George/Beckwith Ecumenical Dialogue

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line coming to you live from uh... newberg oregon today and that's why things will sound a little bit different than they normally do. We're going to continue with our examination of the back with 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 uh... as it was i was sitting at the gates at the airport this morning uh... before my flight up here to oregon and uh... was downloading software so we could even play uh... that portion of it i had sort of forgotten and that's uh... we were going to be using this unit to directly do the webcasting uh... here from my hotel room and therefore i needed some something to play the uh... file with which i don't have on this.

This is the little unit that we use to uh... uh... 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 ten a .m. We'll start it a little bit earlier than that obviously and uh... hopefully you'll be able to tune in listen to the debate between myself and dan barker the head of the freedom from religion foundation.

We'll be debating the uniqueness of jesus and specifically dan's claim that jesus is a myth or a legend uh... that uh... uh... 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 uh... to many of you who are uh... engaged in doing evangelism apologetics uh... in uh... the west where this is a very common argument.

But since we have uh... i'd like to try to finish the study of the uh... uh... back with george dialogue about forty minutes of that left uh... maybe a little less and so uh... i'm gonna go ahead and get started.

As i said the volume will be a little lower. You may have to adjust your volume uh... to keep up with that. They're just i've got everything maxed out on the unit here uh... there's nothing more i can do about it but uh... we've tested it and people said it's understandable so we're gonna press on with it along those levels.

The Audience Questions Begin After the Primary Dialogue

And uh... uh... this begins the question and answer period uh... after the primary discussion has already taken place uh... this a dialogue took place at uh... wheaton uh... just a few weeks ago. In fact i guess i should mention uh... there was uh... a a comment left at james swan's uh... website uh... a uh... link to uh... frank beckwith's uh... website which is rome return dot blogspot dot com.

And uh... uh... reference was made to a brian cross who left a comment on james swan's uh... blog. And it was interesting i i didn't find the uh... comment by mister cross to be uh... overly uh... helpful.

It was interesting that uh... in the blog was brought up a comment that i made in the last program and that is that uh... canon twenty one of the fourth ladder in council makes reference to the fact that uh... 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 uh... this was one of the comments that was made. And if this is the kind of roman catholicism that uh... doctor beckwith is now promoting i can see why a lot of the apologists really don't uh... hang with them.

And uh... that is uh... 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 canon laws from nineteen eighty three not eighty twelve fifteen or trends.

And the tradition has long recognized what is called invincible ignorance. Here's some more cafeteria style catholicism. You get to pick and choose uh... what you accept as being binding as being uh... a a important revelation.

And and what is not. I i love this kind of stuff. And uh... uh... when someone made a comment about the fact that the fourth latern council specifically says that no one would have any excuse uh... specifically it says uh... the the response provided by this brian here is that 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.

I'm mister 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 the stir. And i've never been a roman catholic.

Are you telling me that frank beckwith raised in the roman catholic church in the nineteen sixties didn't know that. Come on. You've got to be kidding me uh... but again uh... remember this is the same religious system uh... that's uh... specifically uh... today it contains everything from uh... near phoeniitism on one end to the rampant universalism uh... of the magisterium on the other end.

And this brian cross uh... mister swan just inform me uh... 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 two thousand three became anglican october eight two thousand six his wife and two dollars receiving full community catholic church.

So uh... here's a another uh... tiber swimmer himself uh... doing defense of uh... of beckwith. So it is uh... rather interesting uh... uh... to see the the various ways that people have these things again uh... how many times have we've been told what you think.

You just don't understand roman catholicism. Well which roman catholicism. Don't we understand. Which one is it. There are so different versions of it out there. And yet aren't these the very same people saying all come home to rome were so unified were always saying the same thing uh...

Not. Not quite. So we pick up with the audience questions. Now in the ecumenical dialogue uh... between uh... frank beckwith and to the judge. Unfortunately these questions were only addressed to one person.

The other person couldn't respond uh... which sort of again uh... is so like a chemical dialogues always are so here we continue. Well uh... i would agree uh... with timothy george's response in in the main uh... but why not provide a contrast uh... provide a contrast in in between the god-centered gospel and the man-centered gospel of rome.

Well because timothy george's already said that both their versions of the same gospel so hard to contrast them in that way uh... i would obviously really want to go after. Why someone would say what they said uh... but unfortunately again it's an ecumenical dialogue.

And i've never heard that.

Uh... has anyone ever heard that uh... is anyone serious i mean who seriously deals with roman catholicism. You know on some you know some serious level uh... have you ever heard anyone say anything like that.

I haven't uh... I'm sorry i i just uh... i'm not trying to question uh... you know his integrity at this point uh... but it just strikes me that i've i've never seen that i've never heard that uh... I mean it's insulting.

It has nothing to do with how intelligent someone uh... 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 uh... who wants high church it came from extremely low church and just couldn't get enough and keeps going and going and going.

