Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.
Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight, seven. Seven seven five three three three four one and now with today's topic.
Here is James white.
And welcome to the dividing line on a Friday Unusual day, but I had things to do yesterday. So here we are didn't want to Skip the entirety of the week just you know only give you one and with all the stuff going on.
It is good. Very very good. I think to meet with you today gets two hours worth in and today you're gonna get to hear Some portions of the debate with Bill Rutland from last week. That's only that's only a week ago last night.
And here we we have the mp3s. I believe they are up on the site. I don't know if they've been linked yet. But I believe they're already up on the site and maybe even during the course of the program they'll be linked or something or I'll have a link to provide in the on the blog or Something so you'll be able to grab them.
But you know, some debates are best I think on DVD and I think this would be one of them. I Not in the center I guess the main reason being because so much has been said about you know How it went and things like that only after the fact which has been very disappointing.
But that's. That's just the way it is. So anyway, I want to play some segments from that and then if we if the phones allow and phone calls and so on so forth, we will also be looking at further evidence that every time someone in Australia Canada England all of Europe and The Liberals in our own country want to pass hate crimes legislation.
Against quote-unquote hate speech and say oh, you don't have to worry about this impinging upon your free speech rights. You don't have to worry about Anything it regards to the preaching of the gospel.
There is a clause for for religious speech in here that it's irrelevant. We've got a teacher up in Canada. He expressed his opinion on homosexuality in letters. He wasn't even teaching at the time, but he He expressed his is a his Christian view of homosexuality in letters to an editor he has been disciplined by the school board and now the the judges doing the same thing that they did down in in Australia.
You look at that freedom of religion thing. You say yeah. But I judge this speech to not live up to the standard of being relevant to religion and that's all that's it that's all you got to do and And it's all over at that point.
So it's it's a bad thing and we'll see if we can get to that all depends on the calls. But we need to start at the right place I suppose and that would be to start with Long to play three sections for you.
Well more like two I guess I'm gonna play the there were four sections of cross-examination in The regular format that we've used for years in the great debate they would have been 15 minutes each but mr Rutland demanded that they be cut back or he would not show up.
He did that at the in April just a few months before the debate and and You know decided he wanted to change the way it's been done. I guess from what he's saying now he had never bothered to even note the order of debate in previous debates, but anyway, so we had.
He had 10 minutes to ask me then I had 10 minutes to ask him then he had 10 minutes to ask me and then this Is the last section?
My.
Second 10 minute portion of cross-examination of mr Rutland. And you'll see at the beginning that's and this all this has happened more than once. This in fact thinking about it now. This happened in Stravinsky's debate.
The moderator gets up and I almost lose my second cross-examination period to the closing stage. Closing statements. But I didn't allow that to happen. So hopefully we have the volume set properly. I think we should have tested this but we didn't.
But let's say let's listen to the cross-examination period one of the four cross-examination periods. From the debate last Thursday night on Long Island myself versus Bill Rutland. The subject was the Roman Catholic teaching found sections 841 and 1260 of the Catholic Catechism.
841 specifically saying that Muslims together with us adore the one true God and are a part of the plan of salvation. And. Then 1260 the section that quotes from Lumen Gentium and in essence says that if a man is ignorant of Christ in the church He may still obtain salvation if he follows and seeks the truth and follows will of God as he understands it.
So on and so forth. So here's from last Thursday evening on Long Island.
We come to the closing remarks once again. Oh, I'm sorry. You have your.
I shall not be denied. All right, I would like once again. We had run into a point where I was I was becoming very confused. Your catechism which you believe. Do you believe that the writings of the Roman Catholic Church and the catechism in Vatican to Vatican one the count can decrease.
Council Trent. Do you believe these writings clarify or confuse? The Christian people as to what the gospel is. I.
Believe it clarifies. I also believe it depends on which which camp you're coming from. Obviously many many non.
Catholic Christians are very confused about what the Catholic Church believes. Okay, and when the catechism says Together with us. They adore the one merciful God. Are we talking about one God here or are we talking about more than one God here when it says one merciful God?
Can we identify who that God is?
Well, the Jews themselves, excuse me the Muslims themselves identify the God as being the God of Abraham. We identify the God as being the God of Abraham and As I've already stated what the catechism is pointing out There is that we both worship the same God in that he is a monotheistic God who is the creator of man who will judge man at the end of the world?
It is not. Let me finish please it is not and and I I want to just just say this as clearly as I can. It is not saying the Muslim religion is correct. It is not saying the Muslim religion can save. All it is pointing out is that they are one of the three.
Monotheistic religions in the world today that they adore the one true God. Yes together with us. Yes.
We we adore one God they adore one God.
So what is together means together means separately. No sir together does not mean in corporate worship together.
Means that we both acknowledge there is one God who is the creator of mankind who will be the judge at the end of the World that's all the world.
