Yes, Catholic Theology is Still Problematic

Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. If you'd like to talk with Dr.

White, you can call now by dialing 602 -274 -1360. That's 602 -274 -1360.

Or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 -888 -550 -1360.

That's 1 -888 -550 -1360. And now, with today's topic, here's

James White. And welcome to the program this afternoon. My name is James White, live with you in studio here for The Dividing Line today.

And it is good to be with you. I was in New York last week. And if you were watching the television at all, you know that even though we've had no winter here, we have had really no cold weather except one little storm that came through back in December sometime.

Well, I got my fill of winter when I was back on Long Island. In fact, one day

I was walking back to the hotel from a nearby gym. I had been working out in the morning.

And the wind was whipping 20, 25 miles per hour right in my face. And you know what, folks? If you've lived here as long as I have,

I've lived here 26 years, you forget what that's like. I got back to the hotel, and I turned on the

TV. And the weather report said that with wind chill, it was negative 8 degrees. And here

I sit in shorts and a short -sleeved shirt. And it's had the windows down, the truck on the way down here today.

And you know what? We live in a beautiful, beautiful place. So if you get tired of the heat, you get tired of the sun and everything else, just remember what it's like to crunch through ice -covered snow and experience negative 8 wind chill.

It is quite the experience, not one that I would like to repeat very, very quickly.

602 .274 .1360 is our number here, or 1 -888 -550 -1360.

Many issues that we could be discussing today, and I have chosen to go back to a subject that many people have many questions on and deal with a wide range of issues within the realm of Roman Catholicism and the differences that exist between Biblical theology and the teachings of the

Roman Catholic Church. I was this morning reviewing the Universal Catechism of the

Catholic Church, simply called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, first published in Latin in 1994 and the

English translation the same year. This particular brand new catechism, or well, relatively brand new, six years isn't all that long a period of time, is really, according to the

Pope anyways, an authoritative representation of the teachings of the

Roman Catholic Church. Very often you will have people assert that in a point of fact, the representations that Protestant apologists make of the

Roman Catholic position are dated, that they are not accurate, that they are going back before Vatican II, or whatever it might be.

So I thought it would be useful to listen directly to the statements of the Universal Catechism, but something happened as I was studying.

I was looking at the sections on the Mass and on the death of Christ. Most of you who are regular listeners know that I just completed writing a book entitled

The Potter's Freedom. The Potter's Freedom will be released, Lord willing, in May.

Calvary Press is working feverishly on the book as we speak. I've already seen the cover.

It is a very, very nice cover. They've done a very good job on that. It currently sits at around 300 pages in length, and it is a defense of the

Reformation and a refutation of Norman Geisler's book, Chosen but Free. And so as I was reading through the

Catechism, I was struck a number of times by the fact that what I was reading was a direct parallel, in fact sometimes an almost direct quote, of some of the key passages that I had responded to in Dr.

Geisler's book. And before you get all bent out of shape by my saying that, I would just simply invite you, if you have access to Chosen but Free, to read the section on God's predeterminately foreknowing or foreknowingly predetermining, and my response in Chapter 2 of The Potter's Freedom, and then read this section of the

Catholic Catechism, paragraph 600, under Christ's redemptive death in God's plan of salvation.

Let me read it to you. It says, "...to God all moments of time are present in their immediacy.

When therefore He establishes His eternal plan of predestination, He includes in it each person's free response to His grace.

For the sake of accomplishing His plan, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness."

And that is in reference to a quotation of Acts Chapter 4, where it says, "...in this city, in fact, both

Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant

Jesus, whom you anointed to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."

Of course, the Catechism is wrong to find within the quotation of Acts Chapter 4, 27 -28, any concept of, quote -unquote, free will.

But then again, Armenian exegetes do the exact same thing, and find the very same concept of free will, even in passages that clearly say otherwise.

But the phraseology, "...to God all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore

He establishes His eternal plan of predestination, He includes in it each person's free response to His grace," is almost a direct quote of the presentation that Armenians make in regards to the foreknowledge of God, and the creation of God's plan.

That struck me, and so it caused me to start doing some jumping around, looking at some other passages, and I ran across the following quotations, which again, if you're familiar with the book, or if you listened to the series we did last summer, you'll know exactly why these are so relevant.

Paragraph 155 of the Catechism says, "...in faith the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace.

Believing is an act of the intellect, assenting to the divine truth by command of the will, moved by God through grace."

That's a quote from Thomas Aquinas, but it is the Catechism that says, "...in faith the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace."

Dr. Geisser says, "...the grace works synergistically on the free will of man."

