Today on the Painfully Obviously Dividing Line Part 5

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 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James White And then the final thing is and I don't recommend that you give this to her.

I recommend this for you I participated in a very spirited debate with a Protestant called

James White and this man has Oh gosh,

I don't know Yeah, I guess the best way I could describe it is he has many different debates that he's done with with various religious groups including

Catholics and I debated him two times one in particular on this very subject it was in 2002 we debated the communion of Saints and it also included a section dealing with the issue of venerating

Crucifixes and images Mary and the Saints that debate is available in video and audio format at my website

Patrick Madrid comm and I would recommend that you get that and listen to it you can download it directly to your iPod if you want it's called the great debate and I recommend it primarily because it shows so painfully obviously how

Really unbiblical the arguments were that were raised against the Catholic Church's teaching

I mean there were many Bible verses cited But they were in no way coherent or cohesive in terms of any type of a meaningful

Argument against the communion of Saints and that shows it very very clearly The other thing is you're going to learn how to respond to those types of arguments that might seem forceful on the surface

But in fact really don't hold any water. I strongly recommend it as a teaching tool for Catholics to understand how many many non

Catholics Misunderstand the communion of Saints and some of the arguments that they attempt to make against it against this truth

So there you have Patrick Madrid and Catholic answers live and he is talking about our 2002 debate which we have been reviewing now for about two weeks and in fact have come to the closing statements and audience questions of that debate

There we heard Patrick say that is painfully obviously clear that The arguments against the

Roman Catholic position are unbiblical Incoherent and that this is a training mechanism.

This is how you as a Catholic it can demonstrate these things and We're up to closing statements now

So we're still waiting for the painfully obviously part and the incoherent biblical part I was gonna say you gotta give him kudos on one point and that was he didn't call you a rabid anti -catholic

I he was thinking about it. I can I can see on the waveform here this this long pause

So anyway, we have been listening to this for quite some time now as I said We are to the closing statements.

Each one is 10 minutes long and Let's dive right in Well It's been a long night

It's been a good night though, I think Because it's done a couple of things. First of all, it's given me a chance to Present the case for the

Catholic Church, even though it was an abbreviated case I recognize that the constraints of time work against us

Jim probably has a lot more that he'd like to say I certainly have a lot more I'd like to say a lot more evidence to bring out but the fact is

I think we've been able to at least show the General parameters of what divides us on this subject and I'd like to recap those in just a moment

But first I want to point out what we have here tonight. We have a problem. We have no more more pointedly we have a controversy and I think the controversy really stems from the question of who is really able to Determine what the church believed in the early centuries

Now I would argue that not only were the councils those mechanisms that were able to do that We read about the first council that did that in Acts chapter 15 when the the council was able to deliberate on the subject of Gentile believers being permitted into the church without undergoing all the

Circumcision laws and kosher food laws. We see the in the New Testament itself the church operating in council

To make these determinations and my brothers and sisters those determinations were binding on the

Christians who received them So the thing I'd like to point out here is that the early church had the authority to be able to interpret the biblical data and Apply it to the way in which it lived out its life including the liturgies including the prayers including the way in which the church expressed her belief in the importance of the

Saints now, I know that Jim Says that that is not Appropriate or that is not true.

That is not to be believed or accepted tonight But I am standing here. Of course what I said was there is no unanimous understanding

I pointed to not only our church fathers but to the Council of Elvira that said otherwise and that they have to what you see then is they are being

Reinterpreted in light of later teaching and light of Sola Ecclesia. I Presented the facts and all he's doing is demonstrating that in light of Sola Ecclesia we can ignore

Contradictory evidence because well because the church says so tonight to say that when

Jesus said in Luke 10 5th 10 16 He who listens to you listens to me.

He who rejects you rejects me. He was imparting authority to somebody

To speak in his name now, I've heard this claim so many times before that the early church was not the

Catholic Church. I Defy anybody including

Jim to really examine What the early

Christians believed and taught just read their words for themselves yeah, and of course

I have done that and I Defy Patrick Madrid to show me a single bishop the

Council of Nicaea that believed as dogma what Patrick Madrid Demands you believe is dogma today one just one.

Give me a name You'll never get a name because there was nobody there who believed everything the Roman Catholic today believes is dogma

That's fact you can you can jump around that fact ignore that fact Close your ears close your eyes.