So I am misreading this. I am somehow misreading the language of this when it says together With us they adore the one merciful God. That that means we and Muslims together adore which is not just simply acknowledged but adore the One merciful God.
That for me to think that what that means is we're both worshiping God. Not that all of Islam is true. Not that all of Islamic theology is true, but that we adore the one merciful God. I somehow miss reading this text.
I.
Don't know if you're misreading it sir. It certainly is being misrepresented. Let me put it that way. Okay.
Do you believe that the Bible teaches that there is an elect people? Yes, sir, I did. So could you explain why 1260 says since Christ died for all and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine are The non elect called the same destiny as the elect.
Well, you're you're you're you're phraseology there. It starts with the basic assumption that we both mean the same thing by elect. Unfortunately, this is just my belief. I'm not using it as a criticism, but unfortunately cow Calvinism Is is a very? Man-centered theology in in that it puts God into the context of space and time.
God when we say he is for knowledge. I like to say whether he has omni knowledge. That is God is is eternally present. Everywhere. God knows every choice that I'm going to make and the outcome of that.
God also knows every choice the outcome of every choice that I may have made. And so in in in the divine Eternal perspective we can say yes. There is such thing as an elect people at the same time. We can say that man has free free will to accept God or to reject God now.
How is that how can God elect a person and man still have free will to accept or reject very simply, sir? That's the reason that he is God and we are not.
So every person has the ability in and of themselves to come to Christ. Yes. No, sir. I did not say that. Who has the ability to come to Christ with are you speaking sir? Well, I'm not supposed to ask the questions.
I'm sorry, you can even if you need clarification ask away.
Your question was who has the ability to come to Christ? Yes.
Anyone who God has called? All right, anyone who God has called it. Would you say that's also drawn? That word called means drawn. I.
Would not say necessarily that the that the word called means drawn in the sense that we are incapable of resisting that call.
So all those the father draws will not be raised up on the last day. Although that the father calls will be raised up on the last day. Well all those who the father draws be raised up on the last day.
Could you clarify you mean John chapter 6 verse 44? Yes, sir. I know this.
I know the reference. I was asking you to clarify what you mean by draw.
No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. Okay, are there those who are drawn by the father to the son who will not be raised up on the last day?
See, I'd still still I'm unclear. Well, I'm not unclear what you mean by the word draw. I think I know exactly what you what you mean. And if you mean by the word draw that that that God gives a a call to The center that the center is incapable of resisting if God in it in effects Holocaust the center and drags him into into his his presence I would reject that.
That's the meaning of the word draw. If you mean that God gives every sinner by grace the right To accept or reject his loving call then I would say yes God draws.
John 637 says everyone whom the father gives me will come to me and the one who comes to me I will never send away. Who does the father give to the son first off again?
You're you're making the mistake of Putting God into a spatial time relationship. God gives the son all of those for whom heaven was created. All men were created for heaven, but all men will not go to heaven.
Therefore the ones that are that are that God has given to Christ are the are the people. God elects a people for Christ. And I don't believe that that verse is speaking of a particular person but as but of a people.
Verse 37 says everyone whom the father gives me will come to me. Do Individuals come to Christ or do non-individuals come to Christ.
Well, I Don't see inanimate objects coming to Christ. So I would I would assume that he's speaking about individuals there. Okay, so.
Everyone whom.
The father gives me will do something. Only persons do so. In contrast what you just said verse 37 is about Specific people, isn't it?
It is a it is about that class of people which God has given to Christ.
Yes, and which action comes first sir. The giving by the father to the son or the people coming to Christ.
Which action comes first the giving of. I'm sorry, would you repeat your question?
There are two two actions in verse 37. In verse first phrase everyone whom the father gives me will come to me. That is father gives Will come to me which action comes first. Well, they're there again.
You're you're you're trying to put it in a time-space relationship Which in the mind of God we simply cannot do so. You're so so your question really really is is is building the straw man of what the Gospels trying to proclaim.
Are you saying that the grammar of the text does not indicate clearly from Jesus viewpoint which action comes first?
We can't know. I'm saying that what you're doing sir is you're isolating the text from the con from from the context of the Entirety of the gospel and trying to build a case on it.
So you can so so you can't answer the question given the grammar of this text on the basis of your your understanding of the.
Entirety of the gospel. No, sir. I I cannot accept your interpretation of that text according to my understanding.
I haven't given my interpretation. I've asked a simple grammatical question. No, sir. Would you agree on the grammar of the Greek? That the giving of the Father is An action that is prior to the coming of anyone to Christ.
Would you at least agree that on the grammar of the text? Whether you want to interpret that way or not at least at that point that that is the case.
There again, I know I would not agree because although you say that you are not interpreting you. You are trying to squeeze that text into your interpretation of what you think it think it means. They're trying to can I finish my question my answer and you're trying to segregate that from the rest of the gospel.