And this is exactly what the Catholic Catechism says as well, and it's exactly what was denied at the time of the

Protestant Reformation, and yet most people in the United States today, who would call themselves

Protestants, would no longer agree with the Protestant Reformation, they would agree with these statements from the

Catholic Catechism. Paragraph 2008 says, "...the

merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace.

The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration.

So that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful.

Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ from the predispositions and assistance given by the

Holy Spirit." There is that concept of grace as merely something that moves us, but does not actually accomplish the intention that God sends it, and that is in the salvation of God's elect people.

So it doesn't surprise me at all, that within one page of the assertion that God's eternal plan of predestination is somehow based upon what men do in time, that you simply turn the page over, you read these words.

Listen carefully. At the end of the parable of the lost sheep, this is paragraph 605, by the way, at the end of the parable of the lost sheep,

Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one, and in a quotation is given from Matthew 18, 14, so it is not the will of your

Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. He affirms that he came to give his life a ransom for many.

This last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the

Redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The church following the apostles teaches that Christ died for all men without exception.

Quote, there is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom

Christ did not suffer. End quote, and that is a quotation from the Council of Cursi in 853.

That's section 605 of the Universal Catechism. So one thing is for certain. You cannot be a faithful Roman Catholic and believe that the catechism of the

Catholic Church accurately reflects the teachings of the Magisterium and believe in the perfect work of Christ upon the cross of Calvary in place of God's people.

You cannot believe in particular redemption. You cannot believe that Christ's death actually saves anyone. You have to merely believe that Christ's death makes men savable.

That it ensures their salvability, but not their salvation. And again, that's the

Arminian position, and that is why the Reformers saw Arminianism, the second and third generation

Reformers, saw Arminianism as a return to Rome, because on these fundamental issues, the nature of grace, the nature of the will, the nature of God's decree, the nature of the death of Christ, the

Arminian agrees with the Roman Catholic. And therefore it is not surprising whatsoever that so many evangelicals who have been given this teaching their entire lives are finding it so easy to embrace the soteriology that is the

Gospel proclamation of Rome. Because fundamentally, they've already been agreeing with Rome and rejecting the

Reformation all along to begin with. And I hope that makes some of you downright uncomfortable.

Truth frequently does. We don't want people sitting around being comfortable. We want people sitting around thinking.

That is not something that is very popular in our society today, but it is something that is very popular here on the dividing line, and if you've learned anything from listening to the program over the years, it is our desire that people think and that they think clearly.

Well, we already have a call online. You can get involved too at 602 -274 -1360 or 1 -888 -550 -1360 if you're outside the

Phoenix dialing area. That's 602. You don't want to get one of those little beep, beep, beep, and be told that you're calling the wrong dialing area.

It's 602 -274 -1360 here in the Phoenix area, and I believe that is probably the number that Jerry called.

Hi, Jerry. How you doing? I cannot hear Jerry. And Rich cannot hear

Jerry. And Jerry, hold on just one second there. We'll bring you up in a moment. You're probably hearing me, but I'm not hearing you.

Is Jerry gone? There's Jerry. Hey, Jerry. Sorry about that. Hi, Dr. White.

How you doing, sir? Yes. I just want to ask you, do you know The Openness of God by Clark Pinnock?

Yes, I do. Do you think that is a distortion of the truth?

I think it's heresy. How's that? It's not just a distortion of the truth. I suppose all heresies are, in one way or another, a distortion of truth.

I mean, there's very few heresies that are just simply a black -and -white denial of the propositions of Scripture.

But Clark Pinnock left the Christian faith a long time ago, sadly. He now embraces a viewpoint that is, for all intents and purposes, process theology, the idea that God is growing and changing and evolving and learning, and as such, such a theology has no connection to the

Biblical God, who is the Creator of all things, and who in fact uses the fact that He is the

Creator, the Maker of all things, who has perfect knowledge, the Creator of past, present, and future, as the chief argument against idolatry throughout the

Old Testament. And so I do not believe you can fit the concept of a growing, evolving

God who is changing and who is either voluntarily or by necessity limited his knowledge of future events, and is instead, like us, moving through time with the

Biblical presentation of what prophecy is, of the entirety of the Gospel presentation.

It is not surprising at all to me that Clark Pinnock has both abandoned the

Reformed understanding of salvation as well as the Biblical doctrine of God, because the two go hand -in -hand.

Thank you so much, sir. Okay, well thanks for coming. Dr. White? Yes, go ahead. Would you tell us where you got your doctorate?

Columbia Evangelical Seminary in Longview, Washington. Thank you.