What do you want to do? but that's fact and We have documented on this program many times before where Roman Catholic apologists like Steve Ray Tim Staples will claim make this very same claim if you just read what there's look at what

Ignatius said about the Eucharist and Then you actually get into it and do and I do with it what those guys can't do with it and actually

Translate it in its context and it's not talking about that at all It's talking about Gnostics and it's talking about Gnosticism and why they deny

What the Christians believe because well Jesus doesn't have a physical body you see he's just a phantom and so we when

I can engage in all this stuff that he really didn't die on a cross and all the rest that stuff and So, you know, it's it's very

Common, you know, they have to make this claim Just just ignore the the problems with just just go with whatever we tell you it is

So, you know, he defies me while I defy him show me one bishop at the Council of Nicaea that believes what

Patrick Madrid believes today as dogma Defines the gospel and if they believed something differently and something considerably less than what he believes today

Then that sort of makes my point and you will find That far from what he asserted a moment ago that the

Nicene Council Christians Didn't believe all these different things that the Catholic Church teaches they did believe them such as they wrote about them and not only that Yeah, really

Where did they write about? the bodily assumption papal infallibility Where did they write about?

purgatory Indulgences, where did they write about transubstantiation? I'd like to see these things I've looked and I keep challenging folks show me these things and when they come up with you know a phrase here

You go and look at and go. Wait a minute. They're actually talking about this over here. That's all you've got Again facts are facts and fictions fiction, but for centuries and centuries prior to the second

Council of Nicaea in the year 787 This is amply documented. This is what we just heard a moment ago.

This is a claim That will not stand up to the scrutiny of history

Did we have anything other than that statement made like providing some documentation

No, we didn't. We just simply had it said no, we're right because we're right Sola Ecclesia, and I don't ask you to take my word for it.

I ask any of you all of you I believe are fair -minded people. I ask you to examine it for yourselves.

Go down to the local Barnes and Noble and Start reading. I'd write in the library church and you'll see what

I'm talking about There are many many other issues that we want to try to cover but let's at least deal with the issue of the one mediator argument

That was raised a little earlier first Timothy 2 5. I believe that Jesus is the one mediator now

Let's for those of you, you know, maybe forgotten Remember this is the gentleman who's now claiming that it's painfully obviously unbiblical and incoherent to argue against his position so at this point remember what

I said and That is first Timothy it says there's one God and one mediator and the term one is the same in the

Greek and So I pointed out that it really doesn't make any sense That if you could say one mediator means one main mediator with the possibility of lesser mediators, then it would follow that that's one main

God with the possibility of lesser gods and Then I pointed out that if you continue on the basis of mediation and first Timothy 2 is the fact that he lives to intercede he is the intercessor that intercession, of course comes from his

Sacrifice his role as the high priest. These are things that the Saints do not possess and hence cannot function as mediators and I drive that from what from the context of The actual writing so this must be because we haven't gotten it to now so it must be here in the closing statement that Patrick demonstrates what he's now claiming and that is that this is

Painfully obviously where the incoherence of my biblical presentation will be seen.

So let's let's see if he goes in the same depth Here in first Timothy 2 that I did in making my presentation

He is the one in the only one who can bridge the gap of sin Between where we are stranded in alienation and where God is in all holiness

Only Christ can do that. Why because only Christ is God Mary is not

God. St. Stephen is not God. St. Michael the Archangel is not God None of them have the ability to be the one mediator but notice that Jesus shares

The different unique roles that he has in subordinate ways with his friends, for example

Jesus is the king of kings, isn't he? Did we Did I did we just leave first Timothy 2?

I think we just left first Timothy 2 and And didn't even touch on the actual text of first Timothy 2

So I think what's painfully obvious here is Is Painfully obvious. He's the king

I believe and Yet Jesus says that the Apostles that all Christians are going to reign as kings in heaven wearing crowns sitting on thrones

Jesus is the creator the book of Hebrews tells us But he shares that procreative role with us with human mothers and fathers

We have a subordinate share in the way in which God ultimately creates he creates through men and women

Okay, now I hope you're following this because If you're in Christ and you reign with him according book of Revelation that means you're participating in kingship and If you have children then you're participating in creation

Now I would call that means And Don't Non -christians have kids too.

Could you check on that? Could you Google that? I think non -christian people have children

Does that mean that they like that Jesus is sharing his creative?

powers with unbelievers, I Guess that's that's guess.

That's what it means. We'll have to maybe non -christians don't have children. We'll have to check that out Jesus is the supreme judge, isn't he?

Do you believe that I do? But Jesus says that Christians are going to judge in heaven.

We will judge the angels there is a subordinate share that believers have in the ministry of Christ and Did someone miss maybe?

Maybe my headphones aren't working. Right? Let me let me can we test these things? I missed the part about intercession

Did you did you catch that? I? Didn't I hmm. Well, it must have been in there because without it then it would be painfully obvious That he's really stretching things here big time

But it must have been in there because you know, it's well He says painfully obviously never taking away from what

Jesus has done Never taking away the uniqueness of his role But we see over and over and over again that Jesus shares these roles with his followers

That's why my friends in 1st Timothy 2 verses 1 through 4. That's why st

Paul can say not what Jim was implying a few minutes ago pray for people on earth

Pray only when you're on earth pray for Kings pray for the people who are persecuting Christians. That's not what the passage says

Wow Okay, I mean think about this What could you do with the text of Scripture when it becomes this kind of absolute

Plato? It doesn't say anything about on this earth I mean, it's just like the

Mormons when they say well that stuff about one gods only for this planet

That doesn't say there aren't gods elsewhere It's the exact same argumentation, isn't it?

