Conversation Stopping Verses and Identifying Eisegesis

Second Timothy 2 15. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God. A worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly. Dividing the word of truth. Alpha and Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast.

The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is dr. James white director of Alpha and Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed to Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602 2 7 4 13 60. That's 602 2 7 4 1360 or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 8 8 8 5 5 0 13 60. That's 1 triple 8 5 5 0 13 60.

And now with today's topic. Here's James White.

Opening Banter and Program Setup

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line. My name is James White. We're live in studio today on this rather warm Saturday afternoon here in the Phoenix area once in a while we start talking about weather issues in our chat channel process Apollo Guillaume and It's this time of year whenever I mention what the temperature is in Phoenix.

I win the temperature debate. There's no two ways about it people back east like going. Oh, it's 84 here. Ha ha ha, you know, it's a hundred and eleven. It's been a hundred eleven for days now. And in fact on the way down rich and I were talking about the fact that last night we went out about 10 o 'clock and It was still like a hundred and one on my back porch and it was after 10 o 'clock and it was just like people go.

How do you live in that? Well, you just your blood gets really really really really thin basically is how you work it all out. Hey, you know every time we do this program. We get folks who call in it, you know, sometimes half half past the hour and then for some reason.

There's this move of the spirit that results in everybody calling the last 15 minutes. Okay and then I've got to talk really fast like this try to get my answer out to you and then go to the next caller and Things like that try to be fair at every and it would be so much easier if people would actually call at the beginning of the program then we can pace things out and we can Answer the questions that you have and things like that.

So the phone numbers are 602 two seven four thirteen sixty here in the local dialing area and then one triple eight five five zero 1360 if you're outside the Phoenix dialing area and we're gonna open the phone lines that there were a couple of you who called in last week while I was doing my Rush Limbaugh impersonation and I didn't bring any tapes to stop today if you're wondering about that.

It didn't even didn't even bring the tape to finish up the the cross-examination. I think if anyone listened to what they heard. Oh, uh-oh. Uh-oh, Rich just just put a tape it is that is that what I think it is.

Is that actually is that actually the Staples tape. Yes, but it's not cued okay, well, you know if you wanted to find the the closing statement from mr. Staples. Yes, uh-huh, oh. Okay. All right. Well if you want to find that that's okay.

We'll let you do that. You're you're in charge. You've got control the control panel. Anyways, you can do whatever you want. I'm not like rush and I don't threaten people their employment. On air as he's done a few times.

Anyways, give us a call early on you as a couple of you called in last week we didn't get a chance to get to you because Basically, we were just really long-winded in the debate and that that's what caused the problem.

So give us a call 602 274 1361 triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. If you have any comments or questions on the topic of what we discussed last week. Which was the debate on papal infallibility which took place July 7th in Fullerton, California.

Those tapes are available on our website to www .aomin .org. If you've hit the website recently, you've noticed that it's changing it is morphing before your very eyes into a much more consistent Website than it's ever been before.

It has it is done. Is it done morphing rich and it's pretty much done morphing except for the That's about it somewhere in the shopping cart. If you can find what has not yet morphed then drop rich a line and say I found it and then he won't do anything About that all except probably ignore your email.

But anyways, that's been a lot of work on the part of mr Pearson they're getting the the website all whipped into shape. But the tapes of that debate are available they're going all over the place right now and That is going to be I think a very interesting topic in the future.

Rich has confirmed what I've been able to see from the emails that have been sent to me directly and then he sees the emails that are sent through the website that there are a lot of very unhappy people a lot of very unhappy people out there that.

In other words, we seem to have hit a chord hit a nerve. Something along those lines that we've gotten some very interesting emails from folks sadly and So pray for us that we respond to those in the way that we should what we're gonna do today.

While we're waiting for all of you folks who are actually going to try to wait till a quarter till to call. To actually do the right thing and call in early today at one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty or six.

Oh two two, seven four thirteen sixty is we're going to look at potential conversation stopper versus. Potential conversation stopper versus and now what in the world do I mean by that? Well as We speak with folks.

There are all sorts of passages that are thrown out and Very frequently for example in the chat room somebody will come in and say hey I'm talking with such-and-such kind of person over in this other channel, and they just asked me a question I had never thought of it before or How do you interpret such-and-such a verse?

