun doesn't go around the earth.

And that's when the Pope, or I should say the Holy Office, stepped in and said, it's time for you to be silent.

You've stepped out of your area of expertise. This is a matter of science, not a matter of faith and morals.

And the church never condemned a geocentric view. You have to remember the geocentric view was the scientific view of the age.

You had Copernicus and you had others even before Christ who held to a heliocentric view.

But the majority of science was against Galileo. And further, we might add that Galileo was wrong.

His understanding of a heliocentric view is wrong. We know the sun moved. He was wrong. So he overstepped his bounds, basically.

So I would argue even if the Pope condemned him, he wouldn't have been wrong because even on a scientific level, he was, in fact, wrong.

Hank, I would direct people to George Salmon's work, The Infallibility of the Church, for a discussion of that particular issue because I think it provides a very balanced perspective on that.

But a couple of things that were said, Mr. Staples said that the council fathers and the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not condemn in Aureus.

In reality, in its letter to Pope Agatho, the council says, we have destroyed the fort of the heretics and slain them with anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely,

Theodore, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, et cetera. More than four times they condemned him as a heretic, not for simply not going against heresy in any way, shape, or form.

And that included the papal legates who agreed to every anathema of Honorius as a monothelite heretic.

We will document that and prove that. But James, you know better than that. I didn't interrupt you. You know better than that, James. Tim, I did not interrupt you.

So I'd like to have just a few moments to respond to a number of the things that you said that I think are simply in error.

Cyprian, his entire doctrine of the Chair of Peter was that he sat in it, as did every other bishop in the church.

And when Augustine quotes that, he is well aware of the fact that Cyprian's view was that every bishop in the church sits in the

Chair of Peter, not just the bishop of Rome. In fact, the way that Cyprian responded to Stephen and told him to basically butt out of North Africa, and the fact that Augustine, the one who he then quoted from Matthew 23,

Augustine received a letter from the bishop of Rome and said, no way. We're only getting started, folks.

Stay tuned. We're going to be right back with more. More than any other time in the past,

Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. But are there differences between the two? And do they still matter?

In the Roman Catholic controversy, which is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, James White probes these questions by examining the papacy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine to get to the core of the issue.

With a balanced critique, the Roman Catholic controversy by James White affirms that evangelicals are working together and Catholics share a common ground on some points.

Yet, there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order the Roman Catholic controversy when you call 949 -858 -6100 or pick it up through CRI's online bookstore, eddyquiff .org.

And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the Bible Answer Man broadcast with James White and Catholic apologist,

Tim Staples. The Roman Catholic controversy, read it today, 949 -858 -6100.

Few people understood then what God was doing. Could Jesus die?

He was the Messiah. And that hopelessness is just as real today.

Yes, and I'm afraid the news is not good. If all you know is this life, it's easy to lose hope.

But as believers in Jesus Christ, we know something better is coming. That's the message of Resurrection, the latest best -selling book by Hank Hanegraaff.

The Bible Answer Man reveals what God's word has to say about hope and how that hope will radically change your life today.

Resurrection is available now wherever Christian books are sold. For more information, call 888 -7000 -CRI.

That's 888 -7000 -CRI. Yes, Central Command, this is

MIS, ready to launch BAM in T -minus six seconds. This is Central Command, stand by MIS to engage the

World Wide Web on my mark. Roger that, Central Command. Launch website sequence in five, four, three, two, one, go.

Now, CRI gives you the access key to our website with just a click of a mouse. When you log on safely and securely at www .equip

.org, you will find breaking news, live and archived shows of the Bible Answer Man broadcast.

Locate the CRI bookstore and find a subscription offer to the award -winning Christian Research Journal.

Also available are fact sheets and CRI perspectives, plus information about Hank Hanegraaff.

And by clicking on Special Offer, you can now order a radio offer quickly and easily. The CRI website, reaching around the world through the

World Wide Web at equip .org. Isn't it time you logged on? Welcome back to the

Bible Answer Man broadcast. I'm your host, Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute. We are delighted that you've joined us for today's broadcast, a special broadcast with James White and Tim Staples.

If you want to join us on air with your question, Monday through Friday at this time, simply dial 888 -ASK -HANK. Translates to 888 -275 -4265.

Do you remember our address? About 7 ,000 Rancho Santa Margarita, California. Ranch with an

O, Santa and Margarita. M -A -R -G -A -R -I -T -A. We're in California. Again, C -A will do.

And the zip code, 92688. Our telephone number, 949 -858 -6100.

If you want to start calling that number so that you can find out how you can get to the debate tonight between James White and Tim Staples, which takes place at the

Plummer Auditorium, 949 -858 -6100 is the number to dial.

Also dial that number when you're ordering radio offer number 515. A suggested donation of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the

Christian Research Institute. The book by James White, entitled The Roman Catholic Controversy.

Again, that number, 949 -858 -6100. Tim Staples, you want an opportunity to respond to James White as he talked about Pope Honorius.

And I have 30 seconds. Go. All right. I just wanted to make it very clear that in the councils, we have to understand, even our

Orthodox brothers acknowledge this, that unless the Pope, that is the

Bishop of Rome, ratifies a council, it is not a council. And in Pope Leo II's ratification of that council, he made it very clear that Pope Honorius was not guilty of being a formal heretic that is pertaining to his teaching.

He was condemned for his negligence, just as we see Ananias and Sapphira being condemned by Peter, not for a formal teaching, but for what they did.

They lied. So that does not meet the criterion for a Pope teaching error.

In fact, Pope John IV, right after Pope Honorius, Pope Martin I, as well as Pope Leo II, all made that very, very clear, as well as St.

Maximus. Leo did not say that. Leo did say that he did not adorn the apostolic chair with proper teaching, but he did not change the words of the council, the words of the council repeated in the next two ecumenical councils.

And the idea that a Pope has to ratify a council comes from these pseudo -Isidorian decretals, which were written 150 years later and are now being read back into history to attempt to defend

Honorius. They came from fraudulent doctrines. And isn't that interesting? The Greek Orthodox don't agree with you, James.

And they separated from us in the year 1000 AD. I don't agree with you when it comes to Purgatory. But not on this issue.

The pseudo -Isidorian decretals. That the Greek Orthodox would acknowledge, they separated from us in the year 1054, but they acknowledged that it has been the tradition of the

Church from day one that a council is not a council unless it is ratified by the

Bishop of Rome. Roman Catholic sources themselves admit that the general idea that a council has to be ratified by a

Pope comes from the pseudo -Isidorian decretals, which were forgeries written in 845. Roman Catholics do not acknowledge that,

James. Look at the old Catholic encyclopedia. Look, read under false decretals, and they will say those very words.

Back to the phone lines. Terry in Dearborn, Michigan. You're on with two very delightful gentlemen.

Tim Staples and James White. Yes, I am a practicing, observant, orthodox

Catholic. And I have a question for Tim and James. Sure. By what authority did Martin Luther have when he tossed out the seven books of the

Old Testament, when he founded his Protestant tradition in the 16th century, thereby filing the decision of the

Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in 95, who also rejected the Gospels? Well, of course he didn't.

He didn't have the authority to do so. He didn't claim to do so. The apocryphal books actually were rejected by the

Bishop of Rome, Gregory the Great. They were also rejected all the way up to the time of the

Reformation. For example, the cardinal who interviewed Luther himself,

Cardinal Cajetan, indicated that the canon of Jerome should be the canon of the

Church, that you should not accept any other canon other than that which rejected the apocryphal books.

The apocryphal books were rejected by Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter, including only those Greek editions that were part of the canonical book.

So there's a tremendous amount of information that demonstrates that Luther was only following what is, in reality, a much more ancient tradition than what the

Council of Trent established in 1546. And I would assert that the Church Fathers who gathered the

Council of Trent knew almost nothing about, for example, the canon, the Palestinian canon, the canon that was used by the

Jews at the time of Christ. And in fact, I would recommend to everyone, if you can track it down, and I wish somebody would put this back in print,

Roger Beckwith's fine book, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, was written in 1985.

And like so many good books today, Hank, they don't stay in print long enough. I would recommend that to anyone who would really want to get into this issue.

OK. Well, I think the caller makes a very good point. The fact is, all

Christians accepted the seven books, not as apocryphal. They are deuterocanonical.

In fact, I would refer the caller to the Synod of Rome, called by Pope Damasus in 382, the

Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393 and 397, the Letter of Pope Innocent I to the

Bishop of Toulouse in the year 405, another Council of Carthage in 419, all of which have the same canon of Scripture that Catholics and you and I as brothers in Christ accept today.