It's a reference to the people on Kolob. There you go. I mean, come on Wow About painfully obvious there's something that's really painfully obvious and that is one of us can go the text and read it in its context and In the context of the people who would have originally received these words and they are told to pray for those

Who are in positions of authority and it's so painfully obvious Who that is and what is the

Catholic do? Well, it doesn't just say here on earth I mean it could it could mean it, you know after you're dead

What is there a postal service in heaven? Paul wrote that well, it's Timothy dead

This is written to Timothy for crying out loud. He was alive. Hello. I Mean talk about tearing the scriptures apart

Whoa, there's there's painfully obvious for you the passage says pray for Everyone Everyone and this command to pray is not restricted just to those of us here on earth

Nothing in the context would imply that nothing in the context would apply

Think about this folks. This man is standing in front of an audience of people

He's saying what that means is you need to pray for everyone, you know, I'll just took on a whole just took on a

Not even the Armenians thought of this one. Not even Dave Hunt came up with this one.

Wow. I Mean you not you not only do you need to pray for everybody you need to get out the

Ephesian phone book But you need to send out for the Philippian phone book and the Roman phone book and you need to go to Africa and you need to get all their names and you need but that that's just the beginning because you got to go back in time and you got to pray for everybody who's

Ever lived wherever they are. You gotta pray for everybody. I've never heard of anything like this

It's just ridiculous. It is beyond ridiculous. Go to Salt Lake and get out the genealogy

That's what you got to do without that blood and we couldn't have done that and so the Mormons were kind enough to put all that stuff on to you know genealogy .com

for us, so Wow, okay. There you go. There's Painfully obvious Exegesis of 1st

Timothy chapter 2 Unbelievable. This is a standing command in Scripture that Christians are called upon to pray for and assist as st

Paul says to bear one another's burdens and by so doing we will fulfill the law of Christ You and I have burdens here.

Isn't it fascinating that Paul actually defines that they are praying for Unbelievers in that context and somehow that can turn into bearing one another's burdens

There once you accept sola ecclesia the meaning of the words of the text of Scripture becomes

Irrelevant, it's no longer your ultimate authority. It must bow to whatever the church says on earth, don't we?

we struggle with sin we struggle with all kinds of Adversity here on earth and we rely on one another's prayers, don't we?

I asked a whole lot of people to pray for me tonight in the days and weeks leading up to this debate

Why because I need prayer This is a challenging setting

You need prayer and the thing that separates so sadly This is this is a tragedy really the thing that separates us is that every

Sunday millions of Christians around the world Recite the words of the Apostles Creed and the

Nicene Creed and those words include the words We believe in the communion of Saints Now as a

Catholic, I believe that that communion Transcends time and space and as I pointed out to you in my opening remarks

Through those seven points. There is nothing in Scripture that would indicate that the unity that you and I have in and through Jesus Christ is somehow

Severed or somehow Restricted or in some other way diminished if you and I have the capability even

I would add The admonition the exhortation from Holy Scripture to pray for one another and to assist one another here on earth

We have all the more Reason to do that when we're in heaven perfected in righteousness and I'm afraid to say that Jim has not offered us a single example from Scripture or the early church and Remember that was the that was the thesis for tonight's debate

That this act of asking for the intercession of the Saints venerating them etc

Is not consistent with Scripture in Christian tradition That's called wishful thinking

That's called stating facts that are directly contrary to the truth in hopes that somebody sitting in front of you has such a short

Memory that they won't remember what happened only at this point about eight minutes earlier when

I did well all of exactly that that's truly amazing it is

Yes And the seven points that I laid out remember showed it was like it like links in a chain and plan that there's one body

Not one in heaven and one on earth all members of the body are united in Christ death does not separate us etc

That's the real issue here tonight if the Bible is to be understood according to its plain reading then all

Christians including those in heaven are part of that organic body of Christ and contribute to the to the lifting up to the

Improvement of the spiritual well -being of everyone else. Remember what st. Paul said in 1st Corinthians chapter 12

This is really a forceful passage and it pains me when I hear my friend

Jim here Saying well that just refers to the local assembly. No It refers to the whole church st

Paul said I'll read it again Verse 12 as a body is one though It has many parts and all the parts of the body though many are one body.

So also Christ For in one spirit, we were all baptized into the one body

Whether Jews or Greeks slaves or free persons and we were all given to drink of one spirit

Now the body is not a single part But many if a foot should say because I am NOT a hand

I do not belong to the body It does not for this reason belong any less to the body or if the near should say because I am

NOT an eye I do not belong to the body It does not for this reason belong any less to the body If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be if the whole body were hearing?

Where would the sense of smell be? But as it is God has placed the parts each one of them in the body as he intended if they were all one part

Where would the body be? But as it is there are many parts yet one body the eye cannot say to the hand

I do not need you nor again. Can the head say to the feet? I do not need you tonight what we have witnessed here is

One of the members of the body of Christ saying to all those members of the body of Christ in heaven

I do not need you Wow. I Am here to say tonight that we do need our brothers and sisters in heaven

We do need their prayers and they are there praying for us and I thank you for your patience.