You're trying to segregate that from the fact that God calls all.
People sir.
According to the Catholic catechism There are men who are ignorant of the gospel of Christ in his church Who seek truth do the will of God and will be saved? Yet Jesus said that everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me.
Could you please explain how it is that there will be people who have salvation through Christ Who never came to him in this life? I?
Yes, sir. I could I. Infants who die in infancy.
Is that what 1260 is talking about sir? Is that 1261?
No, sir. The the question that you specifically asked me is is that will there were there people that will there be people that come to Christ? That do not specifically know Christ and and the answer is you know, so that's not true.
I read section 1260 every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ Church, but seeks the truth that's not an infant and does the will of God it's not an infant and Unfortunately, that is where the time ended.
Once again over and over again during the course of debate I had to to point out to mr. Rutland that we had specific Teaching from the Roman Catholic Church in the form of the catechism in a language we could agree upon.
Section 1260 talks about people who seek truth. Who do the will of God? It has nothing to do with infants. In fact section 1261 is about infants who die in infancy. He had to keep trying to avoid that clear that clear distinction and Never did Accurately interact with it and you can see what happened there when you tried to get a Roman Catholic Apologist to deal the text of Scripture.
Well, we can't know The grammatical relationship of all that the father gives me will come to me. We can't we just can't know I'm just trying to force God into a box by asking if we can tell and answer a question relating to the grammar of the Greek New Testament and so if I want to look at Didison and I want to look at Hicks I in John 637 that means I am putting God in a box and we can't know because God is transcendent.
So we can't know how a participle relates to a a finite verb. We can't understand how a present participle relate to a future finite verb. Etc. Etc. Now, obviously obviously obviously Roman Catholic scholars Would not agree with this.
They would they would reject what Bill Rutland said. But you know, it's it's not like we can bring that up evidently or something. I I don't know. So Next I want to play for you before I get too long here the last few moments, let's see the last two and a half minutes of Bill Rutland's closing statement immediately followed by mine because I picked up on exactly what he had said and continued with it and so here's here's what Bill Rutland chose to end his presentation with in Defending sections 841 and 1260 of the Catholic Catechism and the idea that non Christians Can enter into heaven here's here's how he did that.
Please allow me in the time that I have left to sum up my argument. The wellspring of salvation flows from the side of Christ. Christ saves all men. Christ calls to all men. I'd like to end this evening with a one of my favorite illustrations there was once a wise man that lived in a village and the village kids would come to him and They would hide things in their hands and they would ask him what they had in their hands and he could always tell them.
For some reason so a a young man of this village decided he was going to trick the old man. And he said what I'm going to do is I'm going to catch a small bird. I'm going to put it in my hands, and I'm going to go to the old man.
I'm going to say old man. What do I have in my hands, and he's going to answer well, son. You have a small bird in your hands, but I'm going to say yes, old man, but it is it is it alive. Or is it dead and if he says it's dead.
I'm going to open my hands and let it fly away. But if he says that it's alive, I'm going to crush it and let it fall at his feet. So he instigated his plan he went and found a small bird. He brought it to this old man, and he said old man What do I hold in my hands and just as expected this old man said young man you have a small bird in your hands.
And he said yes Old man, but it is is it alive or is it dead and without hesitation the old man said my son. That is up to you. You have heard my friends the truth tonight. I would ask you to step away from your theological presuppositions to really consider God and all of his love and all of his majesty.
Are you going to allow God to be free to be God to save anyone that he desires to save or? Are you going to limit him to a select few my friends that choice is up to you my time is up. Thank you very much.
Indeed I do ask the question are you going to allow God to be free to save whoever? He chooses to save called his elect people. Or are you going to demand that God try to save every single person equally and make it up to the man?
Or the woman as to whether the triune God will fail in his own self glorification. I do ask that question, but I do so on the basis of scripture. Mr.. Rutland has said that I failed to establish my position.
Some of you may notice that we sit on certain sides of this and for ten years now the person who has the responsibility Of proving his point sits over there and the person denying the thesis sits over here.
When I debated Mitchell Pack one the priesthood it was his job to demonstrate that the priesthood was Biblical. And he sat over there, and I sat over here. When I debated father Pierce Provence guess on purgatory It was his job to substantiate the assertion the purgatory is a biblical doctrine.
He sat over there I sat over here. The thesis tonight was that what is found in sections 841 in 1260 of the Catholic Catechism Which has been read in your hearing which specifically is not about infants is Consistent with the Bible that it's apostolic teaching.
That was mr. Rutland's job to establish not my job to establish something else and. So the debate is very clear and if in point of fact the only defense is well. You didn't prove your point when it was your job to prove yours.
That indicates something about the nature of our debate this evening now.
In.
