June 3, 2003

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

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Well, good afternoon and welcome. I hope you can hear me. Well, it's afternoon where I am anyways.

It may not be afternoon where you are. But I am currently on Long Island in New York, well, the

New York State. I'm not exactly sure. I think Long Island sort of exists unto itself.

It's a part of New York, but it has its own culture. I've mentioned a couple times,

I'm not sure if it's on the dividing line, that this is the only place in the world that I know of anyways where you can go to McDonald's and there is no mustard on anything.

I remember the first time I ordered my normal meal at McDonald's at a drive -thru with a local pastor.

I leaned over and spoke into that wonderful impersonal machine and said,

I want a quarter pound of a cheese, ketchup and mustard only. And the guy comes back, so you want a quarter pound of a cheese, ketchup only?

And I said, no, I want a quarter pound of cheese, ketchup and mustard only. And there's this pause and then, and New Yorkers have a way of doing this that most of the folks don't.

But then you had the, you know, we can tell you're a tourist visitor, you don't live around here type thing.

And you had, well, sir, we don't have mustard. And so anyways, it's a different place out here, no two ways about it.

And it's good to be with you via the technology available to us these days and on the cell phone.

Hopefully the folks back in Phoenix are able to make my signal sound good enough.

I've got a good cell site here and sitting here in a hotel. Why am I in Long Island?

Well, as most of you know, we've been coming out here now for eight years, more than eight trips, however, because I started coming out about my fourth year,

I'd say, in January and then during the summer, normally in May. And that's what's going on this time, though, actually now it's the end of May, early

June. And we just had the great debate number eight.

I didn't realize that that rhymed like that. But the great debate number eight, the eighth year we have done this,

I was thinking back over it. The first year, Jerry Matics on Mary, the second year,

Jerry Matics on Phobos Kryptura, the third year, Mitchell Pacwa on the Papacy, the fourth year, the

Mass with Robert and Janice, the fifth year, Justification with Robert and Janice, the sixth year was

Purgatory with Peter Stravinskis, seventh year,

Prayer to Saints, or Veneration of Saints and Images, Patrick Madrid, and now this year,

Mitchell Pacwa again, and this time on the subject of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

And this is a subject we have not debated before. So when we make these debates available, that will be a new subject that we have not written on or debated on before.

And I will recommend this debate to those of you, for example, who have a role in determining

Sunday school materials or Wednesday night classes, things where you can do, you know, you have some discretion in materials that you present.

I think in light of the situation of the Roman Catholic priesthood, which has re -erupted again, by the way, in my hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, big news over the past 24 hours,

Bishop O 'Brien signed what is, in essence, a confession named names of 50 -some -odd priests that he had simply moved from one place to another place, and yet, then

I just discovered this morning, that last evening, the bishop came out and gave a completely different story, and said that he had done nothing wrong, and yet the diocese is putting out hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and setting things up and agreeing to do this, just to give the bishop immunity.

If he didn't do anything bad, then why does he need immunity in the first place, is what I'm wondering. But anyway, the subject, obviously, is one that is of great interest to individuals right now, and what you're not going to get in the media is the substance of this debate, and that is, most people just sort of assume that priests are a part of Christianity, and that it's just simply those strange plain

Baptists and a few other Protestants that have gotten rid of such a colorful, well, not as far as dress goes, but an aspect of religious faith that is found in priests, which you find, of course, in the

Anglican Church and things like that. So, in reality, one of the most fundamental questions that I wish would be addressed in the context of the media's discussion, and I know

I'm dreaming at that point that media care less about such things, but is there such a thing as a

Christian priesthood, a mediatorial, sacramental, ordained office of a priest within the

Christian Church, or is this one of the many aberrations of the Roman Catholic Church?

And, of course, that was the subject of the debate that we had Thursday night here at the

Huntington Townhouse in Huntington Township here on Long Island, up off of the right arm of the

Jericho Turnpike, just a little bit east of the 110, if any of you live out this direction. And this,

I believe, was the fourth or fifth year there at the Huntington Townhouse. It used to be held at the

Coral House in Baldwin, and we had a real good group, very interesting group.

I mentioned we had a large group of folks from Alpha Omega Ministries, both folks who flew out from Phoenix.

Most of my family was able to be there. My wife and daughter were there. My son has joined the ranks of the employed, and so he's learning about such things as vacation days or lack thereof, and so he wasn't able to be there.

But my wife and daughter were there, and Rich Pierce flew out, and Simon Escobedo and Warren Smith, Simon's daughters were with him, and then we had a bunch of folks.

Brian also flew out from Phoenix, and then we had a bunch of folks here on Long Island who helped at our book table.

This is the first year we've really set up a meaningful book table. You would think, you know, it only took us eight years to do it, but we set up a meaningful book table this year, and we're able to move a lot of books and get a lot of information out.