Uh... there are others uh... i can think of one man who just seems to need to belong to a particular kind of group and uh... is is drawn to that kind of of thing. I mean there's all sorts of reasons. And let's let's 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 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. Uh... What. 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 they might hear what the other side has to say.

People might become a catholic if 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 going to be attracted to all sorts of things.

And if you're exposed to things you you might go ahead and go that direction. What does that matter. That's gonna happen it we we really show our humanism uh... 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 uh... and uh... most of them have little to do with a a a fundamental uh... affirmation of 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 understand how they could uh... 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 now to catch that what we should be concerned about is whether or not they're 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 trend uh... it wasn't the view of the papal syllabus of errors. But again uh... today in the west you just get to pick and choose which of those you want to interpret uh... in the way you want to interpret them.

I guess uh... that's what you're dealing with in the deal with modern rome now that was the moderator who is a former roman catholic he has left the roman catholic church. Uh... 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 marion intercession and just name them that you are in essence denying what he just said denying what is in galatians two.

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. 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 uh... that doctor 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 reef certainly consistently reformed one.

He is joined by many who are paddling about in the middle of the tiber river uh... who hold to a uh... natural theology concept uh... that is uh... very much opposed to a reformed understanding of the supremacy and superiority of scripture the primacy of scripture uh... etcetera etcetera on that level.

And here is further evidence of it that's uh... would explain again how it is that this move from his perspective could be done uh... as as easily as it was. 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 nineteen ninety six on the bible and span broadcast tim staples and i remember that 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're asking 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 him integrity to say yes. Of course uh... we would give a different answer to the question what is the gospel.

Uh... again i'd just don't believe that this question was handled in an appropriately serious way uh... in this response. And what you get is this very trimmed down. Well here's the real basics were 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. 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 the 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 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 sixteen chapters. Why is there a galatians. Why are there anathemas in galatians chapter one. 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 fist 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 now notice how different those two answers actually are.

When you flesh out what catholics and protestants 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 and 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's never been repentance. There's 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 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. 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. Okay now here we go. Here we go. You know how i'd answer this. Uh... but that's why i don't get invited to ecumenical dialogues. Let's see how it happens.

Now 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 in the company of the people of god through the ages. What does that mean. Does that mean. 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 uh... 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 no. Hear about that in an ecumenical 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 uh... enamored with this. Listen to this response.

Excuse me i hate to step in 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. Well wait a minute. Uh... my mind goes back immediately uh... 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 sola 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 matitix 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.

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 uh... in making the parallel that was just made uh... 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's very plain on this. It's a direct fact of of biblical revelation and that is then being compared to a dogma defined almost two thousand years after the birth of christ unknown in the first centuries of the christian church that is now been made de fide a part of the faith itself.

How is that a parallel. Isn't obviously a parallel. Now hear that you've got to hear that i accept as dogma things that for example were unknown to any bishop of the council of nicaea simply because rome tells me to there is sola ecclesia to the max.

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

Well i am so tired of ecumenist.

Uh... we we have rome exalting mary to this grossly unbiblical status blaspheming her name by turning her into a mediator. And what does the ecumenist do. Well you know we protestants a 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 because rome told me to which includes the bodily assumption of mary.

This is not the time when well you know we might want to think more about mary. Uh... my we've made least progress uh... weekly. And we made the least progress uh... on rome's claim to have probably people to defy dogma.

Well yes uh... while uh... again and by the way according to the thing i've i've only got about ten minutes left of this. I'm not gonna continue it on. In fact on the tuesday dividing line i want to be able to debate report and address a uh... calvary chapel uh... chuck smith uh... commentary on the golden chain redemption.

So i go ahead and a little bit long finish this up. We are live coming from uh... newberg oregon but i want to finish this up today uh... so we'll continue with this. But it is truly amazing to listen to uh... this kind of of argumentation.

No we can't not if not less rome's willing to say you know what a we were just kidding about that infallibility stuff when they say that. Well then all bets are off.

And just please note in passing i'm trying to get to the end of this but.

Uh... please note in passing that doesn't sound much like well we have exegesis of scripture that uh... very uh... new minyan developmental this isn't really apostolic. The the sacraments are developing at a later point in time and this is why i think many of the in the apologetic community who tend to be much more conservative uh... have uh... shied away from uh... really putting up back without their in the front.

Maybe by testing your traditions as jesus taught us to in matthew fifteen. 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 infallible pope and.

I don't get it either.

Yeah that's always how rome represents this isn't it. That's not what we believe in. 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. 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 can't accept it. 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. It's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's uh... there is the essence of uh... of ecumenism uh... 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 the between these views in the gospel uh... negotiable uh... 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 uh... to the audience and most importantly a disrespect to god himself. And that's why ecumenism is not evangelism. And ecumenism is something that uh... should deeply trouble our souls.

Tuesday lord willing we'll see you on the divine line. Please pray for the debate on saturday morning ten a m between myself and dan barker. We'll see you next tuesday.