The documents of Vatican we tried I I tried to read the section fairly Concerning about whether Muslims adore the one true God with us. Interestingly enough I was told I was twisting the meaning and. Yet according to Nostra a tata a3 from Vatican to which I didn't read I could have.
But I was trying to get a direct answer on this issue Let's let the church decide the church regards with esteem also the Muslims they adore the one God Living and subsisting in himself merciful and all-powerful the creator of heaven and earth who has spoken to men.
They take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable degrees. Just as Abraham to whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself submitted to God. There's Vatican to his own interpretation of its own words, which are then quoted in the Catholic Catechism.
I wasn't twisting anything. Mr. Rutland However needs to realize that these words have spawned all sorts of different views even amongst Roman Catholics. I guess denying solo scriptura doesn't actually create unanimity of opinion.
Does it it does not. We just heard it said and Then before the African tribes attack from outside the room there you can hear the war drums coming. We'll need to hurry up here. So you can all can get to the dance which obviously is starting a little early this evening.
Mr. Rutland just said Jesus did not force himself on anyone. Look at John 6. He let the disciples walk away. Yes, he did. But if you read John 6 John 6 35 where he starts talking about the sovereignty of God and salvation.
He says you've seen me, but you are unbelievers.
You don't believe and.
The whole discussion is why they don't believe and yet Jesus doesn't chase down unbelievers when they walk away. But we were just told God never forces himself on anyone. Tell Lydia that. Lydia sitting next to the river.
Paul comes.
And he preaches the gospel and what does the Bible tell us? The Lord opened her heart to respond. Oh Opened her heart. That's the most intimate part of the human being and God.
Opened her heart.
Yes.
That's what grace is. And Lydia was thankful. Paul on the roads of Damascus. Smacked on his backside. No force there, excuse me Paul may I voluntarily knock you off your horse and knock you blind. No force there, hmm.
Paul preaches to the Jews and the Gentiles in Acts 13.
Who believes.
This little phrase in Acts 13 48 and As many as were ordained unto eternal life.
Believed.
They believed they weren't left in their darkness. They didn't go on in their religion. They didn't go on their falsehoods. When Paul spoke to the Galatians, he said you once worship those which are by nature not God's.
They had stopped doing that now God doesn't leave his people in idolatry. I tried To just allow the text of Scripture to point out that in the grammar and we speak in grammar. We use grammar. We use tenses.
That's what the Word of God's written in and in John chapter 6 Jesus says all the father gives me will come to me. It is the giving of the father that precedes the coming. Mr Rutland's position makes the coming the basis of our being given by the father.
He has it backwards. But we can't even get to the point where we can actually answer the question whether we can even read the grammar of the text. Why. I submit to you because Rome's Authority overrides the text of the inspired Word of God for the consistent Roman Catholic.
Since Rome defines the interpretation Rome defines the meaning of both Scripture and tradition. She's not under the authority of either one. That's sola ecclesia and you just saw what happened when we tried to get into the text of the Word of God To allow the Incarnate Son to explain that the ones the father gives him.
He doesn't leave them in darkness. He draws them to Christ and he does so effectively and efficiently and without fail because it says they all Come to me. Why is there any one of you tonight coming to Christ is because God the Father in eternity Placed his love and mercy upon you and he draws you to his son and that's the only reason you do.
That's why none of us can boast and we will never be able to boast in eternity itself. That's why but if you can't even allow the words of Jesus to be entered into the debate because what we don't know and That's a contradictory to what I think about the gospel and we just can't look at the grammar.
How can that?
Function to substantiate in a debate That has the thesis of demonstrating whether something is biblical or not. If you can't tell what the Bible says, how can you prove something's biblical? If you can't look at the very grammar of verbs and nouns and Say this is this and that is that how can you prove something's biblical?
Jesus said All that the Father gives me will come to me. We've agreed. No one can be saved outside of Jesus Christ, right? Okay. All that the Father gives me Will come to me and the one who comes to me. I will never cast out.
Those are personal action folks coming earlier. Jesus said the one coming to me will never hunger one believing me will never thirst. That's what hunger and thirst is in John 6. It's a spiritual hungering a spiritual thirsting.
That's why a lot of people miss John 6. But this coming is a personal thing and according to section 841 of the Catholic Catechism a Muslim Can be a Muslim? According to section 1260 a Buddhist can be a Buddhist and I know they're not saying because of being a Buddhist they come but by following What's good in their religion?
By following their consciences. They can have salvation. I say to you Jesus said otherwise and that settles the issue and my prayer for you is that God will give you by his spirit a desire to believe only that Which is inspired and true and given by the Spirit of God in the Word of God.
And that is clearly what we've seen tonight regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank you very much and There you have it the closing statements someone in channel. Someone channel was mentioning just how terribly frightening that audience sounds when they they chuckle and and If you've been following the blog, you know that it actually was said at one point that.
That.