That is, if you are Orthodox, you accept those books as well. It seems to me that there's some historical revisionism going on here.

How is a person to know which one of you is representing history correctly?

Well, I would just refer to the fact that the

Jews themselves, when you look at the New Testament, the New Testament itself, as Steinmuller points out in his

Catholic commentary that was published in the 1950s, in his article on canonicity, points out that of the 350 quotes in the

New Testament, some 300 of them agree with the Septuagint, which has those seven books in them.

We have almost verbatim quotes. For example, from the very lips of our

Lord in Matthew chapter 7, verse 12, when he gives us the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If you go to the book of Tobit chapter 4, verse 12, it says, do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

And I could give you many other quotes, even Protestant scholars that acknowledge that Saint Paul was well acquainted with wisdom chapter 13 when he writes

Romans chapter 1. And I could go on. But what about, what do you do with the fact that the

Bible of the Jews up until the Council of Jamnia, such as the Ethiopian Jews, who we know were separated from the

Jews in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, they were received back as brothers with the

Jews in 1975. They, for 2000 years, have used the Septuagint and include those books.

Plus, we have the writings of the church fathers from day one, Irenaeus quotes from them. Polycarp quotes from them.

Saint Clement in his Stromata even refers to Baruch chapter 3, verses 36 through 38 as divine scripture.

These are fathers of the church. There is no question here. The idea of Jerome, Jerome had problems with some of the books.

However, not Daniel chapter 3, the Greek portion. Some of the books. However, once the popes, the

Pope Damasus and the church decreed Saint Jerome translated the

Vulgate, and that's why subsequent popes said, let's go with the Canon of Jerome because when

Jerome translated the Vulgate, he translated in obedience to the

Pope, he translated those seven books. They are historically in the Vulgate. There are all sorts of problems here.

Basically, what the presentation was just given is relying upon scholarship that's about 120 years old.

If we come to modern scholarship, and there's a debate on this. I debated Jerry Matatix at Boston College on this very issue.

So instead of having five minutes, we had the two and a half, three hours if people want to get hold of that and listen to that.

The issue of the Council of Jamnia. There was no Council of Jamnia. The issue of this, the idea, well, the

Septuagint contained the apocryphal books. What Septuagint are you talking about? Which Septuagint manuscripts are you talking about? The idea of the

Alexandrian Canon versus the Palestinian Canon has been abandoned by those who study this issue up to date.

It is very common for these things to be repeated, but they are simply errors. And when we look into church history, we discover, as Beckwith points out, that all of Origen's followers and those who,

Rufinus and others that went with him, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, rejected these books.

Melito of Sardis rejected these books if they were, in point of fact, a part of this universal tradition of the church.

Why does even the Bishop of Rome, Gregory the Great, reject these books? Instead, anyone who has studied canon issues in depth knows that from the perspective of the historical facts, that there are two traditions standing side by side.

You can see this all the way up to Cardinal Cayetan in rejecting those books and others accepting those books.

And the simple fact of the matter is, from the Roman Catholic perspective, the first dogmatic definition of those books is canon, dogmatic definition.

And this is admitted in the Canons of the Council of Trent. Read it yourself, that the first dogmatic definition comes in 1546.

1546 is a long ways down the road. Actually, 1442 at the Council of Florence.

Which is? It's the Council of Florence. 1546. I would just challenge anyone to read the

Council of Florence and you will see the canon decrees what the books of the Bible are. In fact, you'll find out that one of the canons, or one of the councils that my opponent here mentioned,

Roman Catholic authorities admit did not even take place. We're going to Paul, Sterling Heights, Michigan. You're on with Tim.

Staples, and James White. Good evening, gentlemen. Thanks for taking my call. You're welcome.

My question is, to what extent is the Pope considered to be to Rufinus and others that went with him?

Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, rejected these books. Melito of Sardis rejected these books.

If they were, in point of fact, a part of this universal tradition of the church, why does even the

Bishop of Rome, Gregory the Great, reject these books? Instead, anyone who has studied canon issues in depth knows that, from the perspective of the historical facts, that there are two traditions standing side by side.

You can see this all the way up to Cardinal Cayetan in rejecting those books and others accepting those books.

And the simple fact of the matter is, from the Roman Catholic perspective, the first dogmatic definition of those books is canon, dogmatic definition.

And this is admitted in the Canons of the Council of Trent. Read it yourself. That the first dogmatic definition comes in 1546.

1546 is a long ways down the road. Actually, 1442 at the Council of Florence. Which is?

It's the Council of Florence. 1546. I would just challenge anyone to read the Council of Florence, and you will see the canon decrees what the books of the

Bible are. In fact, you'll find out that one of the canons, or one of the councils that my opponent here mentioned,

Roman Catholic authorities admit did not even take place. We're going to Paul Sterling Heights, Michigan. You're on with Tim Staples and James White.

Good evening, gentlemen. Thanks for taking my call. You're welcome. My question is, to what extent is the Pope considered to be infallible in his various writings, and specifically his encyclicals?

How authoritative, and to what degree are the encyclicals binding on Roman Catholics? That's a good question.

Well, we, rooted in sacred scripture, we believe that the Holy Father, the

Pope, has been given the keys of the kingdom, and whatever he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven. Now, we're going to deal with that extensively tonight.

I invite you to come if you can. By the way, that's the Plummer Auditorium tonight, and you can still call and get directions and details at 949 -858 -6100.

Go ahead, Tim. But I want to be very clear here that the Pope is only infallible when he, in fact, to use biblical language, binds something on this earth.

He can't be talking about who's going to win the baseball game. It's got to be a matter of faith and morals.

He must be teaching as Pope to the universal church, and he must say so, and he must do it as a human act.

It must be a human act. Somebody can't put a pin in his hand and force him, or he can't be forced or coerced into making a statement, because that's not truly a human act.

So in that sense, the Pope is infallible. He is guaranteed, because Christ gives him the keys of the kingdom, that when he proclaims such a doctrine, it ipso facto is infallible.

He cannot err. Well, the only thing, since he was asking for a definition, I wouldn't want to add anything to that outside of simply saying this idea of the keys makes you infallible.

The early church understood the keys and the power of binding and loosing to be not only the same thing, but they were also given to all of the apostles.

It was a later idea that this was given primarily or only to Peter. And in fact, it's interesting to me in Matthew chapter 16, when

Jesus says, I will give you the keys, he uses the future tense. That's right. And the only fulfillment we have of that in scripture is in Matthew 18, 18, where Peter, along with all the other apostles, receives that power, and it is to all the apostles, not just simply to Peter alone.

We're going to stay in studio for an extra hour once we go off the air. This will be another marathon session.

I'm going to do that in concession to the thousands of people around the world who are trying to get through to Tim Staples and James White.

I'll try to give as many of you an opportunity as humanly possible. Both of them have a lot to say, and so it's difficult to get a lot of you on the air.

But we're going to do our level best to get as many of you on the air with Tim Staples and James White.

Stay tuned. We will do the very best we can for you. We're going to stay in studio for one additional hour once we go off the air.

You're hanging on. We'll get to you. So please be patient with us today. Special guests are

James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Tim Staples, director of evangelization for the

Catholic Resource Center of St. Joseph's Communication. Tonight, they are debating at Plummer Auditorium.

You want details and directions, 949 -858 -6100.

The number to dial, 949 -858 -6100. Or log into the World Wide Web at equip .org.

Also want to mention radio offer number 515. It's entitled The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White.

Suggest a donation of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the Christian Research Institute. This special radio offer includes the book, which is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences,

Marian doctrine, and much, much more. James White affirms that evangelicals and Catholics share common ground on some points, yet there are crucial differences that remain and cannot be ignored.

The book plus the tapes of these broadcasts available when you order today, 949 -858 -6100.

Log into the World Wide Web at equip .org. We'll be right back with more. Stay tuned. In his most recent book,

Resurrection, Hank Hanegraaff gives a ready defense of the resurrection of Christ, details on the resurrection of creation, and definitive answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about resurrection, such as the topic of receiving rewards.

Scripture frequently uses the majestic imagery of crowns to convey the concept of eternal inheritance.

Not only is the Redeemer portrayed as wearing many crowns, the redeemed are pictured wearing crowns as well.

For Christ, the crowns are symbolic of royalty. For Christians, they are symbolic of a eternal reward.