People will come in who maybe have read the Potter's freedom they'll say hey, how do you interpret such-and-such a verse because someone just said well the Bible says this and There are all sorts of verses like that that that people just sort of throw out and of course there's a danger in providing brief responses because The Christian truth is not derived from proof texting and saying well You know, there's there's a phrase here or a sentence here.

The solid foundation of Christian truth is found in the exegesis of the entirety of Scripture. It's found in the consistency of one's interpretation of one section of Scripture. Over against the consistency in another section of Scripture and is that that's unity of interpretation that provides the most solid foundation for the Christian faith and so really the the most the only real foundation a person can have in Providing meaningful apologetic responses to people is the fact that they have a whole Bible knowledge I've mentioned before and some of these folks are probably listening and are probably not going to appreciate this a whole lot.

But I've mentioned before our Jehovah's Witness apologist friends who Recently has been a whole spate of them basically coming in and trying to cause problems in our chat channel and You know if I could find one of these folks online that would be upfront and honest I'd probably let him stay in the channel we could chat, but most of them are just there to cause problems.

So I've been practicing my field goal kicking and right through the field goal. Right out into the outer darkness of cyberspace they go. But these apologist individuals that we encounter. One of the stories I've told for years was back from the 1980s actually before Anyone was doing anything with quote-unquote Internet and things like that and I started corresponding in the old-fashioned way writing letters.

I mean I Mean you put stamps on them you give them to this guy in a uniform you know weeks later something because that's just amazing that people used to communicate like that all the time and I Was corresponding with a fellow back in I think it was, Indiana somewhere around the middle part of the United States and He was well known for being able to argue against the deity of Christ and the Trinity and things like that he was a Jehovah's Witness apologist, and he actually started calling me up and Because he found my response is interesting he started calling me at home at first.

He wouldn't tell me who he was which strange enough as it is. But eventually we figured out who he was and and he was open about it and one day just just For a lark in essence. I said to him are you in Christ?

And He stopped and and he was like What do you mean? Are you in Christ. I mean in Ephesians chapter 1 and in the first 13 verses 10 times Paul refers to being in Christ are you in Christ and you could tell this person who is just so Adept at dealing with the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the Holy Spirit and could throw verses out left or left and right.

You ask him a simple question about soteriology. Are you in Christ? What do you understand about the union of the believer with Christ? And he's like whoa, that's not important. That's not important. It was it was a it was the first time I'd encountered what I encounter with these Jehovah's Witness apologists.

And that is they may know one Aspect of what they believe is scriptural truth. But get them out of that area get them into an area where for example They would have to teach and preach on a regular basis in a church where they'd have to do Counseling with people or or or speak of you know, speak at the graveside, but that must be really tough for Jehovah's Witnesses.

What kind of hope is there? Oh, that's incredible. And and they're lost. They have absolutely no idea what in the world to do because their knowledge is extremely specific and it's focused on a very specific topic and So really that the solid foundation is not found in in Proof texting but at the same time When you are presenting hopefully a balanced full-orbed perspective on whether it be soteriology the sovereignty of grace.

Whether it be the atonement or or the deity of Christ the Trinity or monotheism or whatever it might be. Still there are these passages that get thrown out there that Basically, they're normally presented in such a way That an errant Interpretation is attached to the presentation.

What I mean by that is that they are thrown out in such a way that the very phraseology used to introduce it the context in which it is introduced is Meant to communicate the interpretation that allegedly is contrary to what you yourself are saying and unfortunately a lot of Christians struggle to Recognize when someone has presented a biblical passage out of its context or Even worse in a foreign context with a foreign interpretation and they go.

Well, how do I respond to this? This sound this sounds like you know, it's totally contrary to what in the world. I was I believe what I was saying. So with that in mind, what are some of the the stopper verses?

What are some of the passages that people come into our chat room all the time and say? Well, how do you respond to this? How do you respond to that? And we're generally we have to say well really the only answer is to look very closely at the verse in its own context or the other answer is they're reading something into this that you're not you're not seeing the fact they're reading it in and For example, one of the first ones that that I chose today to look at while those phone lines just burn up at 602 274 1360 or one triple 8 5 5 0 13 60.

There's a reason why I keep repeating those phone numbers folks second Thessalonians. You're all going what's he laughing about? Well, I'm not alone in studio today. No, I'm I'm joined by by by someone who Who knocked on my door at 5 44 a .m. This morning on a Saturday?