There was fear expressed for for Bill Rutland's life and his safety. And I'm I still just sit there going. Wow. Let me tell you something.
Comparison to The both either one of the Fullerton debates. That was comatose folks. Everybody who walked in there popped a Valium in comparison to the Roman Catholics at the Fullerton debates. No two ways about it.
You didn't have anybody stand up going the Eucharist In in this debate, you know what I could do scream out the Bible or so. Yeah, it just you know, it didn't happen and I Don't know it's not available in mp3.
I understand the the DVDs are what what time frame we're looking at the DVDs here that we were supposed to we were hoping for Today you were doing something about fusing things and all this stuff.
And so I will D the DVDs will probably be.
I'm gonna say early next week. Early next week. Yeah, I.
Got not gonna start taking pre-orders. I could start taking pre-orders. Do you think that'd be a good idea? I think it'd be a good idea. You think I should take pre-order? Okay. Right after the show, I'm gonna put in we'll put in the links for the mp3s and the CDs I'll go ahead and add in a pre-order link for the DVD and As soon as as soon as this thing's ready, we'll start shipping it right away.
Good that's yeah.
I think folks once especially once they hear this program they hear that they go.
You know what?
I'd like to hear the 25-minute opening statements the two rebuttal periods all of the cross-examination and the audience question.
It was it was a really fun debate.
It was it really was frankly.
Like I said in the Tuesday show that it was I felt very gentlemanly. And until the Protestants started outside the door with the drums.
You know. War drums. Actually actually, you know that was it was. The Muslim are the Muslims.
So maybe we should have all been in fear for our lives.
Well, my understanding was that that were the Muslims downstairs or upstairs. Downstairs. They were downstairs. That's what we can Jewish wedding upstairs. The Muslims were downstairs and they stuck us in between now.
I have to tell you something. I haven't told you this what I found really odd about what was going on upstairs. Was that earlier in the day when I was getting all of our gear out of the storage room that when we chipped it out and they stored it I.
Everybody has to stand aside as They are driving literally driving a brand spanking new Mercedes-Benz convertible red into this ballroom, huh. And.
This is above us. This was above us. So there is a Mercedes above me. Yeah.
Either that or on the other side somewhere in there. So there was but so there, you know, it's very possible that there was a wedding gift. They're driving in the in the door or something like that. I mean, this is Long Island, you know, yeah it was an interesting mix of a crowd in that place that I.
Imagine the the restrooms and somewhere really interesting when all it out the same time that would have been quite interesting. Alrighty, well good. So now let's go ahead and link them up and folks. You'll want to watch this one.
Just because like I said since Bill Rutland Art Sippo and all the Catholics have been making all sorts of wild and crazy accusations about trying to bushwhack Bill Rutland and You know Art Sippo said the week before Bill Rutland finally put his foot down and demanded to know what the order was and I was just a bunch of pure baloney.
But they won't admit it and they've been disproven and they're dishonest and that's just the way it is you'll want to see it and be able to. I mean the mp3s are fine if you want to you know, listen while you're Riding your bike or jogging or driving your car or whatever, please if you're gonna drive the car don't use the DVD.
Okay, that's that's too dangerous. But anyway, you all. That'll be listed as soon as we're done with the program here. But first we need to take a break and then we had a phone caller. But we don't have a phone caller anymore.
And so we're gonna take our break come back. Maybe the phone call will be back. Who knows? We'll find out in a few moments. Be right back.
Is the Bible true. Never before in history has the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures been so viciously attacked by those outside the pale of orthodoxy. And within the walls of traditional evangelicalism itself.
Join us August 27th 2005 at the Sea-Tac Marriott for an historic debate between evangelical Christian apologist Dr. James R. White and world-renowned Jesus seminar co-founder and Bible skeptic. Dr John Dominic Crossan as they debate a topic which every Christian should be concerned about is the Bible true.
Seating and tickets are limited. So call today 877 -753 -3341 or visit a o m i n org to reserve your seat today. That's 877 -753 -3341. To be a part of this historic event that will illuminate the fault lines of faith between conservative and liberal Christians alike.
More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many Evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.
This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language?
James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain in regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.
They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org.
And we'll go back to the dividing line, you know. If if if. Bill Rutland and Art Sippo and those guys had just you know, not.
Had not.
You know want to get into an argument concerning what took place the debate. I You know, I don't even know we would have played a section for you. We just thrown it up said there it is. You all can you all can listen make your decisions for yourselves, but You know when people start saying that we have acted in an improper manner.
That we have attempted to abuse someone. I want to make sure everyone understands Mr. Rutland's travel was provided for by the Great Debate and There are Roman Catholics are on Long Island that help to make that a possibility as far as Frequently they try to find a place the Roman Catholic to speak Things like that.
I normally speak for quite some time on the island. I didn't this year. I only spoke at one church, but His travel was was provided to him. He the issue concerning the organization the debate was dealt with Before before the beginning of May in Fact, he left us hanging for four or five six days.