That's always been something that has bothered me a little bit. Not enough to really say much about it, but, you know, the

Roman Catholics would have these huge setups out there, and we wouldn't have anything, and so it's nice to have the book tables back there, and, of course, then the ministry that can go on around the book table as far as giving people references and answering questions and things like that.

You sort of multiply the amount of good that you can do in a situation like that. But the debate itself was on an unusual topic.

As I said, I've never debated that subject before, and I went into it very confident of the biblical information, very confident of the historical information, because outside of either apologists or theologians who are sort of out of step with the times, the biblical and historical data really isn't disputable.

That is, there is no mediatorial, sacramental office of a priest or priesthood in the

New Testament outside of that of Jesus Christ, and there's an amazingly wide agreement.

I found a number of Roman Catholics who I cited who recognized that this was the case, despite the fact that the

Council of Trent had made it clear that it has always been the ancient faith of the

Church. The Church has always taught through her tradition that Jesus ordained the apostles as priests at the

Last Supper, and they passed on their authority to the bishops, and so on and so forth. That just simply isn't true historically or biblically.

There is no office. The book of Hebrews does speak of Christ as a priest, but the

New Testament as a whole speaks of all believers, men and women, as priests, and not in the sense of a

Church office, but as part of our being united with Christ. And the

Church offices are two. You have elders and bishops and overseers.

Those are all one office. The two terms are episkopos, or in the plural, and presbyteros or presbyteroi, the plural form, and that's one office.

Then you have deacons. You have two offices, the elders and the deacons, and no such thing as a priest.

And what happened? The first century passed without any Christians calling upon anyone and calling them a priest.

But even in the second century, the same thing takes place.

You get toward the end of the second century, and Tertullian, in Latin, starts using the sacerdotal language of the priesthood.

And by the middle of the third century, you have it being regularly used by someone like Cyprian. But the first generation passed without this concept being in vogue.

And, of course, I think it's important to mention that even at that point, the priests of the middle of the third century are certainly not looked on in the same way as a modern

Roman Catholic priest. And I read a number of citations in regards to that. And so,

I knew what the biblical evidence was. I knew that, historically, a differentiation had taken place between episkopos and presbyteros.

The episkopos, the bishop, was elevated and became one bishop rather than a group, a plurality of elders in each local church, as the

Apostles had ordained. And then presbyteros was lowered down to a lower level, and that became the priest in the middle of the third century.

And so, I really, I had searched for any discussions where Mitch Pacwa had addressed this issue, where he talked about it, where he lectured on it, and not that I'll find anything about it.

I downloaded various things from EWTM's website and knew certain passages would come up.

I knew that the discussion concerning the Council of Trent, the issue of its claims, the idea that Jesus ordained the

Apostles, I remembered back in January of 1991 that Mitch Pacwa, in our debate on the

Mass, had spent a lot of time asserting that the Greek term that is used in Matthew, do this in remembrance of me, that that term is in the imperative, and that he had made a big presentation about how that term, poieto, in the imperative, has sacrificial overtones and all the rest of stuff.

I knew that that was probably coming. I knew Romans 15, 16 would come up. But I really wasn't sure where else he could possibly go.

And all those things that I expected to come up, did come up. But then, eventually, the main argument, and now step back for just a moment.

Here you have a man who hosts on EWTM, where he is a scholar, he speaks 12 languages, certainly has had to explain the priesthood and the concept of the priesthood in numerous contexts, and all the rest of stuff.

Here you have one of Rome's best. And what kind of an argument is going to be presented?

What's the best -case scenario for Rome? And the best -case scenario ended up being a, well, first of all,

I should say, I think that Mitch Pacwa did the best job he had done on the level of speaking.

There have been a lot of times there have been pauses and some hesitation on his part in previous debates.

There was none here. He was very passionate, and I knew that he would be. He is a priest, and as such, he's going to be passionate about the subject of the priesthood, obviously.

Not surprising at all to me. It was very personal to him, and so there wasn't much in the way of pausing.

However, I also think that of the five debates we have done, he was the least on -subject in this debate that we have ever had before.

And what I mean by that is it wasn't that he was doing what many Catholic apologists do, and wandering around the various, you know, the landscape, and you know, getting over to Sola Scriptura from the papacy or something like that.

But he did spend a lot of time discussing the Mass, and I know that that's directly related. I had to bring it up as well.

But he spent a lot of time on that, and then off into issues of, and he was right here anyways, we differ on the nature of the

Gospel, how a person appropriates the work of Christ, receives the work of Christ, which again is true, but really wasn't the issue with him.

And he made a lot of, much more of a, I would say his closing statement was considerably more preachy.

Now, everybody would say mine almost always are in my closing statements. I do try to wrap everything up and don't mind having a certain level of passion in it, but both of our closing statements were impassioned because we were addressing important things.

But it was almost as if, it seemed to me there was a lot of information that he should have been dealing with, should have been trying to answer, but was more intent upon making more of an emotional connection with his base group.

