Sophistry, Sola Scriptura, and Shane

7 views

August 22, 2006

Three calls on the DL today. First was our sophist, Jonathan Prejean, who actually managed to get me to hang up on him. That's pretty hard to do, but if you want to know how, here's how you do it: when asked simple, basic questions like, "Was the Incarnation a unique event," respond with a lengthy pause, "uuuuhhhh," and then rattle off a non-responsive answer; avoid answering all biblical questions with any biblical material, but always refer to your own (infallible) interpretation of later patristic writings; accuse me of heresy (Nestorianism) simply for not following you down the primrose path of "since the unity of divine and human in Christ does not mean we worship two Christs, but one Christ, that means everything the Bible says about worship can be thrown out, because the created has been joined to the divine," even to the point of claiming that we as the redeemed in some sense "participate" in the hypostatic union; and then, when it is pointed out that you are going backwards (defining the text by your theology rather than your theology by the text), start laughing---that will earn you the instant dialtone every time. A tremendous example of the sophistry of Prejean's form of Romanism.

Comments are disabled.

00:05: The world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is
00:18: 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.
00:28: Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
00:34: This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the
00:44: United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
00:51: James White. It really is a fundamental issue, it always has been, from the very first debate that we did on the subject of Roman Catholicism, the subject of Sola Scriptura, the authority of Scripture, as the sole and foul rule of faith, as God speaking as being the only example of God -breathed revelation, the possession of God's people today, has always been at the heart of any debate we've done.
01:18: It doesn't matter what you're talking about, you can discuss justification, you can discuss the mass, a merry priesthood, it's all going to come back down to do you have an authority outside of Scripture that can in essence say, you know what, exegesis doesn't matter, meanings of terms don't matter, context doesn't matter, history doesn't matter.
01:40: We don't derive our beliefs from the text of Scripture, instead we derive, we are the living church and therefore our beliefs are final and of themselves and then we can sort of demonstrate the consistency or claim to demonstrate the consistency that we claim to exist between our teachings and what is found in Scripture.
01:59: But fundamentally, Scripture is but one source that we derive, well, whatever we want from, quite honestly.
02:07: When it agrees with us, that's one thing. When it doesn't, well, that's something else. We just say that you don't have the right to interpret it yourself.
02:16: That has been the fundamental subject, the fundamental issue.
02:22: We can talk about tradition till the cows come home. Anyone who's read Yves Congar knows you can talk about tradition till the cows come home.
02:30: And you're going to find all sorts of different perspectives given different people. As we, from the outside, observe the ever widening spectrum of viewpoints expressed within what is called
02:41: Roman Catholicism today, we cannot help but in some senses commiserate with a gerrimatitix who finally throws his hands up in the air and says, look, what the church once taught is easy enough to determine.
02:54: And it's obvious that that's not being taught any longer. Therefore, something has gone wrong. Something's missing, et cetera, et cetera.
03:02: And so is there someone on line one?
03:10: I don't have anything in my screen on line one. No, I just know line two and line three.
03:16: I don't have line one, so I need to know who's on line one. That would help me. Anyway, these are the primary issues.
03:22: And over the past, thank you, a couple of weeks, I have just made some comments that they weren't overly unusual.
03:31: In fact, they just repeated things that I've said. In fact, the Roman Catholic controversy, which
03:37: I believe, if I'm not mistaken, came out ten years ago, yeah, ten years ago, has a chapter called
03:46: When Sola Scriptura is Rejected. And one of the points of discussion is the difference between Latria and Dulia and the distinction made by Rome over against how you would come to a conclusion as to what these terms mean if you begin with divine revelation and then descend down from that to application.
04:09: That is not how Rome does it. However, Rome does it by her own teachings.
04:16: And then you go to scripture and pick those things that are consistent with what you've decided is infallibly true and go from there.
04:22: And this is what really illustrates the difference between the two sides. And those who have listened to this program know that that becomes the issue with every group we deal with.
04:31: When Pierre, our Mormon friend, calls in and we start discussing what the
04:38: Bible teaches about salvation, what does it eventually get down to? It gets down to whether you derive your beliefs from the exegesis of the text of scripture or you get it from some place else in the
04:50: Mormon worldview. You get it from the standard works, the Mormon church, interpreted by the hierarchy of the church, prophets, apostles, and so on and so forth.
05:01: And this is a very consistent theme. We find it over and over and over again within the context of apologetics.
05:11: The one side that holds firmly to the scripture is the final and sole rule of authority for the church and fallible authority for the church.
05:19: And therefore, you begin with it. You allow it to define your terms. And if you can take
05:25: Dulia and Latria to the text of scripture, then it should be our concern.
05:31: It should be our desire to think God's thoughts after him, to define our language in light of what he has revealed.
05:40: And indeed, it goes to what we call the regulative principle of worship as to what
05:45: God finds to be acceptable worship before him. And since those subjects go directly, those terms go directly to what it means to worship
05:54: God, then we start there and we exegete the text of scripture and we examine the text of scripture.
06:00: And from that point, we then subject everything else, including the political gatherings of men down through history, to that higher authority of God speaking.
06:12: And that has become the issue. Now, how many people in the large number of responses that have been posted in various forums to just a few comments?
06:24: I commented, for example, on the and nobody's really wanted to defend the chocolate merry stuff, the chocolate drippings that people saw as merry.
06:34: Nobody wants to talk about that. But I made reference to an article where Roman Catholic priests in Africa were being asked not to engage in prayers to ancestors and other similar forms of tribal religion.
06:50: And I simply commented that it seemed rather odd to me and it seems rather inconsistent given that Rome is not under biblical authority as to define what worship is, that in essence, all she can say is, don't use those pagan idols, use ours.
07:04: And I pointed out that, you know, this wouldn't really this isn't an issue within our circles because those issues are so plain and so clear.
07:13: It isn't interesting that allegedly with only scripture, you can't have the clarity, the clarity that you can have with Rome.
07:20: And yet here's a point where we don't have any confusion as to what worship is and what proper worship is at that point.
07:27: And no one's going to be saying, oh, I wonder if we should go ahead and pray to pray to ancestors, you know.
07:32: And in fact, when you see stuff like that and in cults and isms developing, it's very obvious and it's immediately pointed out and it is it is rejected and so on and so forth.
07:43: And so I made comments about that and got a wide range of responses from it. And and I documented yesterday that one of those published on Jimmy Akin's blog simply missed the point, didn't deal with what
07:55: I had actually attempted to say and had communicated. And and the vast majority of the comments that were left have been ad hominem personal attacks that do not even begin to address the issues that have been in print for a number of years.
08:11: They are primarily posted by individuals who will never take the time to read that. But they are they they will take the time to attack me personally and question my credibility and and my teaching experience.
08:22: And even though they won't read my books and read my scholarly articles, they won't talk to any students that I've taught over the years.
08:27: They are quite certain that that I'm wrong anyway. And that just gives us an insight,
08:33: I think, into the mindset of a lot of the folks within that context. But the vast majority of the response just just completely passes over all of that material and does not seek to engage it.
08:46: And I have made the application and I've asked my blog readers, consider what this means in light of things that we have talked about before.
08:55: What happened back in June when Jimmy Akin responded to a question that named me by name out of simple ignorance?
09:03: And he just was unwilling to admit that ignorance and to to answer adequately and accurately, even though there was no shortage of information upon which he could have acted.
09:14: And I've pointed out that Rome's apologists just honestly don't seem to have much of much time to to keep up with the fact that other people will take their published writings, will actually buy their books, will actually read their books, will actually respond to their works, will actually play their comments on our programs and respond to them.
09:36: I don't remember that happening. In in reverse at all.
09:42: And I've just simply used this as an illustration. You know, there's just a fundamental difference of approach here.
09:48: And it's not just the fundamental difference approach as to what our ultimate authority is. There is a fundamental difference of approach as to what we think apologetics is and how it is to be pursued.
09:58: And we are to pursue apologetics in regards to first first foremost, glorifying
10:05: God, honoring his truth, edifying the saints and as Titus puts it, in regards to the gifts that are required, the capabilities and qualifications required for the elder there to be able to refute those who contradict.
10:25: And as Paul said to Timothy, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. And so these are the reasons one does apologetics.
10:34: But you first and foremost do so out of a commitment to God's truth. And hence you have to be have to be consistent in the in the way that you approach that.
10:44: And so we haven't I think pretty much all of our our lines are already lit up. And a number of the people who are involved in this controversy have already called in.
10:53: We'll be talking to them in just a moment, just so that if you are listening and you have not been keeping up with the blog.
11:00: Fundamental issues have been focused upon. I have I have made reference to the issue of the of the priesthood, but that really was secondary to the issue of things that I issues that I raised in regards to the nature of worship.
11:16: And I have many times said that if we go to the word of God, if we go to the ten commandments, we are told you shall not worship them or serve them.
11:28: For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers and the children of third and fourth generations, those who hate me.
11:34: And I don't think anyone's going to argue that the Ten Commandments, no matter what your view of New Covenant theology might be, the
11:41: Ten Commandments do not represent for us something that expresses God's central prescriptive will as to human behavior.
11:51: And when we come to the issue of worship, God, in speaking of false gods, says you shall not worship them or serve them.
12:03: And those two terms, worship and service, worship and service, what do they mean?
12:12: What's how are we to understand that today? Is the Bible sufficient to explain to us?
12:19: The most fundamental aspects of our worship of God. I mean, if we say the
12:25: Bible cannot even give us that, then what use is it? If it cannot tell us who God is and how we're to worship him, what use is it truly?
12:35: And. There are two terms used here, worship and service.
12:42: Now, there are a couple of different Hebrew terms when you study the terms that are used and then you study how those terms come over into the
12:50: Greek Septuagint, which then becomes the background of their utilization in the New Testament. You're able to come to the understanding that when, for example,
12:59: Paul says to the Galatians, he says, you serve those which are by nature not gods.
13:06: He wasn't saying that they weren't worshiping them. Service and worship go hand in hand.
13:11: The Hebrew term avad. Can be translated by both terms that come across into the
13:18: Greek as Latruo or Duluo or the substantival forms
13:25: Latria and Dulia coming over into the Latin eventually, because those become the terms that Rome uses in distinguishing her forms of worship and veneration.
13:37: And my point has always been that, as Paul said, you serve those which were by nature not gods.
13:46: Does that mean that that is somehow less than worshiping those which were by nature? What is greater to worship or to serve?
13:54: Or is it possible in a biblical worldview to worship without serving?
14:00: I would submit to you that it is not. If you serve an idol, you're worshiping the idol.
14:06: If you worship the idol, you're serving the idol. They may give us a fuller picture of the fullness of worship is, but you can not make an artificial distinction between them.
14:17: Can you imagine someone bringing a an idolater before Moses? He has been found bowing down before an idol in his tent.
14:28: Before a bale and he says, oh, hi, I wasn't worshiping it,
14:35: I was serving it. Do you think that would work? Do you think that would fly?
14:40: That would be, oh, Moses would say, yes, well, of course, as long as you're just giving Dulia and not
14:46: Latria, all is well. Of course not. That is an artificial distinction that has not only no basis inscription.
14:55: Here's where the difference is. Do you get your practice from scripture or do you just try to fit your practice into scripture?
15:03: The problem here is you can't do either one. There's certainly no basis for it and you can't fit into it because it would violate the meaning of what of what worship actually is.
15:15: If you're going to worship God, you're going to serve him, you're going to obey him, you're going to listen to there's a whole complex of terms that are used there of true worship of God.
15:23: And they come through into the New Testament. And if this is God's outbreathed word for us, this is
15:29: God speaking for us, then we should probably start with what he says. Don't you think before we go to what anybody else says about what these terms mean?
15:39: And I have made the argument and will continue making the argument until someone can show me where it is not a biblical argument.
15:46: I've made the argument that to rely upon some Latria -Dulia distinction.
15:54: Latria -Dulia distinction. And to do so to say, well, you know, when
16:02: I bow down before this image, when
16:09: I pray to this angel, I'm not
16:15: I'm not giving Latria, I'm giving Dulia. And when I pray to Mary over and over every day seeking her intercession,
16:24: I'm not giving her Latria, I'm giving her Hyper -Dulia. There is no biblical basis for such a distinction.
16:35: None. And again, depends where you start. If you don't think that this is God's out breathed word and it's not where you start, then you create your theology and then you're going to pick those sections of scripture you're going to believe in.
16:48: And those years ago, well, you know, it doesn't really have any application to us today. Remember in the debate that I had with Patrick Madrid, I tried to bring this up and was told it was a cheap shot to mention debates that I myself have had in the past.
17:01: I love the double standard that is constantly used. But if you've listened to that debate, you know that when
17:08: I talked about the prohibition of worshipping images.
17:15: We were told that what you need to understand, those people back then had a problem with idolatry that we don't have today.
17:20: I'm like, really, we don't have the same problem they had. And when we talked about the
17:26: Spanish council that had met and likewise prohibited that activity. Well, that's because they had a special problem with idolatry in that area.
17:34: But since we don't have that, then that's why it's not representative. And it's like, wow. So the prohibition against homosexuality in the
17:42: Old Testament, that was just because they had a problem with it then. It's OK now. How far can you take this?
17:47: It's just it turns the text of scripture into Swiss cheese and and simply turns that turns the text on its head.
17:56: And again, it illustrates it illustrates the vast difference that comes from either coming to the text first, seeking to treat it as the word of God or going to other sources of authority first.
18:12: And so that is the that is the situation we face today. Now, I know that Michael was first caller, but Michael's question has absolutely positively nothing to do with what we're talking about today.
18:24: And so, Michael, if you want to hold on, that's cool. We'll we'll get to you.
18:31: But we we need to stick with the subjects that we're actually dealing with today and and go with them first and foremost, first and foremost.
18:42: And we'll get that one out before we go to the first caller, which is Mr. Prejean on line two.
18:48: I do want to just very quickly mention since I was going to since I said I was going to mention this, Mr. Modine has been writing to me today.
18:58: He explained that that, you know, one of the inconsistencies in his arguments about credit cards and sermon audio,
19:06: I guess he doesn't I guess sermon audio can use credit cards and then he can freely use their service. And that doesn't that doesn't mean he's not a
19:13: Christian. But if we use credit cards to pay for ours and have help to have people help us pay, that makes we're not
19:20: Christians. Anyways, he's put up a new a new sermon that I linked to that explains why Calvinists are are lying about God and stuff.
19:27: And I said I would mention that he's done that. You can all go listen to that. And I'm sure you'll be greatly blessed.
19:35: Wow. That's one person we don't have on the line, huh? That yeah, we'll have to download that sermon and fit it into a dividing line coming down the coming down the pike someplace that would be most interesting.
19:46: But I wouldn't mind having him on. I'd love to. I'd be that'd be great. I'd love to ask some of those some of those specific questions.
19:53: But anyways, we'll get to it. All right. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number that everybody called this morning before we even got started.
20:05: So let's go ahead and start working through the phone calls. And let's start with line two and talk with Jonathan Prejean.
20:12: Hi, John. Hi, Pastor White. How are you today, sir?
20:18: Doing well. How about yourself? Well, you know, for a person guilty of Nestorianism, snobbery, various forms of ignorance and every and every time
20:37: I say anything, I am described as either crowing, sarcastically saying it, et cetera, et cetera, doing pretty well.
20:45: But of course, I'm quoting you on each one of those. I know. OK, well, I mean, if we want to go through sort of what what the fundamental error is,
20:55: I I'm glad that you actually laid it out as you did, because I think it makes it clear if we look at the
21:02: Ten Commandments and how they're normatively applicable to Christians, you know, we're not
21:08: Judaizers. Obviously, we take them in their Christological significance. And, you know, we worship on the
21:15: Lord's Day, not not the Jewish Sabbath. OK, so so this is so so it's it's relevant as to how they're received.
21:26: So back up, Mr. Prejean, hold on a second. Can the language used in Exodus chapter 20, verse five, is that a foundation as to how we are to know what is proper worship before God or not?
21:40: Well, if you'll let me explain the distinction I'm trying to line out, the point is that the prohibition on idolatry is obviously not outside of, in fact, to use
21:55: Paul's words, worshiping things that are not God by nature. And that's that's entirely reasonable.
22:02: However, that should be a clue that there is Christological significance in the commandment, especially given that Paul used the term not
22:11: God by nature. And so as Christians, we are permitted to worship
22:18: Christ, obviously. And Christ has a human nature.
22:25: And and yet we can worship him. And the argument that you're advancing regarding idolatry is the same argument that that would be made by Jews and Muslims, which is you people worship a man.
22:37: Now, of course, Orthodox Christological belief says we're not worshiping a man because there's a personal union between the divine and the human in Christ.
22:47: He's the one mediator between man and God. And so we are able to worship the created in Christ without violating the prohibition against idolatry.
22:59: OK, back up the truck for just a moment. First of all, and you would admit that the incarnation is unique, yes?
23:09: It is the unique basis by which we use the created in our worship.
23:17: No, no. Is the is the incarnation unique? Has has has God entered into human form in any other person in Jesus Christ?
23:24: Well, I mean, obviously, we're all, according to 2 Peter, partakers of the divine nature.
23:31: Are you in it? Are you an incarnation in the same way, Jesus Christ incarnation? The word become flesh in you, yes or no? Well, I'm not
23:37: I'm not God. I mean, can you answer any question, yes or no? I mean, sir, it is amazing to my listeners that I just asked a basic question, and that is that the incarnation,
23:49: I completely agree that not not all Christians are Christians are not
23:54: God incarnate. And so the the incarnation where the eternal son took on human flesh was a unique event that has not been repeated multiple times.
24:07: Is that true or false? OK, they're the question is whether Christians essentially how
24:16: Christians participate in this. No, it's not. It's not my question. That is not my question. No, so it's not my question.
24:22: This is a very basic question. John one 14 says the word became flesh.
24:28: How logos starts again. It's I'm going to tie as an heiress verb. It's referring to. I mean, that's that's.
24:33: Yeah, obviously. I mean, so there was a unique historical event where the word became flesh.
24:39: Yes. Yes. OK. Has that event taken place multiple times or one time?
24:46: That that particular event took place that the one time, the one time.
24:52: OK. All right. So that now we've established that it sounds to me like what you're stating is that because of that unique event and the fact that as a result, there is a unique individual who is the
25:06: God man and who can therefore be worshipped, that somehow as an extension of this, this then means that the created.
25:17: In your worship, to use your language, somehow takes on the same characteristics as that unique one,
25:28: Jesus Christ. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, we're identified with Christ at numerous points in scripture in particular respects.
25:37: Partakers of the divine nature is one. And is there anything in partakers? Not I, but Christ who lives in me.
25:44: I mean, and we're described as members of the body. Yes. The divine. That's quite true.
25:50: All of those are quite, quite true. Does did any of those in any of those contexts result in a change of the fundamental nature of worship of the people of God?
26:01: Yes or no? Yes. How did that do so? Show me. Show me where in Peter that resulted in Peter serving or giving worship to someone who is another another
26:14: Christian. I that is the question is,
26:21: I mean, I guess I'm not clear what you're asking. Are you saying that that Peter did not give any sort of veneration, didn't greet his brothers with a holy kiss, for example, or anything of that sort?
26:36: No, I'm saying that Peter had no problem differentiating, given the scripture is very clear, teaching of what worship is, especially in light of, for example, when the apostles did have people bow down in front of them, they told them not to.
26:48: When when when John fell down before the angel, the angel said, do not do that. Worship God alone. There is no question about what worship is in a religious context and that Peter never gave that to anybody else and he never accepted it from anybody else.
27:00: So there's no question about that. Greeting a brother with a holy kiss or as a fellow partaker of life in Jesus Christ is very easily distinguishable,
27:09: I think, on anyone's part from that, which is easily distinguishable to me. I mean, that well, that says something right there.
27:15: That's the theological distinction on which the on which the response of Second Isaiah turns.
27:23: Well, actually, I was, in fact, going to be very interested in asking you because you seem to think that if I don't accept
27:31: Rome's definitions, it means I'm ignorant of them. Could you show me from the documentation? Where Second Isaiah dealt with Avad, Deliah, Latreau and all the various terms that were related there to in their in their statements.
27:50: As I recall, I think that I think it was the term Latreau that was used to to to distinguish the worship that's due only to the divine nature.
27:59: Where did they go permissible to to to to venerate the created in Christ because it's it's transferred through the hypostatic union.
28:11: Where did Second Nicaea deal with the biblical exegesis that would have to for me?
28:18: Now, maybe not for you. Where did they deal with this? OK, well, I mean, I don't think that you honestly enforce that.
28:24: And here's the reason. If you look at the term, the the Christological term, you agree, you know, you've you've historically said,
28:32: OK, we've got one person and two natures. If you look at the the use of the term hypostasis, it changed even between Nicaea and and in 451 and Chalconon.
28:46: So, I mean, there's there was clearly a change in the theological meaning of the term.
28:52: So, I mean, obviously, you don't really think that the terminology has to be the same as the scriptural usage.
28:59: Now, what I capture scriptural concept, what I am saying is that the
29:04: Second Nicene Council didn't deal with what the Bible said about this issue.
29:10: That's the whole point. And for a person who holds to Sola Scriptura, I don't care what these men said.
29:17: I hold anybody up to a biblical standard as to what they said. Well, and I mean, that's fine.
29:23: And that's logical. If you don't understand the Christological. And that's what Mr. Preaching, Mr.
29:30: Preaching, Mr. Preaching, because what I am, Mr. Preaching, I am tired of your constant, subtle ad hominem.
29:38: My this might reject being the least bit subtle. What I'm saying is that that's right. If you approve, if you approve
29:46: Nicaea and you approve Chalcedon, logically, you have to follow Second Nicene.
29:52: That's not true. That is utterly untrue. And I know it is not, sir. No, it is not. You do please, sir.
29:58: And this is this is where I really start to get agitated, because your position ends up leading to exactly what
30:06: Jerry Matitick said in front of the entire group in New York. And that is we have the same epistemological warrant to believe in the resurrection of Christ.
30:12: We have to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. That's where this leads to. I'm not even talking about epistemological warrant.
30:20: No, sir. You are the theological concepts that were that were ratified at the theological concepts that that we're talking about from a conciliar perspective in here that you are not allowing to be subjected to any biblical examination.
30:35: A and B, what I'm saying is I can affirm those things that Nicaea and Chalcedon said that were consistent with what the
30:43: Bible teaches. And I have affirmed them and defended them from the exegesis of the text of Scripture.
30:48: What it does not follow the way it does. Now, I'm going to get my point across and I'm going to put you on hold to do it.
30:56: It does not follow, Mr. Prejean, that when you confess the truth about the two natures of Christ, that it follows that I lose the simple clarity of the biblical revelation of what worship is.
31:12: The biblical revelation of what worship is, is not changed by this. You're back on my goodness.
31:21: No, I mean, here's the problem with what you're saying.
31:27: What conceptually what you are affirming is not what Nicaea taught.
31:32: It's not what Chalcedon taught. It's not what that's untrue. That's untrue. That's untrue. Well, I mean, prove it.
31:40: Prove to me, prove to me that if I affirm the absolute deity of Christ and the fact of what
31:48: Chalcedon says concerning the nature of the union that exists in him, that I have to throw out everything that the
31:57: Bible says about the fact that there is no distinction between Latria and Dulia. There is no such thing as hyper
32:04: Dulia. And to give to the created order, not the unique incarnate one, but to the created order, including fallen individuals who are redeemed by Christ, angels like Michael or anything else.
32:17: Show me where to confess the deity of Christ means I have to be able to pray to angels.
32:23: Your distinction between the created order and the uncreated order is,
32:28: I mean, it's fundamentally Nestorian, because the whole point is you're saying that there has to be a separate person for the divine nature and a separate person for the created nature.
32:38: And they're just stuck together. You know, you just you just now in the nature. That's that's a that's a falsehood.
32:44: And every time you repeat it, I'm going to call you what you are when you repeat falsehoods, sir. Secondly, you just you just contradicted yourself.
32:51: And that's why I asked you the nature of incarnation beforehand. You admitted it was unique. Now you want to transfer that uniqueness of the relationship of of the divine and human in Christ and that special, unique person.
33:08: You want to transfer that to the entire created order. And whatever Rome wants to say, you can give
33:13: Latria to or Julia to. And that doesn't follow. Prove it.
33:19: Prove it, sir. That's what the one mediator means. I mean, you're the biblical languages that Christ and his person is the one mediator between God and man.
33:29: Now, if we don't participate in his personal hypothetic union, there's no way that we're saved.
33:34: That's what I mean. If you go back to Athanasius, that's exactly what he says. What do you mean does not heal?
33:40: What do you mean if we do not participate? Do you do you participate in the incarnation, not in the sense of the indwelling presence of the
33:50: Holy Spirit within you? But are you uniquely a part of the Trinity the way the sun is?
33:58: It doesn't follow. It doesn't follow from participating in the hypothetic union that you become one of the
34:03: Trinity. I mean, these are just basic, basic, basic. Yeah. Oh, yeah.
34:09: Well, you know what, sir? It doesn't seem you have a clue about biblical theology first. And that's the problem, because there is no singular patristic theology.
34:17: And what does partakers of the divine nature mean? Well, it certainly does not mean that my my created nature becomes uncreated.
34:26: It certainly does not mean that my. Oh, good grief. Get that get that person off the air.
34:33: When you start laughing at what the Bible says, there you have there you have it, folks. There you have a
34:39: Roman Catholic and there you have his source of authority. He laughs at the word of God. When you ask him about the word of God, he stutters and stammers.
34:46: And has no way of answering those questions. But, oh, we can talk about, you know, well, what does that mean?
34:52: He doesn't know what that meant in context. That's totally derived from from one particular interpretation of a church father.
35:00: My goodness. Not even church father, just a group of many doesn't probably know half the men that were there and doesn't know what their arguments were in second.
35:07: And I see it. What an incredible example of that. Oh, my son.
35:13: You know, the term that was used by the reformers over and over again. And in the century since then has been sophistry, sophistry, sophistry.
35:20: There you heard it. There you heard it. You can't know what worship is without Rome to tell you.
35:29: Why do you even have a Bible? Why do you even have a Bible? Absolutely. And the point
35:35: I was trying to make as to where this leads and what Jerry Matito said, and I would like to ask any Roman Catholic, do you think that you have the same epistemological warrant to believe in the resurrection is due to the bodily assumption of Mary?
35:45: I think Jeremiah is being consistent at that point. And that shows you just what happens when you reject the scripture.
35:51: But the point I was making was. This leads to that utter destruction of Christian apologetics, that is
36:00: Sola Ecclesia. Sola Ecclesia is not defensible.
36:07: You have to start with that belief to end with that belief. Have you ever watched?
36:12: We had this sort of happened yesterday in chat channel. Ever seen a Roman Catholic and a Mormon go at it? What does it always end up being?
36:19: Their ultimate authority versus your ultimate authority, which is their prophet versus your pope. You can't get into the exegesis of scripture, you can't get into some unchanging standard there.
36:28: It's not possible. The destruction of the very foundations of the faith, the result of that.
36:34: And I will not have anyone laughing at what the word of God says based upon your individualistic interpretation of some church council and your constant lying.
36:46: Well, you just don't understand. No, I reject. I test anything that you have to say or anyone else has to say by what the word of God says.
36:56: And notice, Mr. Prejean didn't even try to deal with Latria, Dulia, Avad or anything else because he can't.
37:03: He lacks the capacity to even begin to do so. Wow. Yeah.
37:10: Do I get upset about something? Yeah, folks, because I see the results of this. If your heart doesn't break.
37:18: When you see people trapped in idolatry, pouring their hearts out to Mary, who can't hear a word they're saying because God would never put her through that.
37:29: If your heart doesn't break when you see that. Then your heart has become hard, that's all there is to it.
37:36: And when I see the Trinity and the deity of Christ and all these things subjugated to Rome's authority rather than the authority that God gave us in his word.
37:46: Yes, I become just a little bit aggravated by it. And I do get tired about being lied about.
37:52: There's no two ways about it. Takes breath. We, of course, have skipped the break because we have more folks talk to.
38:00: So let's talk with Benjamin in Oklahoma. Hi, Benjamin. Hello, Dr. White.
38:06: How are you? Oh, I'm doing all right. How about yourself? Taking a deep breath. Good, my brother.
38:13: Well, I should probably tell you what my background is so that you at least know where I'm coming from.
38:20: Now, what's up? Well, I'm a fellow Baptist, also a fellow McGregor and a fellow apologist, although I'm an amateur, but I believe it's my calling and I, I pursue the study and hope to have this formal training.
38:40: All right. And you're in Oklahoma somewhere. Yeah. All right. Yes, I am in Norman, Oklahoma, actually.
38:46: Oh, yes. I actually I met you face to face only once before, although you probably wouldn't remember.
38:54: It was at the unfortunate Bob Wilken debate in which afterward you were gracious enough.
39:02: We went out to eat. We went out to eat. Yeah. But right before you did, you were gracious enough to speak to a young man rather tallish with long hair who asked you a question.
39:12: And you stood outside and yeah, you were hungry. Yes, I do recall that. Yes. Well, I was calling because I have listened to all of your debates with Roman Catholics on the subject of Sola Scriptura.
39:25: I've listened to your debate with Shabir Ali. I've tried to basically get up whatever information
39:32: I could. I unfortunately have not. Gotten your book on Sola Scriptura, though you may have covered this thoroughly there.
39:42: I don't know. But I noticed that the usual tendency of Roman Catholics, when you discuss the issue of Sola Scriptura with them and when you do and I do, one of the most important objections they bring forward.
39:57: And I do believe this is essential even to the issue. It's part of the topic is, of course, the famous phrase, there is no divine inspired table of contents of the canon.
40:09: Right. Right. And so I was wondering, because throughout the debates that have taken place between you,
40:16: Matitix, Pacwa, Staples, others, you have oftentimes been presented with this objection that if you believe in Sola Scriptura, then in the main, not solely, but in the main, your authority is the word of God.
40:34: It's my authority as well. And I'm wondering, because they will always bring up to you, how then shall we determine what scripture is, since scripture itself does not, of course.
40:49: Give you a listing of the canonical works. And you usually will argue both critically, the negatives in the sense that they can't come up with a certain standard themselves.
41:07: An inconsistent argument from their point. Right. Right. You oftentimes argue that, you know, what will they do if, how do they respond to the fact, you know, that person before, you know, in the intertestamental period had to know what the
41:19: Old Testament was, Isaiah and the rest. But I'm curious, because oftentimes that will be, and I know that in a debate, you only have a certain amount of time.
41:28: You don't want to play defense the whole time. Well, and Benjamin, please, please keep one thing in mind. The only time we've actually addressed the canon in a full debate was on the
41:35: Apocrypha. And even then, that wasn't the issue of canon as as a whole. And normally the way the
41:41: Roman Catholic controversials do this is they wait until the cross -examination period when you basically cannot even begin to lay out any kind of foundation.
41:50: And yes, I did. In scripture alone, I felt the need to expand upon brief comments
41:57: I'd made in other context in regards to the subject of the canon. And and so I would recommend that to you because I'm sort of in the same situation here.
42:08: It's a whole lot easier to lay it out in a written form where you can think through these things, because it's a difficult issue only because ultimate authorities are difficult issues for us on an epistemological basis.
42:20: That is, if scripture is God speaking, then is there an external authority outside of it that we can appeal to to define its contents?
42:30: Or has God in some way provided a means by which we can know what those contents are without necessarily inspiring that source of authority or something along those lines?
42:44: That's where the the argument comes down to in regards to making the church a canonical authority.
42:49: Or is the church something that receives from God the can of scripture for whatever purposes are up to him?
42:56: And what I argued in the book was was very briefly to just summarize it for you and then direct you to it, because I since you said you've listened to all this stuff, then obviously it's not something that you're in a in a rush about.
43:07: And so you can take the time to listen to or to read it and follow it along there. But what I argued in the book is that we need to distinguish between the canon as recognized and understood by God and the canon as we experience it.
43:21: And what do I mean by that? Well, when I write anything, as soon as I wrote my first book, a canon of my works came into existence.
43:31: I didn't have to write something down, say this is a canon. There was automatically a list that comes into existence that describes the sum total of my work in regards to publishing books.
43:44: And I'm the only one fundamentally who has an infallible knowledge of that canon.
43:50: I mean, even the people closest to me, no one has been looking over my shoulder at every single point of writing every single book.
43:56: And so only I have an infallible knowledge of the canon of my writings because I was the one there during all that process.
44:07: And so others can have a very, very, very, very, very good knowledge of that. But as far as having the same level of knowledge as the one who produced it, nobody else can have that.
44:18: Now, other people do. I can even say that people have absolute knowledge of that canon because I say this is it.
44:25: And I know I'm being honest. And so since they know that, then they likewise have that same knowledge. But still, my knowledge of that is creative.
44:33: Theirs is derivative. So when God inspires, if we take as a given that God has inspired at least one work, but not every work that man has ever written, then by nature, a canon exists that is known completely and fully to God and is not dependent upon any secondary sources or anything else.
44:53: So you might say, well, that's obvious. But I think it's important to start there because many people assume that the canon is itself a separate object of revelation.
45:04: Now, why would it have to be a separate object of revelation? Well, so that people could have a certain knowledge of it, in essence.
45:11: And so they want to turn it into an actual object revelation.
45:17: My argument is the canon is an artifact of revelation, just as the canon of my writings was an artifact of the action of my writing.
45:24: So to the canon as known to God, which in the book I call Canon One, I put a little superscript one next to it, is an artifact.
45:32: It is a natural byproduct, a necessary byproduct of the action of inspiration on God's part.
45:38: So the question then becomes, do we as the people of God have to have an infallible knowledge of what that canon is?
45:49: Well, there's two ways of answering that. Does an individual person, to be able to know who
45:56: Jesus Christ is and have faith in him, have to have infallible knowledge of the canon?
46:01: I don't think most people would argue that they would, simply because there are obviously people saved even before the
46:07: New Testament was finished being written, of course. And even then, there are people who have been saved reading, you know, hypothetical persons sitting in an airport, picks up a
46:19: Gospel of John, someone is left on their seat, they read it and they are saved and the plane crashes before they ever found out anything about the book of Titus.
46:28: Obviously, that is not going to change their relationship to God and the fact that they were saved wonderfully by faith in Christ, even at that particular point in time.
46:37: And so leaving that issue aside, I would argue that the reason that we can have certainty, not in the sense of infallibility, but certainty regarding the nature of the canon is just this, that the scriptures themselves tell us that God has a purpose in our knowing what the scriptures are.
47:00: God has given the scriptures to the church for a purpose. And in the book, I go through the text from the
47:05: Old Testament and New Testament where the New Testament writers say this. Paul himself said these things were written for our instruction, that we might know.
47:13: This is a repeated concept. Really, all the apostles seem to have had this kind of idea that the scriptures had been given to the church for this kind of instruction and so on and so forth.
47:25: So the question then becomes, what kind of effort would God himself put forward to make sure that his people possess that which he has inspired for their edification?
47:36: Well, the same level of effort that he would put forward to make sure that the gifts are given to the church and that the church continues to be built throughout all generations and so on and so forth.
47:49: If this is God's purpose in his giving of the scriptures to the people, then
47:54: God is going to extend that same kind of divine power, not only to preserve them as he has done down through the ages,
48:00: I think in a miraculous fashion, but also to make known to us what they are.
48:06: And that's where the question that you raised that you're quite familiar with that came out of my conversation with Jerry Matitox back in Boston many, many years ago about how the intertestamental person knew.
48:17: How did they know? Well, what was the process involved and what was the divine activity involved?
48:24: Was there some angel coming down from heaven with golden plates? No, there was not. But does it follow then that there was an insufficient divine activity in leading the people of God to a recognition of the word of God without making those people infallible, that Jesus could then hold men accountable to the scriptures and he could say, you have invalidated the scriptures without anybody going, well, wait a minute, we didn't know what the scriptures were.
48:49: Seemingly, it's quite clear that that activity did take place in that context. And given the
48:54: New Testament writers' assertion that the scriptures are given to us for these purposes, there's no reason to believe that that very same activity did not take place in guiding the
49:07: New Testament church in the exact same way that God's Old Testament people had been had been guided. And that is the only way that I can see to do justice not only to the unique nature of the authority of God -breathed revelation, but also to make heads or tails out of the apostles' own view of the authority of scripture, the preservation of scripture, the role of scripture within the
49:31: New Testament church and the role that it was to have as being a guide to the church.
49:36: And so, yes, go ahead. No, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. No, no, that's fine. No, that's a good place to go. I was going to say that now this is the point at which
49:44: I wanted to get because exactly what you're saying, I think from the Catholic point of view, and I don't want to speak for all
49:51: Catholics out there, but I think that many of them seem to think that, OK, so far, so good. You've demonstrated adequately, certainly that we will know the scriptures, that we will know the canon, that the church will always be in possession, you know, the body of Christ will always be in possession of the words of God, of the oracles of God.
50:10: You've proven that we will know it. But the discussion is, you know, for them, you've even shown that we must know it, that the people of God will, must know the word of God.
50:23: It's promised by him. But the I think their main confusion is precisely how, because for them, they think, well, you know, certainly we all agree with you.
50:36: We will know it. We will know the magisterium or whatever. Well, but here's the difference in how there's a difference in saying that it's like a direct revelation from the spirit.
50:47: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that becomes very subjective. No, I'm not talking about a individualistic experience.
50:58: It was not an individualistic experience. Because that's what some of the Catholic debaters like Madrid and others seem to be accusing you of.
51:05: Oh, I know that. But the vast majority of them haven't bothered to read the book either. And so they wouldn't recognize.
51:10: No, I'm talking. I said God led the people of God. I didn't say God led Benjamin Ben Amos to do this or this particular individual or that particular individual.
51:20: The fact is there, something took place during the intertestamental period that allowed the people of God to get it right.
51:26: And it wasn't dependent upon an individual. It wasn't dependent upon a private revelation of the spirit.
51:32: It was communal and it was a community at that point. That's one of the actually a Roman Catholic who knows his own history is not going to follow me here because they are going to recognize that Rome claims or Rome has claimed whether Rome today would even want to do this is another is a completely different issue that we can't go into right now.
51:48: But certainly through Trent and Vatican one and the papal syllabus of errors style
51:55: Catholicism, which is normally what you run into in apologetics, because those that don't hold that viewpoint are overly concerned about apologetics.
52:01: Anyways, there is a canonical authority given to the church as the as the arbiter and the possessor of this living tradition, et cetera, et cetera.
52:12: That's not what I'm talking about at all. I think Augustine was right when he described the church as the passive receiver of the
52:18: Holy Spirit's work in regards to the canon, not that the church had this authority in of herself to define the canon.
52:25: It's the spirit that defines the can through inspiration. It's not the church. It does so. So, no, but at the same time, what they seem to think and this is this is a very common falsehood from the
52:35: Roman Catholic perspective. And by the way, we're going to go along today so we can answer these questions properly. So those run lines down line.
52:43: They like to try to to create two poles and there could be nothing in between. The one pole is the infallible church led by the spirit of God and the traditions and magisterium.
52:52: So the other is you and your Bible under a tree in the woods. Now, I do know some people who are into the you and your
52:58: Bible and the tree in the wood stuff, and I oppose them. I think they're imbalanced. I am a churchman.
53:04: I have written in defense of the church a number of times. And I am. There's nothing wrong in talking about the community, the body of Christ and everything else.
53:14: It's when you turn that community, which faithfully listens to the word of God and Scripture, into an authoritative entity that then can become infallible, so much so that she's truly unreformable.
53:30: That's where you have a huge difference. There's a chasm between those those two statements.
53:35: As they don't they as soon as they hear me saying community or church, they start reading it in their own context rather than the one that I would read it in.
53:43: And that is you had a fallible group of people in the Old Testament. And yet God was not limited by their fallibility in the same way you have the same thing in the
53:52: New Testament. And the question becomes, is God's desire to give to his people, his church, his word dependent upon our becoming infallible or dependent upon the work of the
54:06: Holy Spirit of God, who very clearly is able to use fallible people to produce infallible things?
54:13: That becomes the question. Do we have to have the church being infallible for the canon to function the way it needs to for the church?
54:21: And I say, no, we do not. And I see no no reason for believing otherwise, unless we just simply want to say the
54:27: Holy Spirit can not work with a sufficient number of people with sufficient clarity to bring about the consensus that we see very early on in the history of the early church in regards to the canon of scripture.
54:38: And a Roman Catholic, furthermore, if they know their own history, will not follow me for another reason. They know, and you probably also know, when they had their first dogmatic definition of the canon as they hold it today.
54:49: Yeah. And it's not even complete because. Well, when was it? It's April of 15. That's right.
54:54: April of 1546. So they were silent on a couple of the asterisks. And there's some questions about that, too.
55:01: Right. So they don't want to go with us there because my whole thing about God giving the scriptures to the church for a particular purpose, that would be irrelevant at that point.
55:09: And in fact, anyone who will just think through, wow, if I say a dogmatic decree is necessary for me to know the canon of scripture, then
55:16: I don't really need to know scripture because Christians for fifteen hundred years, all the major issues of soteriology and and theology proper were decided without an infallible canon of scripture from that perspective.
55:30: So why in the world we need it now? That would be the question I would ask of someone in that context. So there's no question that Roman Catholic controversialists love this topic.
55:40: And there's but there's only one real reason for it's not that their answer is is is uber satisfying or anything else.
55:46: I mean, it's really easy to just go, well, we've got the canon because we're right. I mean, that's that's what that's what
55:51: Mormons do. I mean, all sorts of groups can just simply use an authoritative argument. The reason that it's useful to them is because most people don't spend time thinking about ultimate authorities and what grounding and ultimate authority can give for its authority claims.
56:09: And and we we go, well, wait a minute, you know, I mean, you're talking like when God says, you know, what can
56:15: God swear by? He can't swear by the heavens because he's the maker of the heavens. And he he can only swear by himself. Well, that's circulate.
56:21: Yeah. When you're an ultimate authority, that's sort of the nature of things. Right. And that's where people struggle, because we're generally dealing with other arguments that are derivative and therefore can make appeals to higher authorities.
56:34: But when we get to this point, all of a sudden we have to realize, hey, that's not that's not that's not possible anymore.
56:40: And that's why people struggle with it. But do you think, see, I'm a I'm a presupposition list. And so for me,
56:47: I think what what you may be getting at, let me see if I'm if I'm getting if I'm understanding.
56:54: So the scripture does not teach that we don't learn from any other source, that we don't learn from any other.
57:00: I mean, we can we can learn from science. We can learn from other areas of this simply not our infallible source of authority.
57:07: In fact, we would presuppose that the scriptures are the foundational interpretive, basically an interpretive structure through which we understand the world.
57:19: We go out to the world and we look at evidence. We look at anything empirically that we receive and we interpret that after God's interpretation of it.
57:29: We interpret it as he did. We think God's thoughts after. Right. Right. Like Van Til would talk about. And so we think
57:35: God's thoughts after when we go to the world. Well, in this case, then. What you're saying is, is that we are continuing to be sola scriptura precisely because we go to history and just like we would go to the world as scientists, we go to history as historians.
57:51: We look at what the church has given to us as a whole, not individuals, but as a stream that flows down through the ages as a whole.
57:59: And we interpret that stream because we know, according to the word of God, that God's work is being exemplified.
58:06: His will is being exemplified through the work he's done with the church in history. Well, I want to make sure
58:12: I differentiate. And we've got one more call we got to get to real quick. So let me let me try to be brief here. I want to make sure I differentiate between the idea that it is the historical examination that is creating canon.
58:22: And my assertion, of course, you need to. I've got music playing someplace and I'm not sure where there.
58:30: There you go, Rich. Thank you. Rich wanted to shut the shut the show down a little bit faster there and sort of throw me out, throw me off track.
58:36: I want to make sure that the historical references are not what create canonical authority. The history can can be of assistance to us in in increasing our our confidence and providing responses and things like that.
58:50: What I'm saying, what I'm saying is, yeah, what I'm saying is there is a biblical teaching that God has a purpose in giving the church the scriptures.
58:57: We see the fulfillment of that in history. So it is the fulfillment of a divine promise that we see in history.
59:03: It's not the fulfillment in history that itself becomes an external authority or is dependent upon some ecclesiastical authority to grant to scripture its canonical authority that we think of the church differently than Rome.
59:18: Anyway, that's exactly right. Very much. Very much so. All right. Thank you so much. OK, thank you for calling. God bless. You know,
59:26: Benjamin had a very calming voice. I think Benjamin was trying to calm me down because he recognized that I was a little on the perturbed side a little.
59:36: And I appreciate that, Benjamin. And that was that was very helpful for me. God's yes, God's God's providence has been has been illustrated with that and with that calm sense of a deep breath.
59:49: What was that Saturday Night Live skit? What was that guy? I like I like me. You like me. Who is he?
59:54: Remember that guy? I don't know. But I'm going to use that same calm, quiet demeanor to talk to Shane in Massachusetts.
01:00:04: Hi, Shane. Shane. Hi. Hi. I'm I'm I'm doing well.
01:00:11: That's great. I'm feeling better now after that long conversation with with Benjamin. Well, I'm glad we all need our friends, don't we?
01:00:18: Yeah. What was that guy's name on Saturday Night Live? What was Stuart Smalley? That's who it was.
01:00:23: You're probably. Do you remember Stuart Smalley? Shane? Yes, I do. Oh, OK. Very, very vaguely.
01:00:30: Very. You were very young back then, right? Yes, it was. The only skit from Saturday Night Live that I remember all that well is one of my favorites.
01:00:37: What the hell is that skit? I didn't see many of them, but I do remember
01:00:43: Stuart Smalley and he was he was very affirming. He was politically correct before is correct to be politically correct.
01:00:48: But anyway, I'm just taking taking a few moments there to to relax so we can have a nice, calm conversation.
01:00:56: So, Shane, you called back in June. That's right. And we had a little chat because we had had you had written something on I was a
01:01:05: Jimmy Akins blog about debates. And you had said you're going to give me a call back and you were going to provide some some examples of I recall correctly cheap debating tricks on my part.
01:01:19: And then I happen to have I've probably had about four times people have asked me since then, hey, did you ever hear back from Shane?
01:01:26: And I keep going, you know what? I haven't. And I finally look back on the blog and saw when it was you had called.
01:01:32: And so when I saw your name on the blog article,
01:01:37: I said, hey, there there he is. He's still around. He's not gone off to Afghanistan or someplace where he doesn't have net access.
01:01:46: And so I thought I'd say, hey, are we going to get that phone call back? And so now we're getting are we getting that phone call back?
01:01:54: Or is this about the general dialogue that has taken place over the past about 72 hours?
01:02:00: Well, it can be about either or both. The reason I hadn't called back in the first place was because, as I briefly mentioned on Jimmy's blog, when
01:02:10: I had called the first time, unless I'm completely mistaken, it was a Tuesday program that was being aired at the
01:02:15: Thursday time. And then a friend of mine who has the same works for the same employer was taking summer classes at a at a college.
01:02:27: So we had to adjust the schedule. So I was I was basically at my job every time you had a program up until about a week or two ago.
01:02:37: No problem. Not a school starting again. So your schedule is changing. Well, he was taking summer classes.
01:02:43: And so we normally split the time up. We answer telephones at a church. And so it requires us to be there quite often.
01:02:51: We split the time in two and he needed me to be there on the days when he normally would do it. So you could go to no problem at all.
01:02:58: No problem at all. I just I don't read the vast majority of stuff and especially comment sections.
01:03:04: So there would be no way I would I would know that that had happened. But I appreciate that explanation.
01:03:10: And so anyway, you had commented yesterday and I had then responded to your commentary on on my blog, as you saw.
01:03:20: You were obviously very upset that I had utilized an illustration from current political affairs.
01:03:29: I hope I explained exactly what it was that I was referring to and exactly why I do feel that people who simply lob ad hominems at people without any connection to what they're actually talking about are very similar in their attitudes, especially when they won't do what you do.
01:03:45: At least you have the temerity to pick up the phone. You've got to admit, what would be the percentage of people in your experience?
01:03:54: I don't know if you go over to the Catholic answers forums. I don't know if you go over to the envoy forums, but just I think
01:04:01: I'm being generous to say that 98 percent of the people who will blast me, blast my character, blast my theology, blast writings they've never read would never pick up the phone, do what you're doing with that.
01:04:17: Would you say I'd be about a good percentage? Well, I think that's true, but I think that's true of the vast majority of people in application to all situations.
01:04:25: What it comes down to, and I'm sure that, well, I don't know if you're familiar with this, but what it comes down to is people spend most of their lives listening to the radio, always having things to say, but never taking the effort to call in just because it's kind of imposing at first.
01:04:40: Once you do it once or twice, then all of a sudden it's not that big a deal. And you start doing it every chance you get. We all hear those same callers on the various talk shows.
01:04:48: Exactly. So, I mean, that's not to defend the general practice, because somebody ought to respond to a challenge or to a, if somebody is going to make a statement, they should defend it.
01:05:02: That's absolutely true. I think I would only say that many of these people do, not all, and the majority do not, but many do make statements, many do make statements in other forms, in writing or on the
01:05:18: Internet or whatnot. I think it goes back to what Tommy Lee Jones said in Men in Black, if you've seen the film, where he said that a person can be smart, but people are stupid.
01:05:29: The human race is stupid. A person can be smart. And so every once in a while you deal with one of the people who is going to present things and handle things in the proper way, but most people aren't.
01:05:41: And sometimes that's because they don't want to do it, because they are cowardly or something.
01:05:48: Or sometimes it's just not. They're saying, we all have different callings, and some people don't want to get on the phone or whatnot in a live, real -time situation and put themselves in the position of defending
01:06:00: Christ as they see Him, when they might do Him more harm than good, because that would be a very irresponsible thing to do indeed.
01:06:08: Do you really think, Shane, that most of those people who are posting all sorts of stuff about me on a personal level, that their main concern is that they don't want to misrepresent
01:06:20: Christ? Or is it they know that if they were to call this program, I would ask them specific questions about specific things that I've said, and they just haven't done their homework?
01:06:32: Oh, I don't disagree with you on that. My disagreement with your statement, my rebuke, so to speak, that I made, was not concerning at all the characterization of the average poster on the blog or on the forum who might not back up his words.
01:06:51: My problem was using what I believe to be an absolutely really... Dr. White, I defend you very frequently.
01:06:58: If you read the blog, you'll see that I've been defending you on Jimmy's blog for the last 48 hours. Well, I saw your first comment on the one where Michelle Arnold, the snobbery post, and you're one of the first people that commented on that.
01:07:12: By the way, Reformed folks can be evangelicals, but the term evangelical really is undergoing a tremendous amount of redefinition today.
01:07:20: Just in passing, I hadn't mentioned that. I didn't think it was worth getting into. But just so that you're aware of those particular distinctions, most
01:07:29: Reformed people would say they're evangelical, but a lot of evangelicals would question whether that's the case or not. So another issue.
01:07:35: I've been doing a lot of, in other words, speaking about people attacking your character instead of your arguments. I've been doing a lot of speaking about people in terms of the respect they might give to you and speaking to you with a particular title or whatnot.
01:07:47: The point to all of this is that being somebody who, other than our theological differences, is really on your side and thinks you are grossly mistreated oftentimes,
01:08:02: I have to say that comparing somebody making an ad hominem attack on you to a situation where terrorists kill innocent women and children cold -bloodedly, and in fact, a great deal of them might very well be going to hell,
01:08:14: I think that that is a stretch that is very irresponsible and trivializes what's going on in the
01:08:21: Middle East. And it also really does take the sins of those you are criticizing. They are bad sins, but it makes them into, it equates them more or less, even if that's not your intention, with the killing of innocent people.
01:08:36: And I think it's very irresponsible. And so you would never use any illustration of the killing of an innocent person's character with, you would never use any type of military illustration whatsoever.
01:08:49: I might use a military illustration, but I certainly would not refer to a hot issue that's going on right now and an issue where right now you have real people really dying, really being killed.
01:09:04: There's a difference between using a metaphor, you know, dropping the bomb or throwing somebody under a bus. That is different from talking about an actual situation that is really quite terrible and just doing that.
01:09:16: That was my concern. Yeah, I hear your concern. But Shane, anybody who's thrown under a bus is a real person.
01:09:22: Anyone who dies from a bomb is a real person. If I use World War II illustrations, which aren't quote unquote hot anymore, they would be for somebody who was there.
01:09:32: You're right. Just because it is modern. I put it in the context. And by the way, the sad thing is people on both sides of that conflict are going to hell because neither one of them confess
01:09:45: Christ. And the irony here is if I could just, you know,
01:09:51: I didn't bring this up on the blog, but I'm going to bring it up now because I think you might be one of the few people who could hear it.
01:09:57: And that is I would love to send you. And in fact, if you want to hang around long enough, we will send it out to you for nothing.
01:10:06: I would love to send you the debate that we just did at Biola against Shabir Ali.
01:10:13: Shabir Ali is one of the best known Muslim apologists in the world today. And it strikes me that the people that are doing frontline work like that, such as myself, we are taking fire from both sides.
01:10:36: And here is an example. See, I just used another military analogy, but I put it in the context.
01:10:42: It makes obvious sense. I don't see your side doing that. I don't see your folks doing that and doing what
01:10:50: I did with Shabir Ali. Who's doing that from Roman Catholic perspective? You mean debating Muslims and things like that?
01:10:56: Who's taking them on in such a way as to actually demonstrate the historicity of the
01:11:03: New Testament? You got to realize something, Shane. Your own hierarchy today is undercutting the ability to do that.
01:11:12: I mean, let's face it, the theology of Roman Catholic seminaries today doesn't exactly provide a real strong basis for being able to respond to Islam, does it?
01:11:24: Well, I don't know the answer to that question exactly. However, I do know several people that are at seminaries.
01:11:31: And I have looked into the general seminary picture. And I have to tell you, they're doing quite well.
01:11:38: They're doing quite a great deal better than they used to be. I do know several individuals in a
01:11:44: Catholic seminary who would be more than capable of addressing a Muslim. Maybe not with your depth and skill.
01:11:52: But then again, I would say that the vast majority of Protestant pastors would be unable to address a
01:11:59: Muslim with your skill and so forth. Not everybody is an FF Bruce.
01:12:04: But the point I was making is that within the past year,
01:12:14: I have debated John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Shabir Ali on everything from the inspiration of the
01:12:23: New Testament to the historical accuracy of the Gospels to the resurrection. And I have demonstrated an ability to research my opponent's perspectives, to accurately represent their viewpoint, to master their position and to provide a very thorough in -depth response.
01:12:44: Now, in light of that, can you see why I might just get a little bit tired of the kind of inane commentary that is, aside from you, almost the only thing that I encounter on these forums?
01:13:01: Well, Dr. White, I think that you're drawing... I think that you're making a little bit of a logical fallacy there insofar as that you're talking about you being able to respond to Shabir Ali and you're talking about your opponents not showing that same ability to research, to be able to be thorough, to be able to be very accurate and so forth.
01:13:28: Well, Shane, hold on. Which opponents? I lost you there. People on the boards or people like...
01:13:35: Well, that's what I was going to say is that when you're talking about, if you were to debate and when you have debated individuals like Mr.
01:13:46: St. Janice and Mr. Aiken and Mr. Madrid, that's a difference from discussing posters on a blog.
01:13:53: If you're going to say that posters on a blog are not presenting you with a fair shake and are not researching thoroughly and doing all these other things, well, that's absolutely true.
01:14:02: But then again, neither are the individuals on the
01:14:07: Protestant blogs. You probably didn't read it yet.
01:14:14: But if you were to go, you would see that... I wrote a response to your latest blog entry, your latest update, where I mentioned that you're saying that these people on the blog behave a certain way or on the forums.
01:14:24: But what about the Protestant forums where you go as a Catholic and the instant you say anything
01:14:31: Catholic, you try to defend any Catholic doctrine, you're banned from the forum. What about things like that? Well, first of all, two things.
01:14:39: A, I have been very consistent in how I deal with this issue because I have many doors closed in my face in Protestant churches because I will criticize those who are
01:14:52: Protestants, who are non -Catholics. How often have you heard me criticize Dave Hunt? Oh, you do criticize.
01:14:58: Okay, so I'm consistent there, right? So all I'm asking for is for you folks on your side to be likewise consistent.
01:15:07: Because if I was in a forum, I don't spend time in forums. I don't have time to. I'm working on way too much stuff.
01:15:13: But if I were in a forum, in a Protestant forum, where that kind of thing happened,
01:15:20: I would complain. And when we have Catholics come into our channel, as long as they will behave and not use profanity or something like that, we've had long discussions with them.
01:15:30: We've been having a 25 -year -old Mormon guy from Germany come in for I don't know how long. And I have spent hours dialoguing with this person.
01:15:39: Well, that's fine. So I'm consistent at that point. And so I'm sorry, but what relevance is it to me that there are inconsistent
01:15:48: Protestants? I criticize them. Where are the people who will stand up to Art Sippo?
01:15:56: Well, like I said... Other than you, where are the people who will stand up to Art Sippo? And I was making my commentary about people who will make the most cutting and totally false comments about me without ever even taking the time to read anything.
01:16:14: Even try to interact with anything that I've stated. Well, yeah, I understand that. But Dr. White, what
01:16:20: I'm talking about is... You're right when you're talking about the posters on a blog or whatnot.
01:16:28: And yes, the people in your channel and whatnot, perhaps they behave. That's great. You could get a bunch of folks from Catholic Answers Forums and the
01:16:37: Envoy Forums. You can get a bunch of the people that comment over on Dave Armstrong's blog or on Jimmy Akin's blog. You could get a bunch of these people that will behave, that will handle things well.
01:16:45: You could stick them all in a chat room somewhere and it would be fine. What I'm talking about is... That's not been my experience,
01:16:50: Shane. I'm sorry. Well, have you ever attempted to get a bunch of people like that together? Of course you haven't. I'm not criticizing you for that.
01:16:56: That would be... Well, I suppose a debate is sort of along those lines and a large portion of those folks won't do debates.
01:17:04: Well... At least anymore. It's pretty difficult to get them to do so. But... Well, again, we're confusing the lay folk with the professional apologists here.
01:17:13: And there's a distinction there. Not every professional apologist has treated you the way they should.
01:17:19: Vinnie Lewis was an embarrassment. That doesn't mean that a guy like Patrick Madrid didn't treat you the way...
01:17:25: I'm not sure that Carl Keating would identify Vinnie Lewis as a professional apologist. But anyway, no.
01:17:32: We have proven clearly that with people like Mitch Pacwa, we can do debates that are useful to both sides, that have no ad hominem.
01:17:42: You bet. We have proven our capacity to do that. What I'm talking about and the people
01:17:47: I was referring to in my comments are the prevalent majority in the forums who are regular posters, who are almost never rebuked by those with authority in those forums.
01:18:03: In fact, I think are encouraged by some of the things people in authority do to attack me without ever taking the time to realize that, you know what?
01:18:14: For example, the very term anti -Catholic. Do I refer to Roman Catholics as anti -Protestants?
01:18:24: Do I refer to Mormons as anti -Protestants? Anti -Baptists? Do I refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as anti -Baptists?
01:18:30: No. And how is it that my whole apologetics and my theology can be defined on the basis of one of a whole variety of groups?
01:18:43: Why not call me an anti -Muslim? Well, I think that that would be a valid statement. I think that when Catholics are talking about you, they're not concerned with how you handle
01:18:52: Muslims at all. I mean... Should they be? Yes, they should. Okay, that's my point. And we support you in that.
01:18:57: I mean, if you go to Envoy right now, I have seen recently a number of people, and there's been a ton of threads about you over there.
01:19:06: I have seen many folks over there mention things along the lines of, well, you know, giving him credit.
01:19:15: Dave Armstrong on his blog has a whole thing, giving credit where credit is due. I think Jimmy Akin has a similar thing somewhere in his archive.
01:19:23: And they point out the great stuff that you've done. You know, Father Cogwell, if I'm not mistaken, gave a statement on the back of your
01:19:31: Forgotten Trinity. Okay. Yes, he did. I don't know about all the rest of the stuff you're referring to there.
01:19:38: But my point is, and as you can see, we've gone way, way, way, way long. And we need to wrap it up here. But my point was,
01:19:45: Shane, that what I said about those individuals are individuals who, and again, it's the majority, anybody who wants to look at the snobbery anti -Catholic entry.
01:19:55: And that was not put there by some layperson. That was put there by someone who works for Catholic Answers, right?
01:20:01: And supported by Jimmy Akin. That the majority of that commentary has been nothing but pure nastiness that has not in any way, shape, or form attempted to demonstrate that the teaching that I have done for years, the scholarly articles
01:20:19: I have written in regards to all sorts of exegetical, textual, critical issues on a wide variety of things that have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism at all.
01:20:28: All that gets chucked out the door. And I am simply attacked personally. And what is the reason?
01:20:35: Why would anyone do that? The reason that they do so is to cloud the issue. And I say to avoid the issue.
01:20:41: And how many of the comments, Shane, we're going to need to wrap up with this. But let me ask you, and if you've got that documentation,
01:20:49: I'd still like to hear from you in the future. But how much of the comments on the blog right now actually address the argumentation that I have had in print for 10 years regarding the relationship of avad to latruo and duluo in the
01:21:08: Greek language, and coming in the New Testament, and the definition of worship? How many of those comments have anything to do with that at all?
01:21:15: You know, I honestly don't know. I mean, a number of them do. I know that Jonathan Prejean has made a few statements.
01:21:21: You talked to him before. I think that what, to sum it up... But percentage -wise,
01:21:27: Shane, wouldn't you say that there might be 3 %? Well, yes, because my original post in which
01:21:34: I called you Dr. White... I know, I know. ...made the whole thing go into another... And that's the whole point.
01:21:40: That's the whole point. If people... Why would anyone go into those things unless the issue itself could not be addressed?
01:21:48: That's been my point from the beginning, is that that is not how you deal with truth. You don't do it by simply tagging people, and we don't do that in return.
01:21:56: When I have criticized Karl Keating, when I've criticized Jimmy Akin, when I've criticized Robert St. Genes or Patrick Madrid, I cite their works,
01:22:04: I get their works, I study their works, and I address what they say. And that's the difference here,
01:22:11: Shane. That's what I see as a massive difference. I think they do, too. But just to finish up and to say goodbye to you...
01:22:16: Yes, sir. ...I would just say that, you know, if you go back on Jimmy's blog and you read down a little bit, you'll see a response
01:22:25: I wrote to your thing, and as I pointed out, you seem to be unaware, or at least perhaps you are crouching and trying to ascertain this, but I am
01:22:36: Shane Coombs. I've been interacting with you the past few weeks, and as I said, you have legitimate reasons for not wishing to take up my offer to debate you, but as I said,
01:22:48: I have a venue and I have support and all that you need, so I would ask you to be a little bit more subdued in talking about the posters and the blogs and whatnot, not wishing to interact with you directly when that offer is on the table, and it will be perpetually.
01:23:02: It will be perpetually. Well, Shane, like I said, not knowing that the connection and the emails we were sent,
01:23:08: I asked you at that time if you would be capable of dealing with those particular issues and...
01:23:14: Of bad news stuff, of feel -a -most... Just simply the entirety of dealing with the language itself, and you said that you are currently a student and that you're learning those things, but I also asked you how many people would come out to support you.
01:23:31: And I said in my latest email that I could promise you quite a few. Well, I won't get into specifics because I don't want to say things in a public forum without having the permission of these folks, but I'm just letting you know.
01:23:47: And like I said, you have a legitimate reason for... You have a legitimate statement there. You know, oh, you can't interact with this or that.
01:23:53: That's fine. I'm just saying that there is somebody who's willing to do it. And I'm not saying this to attack you, but Dr.
01:23:59: White, I do feel extremely confident I can make your position look very silly. Okay, Shane, I appreciate your call.
01:24:06: Thank you. Thank you. Bye -bye. Okay, well, there's some real confidence there.
01:24:14: No toys about it. I'm not really certain that the substance has been touched again, and I'm not sure that I communicated exactly what that substance is, but quite the interesting afternoon on the program.
01:24:27: Well, we'll be back again Thursday afternoon, four o 'clock here on The Dividing Line. Continue with our discussions.
01:24:33: Who knows what's going to develop between now and then? I don't know, but we will see when
01:24:38: Thursday comes rolling along. So thanks for listening to The Dividing Line. We'll see you on Thursday. God bless.