We finally I finally had to write him to look we need an answer from you. Yes or no, are you showing up or not? After I after I sent the final offer to him and said, okay, look you're demanding more time than anyone else has ever been given.
Here's what we're willing to do and We waited around wait around finally. I've had to write to him again. Are you going to answer? Yes or no? He answered yes, I will be there and this is acceptable and that was that took place before the beginning of May.
This the debate was the 9th of June. So that was what five weeks and that was all taken care of and according Mr. Rutland, it was early April when he first And you know first raised the issue and the issue came from the fact I even heard, you know, I heard someone ask him I heard someone ask him.
I I forget Where it is where it was in the in the course of things. But he said he had not even seen the debate from last year. He hadn't taken the time to look at wanted to be involved in the series, but doesn't watch the debates in the series and then when faced with the Organization of the debates as they have been done for years all sudden demands demands changes and.
So.
We're the ones who paid for the shipping of the sound equipment the video equipment we have shipped to mr Rutland the the videotape. So that he can do with it as he wishes he can market it. He can sell it.
He didn't have to put out a dime to make that available. We do that. There are still Roman Catholics who have videotapes debates I've done the past who still will not allow them to even be distributed.
I think I think a lot of folks they would love to see. The first two debates I did with Mitch Pacwa in the largest Roman Catholic Church in the San Diego area in El Cajon in January of 1991 those that those debates were attended by people like Scott Hahn were there.
I Think these now have historic interest to those interested in the apologetics Encounters that have taken place. Those tapes exist a man named Scott Butler owns them. And I would like to invite Scott Butler to make them available.
And I'd like to invite Scott Butler to do what we do and let us make them available. I think it's only fair. But that has not happened since 1991 so we're coming up on Enough, you know, it's been more than 14 years now that that has been the case and And so Mr. Rutland was not mistreated in any way shape or form we acted with the same level of consistency and The respect for the truth that we we always do in regards to these issues because that's why we debate.
It's sort of like the Sippo situation right now. You know, I don't I don't want To ever debate art Sippo again simply because I find him one of the most disagreeable men I've ever met. He's mean he's Condescending he's arrogant.
He's nasty and I have Dozens and dozens of emails not only those written to myself but written to others that will document his Constant behavior and you don't even have to do that. Just read his stuff.
Just just read his stuff over on the envoy Website he is a nasty nasty man and yet he'll turn around say you're the nasty one. It's it he accuses everybody of doing everything he does. It's just just an amazing thing that anyone actually listens to the man in the theological realm at all.
But I would debate him If it would be worthwhile to other people. I honestly believe that art Sippo would absolutely melt into a puddle Under meaningful cross-examination on all sorts of issues. The man is not a theologian.
He loves to attack me and say I have no credentials and I have no abilities. Okay, if that's true, then why on earth should he not demonstrate that in? In cross-examination, but he doesn't want to do that because he knows That I have taught Greek and Hebrew on the graduate level for years.
He knows I've been a critical consultant on a major Bible translation he knows that the things he said about me run true and.
He won't do it. He what he will only debate. He only wants a grudge match on a subject that not only did we debate it in Toledo in 1991. Was that March April, I think it was March or April. All I know is it was.
The.
It was there. It was warm enough there to be thunder showers because man, I'm gonna tell you something. That was a horrible trip absolutely horrible trip. I mean, I all I remember is being in a puddle jumper from st. Louis to Toledo in the middle of a thunderstorm.
I had never been on a rougher more dangerous flight in my life. Sixteen-year-old kid next to me wolf in his cookies. It was Not enjoyable. Let me tell you something. But anyway. Not only did he debate me on that in Toledo, but what was it about two months later?
And I'll go ahead and tell a story because I'm not sure it's come out. I Always get to the to the place where I'm going far earlier than Jerry Maddix says which isn't saying a lot but I like getting there very very early and Especially in your place, you don't know you you leave plenty of time you don't want to be late and so I was there very early.
Patrick Madrid gets there and All of a sudden we see this video crew walking in. This is in this amphitheater type building and a university campus in Toledo and This video crew walks in. I look at Patrick because we had talked about this and.
I'm like.
What's going on here and Patrick's like what's going on here? So he goes up to this is what are you guys doing here? It says well, we were sent here by Scott Butler. I remember Scott Butler is the one who videotaped the first debate I ever did against Jerry Maddix on solo scriptura in Long Beach and then got into a an argument with Carl Keating and Wouldn't give him the the videos of the debate and so they don't exist.
And in fact, honestly, if if my wife had not gone over and grabbed one of the CDs that were made that night or no tape tape back then could grief when I think about it was 1990 Tape back then if we hadn't gotten that we would never have even had that first debate.