5 44 a .m. On a Saturday now. No. No, it was not a homeless person that we've adopted or anything like that. No, Warren Smith and I went riding this morning and I'm not gonna tell you what Warren did to his bike today because that would be embarrassing to do on air and especially since these are archived and people listen to them for a long long time thereafter, but Warren just got out his cell phone and decided to try to call in for us.

Just just to help me out. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I Can't bring you up because rich isn't listening to us right now. He's ignoring us. Nope. He's totally ignoring us. He's on the phone.

He won't turn your mic on. So he and he's you know what he looked over here looked at me and still did not turn your microphone on so Anyways, I get to say anything that I want to and you just have to sit there and take it actually folks could probably have Heard that you were in the background someplace, but You're calling in.

Okay. All right that that way that way. That's the only way you can get on is to call in. Yeah, for some reason couldn't get either one of those mics to work. But anyway second Thessalonians 215 second.

That's I tried to bring him up and rich now looks at us like oh, okay. Now you know now you're now you're talking to me now. That's it working now. No, I don't hear anything. How about try it now? Hello.

Hi. There you are. Hey, I Hit that button rich, but you must have to control it in there because I I hit it and it didn't work.

But I obviously did something back in the past that upset rich. That's true. He's been non-stop insult for the past week. It's terrible and now he keeps my.

Microphone off even when he sees me sitting here going. Hey, hey turn the microphone on but anyways. No, are you gonna are you gonna call in and have a question? No, if you'd like me, no, actually we have somebody online now, so that's probably a just got him flowing.

Just that's that day. They said oh, no, let's let's call in before Warren calls in anyhow. Well, thanks for being in studio today.

Well, thank you my pleasure my pleasure.

Second Thessalonians 2:15 and the Context of Tradition

Anyway second that's only is 215 we do need to actually cover something today here. We do have one caller online and that is a good question. We'll get to that one just a moment saying that's always 215 therefore brothers and sisters stand firm and hold to the traditions.

Hold on to the traditions that we taught you whether by speech or by letter. That's a new English translation. Here is a passage and I we for some reason I don't remember a lot of things. I'm really bad with names, too but I remember Many many many many moons ago at a at a fellowship dinner.

Long before I even started dealing with Roman Catholicism. Somebody came up to me and said what what what does this passage mean? What does this passage mean? Saying this audience 215 therefore brothers and sisters stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you whether by speech or by Letter.

I had a Roman Catholic friend and they said see this this means that we have to have these traditions outside of Scripture. So on so forth and this is one of the favorite passages when I can pretty much guarantee you.

That if you ever hear a Roman Catholic apologist speaking on the subject against solo scriptura on the authority of the church. They're going to camp on this passage and they're going to throw this passage out right and left see.

You're to stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you whether by speech or by letter in fact in 1997 when Jerry medics and I debated soul scripture on Long Island his Presentation started with this passage and his whole presentation was we need to abandon man-made Traditions tonight and solo scriptura is a man-made tradition and here is the evidence of it.

We're to hold Stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you. Whether by speech or by letter whether by word of mouth or by letter is what it says and so the idea that is communicated by this citation in the context of solo scriptura is That well if you only hold on to the traditions that were taught you by letter.

That is in this context first Thessalonians. What was in scripturated was written down. You're only getting half of it. That is there is this other kind of tradition that is by speech or by word of mouth or by speaking and it's that Tradition that the Roman Catholic Church possesses in her traditions via her teaching magisterium.

See, so if you don't hold to the traditions that have been passed down orally in the church Then you're not getting the whole thing now. It was interesting. I was speaking with a good friend of mine back in Georgia this past week and We were he pointed out that Karl Keating in his book Catholicism and fundamentalism.

Which was written? 86 87 somewhere around there. I didn't bring it with me, but late 80s makes it very very clear that Traditions are a source of revelation that traditions are inspired and that the content of tradition is not found in scripture so in other words you have the written traditions and then you have oral traditions and the two together make the whole deposit and I remember as I started to debate these individuals that that was that's what they were always saying that the Catholic apologists were always saying well look If you don't second that's only is 215 if you don't have the spoken traditions, then you don't have everything that was given By Christ to his church.

It's been passed down to the church. And so I started challenging them. I started challenging him and saying hey Where where are these traditions? What tell tell me how I'm supposed to know what these traditions are outside of your own authority and It was around 1992 93 that all of a sudden a big swing took place and they discovered a book by Yves Congar and All of a sudden the Catholic apologists learned that it's a whole lot easier to defend the viewpoint called material Sufficiency that is the older viewpoint called partum partum or that this revelation is found Partly in scripture and partly in the oral traditions.