They are not perishable crowns like the wreaths awarded to those who win a mere athletic event on earth.

Rather, they are imperishable crowns that will reflect the glory of God throughout eternity. Hank Hanegraaff's new book,

Resurrection, call 949 -858 -6100. Again, that's 949 -858 -6100, or www .equip

.org. Hank Hanegraaff, president of CRI, lauds

Norman Geisler as one of America's premier apologists. With degrees in apologetics and countercult ministry,

Dr. Geisler has provided many resources to the Christian community, such as When Skeptics Ask, When Critics Ask, and a general introduction to the

Bible. Recently, Dr. Geisler completed his magnum opus. Forty years of life's work gathered together in one resource called the

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. This definitive one -volume resource is designed to equip believers for Christian defense against the full range of opposing arguments.

This comprehensive reference volume examines every key issue, person, and concept related to Christian apologetics.

This 800 -page hardbound is available to you through CRI for only $50. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics is an ideal resource for all

Christians and can be yours simply by dialing CRI at 949 -858 -6100 and asking for radio offer 467.

Again, that number is 949 -858 -6100 and ask for radio offer number 467.

More than any other time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. But are there differences between the two, and do they still matter?

In the Roman Catholic Controversy, which is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, James White probes these questions by examining the papacy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine to get to the core of the issue.

With a balanced critique, the Roman Catholic Controversy by James White affirms that Evangelicals and Catholics share a common ground on some points.

Yet, there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order the Roman Catholic Controversy when you call 949 -858 -6100, or pick it up through CRI's online bookstore at equip .org.

And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the Bible Answer Man broadcast with James White and Catholic apologist

Tim Staples. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Read it today. 949 -858 -6100.

Welcome back to the Bible Answer Man broadcast. I'm your host Hank Henegraaft, president of the

Christian Research Institute. Just delighted that you've joined us for today's broadcast. You can join us on air Monday through Friday at this time by simply dialing 888 -ASK -HANK.

That translates to 888 -275 -4265. Our address box 7000

Rancho Santa Margarita, California. Rancho with an O, Santa, and then

Margarita. Three words for in California. Zip code 92 -688. Our telephone number 949 -858 -6100.

And remember you can log into the World Wide Web at equip .org. James White, director of the

Omega Ministries. Tim Staples, director of evangelization for the Catholic Resource Center of St.

Joseph's Communications. Both in studio with me. We're going to write back to your phone calls. Arlene, Monterey, California.

You're up next. Hi, Tim. I first wanted to say you did a fantastic job yesterday, considering it appeared that you were dialoguing with two

Protestants as opposed to one Protestant. It doesn't appear he was. He knew that going in,

Arlene. Anyways, Tim, a question for you is what would be a reason you would give for when

Protestants are trying to make a representation of the Catholic faith into what it teaches, and it's usually false.

And when they stand corrected by a Roman Catholic, they still, and then, you know, next time you hear them talking or speaking somewhere, they'll still fall back on that even though they've been corrected and clarified what the

Church actually teaches. They'll still fall back to the false statements of what the

Church teaches. Why do you think a lot of them will do that? Well, Arlene, I would not judge anyone.

Obviously, I can't do that. All I would say to that is I know from my own personal experience, when

I was in my conversion process to the Catholic faith, there was a time, I have no doubt, where I knew the truth, but I rejected it because I did not want it.

But this is a much different question. I mean, this is the insinuation that someone would know the truth and purposely, with premeditation and forethought, misrepresent history, which would,

I think, be a pretty egregious charge against someone. Sure, and I believe that that is a reality.

There are those who do that. I know myself for... Do you think that James White is doing that?

Again, I don't want to say that Mr. White is purposely misrepresenting. I believe he is misrepresenting, and I'm going to show tonight in the debate where he does, in two of his books, misrepresent the

Catholic Church, distort history, and such. Are you doing that purposely, James? No. In no way, shape, or form, but it's interesting,

Hank. You may recall a recent CRI journal where I wrote a viewpoint article referring to the fact that Envoy Magazine, and Mr.

Staples has written, I believe, for Envoy Magazine, published a hit piece against me just a couple of years ago, where they responded, as you may recall, to the article

I wrote for the journal called, What Really Happened at the Council of Nicaea? And in that article written by Hugh Barber, they somehow forgot, and it's interesting, the title for the caller here is, why not quote official sources?

They somehow forgot to mention who wrote the article. They somehow forgot to mention how anyone could look up the article.

And it was, as you recall, we in the journal responded to this by saying, you know, if we're going to say someone's wrong, and of course they were attacking what

I had said about Nicaea, we're going to be very straightforward. We're going to quote our sources. And you know, Hank, that Elliott has a very high standard concerning the writing standards for the journal.

And if we're going to quote somebody, if we're going to say something about somebody, we have to footnote it, and we have to provide our sources.

That is how it should be done. And yet, here we have an example of a publication,

Envoy magazine, which would publish an anonymous hit piece on me and not even let its readers know where they could go in the

CRI journal to look up the article that is allegedly being refuted, because if they did, they'd find out that the article was very badly misrepresenting it.

So I've never done that. And if anyone wants to look at Mary, Another Redeemer, they will find page after page after page of citations of papal encyclicals,

Redemptoris Mater, the Catholic catechism. They'll find the same thing in the Roman Catholic controversy.

There's no reason to do that. There's no reason to engage in that kind of thing. Sure. And I agree.

And I think it's terrible to misrepresent. But I do believe, as I'm going to demonstrate in the debate tonight, that Mr.

White refers to sources. I mean, I can quote all the sources in the world, but if I'm referring to fools, then who cares?

And again, I'm not saying Mr. White is a fool, but what I am saying is there are people out there who, like I was, do not want the truth.

They want to remain where they are. And it does not matter what anybody shows them.

I've dealt with people like this, but I do not believe that I am in a position here, Arlene, to judge people and to say

Mr. White is one of these people. I can't do that. I don't have that authority. Jesus told me not to do that.

Fair enough. I want to go to Scott, Denver, Colorado. You're up next. Hi, Scott. Hello. How are you doing? Yeah, great.

I got on, finally. Hey, Hank, I got some tape series from you some time ago, and it was a debate with James Aikens and James White, and at the closing remarks,

James Aikens put out a challenge to us Protestants to purchase a copy of the

Catechism of the Catholic Church, study through it, and see if it didn't speak for itself, and clear up a lot of misconceptions that we have, and really let us know what the

Catholic Church believes. And I did just that. And in my spare time over the last eight months,

I've chiseled through the Catechism, and I've studied it along with my Bible, and there's a section in here

I want to read that's been gnawing at me right from the beginning, because it is just, to me, a horrid example of ripping

Scripture from context and putting it in the Catechism to where it will say what the

Catholic Church wants it to mean. Let's get to it quickly. It says, in what paragraph?

It's page 138, it's in Part 1, the Profession of Faith, paragraph 491 and 492.

And it says, through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, full of grace, through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception.

That is what the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854, and he said, "...the

most blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

The splendor of an entirely unique holiness by which Mary is enriched from the very first instant of her conception comes wholly from Christ.

She is redeemed in a more exalted fashion by reasons of the merit of her son.

The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person in Christ, with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places, and chose her in Christ before the foundations of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love."

Now that has taken direct... And you have a problem with that? That is taken directly from Ephesians, the first chapter, third and fourth verse, and I'll tell you,

I'm just a layman, guys, but you know, Ephesians is speaking to all believers. You know, it's not speaking to Mary specifically that she was born holy and blameless before God, and you know,

I mean, if this is an example of the safeguarding and the accurate interpretation, not only that it's...

If that's not being pulled out of context, and furthermore, the words of the holy scriptures themselves have been changed from us to her.

Brief response from Tim and then James. Okay, well no, the words of scripture have not been changed.

If you look, the quotations are not before the word her, it's after the word her.

Now Mary, just as all of us would be included, you just said you and I are included in that quote, in Christ before the foundation of the world, so why would not

Mary be included? Of course that verse applies to Mary. Now there is... What you did is you said, okay, the

Father blessed Mary more than any other created person in Christ with every spiritual blessing, so therefore nobody else can be said to have every spiritual blessing in heavenly places or to be in Christ.

That's a non sequitur. That's not what the catechism is saying. The Catholic church has never taught that only

Mary is in Christ. That's absurd. What we do teach, however, is

Mary has a unique place in the role of salvation. Only Mary said yes, and as a result of her yes,

Jesus came into the world. Only Mary is the Queen Mother, as depicted in Revelation 12. That we know in 1

Kings chapters 1 and 2, that role in the Semitic tradition, in the Jewish tradition, is an exalted role, as we see when

Solomon in the presence of his mother comes down off of the throne, has a throne set up at his right hand.

I encourage you to read that in 1 Kings chapter 2. Has a throne set at his right hand, sits his mother down and says, there is nothing that I can withhold from thee.

Scott, I would agree with everything you said. I think this is a good example of exactly what does happen when you have an infallible authority.

Ludwig Ott, a Catholic theologian, recognizes that a number of early church fathers taught that Mary had sinned.

The doctrine of immaculate conception was thought up by a British monk by the name of Edmer in the 12th century in the form that exists today.

And if you want a real example, Scott, read Ott's discussion of this in his work on Catholic dogma.

Because the Pope used Genesis 3 .15 to substantiate the concept of the immaculate conception.

But listen to this reasoning, I'll be quick. The bull in Ephebalus proves of this Messianic -Marianic interpretation.

The bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage. It must also be observed that the infallibility of the papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such, and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.

So in other words, Ott recognizes that the Pope used bad interpretation of Genesis 3 .15, and yet, despite that, he recognizes that the decree is infallible, but the reasons leading up to the decree can actually be fallible.

You misrepresented Ott. Ott did not say the reasoning was wrong. Ott simply said, as the

Catholic Church has always taught, that the scripture passages used and the reasons used are not the literal meaning of the passage.

It is what the Pope binds on earth, that is what is bound in heaven. And it's the answer, it's not the reasoning leading up to it.

So in other words, you can misreason, you can misinterpret scripture, and yet the final result, allegedly, will be infallible.

And you know why, James? That, Scott, I think demonstrates what we're talking about here. Because Peter, as he's walking on the water, might shake, and it might look like he's going down, but Jesus is going to reach his hand down, and he's not going to let him go under.

A taste of what you're going to get tonight, if you join the debate at the Plummer Auditorium, 201

East Chapman, to pre -register, call, you've got to do it in a hurry, 949 -858 -6100, log on to the

World Wide Web at equip .org. We'll give you details and directions. That, once again, is a debate by my guest,

James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Tim Staples, Director of Evangelization for the

Catholic Resource Center of St. Joseph's Communications, both of them able debaters.

Both of them will be at the Plummer Auditorium tonight, debating the subject of papal infallibility.

Right now, you can pick up the phone, get details and directions. You can also order radio offer number 515, a suggested donation of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the

Christian Research Institute. It's called the Roman Catholic Controversy by James White, a special radio offer on an absorbing book that looks at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White affirms that evangelicals and Catholics share common ground on some points, yet there are some incredible, crucial differences that remain regarding the

Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself. You can't ignore them. A special bonus offer, you can receive the tapes of my interview with James White and Tim Staples.

So get the order today. Dial 949 -858 -6100 or log onto the

World Wide Web at equip .org. Also, make sure you take this opportunity to subscribe to the

Christian Research Journal. A one -year subscription is $24. A two -year subscription, $43.

When you dial 800, the number two and the letters, the word journal, 800, the number two and the letters, the word journal, subscribe today.

And please remember this is listener -supported radio. We need you to stand with us prayerfully and financially. You can do that again at 949 -858 -6100 or on the

World Wide Web at equip .org. We're going to stay right here for an extra hour. Many of you are hanging on from around the world.

You want to talk to Tim Staples, James White. This will be your opportunity. Hang on. We'll be with you in just a few moments as soon as we sign off today.

Thanks so much for tuning in. God bless you. We'll see you tomorrow with more. and Catholics share a common ground on some points.

Yet, there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order the Roman Catholic Controversy when you call 949 -858 -6100 or pick it up through CRI's online bookstore at equip .org.

And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the Bible Answer Man broadcast with James White and Catholic apologist

Tim Staples. The Roman Controversy. Read it today. 949 -858 -6100.

Rancho Santa Margarita. We're in California. And the zip code is 92688. 92688.

Our telephone number, area code 949. And the number 858 -6100. Again, the area code 949.

The number 858 -6100. Do remember, it's on the World Wide Web. Equip .org

is the address. Our bookstore is up on the web. All kinds of resources available on the web.

And of course, you can get a simulcast on the web at equip .org. So check it out.

You can also get archived broadcasts on the World Wide Web at equip .org. Special broadcast on tap for you today.

Tim Staples and James White with me in studio as we're answering your questions.

They're both experts coming from their own individual persuasions.

James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, represents the evangelical Christian perspective.

Tim Staples, director of evangelization for the Catholic Resource Center of St.

Joseph's Communications, representing the Roman Catholic perspective. Glad to have both of you with us again today.

It's great to be back. You guys are popular. And we're going to go right to the phone lines because there are all kinds of people across the world trying to get we're given the opportunity right now.

Fred, Red Bluff, California. Yes. I'd like to know, the Roman Catholic Church says Peter is the first pope of Rome.

Strange. Peter don't know anything about the Roman Catholic priesthood. All he knows about in 1

Peter 5, 2, 5, and 2, 9 is that the born -again believers are a royal priesthood, often a spiritual sacrifice before God.

And we, if you can prove that the Roman Catholic priesthood exists, and it does not exist, the pope has got to be diligent.

Because it's also going to be proved by the woman at the well, when Jesus said, neither in this, in Jerusalem will they worship, neither on this mountain, the true believer worship the true priesthood.

That's done away with the priesthood. Okay. We get your question, Tim. Those are fighting words, no doubt. Okay. Yeah.

Well, first of all, we acknowledge what you quoted, 1 Peter 2, 5 -9 has been quoted throughout the history of the church, including by the catechism in talking about the universal priesthood of believers.

We believe that. I am a priest by virtue of my baptism, prophet, priest, and king. However, we also believe, and this is the beauty about the

Catholic faith, we don't take one scripture, pull it out, absolutize it, but we take all of sacred scripture.

The scripture also makes it very clear that we have individuals that are called out within the body of Christ for a particular ministry, and it is a priestly ministry.

For example, the classic verse of scripture used is Luke 22 -19 at the

Last Supper, when our Lord, in fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice, offers what?

Bread and wine. He says, this is my body. This is in the context of Christ exercising his headship over his spiritual family in fulfillment of Exodus 12.

He is the priest offering a sacrifice, a bloodless sacrifice.

As Augustine says, he carries himself in his own hand. And when he says, do this in memory of me, he calls the apostles to do the same thing.

That is to offer the unbloody sacrifice of himself. Now, we not only see the sacrifice of the mass, which requires a priesthood, but we also see clear scriptures like John 20, 21 -23, where Jesus empowers the apostles to do another priestly act, and that is to forgive sins.

He says, peace be with you after the resurrection. As the Father has sent me, so do

I now send you. Whosoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Whosoever sins you retain, they are retained.

The scriptures can't get any more plain than that. He gives authority to them to forgive sins, which is a five verse 14, 2

Corinthians 2 -10, and many other examples. I think what's important is to see that the apostles have a priestly function.

2 Corinthians 2 -17, Paul says, I speak for God. They are ambassadors for God.

That is a priestly function of mediation, which is really the priesthood.

Not only is Peter not the first pope, neither is he teaching that there is a sacramental priesthood in the

Christian church. The Bible is very plain on this indeed. It was just said we need to let scripture major on the major things.

I think Rome doesn't do that with many things, and this is one of them. Paul twice gives us a list of the office bearers in the church.

Priests are never mentioned. When he writes the Corinthians, priests are never mentioned. There are elders in the church.

They are not called priests. There are deacons in the church. They are not called priests. In fact, the elders are to be husbands of one wife, and it talks about their children, so obviously the entire concept of the celibate, sacramental priesthood with the power to change the elements in transubstantiation, a concept that doesn't even appear until a thousand years after Christ.

No one bows down and worships a monstrance and so on and so forth until a thousand years after Christ.

These concepts, this is called eisegesis, reading into the text based upon the traditional beliefs of Rome, and when we look at the

New Testament, ask a simple question. Is the New Testament clear as to the form and function of the

New Testament church and the offices? The answer is very clearly yes. You have entire chapters. You have 1

Timothy 1. You have Titus. You have entire discussions. Do they ever say anything about priests?

No, they do not. The priesthood is a universal priesthood. Why? Because we have only one high priest,

Jesus Christ, and he has entered into the holy place having offered himself once, and when he enters in, he sits down.

The high priest never did that because his work was never finished, but Christ, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sits down at the right hand of the

Father. Why? Because his work is finished. When he says to Telestai, it is finished, he meant it, and so the idea of having to have a priesthood to mediate some type of a sacrifice when the sacrifice is finished would obviously be contradicted.

The concept of the priesthood came from the pagan religions around the Christian church in the early centuries.

It does not come from the simple eisegesis of the scripture. I want to go to one New York, New York. You're on with Tim Staples and James White.

Hi, Tim. How are you? Fine, thank you. My question is, in the

Bible, in the New Testament, that Jesus is the only name above all names, you know, given to us that we can have salvation, right?

Yes. And why didn't you just mention Mary and the

Pope and all this nonsense? Okay, and all this nonsense, okay.

Well, see, I think the New Testament is very clear that there is, as you quoted

Acts chapter 4, verse 12, and we believe that there is no other name given on earth among men whereby we can be saved.

The Catholic church teaches that, has always held that. However, we believe, and I think this is a very, very important point, and if I could just quote from a man, some of you may be acquainted with Lorraine Bettner, this is a real good friend of mine.

I'm kidding. Since they could not reconcile the two, this is Lorraine Bettner writing about the early church fathers, and he says, they could not reconcile the two.

They would have denied the doctrine of predestination. That is referring to the church fathers before St.

Augustine, and perhaps also that of God's absolute foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was cooperation between grace and free will.

Now, of course, Lorraine Bettner, as Mr. White, is reformed in his theology. I don't know about you,

Hank, but I believe in free will. Read my book, Resurrect. Okay, no, I know that you do believe in free will, but Lorraine Bettner does not, as Mr.

White does not. However, what Bettner acknowledges is that the early

Christians did. In fact, he misrepresents St. Augustine, who did not deny free will. That's another issue, but the point

I'm making is this. If free will is involved in salvation, then it is entirely proper to say, as I quoted earlier,

St. Paul says on numerous occasions that we save souls. Not that we're the efficient cause of salvation, not that we are

Christ and Christ doesn't do anything, but it is Christ who works in us and through us. We participate in by accepting

Christ and his finished work in our own salvation, and as James chapter 5 verses 19 and 20 says,

James says, if you convert your brother from the error of his ways, let him know that he has saved a soul from death and has covered a multitude of sins.

We, cooperating with God's grace working in us, as St. Augustine teaches on grace and free will, we participate in our salvation and the salvation of others.

Now, Mary, in a unique way, by her participation or cooperation in the grace of God, cooperated in the salvation of the entire world because she brought the entire

Christ to the entire world. I do not. I bring Christ to whomever I can, to James White, to Hank Hanegraaff, to all of my brothers and sisters as best

I can, and in so doing, I participate in their salvation, or I can. I do not participate in the salvation of the whole world as Mary does.

I think, Juan, what Juan was trying to get to is found in words such as these from Alphonsus Liguori.

Oh, Mary, thy office is to be the peacemaker between God and men. Let thy tender compassion, which far exceeds all my sins, move thee to succor me.

But if by chance at the saint thou fearest to have recourse to Jesus Christ, because the majesty of God in him overawes thee, for though he became man, he did not cease to be

God, and you desire another advocate with this divine mediator, go to Mary, for she will intercede for thee with the

Son, who will most certainly hear her, and then he will intercede with the Father, who can deny nothing to such a

Son. I think what Juan is saying is, when we talk about the one name, that the functional position of Mary in the piety that not only does the

Roman see allow, but fosters, does most definitely violate the biblical standard.

And that biblical standard, I think that is seen most clearly in the fact, and here's the prayer, and here's what

Juan is talking about, and here's what I have to ask Mr. Staple. If this is not absolutely contrary to the

New Testament, or if you were to say this is contrary to the New Testament, I have to ask you why it is the Roman Catholic Church beatified and made this man a doctor of your church, if he is not teaching the truth.

Here's the prayer, O mother of perpetual help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which

God grants to us miserable sinners. And for this reason, he just said amen there, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery.

Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee.

Come then to my help, dearest mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee do

I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants, take me under thy protection, for it is enough for me.

For if thou protect me, dear mother, I fear nothing, not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them, nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all held together, nor even from Jesus, my judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased.

But one thing I fear, within the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably.

Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee,

O mother of perpetual help. So what was your question for me? And that, I think,

I don't even have to comment on that, for the person who reads the scriptures. Okay, well, you see, what

St. Alphonsus, in very flowery language to be sure, but nothing that he said is contrary to the scriptures.

What we see in the Blessed Mother is what we see in the intercession of Moses, who when his arms were held up in prayer in Exodus chapter 17, the people were delivered from death.

When his arms dropped, they were destroyed through the intercession of another. I mentioned earlier the friends of Job in Job chapter 42, whom

God would not accept their prayers, but he accepted the prayers of Job because he was a just man.

James chapter 5, the prayers of the just man availeth much. We, even us, see, because we believe in free will.

Now, see, I think, again, we get to a very important point here. This is a crucial point, and this is why,

Hank, we've talked about before why it's important we have a proper understanding of Mary. Because when you miss it on Mary, when you don't understand

Mary's crucial role in salvation, and that it is, and it is, it's an awesome thought to think that God would use a little 14 -year -old girl to bring the entire world to himself.

It is an awesome thought, but it's an awesome thought to think that God will use me to bring, through my ministry and personal conversations with people, to save souls.

Tim, do you entrust your soul to Mary for salvation? I entrust my soul to Jesus Christ through Mary. Through Mary.

Yeah. So you have a mediator with Jesus named Mary, right? You're not letting me answer, okay? Actually, I've allowed you to say far more than I've said all along.

No, you just reading those quotes took up all our time, but my point is this, all right?

Yes, I entrust my soul to Mary, understood just as I entrust my soul to my mother.

I entrust my soul to those who are over me and the Lord. For salvation. They, absolutely.

Where did Moses ever have someone entrust themselves to him for salvation? Okay, well. Because you mentioned

Moses, you mentioned Job, you mentioned him holding his arms up, but I'm just trying to point out all the examples you use have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

The fact is. Salvation, the fact is. How about first Timothy chapter four? I don't want to interrupt the two of you because you're having a lot of fun, but I do think that it's very important that when there is a direct question, that question ought to be responded to as opposed to then bringing up another test.

Okay, I'll tell you why I do that because the Old Testament is very much preoccupied as the writer to the

Ecclesiastes says, to things pertaining to under the sun, the

Old Testament is very much not that Old Testament has nothing to do with salvation.

No, it does, but it's much more this worldly and we begin there on the literal, but we move to the spiritual and we understand that when

Moses is praying, that relates to you and I today and in a very spiritual way as well.

And so when Paul, when Paul says to Timothy in first Timothy four, 16, he says, take heed unto yourself and unto the doctrine for in so doing, you will save yourself and them that you're not answering the question directly.

But let me say this. We have a controversy. He's involved in number five. 15 is the destination of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the

Christian Research Institute. Special bonus. The tape of this interview with James White and my guest,

Tim Staples, when you dial 949 -858 -6100 or log into the World Wide Web at equip .org.

Again, radio offer number 515. You can see it's a controversy. It's entitled The Roman Catholic Controversy.

$20 or more to the ongoing work of the Christian Research Institute. Back with Tim Staples and James White.

Just a moment. More than any other time in the past,

Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together, but are there differences between the two and do they still matter?

In the Roman Catholic Controversy, which is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture,

James White probes these questions by examining the pathosy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine to get to the core of the issue.

With a balanced critique, the Roman Catholic Controversy by James White affirms that evangelicals and Catholics share a common ground on some points.

Yet there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order the Roman Catholic Controversy when you call 949 -858 -6100 or pick it up through CRI's online bookstore at equip .org.

And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the Bible Answer Man broadcast with James White and Catholic apologist

Tim Staples. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Read it today. 949 -858 -6100.

Wow, you really know your oldies. Yeah, I keep hearing that great music over and over, so it's easy to learn all the words.

But you know what I can't figure out? I can't seem to memorize the Bible. Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, because where your treasure is, your heart will be there also.

Yeah, like that. How do you do that? The same thing as you. I listen to it over and over.

You listen to the Bible? Yeah, Max McLean recorded the Bible on CD and cassette, and I just listen to great verses over and over.

Consistent repetition of God's word is the way to keep it in your mind and heart. The New Testament, narrated by Max McLean.

Max McLean, gifted master storyteller, has performed before audiences in New York and Chicago, leaving multitudes amazed.