Because Scott Butler said I'm not gonna I'm not gonna distribute it. I'm not gonna let anybody have it. And so then he's the one who paid for the videotaping of The debates against Pacwa. So if you're following the the history here, and we don't have any phone calls.
That's why I'm taking the history here. The first debate was in August 1990 Maddix Catholic answers contacted me Catholic answers.
Specifically.
Challenged me the first. The first debates we ever did. Specifically were brought about by the challenge of Catholic answers. Okay, so whenever you hear Catholic answers talking about how I'm a debate junkie and all the rest of stuff.
They're the ones that pursued me. All right, and.
August 1990 soul scriptura. Long Beach. That's the ones videotape. No one's ever seen the videotape because Scott Butler won't. Anybody have it. Argument with Catholic answers division amongst Catholics on that one.
The next two debates are in December of that year in Phoenix and to my knowledge. They were not videotaped at all. The one night was at Northwest Community Church on on the eternal security. The second night was on the papacy at City the Lord in Tempe.
Scott Hahn Moderated the second debate. It did not go well. That's the one where Han blew a gasket and walked out on Maddix and within a month Maddix was no longer with Catholic answers at.
All and.
Then the next debate for the next month January 1991 against Mitchell Pacwa El Cajon, California suburb of San Diego two debates one was on a Wednesday and was on a was it a Friday and then I think it first was on a Friday and then the next was Wednesday and.
And.
Which one came first, I think justification came first and then the mass and They were well attended they were videotaped By as I recall st. Joseph's. I know that I know that again Butler was behind it because he owns it but st Joseph's Catholic Radio Was involved as well because I remember seeing Terry Barber there and rich remembers Terry Barber because last time Rich talked to Terry Barber Terry Barber hung up on him.
As because they had videotaped the Staples debate and they wouldn't give this the videotapes. You know they had said they would and we we have documentation of it. And I'm sure those videotapes have been turned it they were burned in the backyard.
It's my knowledge to make that debate available through their own ministry so that tells you a little something about what they think about it. But anyhow, so you've got the first five debates. We're all against Catholic answers or Mitch Packwood and.
Three of the five were videotaped by Scott Butler, but you've never seen them. Because he won't make him available.
There's there there it is.
He is he said back then that if we would pay half of his production costs, and we've never done that to anybody. You know we learned a lot During the Barry Lynn thing that's where we learned to do this, but the fact the matter is The fact the matter is we we feel it's more important to make the debates available to people Than to worry about trying to make it quote-unquote fair of us.
I Don't think it is fair quote-unquote for us To bear the entire load. I mean, I don't know what it costs to ship The sound system and video video equipment all the rest of stuff from Phoenix to New York ship it back again 14 hours worth of work putting it up taking it down using it etc.
Etc. We do all that. Yeah, which is that I don't want to know yeah, I don't want to see our shipping bill for that one and so. There you go. We do all that I don't think that's fair. I Honestly don't think that's fair, but we do it anyways because we want the material to be made available and So we're already working on next year.
I Would love to have Tim Staples involved. He's no longer with st. Joseph Catholic radio some of you say I thought you said never debated. I said I'd never debate him as long as he was with st. Joseph Catholic radio because the fact the matter is We can't trust st. Joseph Catholic radio.
We cannot trust them is it st. Joseph communications? Are they hmm okay all right st. Joseph communications Sorry st. Joseph Catholic radio if you're not associated with Terry Barber and st. Joseph communications, and I apologize but the fact the matter is we can't trust them and Yeah, we can't trust them because when they write to you and say here is what We will do and then you get there, and they do the opposite and then you say here's what you wrote.
And they go we don't care. There's nothing you can do about that so there have been no more debate to Tim Staples since that time.
Now.
He's now with Catholic answers. He's now off to the Catholic answer staff, and we could we communicated with him, and he said I don't think that we can. He says I'm not gonna be allowed to do anything for the first year and with Catholic answers, okay?
That has nothing to do with next year. 2006 is past that and so I would love to see a Debate with with Tim Staples. I think father Frank Pavone would be real good. I mean you know. People keep saying oh, you're just picking on certain people look.
Are you telling me that Tim Staples is not a public speaker go on to the Catholic answers website? Go down to speakers. You can look at each person. You can actually find out what they will what they charge to come into your parish to speak and Let me tell you they they they average about four times.
Anything that I get because I don't have a set fee and I leave that up to the churches and man I'll tell you something I figured out. I was I was in Massachusetts, and I figured out what Jimmy Akin would have gotten.
For being in Massachusetts the weekend. I was in there. He got he would have gotten seven point eight times what the church was able to do for me. So these are these are professional speakers, okay? They're they're out there doing this all the time so father Frank Frank Frank Pavone.
You saw him during the Terry Shivo stuff, and he was in front of cameras. He's not afraid of that kind of stuff. I think that would be a great.
A.
