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 reform 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 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

Paula Guion 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 get my answer out to you and then go to the next caller 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 -274 -1360

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'll 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 13 61 triple 8 5 5 0 13 60

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 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's that people just sort of throw out and of course, there's a danger in providing brief responses because 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 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 apologists 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 responses 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 was 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 grave side

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 eight five five zero 1360

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 544 a .m. This morning on a Saturday 544 a .m.

On a Saturday now No, no, it was not a homeless person that we've adopted or anything 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 this 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 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 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 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 how about 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 always 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 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 This is 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 215 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 entity 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 to 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 leg work do the ground work

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 in 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

You That rejoiner 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 602 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 Charlotte, okay

But anyway, how you doing dr. White doing way doing well, yes.

Hey, I want to tell you what a great job You did against Tim Staples and Fulton. I got those tapes and 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 Okay, 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 why

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, I also what shall they do which are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all Why are they then baptized for the dead?

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 I haven't heard of a good explanation for that verse

You know, I've heard Well, they're replacing people who are dying and things like that, but I don't know what your thoughts on that verse

Well, actually I addressed first Corinthians 15 29 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 a 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 First 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 because in other words if they don't

They don't rise from the dead then They're dead men. Anyway, you know, there's 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 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 a 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 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 And that therefore there would be many who would see that passages primarily being a promise of the

Holy Spirit's superintending the work of the writing of the scriptures and hence to Put it beyond that time frame and to say okay

This somehow is going to mean that there is a charism of infallibility that is going to be given to a a particular organization

Simply wouldn't follow now There is I think we need to Say to our

Roman Catholic of friends who are very impressed with the concept of papal infallibility We have to be be aware of the fact that many of them believe that we think the church is useless

That we think the church has no authority that we think the church has a really no function

Roman Catholics are generally taught especially by Roman Catholic apologists that there's only two possibilities either you believe in the infallibility of the

Bishop of Rome or You believe in you your Bible out amongst the trees tree hugging and feeling the the warm breeze on your skin or something like that You know that there is absolutely no possibility of anything in between the biblical truth is that you have an extremely exalted

Teaching about the church in the book of Ephesians, for example, but you also have and and I wrote about this

There's a chapter about this in in the book solo scriptura I'm sorry onward

Christian soldiers Protestants affirm the church I wrote a chapter in that book on this very subject and I contrasted the very high view of the church as the bride of Christ and so on and so forth and Then the balancing of that with the fact that Paul when he meets with the

Ephesian elders He tells them he says look. I Know that from your own number from amongst you elders men are going to arise who are going to preach perverse things and they're gonna draw away disciples after themselves and they're they are going to be false teachers and when he says that he doesn't say and so that what you're supposed to do is

To recognize infallibility church and follow the Bishop of Rome. He doesn't say that Instead after he's warned them that there's could be apostasy and false teachers and so on and so forth

He says I commend you to God and to the word of his truth, which is able to give you your inheritance

He commits them to God into the scriptures so during the very days of the Apostles there was all sorts of false teaching and heretical teaching even when the

Apostles were alive and so to think that somehow after the Apostles are gone Some new mechanism is going to be generated or put into place that somehow is going to be better than the

Apostles were In its ability to somehow allegedly get rid of any type of error is simply a

Far stretch at the very least it has absolutely no biblical foundation. So Thirdly, I would say well if we are going to apply this concept to the

Roman Catholic Magisterium, then let's test it and That's what we did in Fullerton in Clearwater in coming up in October when

I debate Robertson genus on this subject Clearwater, Florida coming up to October. He's going to be a debating me on papal infallibility as well

I think it will have a very different character than the Fullerton debate did

Which for me is even better because from my perspective the more clearly you can get into the facts the more clearly the facts speak to the fact that the the

Bishop of Rome has taught error and he's taught it very clearly in the past and so on so forth, so By answering what the the the

New Testament nature of the church is and then by by pointing out that historically that Interpretation results in an absolute a mishmash of contradiction.

Those would be the two directions. I would go and responding to such person Okay. All right. Thanks a lot for calling shower.

Bye. Bye 602 two seven four thirteen sixty and One triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty.