Good night and God bless you Of course, it is sadly a very obvious misrepresentation that that is what

I have said. I pointed out the first Corinthians chapter 12 is about the use of the gifts the

Holy Spirit within service in the ministry of the body of Christ and Obviously as I have pointed out and no reference no reputation has been offered that changes when a person enters in the presence of God When the passage in first Timothy 2 speaks of praying for everyone it is pure Eisegesis to mean and that means for saints in heaven

Because as I've pointed out if I pray for someone that they would strive against sin That's irrelevant to a person who's in heaven that shows the change that takes place

When a person enters into rest and peace in Christ, I Have been defied to show

Mr. Madrid Anyone who denied the thing he said I would like to challenge instead of defy.

Mr Madrid to find me one council father at the Council of Nicaea and I was talking about 325

One council father at Nicaea who believed what? Mr. Madrid dogmatically believes today about the papacy purgatory indulgences the priesthood and all the

Marian dogmas Not a one did and Roman Catholic historians admit it

We were told the issue tonight is about what the early church believed it's not The thesis was about Christian tradition as I've pointed out.

That is a very selective thing Rome just says that's tradition That isn't I showed you his councils have showed you statements and Roman Catholic sources admit that these were a part of the patristic sources

How about we allow Peter to interpret things in Acts 10 25 to 26 when

Cornelius bowed before him? He was just showing him honor, right? I mean Peter is worthy of honor, isn't he was down the monitor amount of transfiguration

Apostle when Cornelius bows before him. What does Peter do? Don't do that. I'm just a man

When in Revelation chapter 19 their angel has shown John all these tremendous things and that angel deserves honor

And so John bows down before the angel and the angels don't do that worship God alone

Let's let those early church fathers Interpret for us because we know what they

Believed because it's been provided for us in Scripture True worship is determined in its nature solely by what

God says is pleasing to him Man has no place determining what is right and proper worship.

Only God can and has revealed what is proper and true worship So seriously does

God take the matter of our acknowledging him as our creator and him alone that he identifies Idolatry is one of the most heinous and grievous sins in his sight

Two very very unpopular passages unpopular in the sense that they do not fit with today's man -centered religions

Solemnly testified to the importance of offering pure and proper worship to God Both these passages speak to the importance of obeying what

God has revealed concerning how he is to be worshipped first Leviticus chapter 10 Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron having been fully instructed in the proper form of worship took liberties going beyond What God had ordained?

We read in verses 1 through 3 now David Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron took their respective firepans and after putting fire in them placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the

Lord which he had not commanded them and Fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them and they died before the

Lord Then Moses said to Aaron it is what the Lord spoke saying by those who come near me

I will be treated as holy and before all the people I will be honored. So Aaron therefore kept silent

Modern man might make many excuses for Nadab and Abihu man might say that they were new to the job

That they were simply expressing freedom in worship Such things may impress post -modern

Americans, but obviously did not impress the Almighty By those who come near to God, he will be treated as holy to violate

God's own revealed Will concerning how he is to be worshipped is to treat him as unholy There is no neutrality here

Violate God's commands and you engage in idolatry The punishment may not come as quickly as it did for Nadab and Abihu, but it will be just as certain anyway

Nadab and Abihu went beyond what God commanded as We've seen this evening

Rome has as well The second passage is even more striking when David is taking the ark back to Jerusalem after God strikes the

Philistines for keeping possession of it An incident takes place that illustrates our point this evening with great force in 2nd

Samuel 6 beginning of verse 3 we read they placed the ark of God on a new cart that they might bring it from the house

Of Abinadab which was on the hill and Uzzah and Ahio the sons of Abinadab were leading the new cart

So they brought it with the ark of God from the house of Abinadab which was on the hill and Ahio was walking ahead of the cart

Meanwhile of the ark meanwhile David and all the house of Israel were Celebrating before the

Lord with all kinds of instruments made of firwood and with lyres harps tambourines castanets and cymbals

When they came to the threshing floor of naked Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it for the oxen nearly upset it and the anger of the

Lord Burned against Uzzah and God struck him down there for his irreverence and he died there by the ark of God David became angry because the

Lord's outburst against Uzzah and that place is called Perez Uzzah to this day You see

God had told Israel to carry the ark on poles not on a cart David and the people were in violation of God's revealed will oh surely

They were having a grand time David and the people were dancing and having a wonderful worship experience at least from the human standpoint

But the human standpoint is irrelevant member. We were told the key of this debate tonight is intention

Not from God's perspective modern men Want to excuse

Uzzah for what he did wasn't he just trying to help wasn't his intention to do something good

How could God hold him accountable for what he did didn't someone else tell him to walk where he was walking Wasn't it really

David's fault of the priest's fault? Maybe this was how Uzzah had been taught. Maybe he was following a tradition of the elders or the infallible

Jewish magisterium It didn't matter He touched the ark of God which represented his holy presence with the people of Israel and despite the fact that it ruined

David's party God struck Uzzah dead There is no biblical difference between worshiping someone and serving someone in the religious context

Lottery and duly are both terms that go back to a single concept in the Bible as we have seen To worship is both to bow down and to serve you cannot separate them

There is no biblical distinction between lottery and duly either in usage or in logical meaning in the context of our religious attitude and posture

Which is surely what prayer and veneration of Saints angels or images involves the

Lottery a duly a distinction is without substance or meaning Pleading the

Lottery a duly a distinction would not have saved a Jew caught bowing before a statue of an ancestor and pleading it before a

Holy God today will have no born more benefit. God's holiness has not changed with our cultural change

The Bible knows nothing of offering prayer to anyone but God Where prayer is an act of worship acknowledging the authority and power of the one being prayed to This is why though.

The New Testament is still being written. Well after Christian martyrs are entering into the presence of God There is no unambiguous reference to any communication with them

Misused apocalyptic passages in the book of Revelation do not provide a sound foundation the violation of God's command against idolatry

The 24 elders were not the objects of prayer or veneration by people on earth You may well be able to honestly say

That you were ignorant of the biblical facts concerning Lottery a duly a proscenio of odd, whatever

God has been merciful to you Allowing you to know the truth this evening It is quite possible that the men who met at the second

Nicene Council were likewise ignorant of the biblical facts Their error may have led to the tradition that you have held that has nullified the

Word of God on this vital issue They will bear their burden before God, but you will bear yours as well

Jesus warned us about following allegedly divine traditions that nullify the scriptures It will be no excuse my friends to say but but I thought the church was infallible

Jesus did not accept that idea when the Jews pressed the traditions of the elders upon him Which they thought came from Moses nor should you?

What will you do now? Will you acknowledge God's absolute right to determine what is and what is not pleasing worship before him

My friends. I believe very firmly only God's Spirit can make us willing and desirous of worshiping him a right

I Pray he will grant to all here this evening that gift of grace that leads to just such obedience

Thank you very much now that's the end of the formal debate and And Again if someone would like to claim that it was made painfully obvious That the arguments

Against the Roman Catholic position are unbiblical and incoherent I Simply say to you what debate were you listening to do you have the version where my part was taken out?

Is that that's about the only way I can come up with it. I'm sorry Since mr. Madrid clearly thinks that he won the debate.

I think very clearly that I won the debate and it wasn't even very close from any meaningful angle

Now it seems that the Roman Catholics have adopted the idea that as long as they don't end up Just collapsing like Stravinsky's did that that's a victory as long as you stay up there

And you're still talking at the end of three and a half hours Somehow you win I Would like to suggest to you that if the

Roman Catholic Church is the only true church on earth the infallible Church the

Vicar of Christ leads it and all the rest of this stuff I should be the one up there drooling at the end of three and a half hours

I Should not be able to make the kind of case that I make so I suggest that maybe a meaningful standard might be what you need to adopt now at This point

We began audience questions, and I'm gonna skip past bills instructions which basically are please ask questions and Get right to the audience questions themselves, so let's

Let's listen to them. There was one there were two cheap shots in the audience questions. We were asked to be succinct and at one point

I made the stupid mistake of Doing exactly what

I've been asked to do and mr. Madrid took full advantage of it And I thought it was really cheesy And then we'll talk about the other one we get to it if we get to it in this half -hour

Multitude millions at the same time is this not an attribute that only belongs to God is problematic every is problematic

Okay, I thought that was let's go back here. Let's try this one of venerating The wrong image no guess not

I Know one person there. We will give the other speaker an opportunity to respond.

I'm asking that both mr. Madrid and mr. White be concise so that in the 45 minutes that we have we can do catch that he asked us to be concise in other words

Don't take the full time if you don't need to well I will rue obeying that a little bit here in a couple minutes as many questions as possible

James you ready The first questioner, please the microphone is not on with the one two one two there we go hear you

Mr.. Madrid suppose your Version of Mary or one of the

Saints is wrong in terms of its actual picture What consequence would there be for example?

Let's say Jesus is black or Hispanic? In his physical appearance, let's say one of the

Saints is likewise In your theology, what would be the consequence of venerating?

the wrong image No consequence whatsoever because the veneration does not

Is not for the image itself the veneration goes to the person that the image represents

And when we get to heaven we'll find out what Jesus looked like and what a given

Saint looked like the fact that we have Representations of them is for our benefit to remind us of those people

But there is no problem whatsoever if we depict st. Luke with dark hair, and it turns out he had blonde hair for example

For white you care to make a comment and just very briefly my whole concern about this whole issue

Is the fact that all believers are Saints and hence the idea of even worrying about what they look like?

Is is problematic every believer in Jesus Christ has the righteousness of Christ which is perfect and therefore

Goes directly into the presence of Christ when he dies this distinction doesn't exist our next question

Hi an answer from both if you could My question is how can Mary hear the prayers of multitude millions at the same time

Is this not an attribute that only belongs to God? Mr.. Madrid It is not an attribute that belongs only to God.

I think you're referring to the the two characteristics of Omnipotence and omnipresence omnipotence meaning that God is all -powerful.

There's nothing he cannot do Omnipresence means that he's everywhere and we have to remember that because God is infinite those attributes themselves are infinite

So that means there's no end to what God can do. There's no end or there's no limit. Let's say to what

God knows now in the case of let's say People are praying to Mary as an example

You may have untold millions of people at any given moment in the world

Praying to Mary all sorts of different languages English Spanish, etc No matter how many of those prayers ascend at any given time.

They are still finite There there is no need for omnipresence or omniscience or omnipotence.

I mentioned omniscience. That's knowing everything and So because these are finite

Numbers of prayers there is simply no Question of that intruding upon those characteristics that are property got alone

The problem is not at that end of the spectrum. The problem is with us because we can't understand how that happens

And really for us to argue that it can't happen just because we don't understand how it can happen

Would be I think a futile line of argumentation for example Jesus himself tells us in the gospel of Luke that there is great rejoicing in heaven and he makes a distinction here

There's great rejoicing in heaven He says that and then he says there's great rejoicing before the angels over the repentance of evil even a single sinner

Now how it is that we could take the same the same example and apply it here

Let's say that at any given moment. There are millions of people repenting of their sins so Jesus himself says that those individual repentances are known by those in heaven angels and saints and So we don't know how that's done

But we do know that it is done that somehow through God letting them know

They are aware of individual repentances Mr.

White there are a number of problems of what was just said I think it's a misuse the Luke in passage the point there is not to attempt to provide some discussion of How many times rejoicing takes place in heaven?

But the fact that it is God's desire to see sinful people come to him rather than righteous people

That's the whole point of Jesus context there if we read it in context read anything else into it is to misuse the passage

But the key issue here is very clear Are we I guess we're being asked to believe that once you become glorified 50 ,000 people can talk to you at once in 20 different languages and you'll understand all of them

And that this is what Saints are doing in heaven And I've raised the issue a number of times and never gotten an answer to it if it is the

Holy Spirit of God Who has the divine attribute of being able to read our hearts and minds and bring our prayers before the father?

Then who's doing this for the Saints it is a divine attribute to be able to understand the heart and mind of an individual

And so if a saint can understand my heart and mind that is a divine attribute, and that's one of the main problems here

To say well, we just don't know Given the absolute lack of any biblical evidence on this whatsoever

Shows I think the the issue of sola ecclesia here over against sola scriptura next question dr.

White If Mary and the other Saints supposedly can't handle those prayers from us on earth because they're not

God How is it then possible for Satan to be tempting all of us as constantly and consistently as he does you believe

Satan to be omniscient? No, it's through his demons Okay, so there. I gave a very concise answer

Anybody who thinks it's Satan chasing them around rather than a demonic force?

That's that you're so important that the big guy himself is on your tail You know hey

Luther took him out with the inkwell a long time ago. We don't need to worry about that, but so I just nope

It's it's through the demons. It's not Satan Satan doesn't have to be omnipotent

There's lots of demons that are involved in in this type of thing and That was dumb on my part because I thought that maybe

Patrick would then be concise and giving an answer and I was wrong Mr..

Madrid you have a response He asked me to be succinct well

I I think that what we just saw here is a clear example of dodging a bullet because that question was right on target in other words the devil is a creature and St..

Peter tells us in his second epistle that Satan is Like a roaring lion prowling around he doesn't say

Satan and his crew Satan himself the devil So there is a unique and personal quality to the temptation that Satan in the individual being himself

Carries out and the questioner was absolutely right. This is something that's going on on a global scale affecting billions of people and Jim simply just dodged the bullet by saying oh well

It's his demons doing it everyone in the room. I think understands the force of the question that it's a creature performing an unbelievable action

That we can't understand how it can be done But the fact is this creature is capable of doing it and the extension of that thought is that the

Saints in heaven Even more so because they are in in Christ and through his grace are capable of doing astounding things

Next question Mr.. Madrid, mine is a please hold the microphone close to your mind is a two -part question of mr..

Madrid Looking clearly at the Bible you are the ones that justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your heart all throughout

Why do we know that only God knows our speaking too fast? I can't follow you the Bible tells us that only God knows a man's heart

Okay, yes now this Pope that we know in this office has canonized more Saints to my understanding than the history of the whole entire

Church who are we as men to determine the heart of a man that he should become a saint and If the

Pope and past Popes were right then what if st. Christopher who millions went to their grave venerating, okay?

That's an excellent question by the way And I thank you for it the issue is not so much that the church decides to make them

Saints actually that's not the issue At all anyone who is in heaven is a saint in the particular sense that we're using the term now in the

Catholic sense But as Jim pointed out all Christians are Saints those on earth are Saints those in heaven are

Saints But according to this particular usage what the church does that at a canonization is declare that this person

Definitely is in heaven are we we're not having follow that we're having follow -ups to this I wasn't my question though my question was how we to determine who is to make it to heaven

How do we know man's heart? How does the church determine how does the church? Determined how that man gets to heaven the church determines that by by looking at the heroic qualities of that person's life

So one of the first thing that the church would examine would be virtue was this person a follower of Jesus Christ Did he live in conformity with what

Jesus asks of us? And then there are certain tests that are applied for example in order for somebody to be reckoned as a saint in heaven

With certitude then the church requests that certain miracles not particular miracles

But that there be miracles so for example when you have somebody who is dying of cancer in the hospice

Riddled with cancer Maybe only a few days to live and when that person through the intercession of a saint for example st.

Padre Pio Who was recently canonized is? completely cured Where there's no trace of the cancer the doctors are baffled

There's no way to explain it in any medical or scientific way the church will recognize that that is an exhibit that is evidence

Of the intercessory power of that person and the church declares that that person is heaven now I'm giving you a truncated version of what the process of canonization is but it's based upon did that person exhibit?

Those qualities that we know must be there for him or her to be in heaven And that's a real biblical standard isn't oh yeah

We've we there's lots of stuff in the Bible about that kind of stuff for what well if I were to take the same

Approach is the last question. I would have to say well. That's dodging a bullet we didn't hear anything about st.. Christopher at all because it does illustrate the fact that the

The whole process is a fallible one that it's based upon an unbiblical teaching

That this concept of excess merit is thoroughly and completely unbiblical

There is no treasury of merit or any other kind so the problem is that when we talk about well

I I will pray to this person, but you know this Pope may be still in purgatory or something like that that whole

Everything we're discussing here is so far beyond what you read the New Testament read the prayers

Find every prayer in the New Testament you won't find anything even remotely like this in any of the prayers of the

New Testament That's why you know we just heard about Padre Pio. I had a

Sikh Drive me in my car in a car from the airport. He was healed at 10 years of age by a by a religious leader

Does that mean that that person is something? What does that mean well it means that Satan masquerades as an angel of light is what it means

We have to have an objective standard by which to test things that standard is the Word of God I think that is clearly being illustrated this evening next questioner

This question is for mr.. White mr.. White you clarified tonight that the early church used a

Septuagint Okay, here. We go here. Here. We go. Here's Now let me let me

I got time for this. Yeah, just got time for this I remember sitting in a chat channel one night and I was watching

Phil per Vosnick and somebody else Chatting about how to track down the relatives of Eric Svensson so as to see if they could get one of them to convert back to Catholicism as a means of arguing against Eric Svensson and It has been clearly a sign of the utter

Utter degradation and desperation of wide elements of the

Roman Catholic apologetics movement That they have utilized questions like the one that we're about to hear now this particular individual

Asking a question after debate was over I was told Quite some time after the debate was over that he was out

Arguing with people in the other room where the book tables were so I went out there I walked right up to him. He was leaning over a table

I walked right up to them within a foot of him He stood up and when he saw me staying there looking at him face to face

I thought he may have needed to use the restroom at that point he started backpedaling and He started trying to he tried to go to his strength sola scriptura

I embarrassed him on the subject and eventually is through his hands. Hey, you're a professional.

I'm not and the funny thing was That about an hour later when

I was leaving the place I happened to overhear the man again in a argument with Non -catholics as I'm walking by using the very same arguments.

I had refuted and he had given up on only an hour earlier So to say that I have absolutely zero respect that individual is is an understatement

But he's going to raise the question of my sister and he's going to do so in in Absolutely disgusting fashion about the

Greek septic and it is so lame that if Patrick Madrid had a Kind bone in his body at this point.

He likewise would say it was lame and we'd move on but he Didn't and what makes it funny to me today is that in February of this year?

I went and spoke in Southern California and I was invited to come over and I wasn't speaking on Roman Catholicism.

I was speaking on Islam actually but when I went to this church in Southern, California, I there encountered a very kind woman who introduced herself to me and She is

Patrick Madrid's sister -in -law She is a former Roman Catholic She left the

Roman Catholic Church and converted and is a member of an evangelical church there in Southern, California And she had done it long before this evening in 2002 and so mr.

Madrid has family members who have left the Roman Catholic Church become Protestants Now I've known this now since February if I had known it that night.

I might have looked at Patrick oddly That he doesn't mention it But it never would cross my mind that it is an apologetic argument

Now it has never crossed my mind to look into Carl Keating's family or Patrick Madrid's family or Tim Staples family or anybody else's family

To try to dredge up some way of arguing against them and you know why it hasn't Because I defeat them fair and square.

I defeat them in the debate. I defeat them on the basis of the arguments and The only reason that I would ever think to do anything else.

Thank you very much I hate McAfee the only reason that I would think to do anything else is

If I was constantly losing the debates But I don't need to dig into their families

Because I have the truth on my side. That's the fundamental reason So here comes a probably the cheapest shot ever taken in a debate

I think I answered it quite well Personally but then listen to the fact that of course

Patrick Madrid has to pile on even though Even though I wonder, you know, should should we start a

Really really surprised by truth series and start digging up people who've converted from these folks families to write stuff for that Nah, probably not.

I think we should take the high road rather than the low road inhabited by Roman Catholic apologists

Septuagint I said the Apostles use a septuagint. Okay, that's even better. Thank you Septuagint is that the

Old Testament is that is the Old Testament? It's identical to the Catholic Bible this thing all the books that are in it

Now that your sister has converted to the Catholic Church. Does she use that Bible? Two problems two errors, and I don't know that she would know anything about this particular issue.

You'd have to ask her But the first error that you've made is to assume That the can of the septuagint is identical to yours, that's your first error

You're about a hundred and twenty years behind in your scholarship on that point if you would look for example at modern studies, you would discover that the distinction between an alleged

Palestinian and Alexandrian canon does not exist that Philo the Jew for example did not hold the apocryphal books then again

Neither did Athanasius Jerome or Gregory the Great Pope of Rome But there we did a debate on that if you'd like to hear that between myself and Jerry medics at one point but as to What my sister knows all

I know is she never talked to me about her conversion And that's right now all

I'm hearing is just what she would read in this rock magazine or something like that I don't think she has any idea what the canon of the septuagint was so I'm not sure why you'd ask me that question

Mr.. Madrid well, I am sure why it asked that question. It was just a complete low blow cheap shot

Based on ignorance because as I just pointed out it wasn't even right in the facts that he that he presented now

What should Madrid do at this point? What would I I can guarantee you what I would have done at this point

Let's hear what Madrid does that's a very interesting question to ask I I certainly don't know what

Version of Scripture Patti Bonds used Patti Bonds by the way is James's sister She came into the

Catholic Church a year and a half ago, and I don't know what version of Scripture She uses next time

I talk to her I will ask her that but I can tell you she does use the Catholic Bible that contains the

Canon of Scripture that the Catholic Church teaches includes the seven deuterocanonical books of the

Old Testament as well as sections of Esther and Daniel that were omitted from the

King James Bible The other thing I can mention is given the point that James made about not knowing

Forgive me for not being able to rephrase it exactly, but not knowing what her thought is on the matter

It's a point of interest. I think that her Her conversion story in which she is explaining

What her reasons were for becoming Catholic and how she was raised in an

Protestant home, and I think in a very Thorough and also charitable way she lays out her reasons for converting to the

Catholic Church in The sequel to surprised by truth, it's surprised by truth 3 which is coming out this fall

So anybody who has the least bit of interest in reading in her own words her reasons for that You'll be able to do that in a few months.

Well there you go I think the term painfully obvious applies here big -time

Talk about embarrassing yourself. That's what Patrick Madrid just did I want to remind you that the topic for the debate this evening is prayer to I Hadn't heard that I need to I need to let's let's listen to that again because I I think

I looked over at Patrick and I think it listened to the back -and -forth.

You'll be able to do that in a few months I want to remind you that the topic for the debate this evening is prayer to We're answering the question of the topic isn't it is prayer to and veneration of the

Saints as well as the veneration of sacred images That yeah, that's I said that I looked over. That's pretty cheap shot, and he said

I'm just answering the question He was asked yeah, right represent them is compatible with Scripture and Christian tradition and your questions

Should reflect that topic of the evening the next questioner First I'd like to thank both you gentlemen.

I direct my question to mr. Madrid in the Roman Catholic Church aren't relics that is pieces of bone or clothing of martyrs or Popes etc

Worshipped as icons in the sense that special healing powers are attributed to them

No, they're not worshipped as icons They're not worshipped at all the relics of the Saints are

Precious in the eyes of the Lord Scripture tells us that the death of his holy ones is precious in his eyes

And so the church from the earliest days Has reverence the remains of the

Saints not as some object of worship or anything like that but rather because we realize that these men and women were temples of the

Holy Spirit indwelled by by the the Spirit of God himself and therefore That in addition to the fact that they died as for them very often as martyrs

Caused their relics to be worthy of respect and so no Catholic worships the relic of any

Saints I've never met a Catholic who does I don't I've never heard of the Catholic Church ever

Proposing that we should but rather we hold them in a in a sacred memory and we reverence them That's why you sometimes will see reliquaries that that are ornate they have perhaps

Precious stones or they're in some way trying to show the the importance of this martyr

Not as an object of worship, but to show forth the glory of God through the death of his holy ones.

Mr. White Well, this again illustrates the difference between Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura There is nothing in the

New Testament that even begins to hint at such a practice or a propriety of such a practice We recognize at the time of the

Reformation the veneration of relics that gave you all sorts of indulgences So here by going and for example

Looking at a feather that allegedly came from the angel Gabriel You can receive time out of purgatory and receive grace from God from the

Treasury of Merit I think something like this. It's just simply impossible to say well, you know, that's just honor

That's just it's very very clear. This is in a religious context this is in a context of seeking grace and merit and as we have seen this evening, therefore it violates the

Biblical prohibition against idolatry And to seek to gain indulgence and grace from God and and freedom from punishment

By looking at some femur of someone who died 500 years ago is

Not a part of the Christian faith in any way shape or form and with that we will wrap up the program today

I think we have about seven or eight questions looking at this we've got about 28 minutes

I think left in the debate So we should wrap it up on Thursday and have time for the first time in a while for your phone calls

I've also got a bunch of other clips Steve Ray was on Catholic answers. So From Patrick Madrid to Steve Ray, so we've got our things to do there, but we will pick this up finish it up on Thursday Lord willing see you then.

Thanks for listening. God bless The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 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