So all of a sudden there's this big change and so even though in Carl Keating's book He has this viewpoint that that is not does not say the Bible is materially sufficient. That is that all revelation is at least implicitly found in the Bible.

No, his view his his books very very clear. You have part of it in scripture and you have part of it in tradition by 1993 when I debate his vice president Patrick Madrid on this subject in San Diego all of a sudden.

Oh, well, mr. White you need to read Yves Conger's book Tradition and traditions and material sufficiency and we really don't have to show you these traditions outside of scripture because You know tradition is something different that they don't even know what tradition is.

I mean Yves Conger didn't know what tradition was he came up with a number of different answers when you read the book but the the point is They're throwing this verse out and yet if you really pin them down saying that no, wait a minute.

Are you telling me? Are you telling me that all of the traditions that you claim? Were taught by Paul to the Thessalonians by word of mouth because that's what the passage says He's writing to the Thessalonians as the second Thessalonians.

He says therefore brothers and sisters stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you past tense. Whether by speech or by letter now, are you saying? That all these other traditions which You have you say we must hold on to were taught by Paul to the Thessalonians.

Is that what you're saying? Now this is where they they start doing the you know The Mexican hat dance in essence and try to you know. Try to get you to look over that direction in that direction and here's some smoke or some mirrors, you know.

Let's let's talk about something else and they it's amazing how many times they've gotten upset with me because I have Pointed out to them look let's let's get specific here. Let's talk about the Immaculate Conception the bodily something.

Why do you want this is a debate on solo scriptura? Why do you want to get into the marriage of because? These are dogmas that you admit were defined on the basis of tradition so if that tradition stuff works.

Then and if you're citing second Thessalonians 2 15, then what you must be saying is that Paul the Apostle? taught the bodily assumption the Immaculate Conception to the Thessalonians and As soon as you say that and say can you document that they know that sense no one mentioned these beliefs for hundreds and hundreds of years and they weren't believed as doctrines and dogmas for for.

And in this case the bodily assumption for the majority of church history. That they can't demonstrate this that it that is absolutely impossible. For them to say that Paul actually taught the Thessalonians these Traditions and so tradition has to be turned into well he taught them the seeds.

That developed into over the time over the course of time and the reflection of the Living Church. These seeds grew into the oak tree that you see today. And so so what Paul is saying is that he delivered these seeds to the Thessalonians.

And then these seeds have grown over time and of course that could be used to defend anything. Your your Mormon friend could say well. Yeah, the seeds of what we believe about God are right there. I mean look at Psalm 82 6 and John 10 34 and and yeah.

You know you can see some of this and in some of the Eastern Church Fathers. They talk about theosis and men becoming gods. And this is sort of an echo of of what had been believed and you could use this type of thing to defend anything.

So that's what they end up having to force to be doing and of course in the context of In the context of a debate. You don't normally have the time to point all this out and say hey look if if let's take your position to its logical conclusion here.

So it becomes very interesting, but the problem is up to this point. We haven't exegeted second Thessalonians 2 15 and I've now illustrated. I think the problem when it's presented in this way, and that is Paul is not talking about the sufficiency or as they would want us to believe the in of Scripture in 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2.

That simply isn't the context of what he's talking about. Instead if you go back through the passage you discover. He's talking about something else. Something very different he'd be said beginning verse 13.

But we ought to give thanks for you always brothers and sisters loved by the Lord. Because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. He called you to this salvation through our gospel so that you may possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore brothers and sisters stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we've taught you. Whether by speech or by letter now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father who loved us and by grace gave us eternal comfort and good hope encourage your hearts and Strengthen you in every good thing you do or say.

So what is the context that surrounds this. He's talking about the gospel. Has Paul elsewhere Instructed people to stand firm in the faith. Of course he has first Corinthians chapter 16 verse 13 Using the exact same Greek word stay ridzyne.

So he's encouraging the Thessalonians to continue in what has been delivered to them and That is to continue in their belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is not even addressing the issue of of the the modes of the transmission of Revelation or any of that kind of stuff and Yet by simply throwing it out in the midst of a discussion on sola scriptura it is presented with a context that actually is an interpretation and Very frequently we have to be the ones to step back and say no.