Let's talk to Pierre way back on the other side of the continent in Virginia Pierre you there?

Yes, I am. How are you? Okay. I was calling to Make some comments on your concept of sola scriptura that you had just been expounding on a few minutes ago

I had heard you I Go to your website. I've heard your your past program on that and you

Touch upon but I don't think you ever answered if not to my satisfaction the question that The question that is raised at times

About the Protestant Church in general and that you have so many different interpretations of Scripture that it kind of Makes it mockery really of the concept of sola scriptura because obviously you you do in fact need some sort of teaching magisterium to interpret

Scripture To help you interpret Scripture because otherwise you have a situation in Protestantism where basically every minister has a different Interpretation of Scripture and you have confusion

Well, of course, I have addressed that many many times and in fact in the debate with Tim Staples in 1996

I pointed out that that's the single worst argument that can be used against sola scriptura because it demonstrates a tremendous lack of understanding of what sola scriptura is saying and There's a there's a real problem in in just simply the logic of the argument

And that is a person who says well the multiplicity of denominations that exists in Protestantism Demonstrate the necessity of an infallible interpreter are basically asserting that The scriptures must be insufficient if men are willing to misuse them and yet the scriptures even warn us

Peter Recognized in his day. There were those who were untaught and unstable Who distorted

Paul's writings to their own destruction now? He did not say therefore you should not read

Paul's writings or therefore there's no way to understand Paul's writings in fact by describing those people as Untaught and unstable it is very clear that from Peter's perspective a person who is taught and is stable can accurately utilize the writings of Paul to understand those things that he had written as well and so the misuse of a

Sufficient source is not an argument against the sufficiency of that source

Unless you think that the doctrine of sola scriptura means that if we all just simply read our

Bibles That we'll all come to the exact same conclusion The doctrine of sola scriptura doesn't say that because it recognizes the sinfulness of the human heart it

Recognizes that people will come to scripture with ignorance that people will come to scripture with their own

Traditions that people will come to scripture with their own desires There's all sorts of reasons why when people come to the scriptures they end up believing a very strange things

That if a person were to approach the scriptures and not with an attitude of well, I'm going to establish my own traditions

I'm going to establish whatever but came to the scriptures truly believing that they are

God -breathed and that we are to be judged by what they say and With truly the desire to draw out from the scriptures our beliefs rather than Establishing our beliefs externally and then reading them into the scriptures

Well really when you read the individuals who through the history of the of the church and especially since the days the

Reformation when in -depth biblical exegesis was again re -established after the centuries and centuries of the prevalency of allegorical interpretation you discover a tremendous amount of unity a

Tremendous amount of unity in fact I would submit to you that there is far more Doctrinal unity on the central issues of the faith amongst those who practice sola scriptura than there are amongst

Roman Catholics and The reason I would say that is I can point you to Roman Catholics who believe all sorts of different things

On all sorts of different issues, but when it comes to if you take my my

PCA brethren and my OPC brethren and my RP brethren and my

I'm a Reformed Baptist and You find me some some solid conservative

Evie free folks and when we come to the scriptures and we believe their Theano stas and we

Exegete those scriptures and we study them in their context and we consistently interpret them

Amazingly enough we all believe in the doctrine of the Trinity in the deity of Christ in the person of the

Holy Spirit We believe in the incarnation we believe in the atonement. We believe in justification by grace through faith alone

I mean we believe all sorts of things in absolute unity with one another because the scriptures are very clear in those things

They say well, you might have a different view of church government or I bet you all have a different eschatology

Etc. Etc. Yes, we may have disagreements on things like that but that does not mean the source that we go to is insufficient in of itself to lead us to a knowledge of what the gospel is and what we are to do before God and so The I have

I have addressed this maybe you did seem to indicate you would listen to a single program I did a series of programs.