Where can I get a set? CRI has them. Call to order The Entire New Testament on CD or cassette at 949 -858 -6100.

Also on the web at equip .org. Make an investment that will last for time and eternity.

Information. It's all around you. In the air you breathe race millions of radio and television signals transmitting data.

Underneath your feet are millions of cables carrying information by telephone and computer. Feel overwhelmed?

Feel like you can't keep up to date on current issues and how they relate to the body of Christ? You need to subscribe to the

Christian Research Journal. Its quarterly publication keeps you up to date on issues affecting you and the church.

Published by the Christian Research Institute, the Christian Research Journal probes today's religious movements while promoting doctrinal discernment and critical thinking.

The journal also provides reasons for Christian faith and ethics. Get your copy of the Christian Research Journal today.

Call 1 -800 -2 -JOURNAL. A one -year subscription is only $24 and a two -year subscription is $43.

Get four issues a year. Call now to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal. 1 -800 -2 -JOURNAL or order online at www .equip

.org. Address box 7000

Rancho Santa Margarita, California. A ranch with an O, Santa, and then Margarita, M -A -R -G -A -R -I -T -A.

Again, we're in California. The zip code 92 -688 -92688. Our telephone number, area code 949, and the number 858 -6100.

Again, the area code 949, the number 858 -6100. Do remember you can catch us on the World Wide Web at Equip .org.

You can also get archived broadcasts on the web, so check us out at Equip .org.

One of the books that you really need to get a hold of, particularly in light of this discussion, the

Roman Catholic Controversy. It's by James White. It's an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine, which has been oft discussed recently by both

James White and Tim Staples. One of the things you can see is that there are crucial differences that remain regarding the

Christian life, the heart of the gospel itself, and they cannot be ignored. We're discussing them today right here on the broadcast.

Get the book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, by James R. White. 949 -858 -6100, or log into the

World Wide Web at Equip .org. Back to the phone lines, Brian, Commerce, Michigan. You're on with Tim Staples and James White.

Yeah, thanks. I wanted to express I appreciate what you're doing here with talking about this issue.

I have a lot of respect for your search for the truth. And I think one of the issues that got my eye open was the issue that you have talked about, even with contraception.

And that was one of the things that actually made me think about the Catholic Church. But so I'm a recent convert to the

Catholic faith. But what I wanted to ask you, or James White, I'd like to say hi to Tim Staples and James White.

It's good to have you with us. Yes. I'd like to, I don't understand, and I remember, you know, when, you know,

I understand what I believe as a Protestant, but I don't understand how the doctrine of solicitora can add up.

And I guess the way that I would like to present it is if, I mean, we all believe that the

Bible was inspired and written, inspired by God and written authoritatively and without error.

And it was written by sinners and dwelt with the Holy Spirit. And that's, you know, that's how

God set it up. And I'm seeing it, understanding it biblically is God is so intimate with us.

I mean, when we say God became man, that, you know, this, the implications of that are astounding.

And your question is brilliant, right? Well, I'm sorry. The intimacy of God by which he gives us his word is not just a book, you know, like, like words in a book, even though these words are inspired, but he gives them to us through man, even though they're sinners.

And he did, you know, we see that plainly in scripture that he did that used man inspired them, he didn't just give it to us, you know, without using us, involving us in it.

And why would he still do that today? Why, why, you know, would he just give us this book?

OK, the question is, why just the book? Well, you know,

I would really direct you, Brian, to the 119th Psalm. And I think if you read the 119th

Psalm, you will hear the psalmist demonstrating that it is not just a book. It is the very word of God.

A person who is involved by the Holy Spirit will understand what the 119th

Psalm is talking about when it speaks of the personal longing of the regenerate heart for the word of God.

The fact that I can tell you from my personal experience, that in contemplation of the word of God, have

I experienced the most incredible experiences, spiritual experiences of my entire life is in contemplation, not of a quote unquote book.

But as the Lord Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 22, when you read the words of Scripture, it is God speaking to you and he holds you accountable for his words.

And that's why Paul could say that all Scripture is theanoustos. And that means it is literally God breathe.

It is the very breath that comes from his mouth. So to call it just a book is to completely miss the very nature of what

Scripture is. And it is that Scripture that is a light, a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.

That wasn't being spoken of just a book. And in fact, the psalmist only had a small portion of what we have available to us today.

And so if your concern is about sola scriptura, then I would simply say to you that sola scriptura is true because the

Scriptures are the only theanoustos revelation, the only inspired revelation that we have.

There is no other revelation. And everyone who comes along and wants to add to or take away from the message of that book must first and foremost deny sola scriptura so that they can make room either for their ultimate interpretive authority, their other books of Scripture, or in some way, shape or form, finding a way for their doctrine to be inserted.

Why can't you just accept the fact, James, that while purgatory is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture, that purgatory is a new revelation and that that is equal to what we have in the book?

That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't think the Catholic Church would even say it's a new revelation. But they would say that it is a binding dogma based upon the authority of Christ's Church to whom he gave the authority to interpret that Scripture.

And I would say that this is, again, a clear example of why we have to believe sola scriptura.

Because purgatory is so offensive to the understanding of the atonement found in the book of Hebrews.

And indulgences are so offensive to an understanding of what the grace of God is. That this is clear evidence that when you abandon sola scriptura and give to a human organization the authority that is to be an unchanging source of revelation,

Scripture alone, this is inevitably what is going to happen. Remember, when

Peter said that Paul's words were difficult to understand, what he said was, untaught and unstable men distort them.

What that therefore means infallibly is that taught and stable men not only can understand it, but do understand it and adequately teach it.

Well, I agree with the caller. It's a very good question, sola scriptura.

For me, this was, as you know, James, from reading Surprised by Truth, this was one of the key issues for me.

And I have to mention here in talking about sola scriptura, the canon of Scripture, not only have we seen throughout the history of the

Church that Scripture, though it is materially sufficient, I want to make this clear, the

Catholic Church, we understand that that Scripture has all the stuff that we need to do theology.

It's materially sufficient. We as Catholics can believe that. I do as a Catholic. However, the stuff that's there is not formed so that you and I, for example,

Saint Athanasius, when he's dealing with the problem of the Arians and the fathers of the

Council of Nicaea, as well as Saint Athanasius, quickly discovered this, not that they didn't know it before, but Saint Athanasius makes it very clear, even though he makes a powerful statement for Scripture and as much as possible, let's keep to biblical language, they discover what?

We cannot do it because of those outside of the Church, distorting the

Scriptures and so forth. Hence, we have the word homoousias. Tradition is absolutely imperative.

Folks, 2 ,000 years of Christian tradition has proven this fact that without an authoritative

Church, without the successor of Rome, what you have is chaos.

What you have in Protestantism today is in 480 years, 30 ,000 denominations, folks, and they are multiplying exponentially.

Why? Because everybody says, well, I don't buy what old pastor Billy Bob's saying, so I'm going to go start my own church, make

Bob and Pete's church a fun or whatever it's going to be, and everybody is their own authority, which proves to me that Protestantism simply doesn't work.

Jesus never established his church upon the traditions of men, the interpretations of men.

He gave authority to his church. So radical is this authority that he could say, if they hear you, they hear me.

If they reject you, they reject me. You know something, Tim? Okay, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.

Acts 20, 28, you're familiar with the passage. Yes. You're familiar with the passage. To the

Ephesian elders. Exactly, to the Ephesian elders. Paul says, I'm not going to be able to see you again. He tells the elders to be on guard for yourselves.

And listen to what he says in verse 29. I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

And from among your own selves, from the leadership of the church, men will arise speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

Like Martin Luther, yes. I'll ignore that. I would call it the papacy.

But what does Paul do when he warns the church, even during the apostle's lifetime, there were false teachings?

To me, that Protestantism simply doesn't work. Jesus never established his church upon the traditions of men, the interpretations of men.

He gave authority to his church. So radical is this authority that he could say, if they hear you, they hear me.

If they reject you, they reject me. Now, Tim, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.

Acts 20, 28. You're familiar with the passage? Yes. You're familiar with the fact that the Ephesian elders.

Exactly, the Ephesian elders. Paul says, I'm not going to be able to see you again. He tells the elders to be on guard for yourselves.

And listen to what he says in verse 29. I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

And from among your own selves, from the leadership of the church, men will arise speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

Like Martin Luther. Yes. Okay, I'll ignore that. I would call the papacy.

But what does Paul do when he warns the church, even during the apostles' lifetime, there were false teachers?

Does that mean the apostles were insufficient leaders? Can I answer that? Yeah, that's an initial question because I want to read another passage.

But were they insufficient leaders during their lifetime because there were false teachers in the church? I think that is proof positive that even though the apostles, no one would deny were infallible.

They were infallible. They had at least to acknowledge when they wrote scripture. All right. Even though they were in fact infallible, certainly you're going to have problems.

How much more problems? You had problems when Jesus walked the earth. They killed him. All right. But that does see Jesus was infallible when he walked this earth, when he spoke, he said, thus saith

God. And it wasn't up to James White to say, you know what? But Jesus, I disagree with you because I disagree with your interpretation of Isaiah 53.

So I'm going to start my own church. So when Jesus gave his authority to the apostles to speak the word of God during the life of the apostles, men who could speak the word of God, there were still people who ignored what

God said to those men. And they still do today in the 21st century when they ignore the Pope says, therefore, beyond the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years,

I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. Now, at this point, if we've got false teachers coming up in the church, this should be where we say, therefore, hold to Peter and his successors in Rome.

What does Paul say to the Ephesian elders? And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

It is not a promise of the New Testament that there will not be people who misuse the sufficient source of scripture.

So your argument saying, oh, well, since oh, well, since you have all these denominations,

I find all sorts of Roman Catholics who believe all sorts of different things. That is not an argument against the sufficiency of the magisterium.

But you are comparing apples and oranges when you make the argument that you make that all these denominations somehow prove something against Sola Scriptura.

If you want to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, let's compare denomination to denomination or rule of faith to rule of faith.

If you want to compare the Roman Catholic denomination to my own denomination, I'm an elder in a reformed Baptist church.

I can guarantee you something. Reformed Baptists are 10 ,000 times more united than Roman Catholics are on matters of faith and doctrine.

If you want to have any reformed Baptists, are there? I have absolutely no idea. OK, well, the fact is, and they're fewer than Mormons.

So that's not the point. The point is, you haven't existed, but for a few hundred years, you're missing the point.

And you're not more unified. That's a lie. That is not true. That is a lie. I can hold this catechism in my hand.

Are there pro -choice Catholics? This is the normative teaching of the Catholic Church. Are there pro -choice

Catholics? Wherever my catechism is, I can hold it up and say, this is the normative teaching of the

Catholic Church that you are bound to as a Catholic. Can you do that as a Baptist? I know.

Yes, we have the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith that tells that we believe that we're subjected to Scripture. But sir, how many

Catholic theologians interpret your catechism differently?

So if you compare denomination to denomination, you don't have greater unity. And if you want to compare rule of faith to rule of faith, let's take three

Christian denominations that seriously practice sola scriptura and compare their unity with three groups that practice

Scripture plus an infallible interpreter. So let's take the EV3, the PCA, and the

Reformed Baptists. We all have the exact same doctrine of God, and our doctrine of soteriology is almost identical.

Let's take the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Roman Catholics. They have Scripture plus an infallible authority.

They don't even have the same God. If you compare rule of faith to rule of faith... James, come on now.

This is ridiculous. You're putting Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons in the same class with the Catholic church because they claim to have

Scripture plus an infallible interpreter. James, they didn't exist until 1820 and 1870.

They claim otherwise. And when they accept their ultimate authority, I say to you that the early church was not

Roman Catholic. So again, the point is if you compare rule of faith to rule of faith, or denomination to denomination...

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to leave it at that. We're going to come up with one more segment. In just a moment, let me mention the

Roman Catholic controversy. You can hear there is a controversy. Catholics and Protestants, do the differences still matter?

It's by James R. White, available through the Christian Research Institute. When you dial 949 -858 -6100, there's a bonus tape thrown in.

Dial 949 -858 -6100, or log onto the World Wide Web at Equip .org.

We'll be right back with more of your questions. And just a moment, please stay tuned. If you would like to receive a cassette tape copy of today's broadcast, please call 949 -858 -6100 or log on to our website at Equip .org.

...discusses the relationship between faith and... This resource includes a new chapter on the...

Also available, a companion audio series of 10 full -length audio cassettes that will equip believers in the successful proclamation of biblical truth claims.

Order both at a specialty discounted price. It's called Reasonable Faith Package, radio offer number 502, and you can pick it up when you call 949 -858 -6100 or log on to our website at www .equip

.org. Teach me, O Lord, to follow Your decrees, then

I will keep them to the end. As the psalmist meditated on the Word of God, he found delight, comfort, hope, and life.

In the same way, we are changed as we hide the Word of God in our hearts. CRI is now offering psalms and proverbs as told by Max McLean.

Max McLean is a nationally recognized actor and storyteller of the Word of God. His dramatization makes the

Bible come alive to all who listen to it as he has presented the Bible on many stages and through the radio on over 125 stations daily.

Psalms and Proverbs is presented in the NIV version and is available on six cassettes for $25 or six

CDs for $30. Call CRI at 949 -858 -6100 and ask for radio offer 465.

Your Word, O Lord, is eternal. It stands firm in the heavens. Psalms and Proverbs as told by Max McLean.

Radio offer 465 and the number again is 949 -858 -6100. Experience the truth of the

Word of God in this powerful, life -changing way. and Catholics share a common ground on some points.

Yet, there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order the Roman Catholic Controversy when you call 949 -858 -6100 or pick it up through CRI's online bookstore eddyquiff .org.

And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the Bible Answer Man broadcast with James Wyden, Catholic apologist

Tim Staples. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Read it today. 949 -858 -6100.

Good, welcome back to the Bible Answer Man broadcast. I'm your host, Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute. Delighted that you joined us for the broadcast today.

Inviting you to join us on air with your question in the U .S. or in Canada by simply dialing 888 -ASK -HANK. That translates to 888 -275 -4265.

Our address, Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, California.

Rancho Santa and Margarita, M -A -R -G -A -R -I -T -A. Again, we're in California.

The zip code 92 -688 -92 -688. Our telephone number, area code 949 -858 -6100.

Once again, the area code 949, the number 858 -6100. Do remember, you can catch us on the

World Wide Web on a simulcast at equip .org. And do remember as well, this is listener -supported radio.

We need you to stand with us prayerfully and financially. Again, you can join the Bible Answer Man support team by calling 949 -858 -6100 or simply logging on to the

World Wide Web at equip .org. And do remember, our radio offer today, it is the

Roman Catholic Controversy radio offer number 515, a book by James White. It is must -reading.

949 -858 -6100. Or log on to the World Wide Web at equip .org. Back to the phone line. Raymond, Edmond, Oklahoma.

You're on with James White and Tim Staple. Hello. I want to say I've been a

Christian for 23 years and my faith is based upon the Bible. And I have a question concerning something that was said some time ago.

Okay. If the Roman Catholic Church teaches the

Bible, why don't they teach justifications by Christ, which is found in Romans 5 .1,

or that redemption is through with the precious blood of Christ, which is taught in 1

Peter 1, 18 -25. And also, why don't they teach that only in the name of Christ is salvation found?

You want to tackle that one, James? Well, I think that's for me. First of all, the Catholic Church does teach that salvation is through Christ.

I don't know where you got your information from, but the Catholic Church has always taught that our salvation comes through Christ.

I think, and also, I would add the blood of Christ. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, he became, as 1

John 2, 1 and 2 says, the propitiatory sacrifice for us.

And not only for us, but for the entire world, as John makes very clear. Now, the difference where we disagree, where I disagree with Mr.

White, is this, that Jesus Christ, though he is the propitiation for our sins, that does not mean that there is nothing for me to do.

And Hank and I, Hank and I agree on this point. Hank will acknowledge that those before us, it's grace that prepares us.

It's grace that empowers us. Nevertheless, we are free, just as St. Augustine taught grace, because it assists us, does not take away our freedom in his work on grace and free will.

So, the Catholic Church, where we would disagree with Hank, is this, we believe that we must apply those graces that God won for us every day.

We don't believe, as Billy Graham, that you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior one time, and you're saved.

We believe, as Jesus taught, when a young man came to him and said, Lord, what must

I do to have everlasting life? You must keep the commandments, he said in Matthew 19, 17, and 18.

We believe, as Jesus taught in Luke 9, 23, unless a man take up his cross daily and follow me, he cannot be my disciple.

We believe, as Jesus taught in Revelation 2, 10, be faithful unto death, and I will give you crown of life. We believe, as Jesus taught in Matthew 10, 22, you shall be hated of all men for my name's sake, but he that endures till the end shall be saved.