Wait a minute you decide second Thessalonians 2 213 or 215. Are you saying that it is in the context of a discussion of sola scriptura? Are you saying it's relevant to that or are you just throwing a verse out here?

And you don't even know what the context is. We have to be the ones to step back and do the do the legwork do the groundwork. To make sure that we're dealing with the passage in a proper way and so the things remember out the second Thessalonians 215 very quickly is.

It's in the context of the gospel. It says these traditions were already taught by Paul to the church at Thessalonica. That means to everyone there not just to the bishops. There wasn't wasn't any secret doctrine here that then gets passed along amongst the bishops and only Hundreds or even a thousand years later becomes explicit and clearly seen.

No. He's talking about his public preaching in the church. What I preached to you when I was with you and what I wrote to you and first Thessalonians hold on to these things stand firm. That's all he's saying to the Thessalonians to try that the very fact that this has to be dragged into a discussion of Sola scriptura only demonstrates the positive passages that can be used to attempt to in essence open the door for some other infallible rule of faith the church than scripture and.

Remember folks. That's what the Roman Catholic apologist is up to. The Roman Catholic apologist has to do something. To get you to abandon scripture as your final court of authority and to convince you there is a necessity for another court of authority beyond scripture that you must turn to and give absolute and complete fealty to absolute and complete obeisance to you must obey the authority of.

Well, of course the teaching magisterium the Roman Catholic Church. That's what it's all about. That's why you have to attack Sola scriptura because a person exegeting the New Testament text in and of themselves Would never come to the dogmatic conclusions of Roman Catholicism.

You would not believe in purgatory. You would not believe in indulgences. You would not believe in a sacramental priesthood. You would not believe that the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice by a transubstantiation.

You would not believe that Mary was a sinlessly conceived or that Mary was a bodily assumed into heaven. You would not believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin. You wouldn't believe any of that stuff that Rome has defined as dogma.

So to get you to believe what they believe then the first step is to attack the sufficiency of Scripture. That's what it is all about and. So here is a example of a passage thrown out there that if we know what the context is We can provide a brief but accurate and solid response to it.

602 two seven four thirteen sixty one triple eight five five zero Thirteen sixty. Wayne will be coming to you and your calls right here on the dividing line. That rejoinder music is going to deafen me someday.

It hits and it's hot. Hey, let's go to our callers because I love saying this. We have one line open at six. Oh two two, seven four thirteen sixty or one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. I can use the radio voice.

It sounds sounds a little bit like Marty Minto, but not quite because I am just one of many informative voices. In fact, I would never say that I was the informative voice here in the Valley of the Sun but you know, we leave that to Leave that to Marty and you know what it worked.

We have no open lines right now. Isn't that great? Hey, let's talk to Wayne in. It's up in Michigan. Wayne.

First Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead

Charlotte. Okay. Doing way doing well. Yes. Hey, I want to tell you what a great job you did against Tim Staples and Fullerton. I got those page planning on using those to reach out to my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, and I think you just did a tremendous job.

Well, thank you very much. And if it's possible for you to speak up just a little bit for some reason our phone line there from Charlotte is. It's not very hot.

That sounds even better. Okay, great. Yeah, I was particularly irritated.

Oh, yeah, we heard that. I'm not sure why we're getting feedback on you.

Particularly when it came to Tim Staples rebuttal and yes. And I just that Q &A was very frustrating to listen to because to me that's my favorite part of a debate I want to hear all of the arguments presented again and Examined and under close examination.

Mm-hmm. I think it was just the travesty of the Q &A time but anyway, that's not really what I called today a Passage that I sometimes wonder about and it's not that I believe this the way that the Mormons do but first Corinthians.

15 29 Can you hear me 15 29 15 29?

Yeah else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not baptized for the dead. And the reason I have a little trouble with that verse is because so many other verses you can find a better explanation for but I think the Evangelical apologist has a little more difficulty in that we don't.

Well, they're replacing people who are dying and things like that. But I don't know. What's your thoughts on address?

Well, actually, I addressed first Corinthians 1529 my book letters to a Mormon elder and I think if you do look at the Context that is being discussed here. If you look at the passage It says otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead if the dead are not raised at all?