You're most welcome. Bye -bye. 602 -274 -1360, 1 -888 -550 -1360 is the phone number, and you might say, well that was blunt.

Well, we tend to be blunt. I don't think there's any reason to, you know, it's amazing as we're watching the political season develop here in the

United States, it is amazing to me the fact that in the culture around us, if you speak the truth directly, and you have to say, if someone lies about you, if you dare call them a liar, you're the one that's wrong, but it's okay if they lied about you.

It's okay to lie, but it's not okay to point out that someone's lying. This whole world is absolutely upside down.

I mean, I noticed this week the story, and I'll get back to the Catechism here in a second, but I noticed the story that broke yesterday, that a man has been arrested, and is being charged with sexual conduct with a minor in regards to the situation last

August where the very young girl, I believe her age was 14 years of age, was sent off by some judge, that we'll eventually have to answer for this before God, the judge of all mankind, to Kansas City, or I think it's

Kansas, to have her baby murdered, that's called an abortion, and now they've arrested the guy who was the father of the child.

Think about that for just a moment. The man who fathers the child is going to be punished for sexual conduct with a minor, but the very system that will punish him made it possible for the murder of the child.

Is that brilliant, or is that brilliant? I mean, talk about perversion. The whole nation has gone nuts.

It's lost its mind. But anyways, that is a completely different subject, and I just thought

I'd mention that in passing. But yes, indeed, we are fairly straightforward in what we have to say, and I do not believe that Dr.

Pinnock's denial of the nature of grace, his denial of the fundamentals of the doctrine of salvation, his denial of the omniscience of God, his denial of the eternality of God, God's existence outside of time, are orthodox in any way, shape, or form.

And I would simply invite anyone to see, even 15 years ago, when Dr. Pinnock wrote in the

Basinger -Basinger book on Four Views of Predestination and Free Will, even there,

Dr. Pinnock's deep dislike and hatred of the

Reformed position, and in fact, I would argue, the biblical view of God, comes through in his every word.

I mean, it is striking to read that and to compare what he says with what you find in Scripture.

Now, I just read to you a section from the Catholic Catechism that says, this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the

Redeemer, who hands himself over to save us. Now, it says,

Christ hands himself over to save us. The church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception.

So, if language means something, then the assertion is, Christ died for all men to save all men.

And then they have the quote, There is not, never has been, and never will be, a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.

So, the idea then is that Christ dies on behalf of everyone, and yet, is everyone saved?

Well, there certainly are a large number of universalists now, within what calls itself

Roman Catholicism. There are many Roman Catholics who believe that everyone will be saved. That every single person eventually will inherit eternal life.

But, the Catechism talks about hell. The Catechism talks about a place of eternal punishment, and it specifically says that those who do not die in a state of grace, those who commit mortal sin, which is purposeful, knowledgeable rebellion against God, will end up in hell.

Now, I can understand how some people are trying or working very hard to get to the point of saying, well, no one is going to end up doing that.

I mean, how could a Buddhist knowingly rebel against God's will, without any revelation of what God's will is?

In fact, I could almost see an argument being developed eventually, that says it's better not to proclaim the

Bible to anyone, because then they can't, with knowledge, reject God's law, and therefore no one could ever end up in hell.

So, it's an amazing thing when theologies evolve and change over time.

But, the point remains, the Catechism, right now, still teaches the existence of hell and eternal punishment.

So, the question is, and this is the same question that must be asked of evangelicals, if Christ hands himself over to save us, and if he does so for every single human being, as section 605 of the

Catholic Catechism says, then why does he fail? Oh, well, it's because of us.

So, in other words, the death of Christ, in and of itself, cannot save anyone. It only opens the door, it only makes this reservoir of grace available, so that we can then, through the sacraments of the

Church, bring about our own salvation. And that is really what you end up encountering in the presentation found here in the

Catholic Catechism. Section 617 says, The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as,

Now, you hear those two phrases?

The source of eternal salvation, and the death of Christ, merited justification for us.

Notice, it does not save anyone, it does not justify anyone, it instead becomes a source, and it merits justification.

How, then, does one obtain salvation? How, then, does one experience justification?

Through the sacraments of the Church. Christ's death saves no one.

Instead, it merits justification, or, more specifically, the grace of justification, which then comes to us through the sacraments of the

Church. Comes to us through the labor of regeneration in baptism, as the

Council of Trent expressed it. Comes to us through the sacrament of penance, and re -justification after the commission of immortal sin, etc.,

etc. So there is this huge reservoir that is merited by the death of Christ, and then we tap into that by our activities.