Really really great debate on a number of different subjects. We haven't done Mary now the Marian dogmas in quite some time. We did okay. I'll take that back. We did stuff with Jerry Matta ticks. Back around the time of the mr. X debacle up in Salt Lake City.
But on Long Island the last time we did anything regarding Mary was the very first debate in the series. Which was a decade ago now, and that was all that was. Four dogmas in one night. That wasn't the way to do it that was too fast and.
So you know? We'd certainly be a bit open to that as someone jail just said white versus Han would be interesting also. Yes, it would be and we have we have tried many many times. But I said many many times before Scott Han has nothing to gain and everything to lose by being involved in the debate.
He did a couple. He did one against a Westminster seminary prof who obviously didn't know what it was really all about and what it was supposed to be about.
And You know.
He's just ain't gonna do it. We'd certainly be very very very much open to doing that but You know I wouldn't you know if you're a Roman Catholic, and you're sitting there going well look. You know you've done everything you can do with Mitch Pack well.
I wouldn't mind doing some Marian dogmas. There's still some things we could do with Mitch, and I enjoy those debates because they're real debates. They're not. They're not anything else they're they're real debates, and I enjoy that but If people say if Roman Catholics are saying what you know Bill Rutland just doesn't have the background the training to be able to handle the debate that he was asked to do or I don't think it's fair that you would debate this person or this person over here Just isn't a good speaker la la la la la well.
Why don't you folks get involved I? Think you could get farther than we could. Don't you think I mean if some of these folks who have been hesitant like Carl Keating Have been hesitant to be involved in these debates, and I know everybody says Jimmy Akin fine.
But I don't get the feeling he wants to travel if that's gonna happen it has to happen in San Diego, and we've offered that more than once in the past and those that's documented on the website, but For the great debate which we put a lot of effort in on an annual on annual basis I Think of their Roman Catholics Who were joining with us, and we're writing and saying I you know I'd like to see this I think personally there is a there is a real effort on the part of certain Roman Catholics in fact certain Roman Catholic apologists to Try to end the great debate series.
They don't want to see it continue. Even though they are they are given absolutely equal time. They are in a Roman Catholic area on Long Island. I mean Long Island come on folks What are we this this is not exactly you know the bastion of fundamentalism, right?
We're on Long Island where else would you like to have this done? I mean the only other place you'd go would be you know maybe New Orleans or the Vatican. It's in a good place. You have a good access to audience there.
We've done it long enough. We know how to let people know about when it is we can get people there. We can videotape it and we're the ones that provide to them a A ready Master tape that they can then do with what they want for no cost and yet It seems clear to me that there are certain Roman Catholic apologists and ministries that are doing everything they can to shut it down.
Because they don't want to continue. Why would that be? Why would that be well? I'll tell you what I don't have. Let me ask you a question if Roman Catholicism is Roman Catholicism claims to be or at least what old Roman Catholicism claimed to be you sort of wonder these days, but Especially for apologetically minor Roman Catholics.
They tend to be quite conservative in their view and so If Rome is the infallible Church Then why is it that we Can say to someone here, in fact, we got to put this together we ought to put together the great debates one through ten.
The great debates one through ten whole series package it one thing right there. Why is it that I can hand that to someone and say you know what I'm not perfect I didn't always have the best answer. But overall you listen to those ten debates and is the infallibility of Rome going to be established.
Is the Roman Gospel going to be established in those wide-ranging debates on the priesthood and the papacy and the mass and justification and sola scriptura and We've we've covered the range these people are always saying that you know, they can't really answer Rome on these we've we've answered.
We've answered and I would give those debates to someone how many Roman Catholic ministries Would put All ten great debates if they had them available if they're available to them. How many of them would make them all available?
How many as.
I then ask a simple question why and The answer I think is glaringly obvious. It's glaringly obvious and If you dare say well, you know, you all have been picking and choosing. Look we've we've invited Keating.
At first he said yes till he found out who would be against and he said no. We've invited Han we've invited Aitken. We've had some genus Matitix Madrid Michouda Pacwa now Rutland. We've invited Ray and Armstrong and and the others.
We have we have bent over backwards to to allow the Roman Catholic side To bring its best game to bring its a game. And we now have a decade's worth of debates completely fair debates. Nobody was given more time than anybody else.
And What is the what is the overall conclusion that one can derive from those ten years worth of debates? Well, you just listened to the tenth year. I Just thank the Lord we've had the opportunity to do it.
My goodness what a privilege it's been. Really has been privileged to have you along today as well. We will be back Lord willing next Tuesday morning. My time 11 a .m. Mountain Standard Time, which is 2 p .m. Eastern Daylight Time, which also happens to be 11 a .m Pacific Daylight Time.
Quit playing with your clocks folks, but you know when we're here. We'll be here. Hope you'll be with us Then God bless. Thanks a lot.
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 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o 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.
Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.