Roman Catholicism on BAM (White vs Staples - II)

Opening Broadcast and Debate Introduction

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. And 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 Ripplinger's work, things like that.

And 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.

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.

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. And he will repeat using that same word, paradosis, or paradox, as it were, in 1 Corinthians 15, verse 3, and 2 Thessalonians 3 .6.

Stand fast in the traditions you have been taught, either by word or by written document. So, we believe Paul is teaching very plainly there. Scripture, yes. Tradition as well. And we believe that the scripture is equally as plain.

And I'd have to agree with you here, Hank, though I don't agree with you always. 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.

For example, Matthew 18, verses 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 practice 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 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 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. 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 A .D., 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, sunerge, co-laborers with Christ.

We work together with him, not meaning we're on an equal par, but nevertheless, that sunerge, sunergon, 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. 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 de fide.

This is a part. In fact, Jerry Matitix, and I'd be interested in knowing if Mr. Staples would agree with Jerry Matitix, Jerry Matitix, Roman Catholic apologist, says 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 is ever found in church history is in the heretical writings that Pope Galatius in Rome put on the index of prohibited books.

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 St. 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 128 in 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. 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.

Authority, Scripture, and Sacred Tradition

Information. It's all around you. In the air you breathe, raise 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 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.

The Bible and Spirit Broadcast. I'm your host Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute. Delighted that you've joined us for the broadcast today, and inviting you to join us on air with your question, The U .S. War 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, a 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 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 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 of the 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 of the 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 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.

Hank, 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 to put those two?

A Grand Canyon-sized 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 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 sinned. Sorry, Philip Schaaf, it doesn't exist in history. 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 preregister, call 949 -858 -6100 or log on to the World Wide Web at equip .org. This is tomorrow night, Friday, July 7, 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 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? There's a debate within Roman Catholicism on that.

That's right. The stronger tradition 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 was a Palestinian in the late 4th century, we're talking 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 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 3. In verse 17, she continues to give birth to all of us.

She is our mother and the mother of Christ. We're 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, 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.

In his Pan Arian, which is a reputation of 80 heresies, deals with, in Heresies 78, a particular heretical sect that was actually worshiping Mary as a goddess called the Coloridians. Now, in the process, 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 metasarcost, 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.

He goes on to describe her in Revelation 12. He uses Revelation 12 to say that Mary is the one, in Revelation 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. 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 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.

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 to 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.

I'm sorry.

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 transitive literature, Mr. Staples said, well, he didn't...

Galatians 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 Galatians.

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 Carl 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, Carl 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.