That is exactly what the Reformers reacted against, and they said,

No, no, no, it is not a matter of Christ merely making salvation a possibility that is then left up to us to actuate through our works, whether it be many works, constant pilgrimages, constant attendance at Mass, constant confession to the priest, constant giving of alms to the poor, whatever it might be.

You can have a long list or a short list. It didn't matter. The whole idea is, if you have a list of things that you have to add to the work of Christ, then you're opposed to the

Reformation, and I would argue you're opposed to the Gospel message itself. And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, that's exactly what we see being presented, not only in the

Catholic Catechism, but we see it being presented in Evangelical churches all across our land today, mainly by individuals who are not aware of the fact that they are, by teaching this kind of theology, this kind of doctrine, buying into the very lie that had once held all of Europe in its grasp, and it was the proclamation of the

Gospel of God's free grace, the sovereignty of God that had freed Europe and broke the yoke of Rome, most of those who have gone back to that viewpoint are unaware of the historical reality of where they are actually standing and why they are, in fact, standing there.

In fact, it's interesting, once you start this kind of error, I just happened to notice this passage in passing today, it's section 725 of the

Catechism. Listen to this. You want to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation? I was specifically looking for a discussion of the relationship of regeneration in faith and things like that.

And listen to section 725. It says, Finally, through Mary, the

Holy Spirit begins to bring men the objects of God's merciful love into communion with Christ.

Did you hear that? Finally, through Mary, the

Holy Spirit begins to bring men the objects of God's merciful love into communion with Christ.

Is that amazing? Through Mary. The Holy Spirit acts through Mary, who is called the

Immaculata in much of Roman Catholic theology today, the Immaculate One, through whom the

Holy Spirit works. That's why there is an entire section on Mary that comes up beginning with section 963 in the

Catechism. If you are ever told by someone, well, no, the Church doesn't really still believe all that stuff, just go get the

Catholic Catechism. There is no doubt about the fact that this book is specifically written, this entire Catechism is specifically written to make the best presentation possible of Roman Catholic beliefs.

In other words, it is phrased in such a way that you won't find some of the most egregious statements of maybe the

Council of Trent or even well before that, the Council of Florence and the

Fourth Lateran Council and things like that, or the teaching that was prevalent at the time of the Reformation.

You won't find that kind of strong terminology, but you still find the theology if you know how to look for it.

But all of that leads to the section on the Mass, which begins as Article 3,

Section 1322 of the Catholic Catechism. And it is a fairly lengthy section because from the

Roman Catholic viewpoint, the Eucharist is the central aspect of the worship of the Christian Church.

The celebration of the liturgy of the Eucharist is extremely important in Roman Catholic teaching.

And yet it is in the process of discussing this sacrificial memorial of Christ, as they describe it, that we have so many of the most incredible statements that are found here regarding this.

And specifically, before we take our break, I'd like to direct your attention to 1364, which says,

In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the

Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present. The sacrifice of Christ, offered once for all on the cross, remains ever present.

As often as the sacrifice of the cross, by which Christ, our Pash, has been sacrificed, is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.

That was from Vatican II, the final section. The assertion that as often as the sacrifice of the cross is celebrated on the altar, that is the altar of the

Roman Catholic Church, the work of our redemption is carried out. And so you have this assertion that the work of Christ is an ongoing work.

That through the representation of this one sacrifice, you have an ongoing work of redemption taking place.

That that's why the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. But what is truly amazing, is that there is a note attached to the following section.

When it says she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present, the sacrifice

Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. And what they mean is through the sacrament of the

Eucharist. There's a little note attached. There's all sorts of notes in here. And what is attached, number 183, is the only reference that I have found in this whole section to the book of Hebrews, chapters 7 -10.

And of course you know that Hebrews 7 -10 is the main battleground where we have the clear biblical teaching of the perfection of the work of Christ.

And specifically they make reference to Hebrews 7, 25 -27, which says,

Therefore he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens, who does not need daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this he did once for all when he offered up himself.

They actually have the nerve to cite that passage and attach it to the assertion that through the

Eucharistic sacrifice, the single sacrifice of Christ is always made present in the church.

Well, I have much more that I want to say about that, but our time is running out for this section. 274 -1360 is the number.

1 -888 -550 -1360. I'd like to hear from you today. Get online and we'll be right back.

And welcome back to The Dividing Line on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. It's already starting to warm up out there.

Why do I get the feeling it's going to be a very long and warm summer? I just don't think that the last summer is really over with yet.

That's the problem. We're just going to pack two of them into a row and see if any of us can survive it. I think that's how we're going to work it out.