And we also believe that if we don't do things like forgive our brothers in Matthew 6, 14,

Jesus says, if you don't forgive your brother his sins against you, neither will the father forgive your sins.

We take Jesus at his word, and we believe that if we don't continue to forgive our brothers, if we don't continue to walk in the grace of God, as Acts 13, 43 plainly says, then we can fall from grace.

Very important point. Galatians chapter five verses four and five says exactly that. So we have a disagreement not on whether Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sins, as 1

John 1 says. The real disagreement is over free will. Do we have to cooperate with that grace?

Actually, actually, disagreement is over whether Jesus Christ actually saves someone who is able to make all those things come true in their life.

The Roman Catholic Ludwig Ott said the reason for the insurgency of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation, nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.

And the difference between us is the Protestant believes that Jesus Christ fulfilled all the conditions necessary for our justification in his death on the cross.

That's why the caller mentioned Romans 5, 1. Therefore, having been justified by grace through faith, we have peace with God.

And therefore, this is the main problem with Roman Catholic perspective, because you cannot, as Paul does in Romans 5, 1, look back upon the completed action of justification.

Your justification is an ongoing thing. It's a matter of fulfilling conditions. You said he who endures to the end shall be saved.

The difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics is when we look at that passage, we recognize that can either be prescriptive, that is by enduring to the end, you save yourself, bring about your salvation, or descriptive, that because you're truly saved by Christ, you will endure to the end.

Since the Lord Jesus is the perfect Savior, Hebrews 7 says he is able to save to the uttermost because he ever lives to make intercession for his people.

Since he is able to save, and since the Father gives a people to him in John 6 and says, my will for you is that you lose none of them.

My whole point is Jesus Christ is a perfect Savior because he has the capacity to save, and because his death in behalf of sinners is perfect.

And so the difference is between a do and a done. A done work in Jesus Christ that by faith is imputed.

You said, oh, you don't believe you have to believe in Jesus. I have freely believed. No, no, you said in regards to me, you said that you folks, you,

Mr. White, you don't believe that you have to freely believe in Jesus. You can't really believe in Jesus. I have freely believed in Jesus.

You know why? Because just as when Jesus came to the tomb and said, Lazarus, come forth, that's what he said to me.

And he freed me from my sin. He freed me from my spiritual death. He gave me a heart that not no longer hates

God, but loves him. The Bible describes as taking out that heart of stone and putting in a heart of flesh.

And I have believed in Jesus Christ. I continue to believe in Jesus Christ.

And the only reason that I will continue in that present tense faith in Jesus Christ is because the faith that he has given me is a divine faith.

It is not something I've made up inside myself, and it's not dependent upon my works for completion.

It is dependent upon the Holy Spirit who makes it alive in my heart. So it's a difference between do and done.

It's a difference, Mr. Staples. You've said that. From the caller. Yes, you've repeated a number of things. The caller said, why don't

Roman Catholics believe? And he specifically stated Romans 5 .1. So I think it'd be fair to him.

Sure. The scripture says, having been justified by faith, have you been, as a completed action in the past, justified by faith?

Or is it your belief that you were justified, are being justified, will continue to be justified, and may fail, may fail of even finally being justified?

Well, in answer to that, yes, we have been justified. The Catholic Church teaches we have been justified through baptism.

I've been incorporated into Christ, and I have been justified. However, we also believe, as Galatians 2 says, verse 16, knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we might be justified.

That is a subjunctive which indicates that is a subjunctive indicating uncertainty.

That is untrue. No Greek scholar would ever substantiate that assertion. And I can assure that.

I didn't cut you off. Now, listen. I know, but that wasn't important. That we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified.

And the reason why the proper exegesis of this text is just as I said, is because we have to look at the whole context.

In verse 17, he goes on to say, if while we seek to be justified, he's saying we, that's me.

He's writing to Christians. He's including all of them. If we seek to be justified in Christ and we ourselves are found sinners, is

Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid. Or if I build up again the things which I've destroyed, I make myself parabatain or a transgressor.

He goes on in chapter three to say, oh, you foolish Galatians who have bewitched you. OK, quick response.

And we are going to go back to the shoreline of the quick response. You began in the spirit. Are you going to be perfected in the flesh?

And he goes on to say, this is very clear. We had to, Tim, let me answer. Let me answer. Come on, Tim. James, you didn't let me finish.

I let you finish your point. I know, but we got to get back to the phone lines. Go ahead. Two points. We left, we left

Romans 5 -1 immediately because the Roman Catholic position can't answer Romans 5 -1. Secondly, this is a henna clause using the subjunctive.

You did not allow me to. This is a henna clause using the subjunctive and your interpretation of it is utterly contradicted by the

Greek. I want to go to Kathy Ventura, California. You're on with Tim Staples. I'd like to answer

Romans 5 if I could. Go ahead, Kathy. Yes, I didn't hear. Thank you for taking my call. You're welcome.

And my question, Tim, I'm also a convert, although I've gone backwards from what you've done. I was raised

Roman Catholic and am now a practicing evangelistic Christian.

And my conversion came in college because I began reading scripture. And one of the scriptures

I came across about Mary was when she's talking to Elizabeth at the end of Luke one there.

And she says, My spirit is rejoicing God, my savior. He does. Mary needs a savior to get into heaven.

I've never heard her called the co -redemptive until I was an adult. I never heard that 12 years of Catholic school or my whole 20 years of being a

Catholic. Does she need a savior to get into heaven? Yes, absolutely.

And that is a very good question. Remember, Mary was absolutely saved, but she was saved in a more perfect way than you and I.

And I like to look at it this way. As First Corinthians, Chapter one, verse 18 says, The preaching of the cross is foolishness to them who are perishing, but unto us who are being saved.

Salvation is not only in the past tense, but it's also a present participle there. And it also, as I've quoted many passages like Second Corinthians 710,

Matthew 1022, salvation is also seen in the future. It's contingent. So we have to understand that we are also in a process of being saved from sin by the grace of God.

Mary was saved from all sin, still saved absolutely by the grace of Christ.

I think this is an excellent example, because what it forces the Christian to understand is that to believe what

Rome teaches today as a dogmatic necessity means that you have to go back to Luke, Chapter two, read the

Magnificat. And when Mary says, God, my savior, you have to understand her to actually believe that Mary believed in her own immaculate conception, that Mary understood what a

British monk named Edmer 1200 years later would come up with regarding her own standing before God, that she somehow knew that there had been a special application of the merits of Christ given to her at conception that protected her from the stain of original sin.

And that means when you look at Luke, Chapter two, that's what Mary is talking about. No, if we, for a thousand years, when people read

Luke, Chapter two, a number of early church fathers understood that Mary in Luke, Chapter two, is admitting that she is like the rest of us, that she was a sinner in need of a savior, and that she, in fact, experienced salvation.

And the debate goes on. The Roman Catholic Controversy, a book by James White, will give you much more information on the issues being discussed today in the

Bible Instrument broadcast, a stimulating conversation with my guest, Tim Staples, Director of Evangelization for the

Catholic Resource Center of St. Joseph's Communications, and James White, Director of Velf and Omega Ministries.

Again, the book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, available for a suggested donation of $20 or more to the ongoing work of the

Christian Research Institute. It is an absorbing look at current views of tradition, scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatory indulgences,

Marian doctrine, and much, much more. The crucial differences that remain regarding the

Christian life, and as you've heard in the broadcast, the heart of the gospel itself. Thanks both of you for being here today.

Sorry we couldn't give you the opportunity to get into every single nuance you wanted to. Did the best we could in the time we had.

Once again, appreciate both of you so much. Thank you so much for tuning in. Remember, you can get in Monday through Friday at this time by simply dialing 888 -ASK -HANK.

We'll see you next time with more. More than any other time in the past,

Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. But are there differences between the two?

And do they still matter? In the Roman Catholic controversy, which is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture,

James White probes these questions by examining the papacy, the mass, purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine to get to the core of the issue.

With a balanced critique, the Roman Catholic controversy by James White affirms that evangelicals and Catholics share a common ground on some points.

Yet, there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order the Roman Catholic Controversy when you call 949 -858 -6100 or pick it up through CRI's online bookstore eddyquiff .org.

And as a special bonus, receive the two -tape interview from the Bible Answer Man broadcast with James White and Catholic apologist

Tim Staples. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Read it today. 949 -858 -6100.