Why then why are they baptized for them? Why two are we in danger every hour every day? I'm in danger of death. This is as sure as my boasting in you brothers and sisters, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So then he goes on to talk about fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus and it says in verse 32 if the dead are not raised Let us eat and drink for tomorrow. We die so the context is found in verses 29 and following and It has already been seen the previous part of first Corinthians 15, which is the passage on Resurrection and so what Paul is doing is he's demonstrating the foolishness of Rejecting the physical resurrection of the body.

I mean the very term resurrection means that which died coming to life again. And so if there is no resurrection, then why don't we just go out and party? Let's just eat drink and be merry for tomorrow.

We die. This whole this whole thing that we're doing about living in a godly and holy life. Why in the world put ourselves in a position of being persecuted and and in danger every day look at what I've done.

I've been I was stoned and I was Imprisoned and I've gone through all this stuff. Well, if that's the context then I would say that the the only viewpoint that you mentioned is the only way to understand the passage.

And that is when Paul is saying if what? Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized the dead of the dead are raised if the dead are not raised at all? Then why are they baptized for them? There is no evidence whatsoever of this proxy baptism idea in Paul's theology.

There's no way he can be referring to what the Mormons are talking about because a Paul never built temples. He didn't have any concept of a Aaronic Melchizedek priesthood stuff were by temple authority you baptize people in the place of those who have died so that when they go to the spirit prisons Mormons can come and Preach to them and they can get out of the spirit prison and go to paradise that that is so totally foreign to Paul's Theology that it's not possible.

So what then is Paul talking about? Well, what's what's Paul's doctrine of baptism? Does he say that baptism is the means of regeneration or the labor of regeneration like Roman Catholics say no. In fact, he even separates baptism from the gospel when he says I thank God that I baptize none of you.

But Crispus and Gaius for God did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. I'm sorry 114 through 17, I believe is the the section there. Right, right and so the the the question then becomes well then in context what is Paul referring to and since he speaks immediately thereafter of The danger that they face every day the possibility of death.

That he's talking here about why do we keep baptizing people into the church? Why even when someone has been thrown to the Lions or imprisoned or run through or or in some way shape or form. Someone has died if they're not being resurrected.

Why do we keep replenishing the church? Why do we keep bringing new people in and baptize people into their place of service if there is no resurrection? Why keep putting people because remember when you were baptized that was a public profession of your faith.

It couldn't it wasn't something that could be hidden away very secretly secretly.

Words if they don't nothing beyond it.

Well, the whole point is if you to baptize people into the fellowship of the church by and by so doing. Placing them in danger of their very lives if there is no resurrection there is no reason to continue to do this in any way shape or form and I do not believe that starting if you go through 29 through 32 that you can come to any other conclusion because if you take the Mormon interpretation of 29 it has absolutely no connection whatsoever ever to 30 to 32.

You just have this source sore thumb sticking out there that has you know, you have no idea what in the world it means. So I think that is exactly what he's referring to that is that when a person is baptized into the Christian Fellowship they take the place of someone who has gone on that is from Paul's perspective an implicit recognition of the reality of the resurrection and that what we're doing is not fruitless and That the church is going to continue and we are all going to be together in that the wonderful communion of Saints in heaven someday.

Okay. Okay. Thanks a lot. God bless 602 two seven four thirteen sixty one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty that opens up a line for you call in now. See, I love doing that so much fun, even on a Saturday afternoon.

I just totally lost my screen. I can't see. Anything as to who's who but we'll talk to Shara on line one. Hi Shara. How are you doing? Good. How are you doing? I'm doing just fine.

My question is How do you respond to a Roman Catholic who says that the doctrine of papal infallibility is in scripture? Where the New Testament says that the Holy Spirit will lead into all truth.

Papal Infallibility, the Holy Spirit, and the Authority of the Church

Well a couple things. A the The problem the problems with that type of interpretation are many. First of all, there was no single Roman Catholic Bishop. There was no single bishop of the church in Rome until about 140 AD and so for a hundred and 110 years.

No one would have been able to understand this verse because there was no single bishop in Rome for it to be applied to in the first place. Secondly, no one applied it outside of Rome to the Bishop of Rome or anyone like that for centuries and centuries.

So that would be an interpretation of the passage that intriguingly enough would go against the early church fathers. Who saw it very differently? Thirdly the the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the Apostles into all truth.

Does not mean that that promise has to then be transferred to some sort of ecclesiastical hierarchy. Especially if one understands that it was via the Apostles and those that the Holy Spirit chose in that first generation to Write his scriptures that the foundation of the Apostles and prophets was laid for the church.