We're looking at a number of citations from the Catholic Catechism of the

Roman Catholic Church. At least, you've got to admit, if you're a Roman Catholic, we're reading the right stuff anyhow, the stuff that the church itself is putting out.

And I had just made reference to the fact that in section 1364, we read,

In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates

Christ's Passover and it is made present. The sacrifice

Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. How? In the

Roman Catholic theology, it remains ever present through the Eucharistic sacrifice on the altar.

But interestingly enough, there's two other errors here. And by the way, I just simply point out that this indicates, this proves, that the

Roman Catholic Church is not infallible in regards to its interpretation of Scripture.

Here is a gross misapplication of Hebrews chapter 7, verses 25 through 27.

It simply ignores the context, in fact, makes it say the exact opposite of what it really says, and that is, it reduces the finished work of Christ to something that is represented upon an altar, that has a limited effect.

And yet Hebrews 7 .25 says, He is able to save to the uttermost, or completely, or forever, those who draw near to God through Him.

Now that cannot be said of the Roman Catholic Mass. The person who approaches

God through the sacrifice of the Mass cannot say, I have been saved completely.

That's why you have to keep going to the Mass over and over and over and over again, because it does not save completely.

So here's a passage that should, upon the most initial examination of it, cause a person to go, wait a minute, if we're trying to promote the idea that the

Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and it's to be done over and over again, and it only has a limited application, only a limited effect upon those who draw near, why in the world would we cite a passage that isn't talking about some representation of the one sacrifice of Christ, but is in fact saying that Christ dies once, and because He ever lives to make an accession for those for whom

He dies, He is able to save. Well, because in the religions of men, you cannot have a

Savior who can save, and save perfectly. That's the issue.

The second error is that in the preceding section, it was talking about the Old Testament and the memorial of the

Old Testament. The problem was, if they would allow the New Testament to define its own terminology,

Hebrews chapter 10 tells us that there was a memorial, and in remembrance in the

Old Testament, it was the old sacrifices. Hebrews chapter 10 says that in those repetitive sacrifices, there is an anamnesis, a reminder of sins year by year.

The anamnesis, the reminder in the New Covenant, is the Lord's Supper.

But it's not a reminder of sin, it's a reminder of a Savior who has saved us from the power of sin.

But again, since Roman Catholicism doesn't have a finished work, and doesn't have a Savior who can actually save, monergistically, not synergistically, then that belief is abandoned, and you have this idea of a memorial between the two.

Well, so much for the infallible magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. It doesn't understand the teaching of Scripture on such vital and important issues.

Well, I've been gone for a couple of weeks, and so I haven't had the opportunity, the joyous experience of talking to Dennis in Phoenix.

Hi, Dennis. Howdy. Now, Dennis, I need to say something right up front. Right up front.

Alright. There will be no comments about the previous week's programs. Okay? Can I make a positive comment?

Sure, go ahead. The delight to find that best of was...

Hey, if they can do it on... What's his face? Who's the guy on Channel 5? Not the

Tonight Show. Late Night. David Letterman. If he can just do reruns all the time, we can, too.

Yeah, I don't like that cartoon. No, okay. But, yeah, the delight to find...

The reason it was so unfamiliar to me was it was totally ancient. It was the very first show I ever called.

Oh, really? You mean you called even when you didn't call? That's amazing. I was on the internet calling, and I wasn't even calling.

That's frightening. That truly is a frightening thing. Anyways, what's your comment on the subject today,

Dave? Oh, you got me to look in at Hebrews 7 -11. I'm just skimming through. I'm not even reading really close.

928, So Christ also has been offered once to bear the sins of many. Will appear a second time on a

Roman Catholic altar? No. For salvation without reference to sin? Those are usually awaited. Second coming,

I'm sure. Well, the whole... Chapters 7 -10 provide such an incredible testimony to one fact, and that is a sacrifice that must be repeated.

A sacrifice that does not, in its initial appearance, perfect those for whom it's made is an inferior sacrifice.

And the fact that Rome teaches that you can approach the Mass, which they say is the same sacrifice of Christ.

That's how they deal with all these things. The standard Roman Catholic response to what you just said would be, Oh, Dennis, you just don't understand.

We are not re -sacrificing Jesus. There is not a second sacrifice. It is just a re -presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ.

But the problem, of course, is you can approach that one sacrifice of Christ 5 ,000, 10 ,000, 15 ,000 times during your life and still commit a mortal sin before you die and go to hell.

Which means you've come to the sacrifice of Christ and you are not perfected thereby.

But you can see what the problem with that is. Because if you teach that the sacrifice of Christ actually perfects those for whom it is made, then you have to answer the question,

Well, if it is made in behalf of all men, why then are not all men saved?

So since Evangelicalism is afraid to affirm the perfection of the work of Christ on the cross for the sake of having to abandon its

Madison Avenue style of Evangelism, the result, therefore, is that we have to back off of this divine truth and end up agreeing with Rome that Christ's death only makes us savable.

It doesn't actually save. Well, you know, you've got to be able to say God loves you and have a wonderful plan for your life even if the fact with a given person that God hates you is going to throw you into hell.

Well, I remember seeing a tract at a church a number of years ago that said instead of smile,

God loves you, is mourn, God hates you. And really, the more

I've been considering it, the more I was mentioning, well, I'm not sure who I was mentioning it to, maybe

I was just thinking about it during a workout recently, but historically, up until the time of Finney, around that period of time, the message, the preached message was

God commands men everywhere to repent. And your main concern was not what will

I do with Christ? Your main concern was what will Christ do with me? And the message was do not delay the day of salvation.

Your only possibility of hope is to throw yourself upon the mercy of God and pray that he will be merciful to you.

This idea of man being in control of his destiny and man bossing God around simply was unknown.

But it fits with our modern humanistic age and that's what brings quote -unquote success, but it doesn't bring godly living and it doesn't bring a biblical presentation of the gospel.

I can tell you pews, but you know, a lot of people in those pews aren't going the right way. That's right, that's very true.

Well, Dennis, it's good to hear from you. It was very cold back in New York, it really was, but we had a wonderful time preached on the five solas of the

Reformation while I was gone, and that was really, really, really enjoyable. Well, good to have you back.

Okay, thanks a lot, Dennis. Bye -bye. 602 -274 -1360 1 -888 -550 -1360

Let's see if we can squeeze Martin in here. Hi, Martin, how are you doing? Hi, James. Hey, you know, I heard that we got a call recently.

Someone was complaining that we need to look for new callers other than Dennis and Martin. Oh, I'll stop calling then.

No, I'm not. And I felt like saying, well, call in and have something worthwhile to say and all will be well.

Indeed, indeed. So, anyhow, how are things across the pond?

A bit cold, James. Just hearing you talk about New York. Probably slightly colder here, probably. Well, you know,

I don't know what the temperature is going to be today. I think it's going to be about 77 or something along those lines, and I tell you,

I walked out last night about 10 .30 at night and needed to check something in my truck and I didn't have any shoes on. And I could walk on the pavement and it was absolutely,

I mean, there wasn't a bit of cold in it. It was probably 65 degrees. It was beautiful. My goodness. Well, think about it sometime there, big guy.

It's a beautiful place to live. I do think about it, James, especially when it's cold or snowing. Yes, indeed.

I might have to do a defined snow for you Arizonians. Well, I experienced it, believe me. I saw my first blizzard in a long time and it was quite the experience.

But anyways, speaking of the Catholic Catechism and the Catholic Church. Yes, two things, really.

You were talking earlier that it's said that Christ died for every individual in the Catechism. How then do they explain their, well, it's hard to follow it, the extra -ecclesium, the losalis.

Well, you know, there is an entire section on that and the study of that phrase, which for those who were not paying attention during Latin class means outside the

Church there is no salvation. The modern understanding of that has expanded tremendously.

And for some Roman Catholics, in fact, someone asked me that question just recently and I forget exactly where that description is found.

I was reading it just this morning. It's earlier on in the Catechism. But anyways, someone had asked recently in the chat room about that very issue and I said, well, in 1200 it meant you had to be a baptized

Roman Catholic to be saved. In the year 2000 it means you have to breathe to be saved. I mean, there are, for some

Roman Catholics today, and even the Catechism specifically refers to Muslims as a part of God's plan of salvation.

That the plan of salvation includes the Muslim people. And so how that works with the assertion of the necessity of sacramental grace and the necessity of not committing a mortal sin, it is really a complicated thing anymore.

It's no wonder that you can find so many different takes today on the issue of what

Roman Catholics really believe on this issue. And that doesn't surprise me that Rome shifts and changes.

What does surprise me is people who are generally, if you read their work, generally Orthodox, like J .I. Packer, and then going out and signing

EC2. How does that happen? Well, I asked R .C. Sproul that question once, and I'll need to let you go because we've come out of our break, but I asked

R .C. Sproul that question once at the Christian Booksellers Association, and he said, well, you've got to remember

J .I. is an Anglican. He's got one foot in the Bible and one foot in Rome.

So, Anglicanism is somewhat double -minded, and I think that's why

Packer can sign EC2 and then sign the cure response to it at the same time. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but that's exactly how it ends up working out.

Well, Martin, thanks for calling all the way from England there, brother, and keep up the fight for the faith. All right? We will do.

God bless you. Bye -bye. 602 -274 -1360. We have two lines open, two lines on hold right now.

We'll be getting to you right after this break. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

We have about ten minutes left in the program. We have a few callers on hold. And by the way, if you're calling and you get it to start ringing, stick with it because we've got one person running the board today, and Mr.

Pierce is running everything. And I guess I shouldn't have said that right after that last spot. He's running everything a little bit too fast on that particular instance.

And that means especially when someone's calling online, too, as if you were supposed to know that you're online, too, it's difficult for him to see that particular one ringing.

So whoever was just calling, go ahead and give us a call back. We will get to you. But let's start with KJ in Phoenix.

Hi, KJ. Hi. Hello. I wanted to refer you a book. I believe it's called The Danger of Decisionism or something like that.

I heard it on another religious radio program, the Southwest Radio Church.

They were interviewing the author of the book, and it's all about Mr. Finney and how the faith modified with his teachings.

Well, yes. And he discovered a lot of documents that were unknown, apparently, until recently.

And I'm going to get the book and read it, but since you were mentioning Mr. Finney and his idea about the nature of what salvation should be.

Ian Murray's History of Revivalism is also an excellent resource for looking at Finney and Finney's teaching.

There are a number of books out there on his methodology, but the fundamental issue,

I think, is that people need to realize how deeply impacted the program -oriented presentation of many evangelical churches has been by the church.

And if people would just know church history a little bit, they would see where they fit in the spectrum of things.

I think a lot of folks would be surprised as to exactly where they fit in that spectrum. But people don't even know their own history.

No, I realize that. We live in a country, and most of the people inhabiting it don't know the history of the people that created the country.

Well, and I think the church ends up mirroring the culture in which it lives, unfortunately.

And since Americans generally do not understand their own history, it's not surprising that a lot of American Christians don't understand their history as Christians as well.

So, K .J., thanks for the recommendation. Appreciate it. Thanks for calling. Bye -bye. 602 -274 -1360.

Let's talk to, I'm going to say, Stephan. Is that a close guess? This is Stephan. Hi, Stephan.

How are you doing? Hi, James. Welcome back. It's good to be here. Good. Hey, first of all, just a comment about your impression of R .C.

Spill. That was really cool. That was pretty good. Pretty close. Thank you. Thank you very much.

But anyway, my question is not specifically about the Catechism you're talking about. Sorry. But what I'm really confused about,

Hank Hendergraf mentions the Catholic Church as, actually, I'm sorry, Norm Geisler would mention it as a true church.

With significant error. Right. And I would say it's a false church with significant truth. Oh, really? Yes. So then, let me ask you this.

Hank would say it's not a cult, but a world religion. What is the difference between a cult and a world religion?

Depends on the person you're talking to. The term cult, unfortunately, has,

I think, little application, simply because if you apply the term cult to Heaven's Gate, 39

Nike tennis -shoed people under purple shrouds, and then you attach it to Roman Catholicism, what good has the term become?

I mean, if it's applicable to 39 people or to a billion people, what is it really saying?

I mean, the one group that has absolutely no connection with Christianity, the other affirming the

Resurrection of Christ and the Trinity. I mean, it has become a word that has little meaning at that point.

So I think we just have to be far more specific. I think that the drive to use the term cult really represents a desire to, in a shallow sense, make everything black and white.

Instead of really digging into the real issues that make Roman Catholicism, the false religion that it is.

And that is, while it affirms great elements of truth, it always does so in such a way as to undercut the

Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I just point out to people, and I've never had anyone respond to this, I point out to people, look, if we're going to use that type of terminology and say

Rome is a true church because of the fact that Rome believes, let's say, in the doctrine of the

Trinity and the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ, then that means the Judaizers were a true church as well.

Because as far as we can tell from Galatians, they only had one problem. He doesn't say anything about their denying the

Resurrection or denying the deity of Christ or denying any of that stuff. In fact, there seems to have been a very long list of things that they held in common together.

But Paul anathematized them and said they were under the curse of God because they had perverted the

Gospel. And what the Judaizers did, in comparison to what

Rome has done, is minor as far as the amount of additions and changes and perversions to the

Gospel. You look at indulgences and things like that, and Rome's viewpoint makes the Judaizers look downright orthodox.

And yet, Paul anathematized the Judaizers because they did not have the Gospel. That's the issue.

And a few weeks ago, Norm was on with Hank, and a caller called in to ask him about the comment that he had made before, and I'm not sure if you heard the program that I did on Indulgentiarum Doctrina, which aired right after Dr.

Geisler said this on the Bible Answer Man program. It's archived on our website if you have access to the internet.

I'd suggest you go back and hear the section on indulgences. But a few weeks later, someone called in and asked about the statement he had made where Rome's a true church, significant error, and if you make forensic justification the standard, then no one in church history up until the time of Luther was actually a true

Christian. And he said, well you need to remember there's all these things that we agree with one another on.

And one of the statements that he made was, we agree on the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the all sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross.

And I screamed. I could not believe that you could look at what Rome teaches about the Mass, about the work of Christ on the cross, its representation, so on and so forth, and say,

A, they believe in substitutionary atonement, because they do not. He merits justification for us.

He does not take our penal substitutionary place. There is no substitutionary atonement in Roman Catholic theology in the historical sense of that word.

And then to speak of the all sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross, I just, I about tore what very little hair

I have in my head out at a point like that. I just couldn't believe that that statement was being made. So, no,

I firmly disagree with Norm Geiser. He's a wonderfully nice man, but I've told him. Yes, we get along just fine, and that's why

I'm a little disappointed. The folks who have arranged our debates on Long Island have contacted him, and they would like to do a two -night debate between the two of us.

One issue would be, is Rome a true church? And the other would be on the issues of his book,

Chosen but Free, and my response to Potter's Freedom. And I, you know, we've debated infant baptism with other

Christians here in the Phoenix area, and it was done in a proper way. It was done in a biblical way, there weren't any hard feelings, and it was very useful to people.

I think those two debates would be extremely useful. I think they'd be incredibly well attended. But Dr.

Geiser just won't do it. He doesn't, huh? No. He just won't do it. So then what do you think, so what would you say the Catholic Church is?

It's a false church, would you say? False church with... False church with significant elements of truth.

I mean, it confesses there's one true God, the resurrection of Christ, the deity of Christ, the Trinity.

The inspiration of Scripture, though, you have to start wondering what the modern position exactly on that means, but at least the issue that God has truly spoken.

There's a tremendous amount of truth there, but there was a tremendous amount of truth in the churches in Galatia, too.

So I think that's a really significant issue. So would you call them a cult, though? I mean, from that...

Again, if we use the term cult, I don't know that we're really communicating anything. So I prefer to use the term false religion.

False religion? It would still be a... It would be a world religion, but a false religion? Yes. Yes. False world religion, maybe.

Okay. Alrighty? Great, thanks so much. Okay, thanks. Bye -bye. Let's try to squeeze

John in real quick, who's on the cell phone. John, we have just a few... We have about a minute left. Okay, my question is, you know,

I became born again in 1980, but I come from a Catholic background, and throughout my years, I've found that a lot of born -again

Christians and Protestant people will not even attempt to go back to a Catholic church to try to witness.

They even say that going into a Catholic church is the devil. And I found yourself not wanting to go to that faith thing on Mario Mento, because you wanted to do nothing for it.

Aren't we doing wrong to people that are more likely to be saved? There's a vast difference between participating in the

Festival of Faith where you are, in essence, holding hands and saying, we all are worshipping together, and we all are

Christians, because that's what the literature said. And what, for example, I and Rich Pierce did when the

Pope came to Denver, we stood there amidst 150 ,000 young people in the rain, passing out tracks and witnessing to people.

We stood along the processional route to the Cherry Creek State Park for the

Catholic Mass there, and passed out thousands of tracks to people who were trudging along there.

And shared the Gospel. We did two debates while we were there. We're very open in sharing our faith with Roman Catholics, but we do so in such a way that it's very honest in people knowing where we stand, and we're not simply holding hands and saying, well, let's all get together and let's all quote -unquote worship together.

I cannot worship together with someone in falsehood, and that's why I can't go to a Roman Catholic Mass or something like that, nor would

I go there to try to interrupt the service to try to witness to people and end up sitting in the Phoenix City Jail either.

I'm going to do it in such a way that we're very open, but also in the same way in which we are honoring the laws of the land that give us the freedom to do that.

So, John, I hope that explains that. We are pretty much out of time for the Dividing Line today, and I really appreciate the fact that we had a number of callers today.

I hope you'll be with us next week. We will have two guest hosts, and they are going to have a very interesting topic for you.

I'll be teaching next week, but they have an excellent topic, I believe, on the Law of God, and I hope that you'll be able to be with them at that time on the

Dividing Line. So thanks for being with us, and God bless. The Dividing Line is a presentation of Alpha and Omega Ministries.