There are a number of debates on this if you listen to the 1996 debate with Tim Staples this was the majority of my opening statement was to point out that to argue that since men can misuse a

Sufficient source means it is in and of itself insufficient is not only illogical But any other religious system you put in its place

Will be just as liable to the exact same criticism that is people can misuse The Catholic Catechism of the

Catholic Church, they can misuse the Council of Trent They can use misuse Vatican 1 Vatican 2 and in point of fact

Rome has more things that they can misuse. In fact, it's easier to become Confused more confused trying to figure out the code of canon law and all the conflicting papal decrees and everything else

As I said in the debate with mr. Staples Give me Romans chapter 8 or John chapter 3 over the code of canon law any day.

It'll be far more clear and far more understandable than the Traditions of men that are placed there even if their traditions for example created by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York Wouldn't you agree well

Not really because I think you still have a tremendous divide even among I guess the classic example from your own website would be the difference that exists in viewpoints between say yourself and Dr.

Norman Geisler, I listened to your eight or nine part series there Book chosen but free

Well, you see that I see and I and Pierre that's where you're that's where you're exactly wrong Because if you've read my response and if you have read the issues

Then you know that my response is based upon the scriptures themselves they are sufficient and One of us one of us is more than willing

To enter into the the dialogue and into the necessary Interaction to demonstrate the consistency of that interpretation of scripture.

Dr Geisler has not been willing to do so But I would I right now this this microphone is open if if mr

If dr Geisler would like to demonstrate that what I said in for example the chapter

Jesus teaches extreme Calvinism in John chapter 6 Verses 35 through 45 if he'd like to sit down and we can work through that together

I can guarantee you that the clarity of that exegesis would not be Denied it would be established

And in fact, I have never found anyone in my experience Pierre who can exegete that passage of scripture

Consistently and not come to the exact same conclusions And so I I think it's just the opposite and even if you were to say well, okay you you disagree with dr

Geisler on the issue of predestination election. All right, how do you solve that on a biblical basis by denying the sufficiency of scripture?

Who do you who do you what to what organization do you turn to Pierre? Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? No, I'm a

Latter -day Saint. Okay. All right, so so you go to Well, who

I mean, do you go to I do actually I follow the pattern that is given to us in Scripture and that is to the

I turn to the living oracles of God and So you go to if you went to the living oracle of God?

When Joseph Smith was alive, would you get the same answer as if you go to Boyd K Packer today?

I Think well, it depends on which which was what the question was in matters of doctrine. I would say the answer is yes so when

Joseph Smith taught that the father is Jehovah and Yet since the first presidency has defined that the father is

Elohim and Jesus Jehovah If you came to him and asked the same question It is your belief.

You'd get the same answer, but in reality historically what what if they give you a different answer if you go back and discover you read

Joseph Smith and You look up the word Jehovah if you have the LDS collectors library Look up the word

Jehovah and all the writings of Joseph Smith and you'll discover he identified the father is Jehovah He didn't hold to the modern

LDS viewpoint to find in 1912 by the first presidency that the father is Elohim and Jesus is Jehovah so don't you think who

God is is a fairly fundamental issue of theology and If it is and you went to Joseph Smith and got answer a and you go to the leaders of the church today and get answer

Doesn't that illustrate the fact that when you deny the sufficiency of scripture and instead put men in a position of allegedly being the infallible

Speakers from your perspective even being able to give revelation today that you end up in a in a real difficult situation

I can't address the specific Example that you bring up because I'm not familiar with that My right my readings of Joseph Smith in the case that he knew that Elohim was

God the father And Jehovah was Jesus Christ, I don't think that's ever been changed I don't doubt you might be able to find some patches that you might interpret that way

But once he one of the problems with holding to dead prophets only Is that they're not there to defend their words and so you can bend fold or otherwise

Mutilate their words to get him to fit into your own preconceived notion Well really quickly

Pierre you can do that with quote -unquote living prophets and the thing thankful thing for me The thankful thing for me is that we don't just have the words of dead prophets

We have the living word of God and I don't believe you'd find any of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ viewing the scriptures as merely the words of dead prophets, but that's all the time we have for the program today

Thanks for being with us. Thank you for calling in today. All of those of you who did Thank you Warren for being here today.

It was great to have you in studio and Thanks for listening we'll be back again next week here on the dividing line taking your phone calls

Discussing things that are important to the scriptures and you're giving a reason for the hope that is within you.

God bless you Thanks for being with us The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m I n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks