George/Beckwith Ecumenical Dialogue

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

Participation if you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the

United States It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James White And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line coming to you live from Newburgh, Oregon Today and that's why things will sound a little bit different than they normally do we are going to continue with our examination of the

Beckwith George ecumenical dialogue and There is going to be a bit of a difference between the level of my voice and that of the dialogue

There's really nothing I can do about it as it was I was sitting at the gate at the airport this morning

Before my flight up here to Oregon and was downloading software so we could even play

That portion of it I had sort of forgotten that we were going to be

Using this unit to directly do the webcasting here from my hotel room and therefore

I needed some something to play the File with which I don't have on this. This is the little unit that we use to Do the live webcasting of the debates and that's why

I have it with me I will be doing the live webcasting Saturday morning 10 a .m.

Will start it a little bit earlier than that obviously and Hopefully you'll be able to tune in and listen to the debate between myself and Dan Barker the head of the freedom from religion foundation

We will be debating the uniqueness of Jesus and specifically Dan's claim that Jesus was a myth or a legend that He did not actually exist as a historical person as described by the

New Testament a very common claim atheists use a lot and Hopefully as a result this debate will be very useful to many of you who are

Engaged in doing evangelism and apologetics in the West where this is a very common argument but since we have

I'd like to try to finish the study of the Beckwith George Dialogue we've got about 40 minutes of that left

Maybe a little less and so I'm gonna go ahead and get it started as I said the volume will be a little bit lower

You may have to adjust your volume to keep up with it. They're just I've got everything maxed out on the unit here

There's nothing more I can do about it, but we've tested it and people said it's understandable so we're gonna press on with it along those levels and And This begins the question and answer period

After the primary discussion has already taken place This a dialogue took place at Wheaton just a few weeks ago.

In fact, I guess I shouldn't mention There was a comment left at James Swan's website a link to Frank Beckwith's website, which is

Rome return dot blogspot .com and Reference was made to a

Brian Cross who left a comment on James Swan's Blog and it was interesting.

I didn't find the comment by mr. Cross to be overly helpful, it was interesting that We in the blog was brought up a comment that I made in the last program and that is that Canon 21 of the fourth ladder in Council makes reference to the fact that every

Roman Catholic must go to Mass at least once a year and partake of the Eucharist and confess all the sins to the priest and This was one of the comments this was made and if this is the kind of Roman Catholicism that dr

Beckwith is now promoting I can see why a lot of the apologists really don't hang with him and That is

Here's here's what the what the quote is Beckwith's answer is not a contradiction to Catholic tradition and dogmas the canons you cite are specifying star discipline star not dogma the current code of Canada laws from 1983 not ad 1215 or Trent and the tradition has long recognized what is called invincible ignorance

Wow Here's some more cafeteria style Catholicism you get to pick and choose what you accept as being binding as being a

Important revelation and and what is not I love this kind of stuff and When Someone made a comment about the fact that the fourth ladder in Council specifically says that no one would have any excuse

Specifically it says the the response provided by this Brian here is Actually, no it doesn't it says the decree should be published frequently in the churches so that no one be ignorant of it

What it says actually shows that ignorance of the decree does excuse the requirement contained in that decree if that requirement is not already known

From another source look. I'm mr.. Baptist boy, okay I've never been a Roman Catholic But I knew that Catholics had to go to mass at least once a year and make confession

I knew they had to go on Easter, and I've never been a Roman Catholic Are you telling me that Frank Beckwith raised in the

Roman Catholic Church in the? 1960s didn't know that Come on.

You've got to be kidding me But again remember this is the same religious system that Specifically Today it contains everything from Near phoenix ism on one end to the rampant universalism of The magisterium on the other end and this

Brian cross Mr.. Swan just informed me Just read from what he wrote here was raised

Pentecostal and became Reformed Presbyterian just after finishing my bachelor's degree Received an MDiv from Covenant Theological Seminary PCA in 2003 became

Anglican in October 8 2006 his wife and $2 Receiving the full community Catholic Church, so here's a another

Tiber swimmer himself doing defense of Beckwith so it is rather interesting

To see the the various ways that people handle these things and again How many times have we been told well you just don't understand

Roman Catholicism well which Roman Catholicism don't we understand? Which one is it there are so many?

Different versions of it out there and yet aren't these the very same people saying oh come home to Rome. We're so unified

We're always saying the same thing Not not quite so we pick up with the audience questions now in the ecumenical dialogue

Between Frank Beckwith and Timothy George unfortunately these questions were only addressed to one in person the other person couldn't respond

Which sort of again is well sort of like ecumenical dialogues always are so here we continue

Well I would agree with Timothy George's response in in the main

But why not provide a contrast? provide a contrast in between the

God -centered gospel and The man -centered gospel of Rome well because Timothy George has already said that both are versions of the same

Gospels sort of hard to contrast them in that way I Would obviously really want to go after why someone would say what they said

But unfortunately again, it's an ecumenical dialogue That causes people to abandon one side in favor of the other

Conversions are quite the same and and there are usually a variety of reasons but I do think if I had to pick one of the options that were offered

I do think the It's usually a package deal that is it's usually not one particular one particular

Event or argument or reason it's usually a combination of many things a kind of Vision of what constitutes the

Christian life My return to the my actually my entire journey from Catholicism to Protestantism back again is in many ways a shifted visions that is a

Different a different way to look at how to follow Christ while incorporating.

I think some of the best elements of both I do think you know one of the things I warned about in the book return to Rome is this kind of triumphalism that That Catholics and evangelicals can both suffer from I particularly pick on the

Catholics because Because in the book, I'm talking about my own return to the church and people saying things like well

Look, he returned to the church, but don't forget forever. The reason why returns because there was a departure So you have to ask yourself the question

What exactly was occurring in the American Church in the late? 1960s in the 1970s that actually resulted in many because I'm not unique many many young Catholic people

Many of whom are quite talented who are flourishing in evangelical churches And I think the

American Church has to ask that did very difficult question So the other hand, there's the what

I call the Protestant temptation, you know The attempt to kind of find some sort of sub rational account of why somebody becomes

Catholic. They were two of my friends Whose name I will names I will mention who were on a

Christian radio program As to why somebody You know,

I've never heard that Has anyone ever heard that? Is anyone serious?

I mean who seriously deals with Roman Catholicism, you know on some You know some serious level

Have you ever heard anyone say anything like that? I haven't I'm sorry I just I'm not trying to question, you know his integrity at this point

But it just strikes me that I've I've never seen that I've never heard that I Mean, it's insulting.

It has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is There there are a complex of things.

No question involved in Conversion. I mean just reading that description of Brian Cross and his conversion looks like someone

Who? Wants high church. It came from extremely low church and just couldn't get enough and keeps going and going and going there are others

I can think of one man who just seems to need to belong to a particular kind of group and Is drawn to that kind of thing?

I mean there's all sorts of reasons and let's let's make sure we understand something The vast majority in my opinion of conversions from Catholicism and to Catholicism have little to do with theology at all

The vast majority have nothing to do with truth at all. I Mean there are so many

Alleged Protestants who have no convictions whatsoever About the gospel and about what they believe who become

Roman Catholics big deal I mean if if you are a Religious Protestant without a conviction of the gospel and you become a

Roman Catholic. What difference is that? What's the big deal? I have mentioned this a number of times because people one of the objections that people

Place against doing debates is well that they might hear what the other side has to say People might become a

Catholic of you debate Catholics. Well, of course, they will of course they will I expect that to happen If you're if you're a religious if you're a religious person, but with you're not regenerate

Then you're gonna be attracted to all sorts of things and if you're exposed to things you you might go ahead and go that direction

But what does that matter? That's gonna happen We really show our humanism and how man -centered we are when we don't think about these things and so there's all sorts of reasons why people convert here there and everywhere and most of them have little to do with a fundamental

Affirmation of faith. It's the person who can demonstrate that they really did give clear

Knowledgeable evidence of what the gospel was what it meant to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ what it meant to truly be trusting in Christ alone for one's salvation who then find sacramentalism and Marianism and things like that to be attractive.

That's the person I want to hear from I want to understand how they could in essence exchange the perfection of The imputed righteousness of Christ for this treadmill that they will never get off in this life

That that is what I want to hear from somebody My people feel that way it has to be tempered by a kind of humility that that within our communities we're gonna have people leaving and going for a variety of different reasons and We should be concerned about is whether they're in fact following Christ Now they catch that what we should be concerned about is whether or not they are following Christ They can leave and follow

Christ or they can come and follow Christ. I don't believe That on any meaningful level

You can say that that has been the position of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages that That wasn't the view of the

Council of Constance It wasn't the view of the fourth ladder in Council. It wasn't the view of Trent It wasn't the view of the papal syllabus of errors but again

Today in the West you just get to pick and choose which of those you want to interpret In the way you want to interpret them,

I guess That's what you're dealing with in the deal with modern Rome The first time

I realized that my right standing with God my acceptance Would not be determined by my ability to observe sacramental precepts

But it was strictly on account of the finished work of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection and my identity in the end.

So Real recognizing the great exchange Jesus takes my guilt.

I receive his righteousness and on that basis I'm a son of God by his grace

Now that was the moderator who is a former Roman Catholic. He has left the Roman Catholic Church Isn't Isn't that statement that was just made a statement that that cannot be true in Rome's gospel

Isn't that a statement saying that when you add Purgatory you add transubstantiation you add

Priestly sacramentalism and Marian intercession and just name them

That you are in essence Denying what he just said denying what is in Galatians 2?

How can you say the two get to go together or if you say what was just said and don't say that that?

Contradicts Rome. Are you not saying that what you just said and that's beautiful testimony is just one version

That doesn't have to be the truth That is very very troubling to me

Philosophy of man or humanity What is it that human beings are and I had for years accepted an understanding of the human being

Which is very which is Thomistic that is is in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas namely that a human being is made in the image

Of God and that a human being remains identical to itself from the moment. It comes into being As a zygote and that has implications for how we treat the unborn those that are infirm

Towards the end of life Now let me just pause right there to once again mention that I've said many many times and here's another evidence of it

That dr. Beckwith has given plenty of evidence in his books and his writings since his reversion to Rome that on a foundational basis

His philosophical worldview had not been a consistently Certainly consistently reformed one and that he is joined by many who are paddling about in the middle of the

Tiber River who hold to a natural theology concept that is

Very much opposed to a reformed understanding of the supremacy and superiority of Scripture the primacy of Scripture Etc etc on that level and here is further evidence of it that Would explain again how it is that this move from his perspective could be done

As easily as it was Because of the vertical relationship established by God through justification

In other words, we don't love our neighbor in order to as it were build up merits or points to help ourselves be right with God But because God has justified us by faith, we are free to love our neighbor

Disinterestedly, I do think a particular kind of ethic if you want to call it that way of life way of thinking

Flows from that and it's one that I find very compelling If you would ask me, what's the big difference between Catholics and evangelicals

Bible -believing Catholics and evangelicals on? Ethics, I think I would say with Frank here is a place where we ought to stand together

Against the culture of death against so many of the things that infringe upon human dignity and Abortion on demand we could go down the line.

Here's a place I think we can stand together and work together for the betterment of humanity as persons who know

God in Jesus Christ There is a difference though. I think between the way in which we see nature and grace working together

We wanted to push the difference button. I would want to talk about Natural theology, which is something

I'm very suspicious on personally a lot of Catholics like it I do believe in natural law, but I make a big distinction between natural law

Which I think is affirmed in Scripture the tradition of the church and natural theology Which has its own temptations and I have to admit

I'm reading this partly through the lenses of Karl Barth and others who said the same thing But I do despite that you might say

Philosophical substratum of difference when it comes to the pressing issues of the day There we are together in the trenches and we ought to stay together and make a common witness

What is the gospel Okay now now evidently here is the question is being asked

What is the gospel at least some of the people in the audience had a clue what was going on? What is the gospel and Remember back in 1996 on the

Bible Antivan broadcast Tim Staples and I Remember the the theoretical position

I put forward we're standing outside interestingly enough same context of an abortion clinic and Someone walks up to us and asks us.

What must I do to be saved? They are asking us. What is the gospel? I said would you agree with me

Tim that the answer that we would give would be substantially Different and at least

Tim had the integrity to say yes, of course We would give a different answer to the question.

What is the gospel? Again, I just don't believe that this question was handled in an appropriately serious way

In this response and what you get is this very trimmed down?

Well, here's the real basics We're not going to go into the fact that we understand that we we interpret these things completely differently

But here's the trimmed down ecumenical version of the gospel It's actually one of it's the oldest creed as far as we know

But you're not together on that one anyone who pretends that you're together on that one is simply

Well doing what evangelicals and Catholics together did and the gift of salvation did and you're dancing around The real issues all for the sake of a feeling of warm Fuzzy ecumenism that accomplishes nothing and whoever asked this question

Didn't get a meaningful answer Because we know that even limiting the

New Testament that definition is Completely inappropriate if that's all there is the gospel and there's nothing to be said more than that not in the sense of expansion of it but Definition of what we mean by those terms what it means to believe in Christ.

Then why is there a Romans? Why isn't Romans two verses long?

Rather than 16 chapters. Why is there a Galatians? Why are there anathemas in Romans chapter in Galatians chapter 1?

Clearly Those are not just side issues. They're not just things that well we can disagree about these things

You're not walking in the Apostles footsteps when you take this kind of attitude.

Oh, well, we just all agree about that. No you don't and Saying you do and smiling and laughing and you know

This bumping or whatever else you're doing shows a tremendous in my humble opinion a tremendous disrespect for the subject matter and For the audience listening to you

As a part of our sanctification with Timothy and the only thing

I wouldn't say differently is that is that What he refers to a sanctification

I believe is part of the process of justification that is becoming more and more like Christ and We are ultimately through our baptism grafted on to the body of Christ that which that has become true sons of God and we and we live the

Christian life and we have confidence in the God in which we Which we put our trust the issue of sort of subjective assurance

I think it's kind of a dicey issue in this regard if you if you tell somebody let's say

It's sort of a going back to my sort of fictional Protestant and fictional Catholic You can find among Catholics who live a very non -christian life and assurance

That is I go to mass every week. I'm fine. Okay, and then among Protestants who in fact

Think of their assurance as a sort of consequence of going up to the altar call and they continually doubt it

And so I do think that Timothy is right that part of the gift of assurance is a quality that we receive at our conversion

But it is something that in fact Has to be put in place when we in fact pick up our crosses and follow

Jesus now notice how different Those two answers actually are when you flesh out what

Catholics and Protestants mean I mean How does a person what what is the point of conversion?

Well, it's baptism You're grafted into Christ by your baptism I cannot tell you how many people

I have met who were baptized as infants in a Roman Catholic Church Who have never known

Christ? Now if Rome is true in Roman Catholic teaching is true

Then if they were grafted into Christ by their baptism Then Christ will never be able to say to them depart from me for I never knew you

But there is no no doubt whatsoever That those people have never known

Christ There has never been repentance. There has never been spiritual life and so the foundations are completely different between a grace based theocentric gospel and a sacramentally based

Man -centered gospel, but we can use the same words and we can make it sound like we're saying the same thing and Who in the world is being served by that?

My sister is an evangelical Protestant engaged to be married to a Catholic In view of 2nd

Corinthians 614 where Paul instructs us to be equal to you What caution or concern would you have for her?

Pastor you are this is oh, this is maybe a one of the longest

Long -standing issues between Catholics and Protestants the whole question of Intermarriage as we used to think about it between Catholics and Protestants and I would

I would be concerned for both of them that they think through the Implications of the step that they're about to take and enter into it cautiously carefully advisedly and in the fear of God and I think there are great complications involved most notably.

What about the children? And this is why I think the Catholic Church has often taken in the past I'm not sure what the present state of pastoral advice is a very cautionary kind of role a very cautionary kind of role

How about saying that it's completely wrong? How about saying that it's sinful?

How about saying that it's being unequally yoked? Oh, I forgot We already got rid of the gospel as the dividing line that can't

Come into the conversation anymore. So we're left with well what we're listening to The priest will not do it now, they don't want to be married in the

Catholic Church So that's not an issue. The issue is, you know, the future in -laws and her parents, but in terms of a couple that is

Cat one Catholic one Protestant the issue that the I mean, it's probably more of an issue for the

Protestant because if in fact the agreement is to be the Catholic Church that the Then the children will have to be according to the promise made raised

Catholic On the other hand if the Catholic decides to have a Protestant minister, then there's an interesting question about whether Whether it is in fact a true sacramental marriage and this is a you know, so it's it you're right

I mean, I it's one of the and I do think and I and I don't want to appear callous here but I I think that we have to take our theology seriously and that means that sometimes

Doing the right thing means doing the thing that's not pleasant and We when we think of something as important as marriage and we think it is very as a very serious thing

We should in fact Think of our theology is just as important as those most important things that we count as marriage whether we love the person whether in fact

We're we have what our financial resources are whether in fact the person is a Christian all these things factor in But I do think you know, there is a tendency and there was this was tendency for my parents generation many of my

Many of my parents siblings or some cousins married non -catholics and what happened is the children were raised in no faith and So you have to because what they did was a simply that they just didn't take their theology seriously

So this is I you know, it's a sort of hard thing to say, but it's something that I think should be said

Timothy why do you maintain the doctrine of Scripture alone when the phrase is never actually used in the

Bible? Okay. Now, here we go Here we go. You know how

I'd answer this But that's why I don't get invited to ecumenical dialogues.

Let's see how it happens Did you catch that that seemed to place tradition above Scripture no it did place tradition above Scripture and continues to do so Which is why you have dogmas

Like the bodily assumption of Mary dogmas not doctrines not suggestions not disciplines dogmas

Unknown to Scripture, but they're there What does that mean

We want to read the scriptures and the company of the people of God through the ages What does that mean?

Does that mean that that commentary is? Necessary to an understanding of what those original authors originally intended to say so that we can have this growing

Concept of tradition that leads to dogmas that could never have been dreamed of by the original writers

You see again once you adopt the ecumenical attitude where the gospel is no longer at stake

Then you don't have to sweat these issues. You can have these nice little discussions and it doesn't

It doesn't impact eternal life. So it's just sort of something you can talk about and well like we saw last time

Sit around over a couple beers and some stogies and and have you know conversations about But have you heard anything about the supremacy of Scripture here in its nature?

the warnings against tradition Rome's Gross perversion of biblical truths based upon tradition.

No. No, you can't hear about that in an ecumenical dialogue Exactly true and what is the result of that?

What is the inevitable? result of that process I Still want to hold on to that point why?

Rip the power of that statement right out of it with that kind of compromising statement

Why add that I? Still want to hold on to that How about saying and without that we have no way of Defining the gospel and making an authoritative proclamation to the world.

Why not add that in I Just do not understand the attitude of the ecumenist

Excellent question, especially since we've seen that Dr. Beckwith isn't overly

Enamored with this listen to this response Mary Excuse me,

I hate to step it at this point, but When did it makes sense become a solid foundation for its dogma?

Isn't there sort of a big jump between those two statements?

It wasn't until 1950, but it still wasn't a dominant doctrine or a belief that was widely held by the way

They look Eastern and Western Christians. So for me The fact that there are a few things within Catholic theology that I can't fully figure out or I can't defend in particular

In a way, let's say or as clearly as I could Let's take a doctrine like The divinity of Christ or the existence of God in the inspiration of Scripture.

Oh, whoa. Whoa. Wait a minute. Yeah My mind goes back immediately to some of the very people that Frank Beckwith has credited with helping him in his conversion and their constant assertions that if we only had solo scriptura we wouldn't be able to defend things like the

Trinity and the deity of Christ and the Person and deity of the

Holy Spirit of God and my mind goes back to Jerry Matitick's when he was still an Orthodox Catholic and his statement that we have the exact same epistemological

Foundation for believing in the bodily assumption of Mary as we have for the resurrection

Hmm. I would like to be able to ask those questions of dr. Beckwith and since he's commenting on James Swan's blog who knows maybe he might listen and Might comment now notice the massive difference and the error

In making the parallel that was just made One is a fact of biblical revelation

That God and I don't know why someone would struggle with figuring this out

Use the Israelites to punish the Amorites and drive them out of the land. The Bible is very plain on this it's a direct fact of biblical revelation and That is then being compared to a dogma defined almost 2 ,000 years after the birth of Christ Unknown in the first centuries of the

Christian Church That has now been made de fide a part of the faith itself

How is that a parallel? It isn't obviously a parallel They fell into place now now hear that you've got to hear that I accept as dogma things that for example were

Unknown to any bishop at the Council of Nicaea simply because Rome Tells me to there is sola ecclesia to the max

By sort of picking it apart and isolating things from the whole because that's not the way it's really presented to you

It's presented to you organically That is a whole entity not simply as a collection of parts

So you can't look historically at the fact that this part

Was not at all a part of the primitive belief of the church. You just have to take it as a whole package

Well, there you go Different levels of teaching so for example

Those things and there are very few of them. Actually, they're the declared dogma in the history of the Catholic Church Those are sort of things that aren't going to change and there are other things

In its cyclicals and teachings and so forth The Magisterium offers a particular understanding of something that should have great deference to it

But not every Catholic the Catholics not necessarily required to believe it It's so that's the

Magisterium it's for lack of a better Better way of explaining it.

It's a it's the it's the bishopric. It's the collection of it's it's the bishops who are in authority over diocese

It also includes to the priesthood as well But that's that is the matter the Magisterium is a teaching authority of the church

I want to go back to Mary for just a minute because I think it's really an important Issue to talk about Oh, I am so tired of ecumenists

We have Rome exalting Mary to this grossly unbiblical status

Blaspheming her name by turning him to her into a mediator and what does the ecumenist do?

Well, you know, we Protestants are sort of, you know, we've just downplayed Mary too much You know what there may be truth to that statement, but this isn't the context in which to be doing this

When you're sitting there with someone who just said well I accepted things as dogma just cuz

Rome told me to which includes the bodily assumption of Mary This is not to be time with well, you know, we might want to think more about Mary.

Oh my The development of doctrine is understood is again as part of the magisterial teaching as part of the ecclesiological

Differences between us and Mary and Mary and dogma is central to that For example the dogma we were talking about a moment ago of the

Immaculate Conception Which was declared to be dogma in? 1854 and therefore must be believed de fide by Catholics as a part of that infallible

Irreversible dogmatic tradition of the church Now this was not at all the doctrine of the church that was doctrine of Mary that was held by many many other theologians in the

Catholic Church including st. Thomas Aquinas and So I would as a Protestant I would like to say to my

Catholic brothers and say wouldn't it be nice if we could go back? And reinvestigate Thomas's view of the

Immaculate Conception Maybe there's something there we can learn from that would lead us in a different path than the one that ended in 1854 but that's a very kind of non -starter argument for Catholics because of the understanding of tradition and the understanding of Magisterium and infallibility and again, it seems to me here is the place where we make least progress

And that is to do with it. We've made least pro wait, we've

We've made the least progress on Rome's claim to the faculty people to define dogma.

Well, yeah think Wow again, and by the way

According to the thing here. I've only got about ten minutes left of this. I'm not going to continue it on in fact on the

Tuesday dividing line, I want to be able to do a debate report and address a Calvary Chapel Chuck Smith Commentary on the

Golden Chain of Redemption, so I go ahead and go a little bit long finish this up We are live coming from Newburgh, Oregon, but I want to finish this up today

So we'll continue with this but it is truly amazing to listen to this kind of argumentation

That Mary was immaculately conceived, but he didn't deny that she Original sin was removed.

So it had to do with more having to do with traducing as a verse creationism in terms of Insolvent unless I mean so there was a so when we talk about the immaculate conception

He doesn't believe she was immaculately conceived, but he did believe that She her original sin was removed after conception.

So it's a so it's a very I mean, I You know Aquinas I was looking this up just just recently but You know, it's just a small tiny second maybe and that she was completely cleansed but sometimes in theology important things hang on small things like, you know that little iota in You know the whole

Trinity in the doctrine of hypostasis and homoousia. It's just a little iota

So maybe you know, this is one of those little things But my point is

No, we can't

Not if not unless Rome's willing to say, you know what? Hey, we were just kidding about that infallibility stuff when they say that Well, then all bets are off We're something that that should not you know, it's kind of like the difference between the

East and the West Before 1054 you have all these differences So let's just the

Pope has said this Benedict Let's begin with 1054 in dealing with the East and we'll will you know We have so much agreement there and Cardinal Dulles said something sort of like that with reference to the the two

Marian doctrines But he said it very tentatively as I say, he didn't press that after he became a cardinal

Sounds like the fundamental difference Between the

Catholic tradition Protestant tradition. Is that of authority Frank? You've just talked about Coming to the place where you embrace the sacred tradition and magisterium as the authority upon which

You understand your faith As our last question as a parting shot

I wonder if you can say a few words about how you work through that and maybe offer a suggestion for us as to Sources we could read in order to wrestle through that further

How I Share a little bit about how I work through it when I was becoming when

I was going through the process and thinking about Returning to the church. I mean it seemed to me that there were there were two things

Two things going on and many things going on in the early church, but As as as the canon of Scripture begins being developed in the first several centuries this is a time in which the whole idea of Of a leadership in the church of bishops starts coming to the forefront.

In addition, this is the same time in which The what I call the

Catholic practices start becoming Greater aspect of the church the liturgical practices become

Central The sacraments as we know them today Start developing while at the same time the church is in fact

So about it's probably an inappropriate way to say it but selecting the books of the

New Testament or at least reading in the churches The scriptures so you have this sort of liturgical organic connection

With the reading of the scriptures Now just please note in passing. I'm trying to get to the end of this, but please note in passing that doesn't sound much like well

We have exegesis of Scripture that very Numinian Developmental this isn't really apostolic the the sacraments are

Developing at a later point in time This is why I think many of the in the apologetic community who tend to be much more conservative

Have shied away from really putting Beckwith out there in the front maybe by Testing your traditions as Jesus taught us to in Matthew 15 on the basis of that which is the honest us the early church somehow managed to have the one without to the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption and the infallible

Pope and I don't get it either

I didn't have a chance to comment on this But I think Timothy is right that the magic what my colleague Dan Williams calls the magisterial

Reformation has a much more nuanced and clear view of sola scriptura, which

Which I think a lot of American Christians because of our view of kind of personal private religious liberty tend to think of it's like Me and the

Bible and Jesus Yeah, that's always how Rome represents us, isn't it?

That's not what we believe and they stumble a lot when they actually encounter Protestants who have a

Meaningful doctrine of sola scriptura. I wonder why he doesn't criticize well Catholic answers.

It's constantly making that very error I Don't think that's the way forward

It's dishonest for one thing and it's disrespectful for another what I believe in is an ecumenism of conviction and One that arises out of a deep commitment to how we understand

God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Scriptures That sounds wonderful and if it hadn't come at the end of a dialogue that very carefully managed to avoid

Dealing with the fundamental contradictory nature of the Roman Gospel and the biblical gospel

We might be able to buy it but given where it comes. I'm sorry. You can't accept it

And from there you get a vantage point to look elsewhere and that's what brings us together I think in that quote from C .s.

Lewis at the heart of our traditions and not just on the fringes not just on the edges in terms of resources

We're talking about Cardinal Dulles a lot tonight But Cardinal Dulles gave what he called the ten rules of spiritual ecumenism and by that he meant look

We're in a state of divided communion If I were to go to Frank's Parish in Waco For mass.

I should not partake of that mess according to the rules of the Catholic Church, and I think the

Catholic Church is right And if you love the gospel you wouldn't want to partake of That blasphemy against the finished work of Christ, right?

Sounds like he'd like to he just said

I wish we were Cardinal Dulles gave us these ten rules of spiritual ecumenism

There's some things we can't do together. There's some things we can't believe together apparently

But there are some things we can work together on We can pray together

We can be concerned about the great culture around us that needs a Christian witness and needs work works of mercy and And meets meets the gospel of Jesus Christ we can tell that if we can proclaim we can read the

Bible together It's a wonderful thing and it's something that is in terms of history a fairly recent possibility

For Catholics and Protestants to do together They list a whole number of these he calls them spiritual ecumenism

I think that's a place we can begin and build from there to a deeper mutual understanding

Timothy Frank, I want to thank you. This has been a marvelous time. Thank you all for coming.

Let's give him another Well, there you go, there is the essence of of ecumenism,

I think I've made my understanding very clear and that is that the essence of ecumenism is to remove the gospel as the defining factor as a central defining factor of the

Christian faith To make the differences between these views in the gospel negotiable

Differences that do not actually impact a person's relationship to God and as such

I believe it shows disrespect to The gospel it shows disrespect

To the audience and Most importantly a disrespect to God himself and That's why

Ecumenism is not evangelism and ecumenism is something that should deeply trouble our souls

Tuesday Lord willing. We'll see you on the dividing line. Please pray for the debate on Saturday morning 10 a .m

Between myself and Dan Barker. We'll see it next Tuesday. God bless 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