June 17, 2005

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.

Debating the Roman Catholic Catechism on Salvation

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.

In.

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?

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.

Roman Catholic Controversy and the Great Debate Series

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.