And believe me, his base group was there. There was a group of older Roman Catholic women on the front row that were quite interesting and engaging to watch and to listen to as well, because they, despite the excellent job of our moderator, didn't really care what he had to say and were very clear and open as to the fact they weren't really listening to me and everything that Father Packwood said was true and wonderful and so on and so forth.

So, anyway, I was a little surprised at that.

I thought he did a great job speaking, but he sort of, I felt, probably should have tried harder to respond to the

Biblical information. In fact, it's interesting, Chris Arnson, he didn't send it over to me, but he mentioned, he told me the next day he got an email from someone, and you never know exactly where these folks are coming from, but he got an email from someone who said he and his wife attended, his wife is on the fence thinking about becoming

Catholic. I don't know if that means this guy was a Catholic. I think he probably was. I don't know. But the comment that struck me was, in essence, he said,

Dr. White won the battle, but lost the election. He said, Father Packwood really connected with us because he felt passionate.

So, he admits Packwood lost on fact, but because he was passionate about the priesthood, then

I lose the war. And, of course, I understand a person who is not considering things on a factual basis, a person that has no passion for truth, but only a passion for their own emotions, is not going to find me to be someone who's going to be very convincing to them.

But it was very interesting. I certainly have not heard anyone, Roman Catholic or otherwise, who says that on the basis of fact, that there was really any question about the outcome of the debate.

I responded to everything that Father Packwood presented, and going back to the main thrust of what he said, the main argument on those factors

I mentioned a number of minutes ago, the main argument came down to this. It was twofold. First of all, he assumes that Episcopos and Presbyteros must be differentiated and should be differentiated.

And one of his arguments was, well, Episcopos is used in the singular. Well, not always. It is used in the plural in the

New Testament as well, and I explain the fact that when it's used in the singular, it's normally being used in discussion of the office of the bishop or overseer.

And obviously, if you're saying, now, an elder must be like this, and he must be like this, and he must be in control of the family, and da -da -da -da -da -da, obviously you're going to use the singular there, not the plural.

So that seemed to me to be a very vacuous and weak argument, and I think most people saw that.

But then you had the two main arguments that then flowed from that was, one, he asked a question during cross -examination about the 24 elders who are around the throne in heaven.

You may remember the 24 elders and the four living beasts and the ongoing worship that takes place there.

And he said, see, they offer incense, and offering incense is something the Aaronic priesthood did. It's a priestly function, so wouldn't you admit that buteros is used in sacrificial context, or in a sacrificial context meant a priestly context?

And I'm like, wow, there's a stretch. I mean, I didn't use that terminology, but I said, well, first of all, we're talking about heavenly beings.

No one in the New Testament makes a connection between these heavenly beings and the elders on earth at the church. It's not a church office.

It's not a sacrifice in regards to sin. There's only one sacrifice in the New Testament in regards to sin, and that's Jesus Christ. The sacrifice that we as believer priests offer is that of praise and thanksgiving, never in regards to sin, etc.,

etc., etc., etc. And so there was... I mean, to try to make a connection...

Obviously, if you go to the Book of Revelation and make a connection on almost anything, if you want to, but this is the direction that he went, and I was very, very surprised about that.

But, anyway, that was the first thing. 24 elders in the Book of Revelation. Then the big thing.

Here was the big argument, and I, you know, sometimes, you know, I remember when

Hamza Abdul -Malik used the fooling with the Philippians defense in our debate in 1999 that Philippians 2 .5

-11 should be dismissed, because Paul was just fooling with the Philippians. Sometimes in a debate you hear something that you just never expected to hear before, no matter how well you prepare.

And this one I had not expected to hear, but Father Pacwa went into this lengthy discussion of why the term priest is not used of the presbyters.

And the reason that Paul doesn't use the term priest is because he couldn't. Well, why couldn't he?

Well, because, you see, he went... when he was in Vanderbilt and he was studying

Hebrew, he had a female Hebrew professor, and one day in Hebrew, he said that he was a chohen kapalikos.

Ani chohen kapalikos. I am a Catholic priest. And she said, no you're not. And he's like, what?

You cannot be a chohen, a priest, because you're not part of the

Klan. You're a kormir. Now, kormir is normally an idolatrous priest.

The priest outside the faith of Israel is an idolatrous priest. But he said, you see, Paul couldn't use the term priest because of that.

Because that would not be a part of the Klan. He couldn't bring himself to do that.

And I'm like, wow, that's incredibly weak. I cannot... You take the comment of a female professor at Vanderbilt in Hebrew 2 ,000 years after the time of Christ, and you read that back in the

New Testament, and that's why the word priest doesn't appear, but presbyter does instead, and we're supposed to read presbyters as if they're priests?

I mean, there are so many holes in that argument. It was absolutely amazing. I had to be careful how

I responded to it, because it was just like, you've got to be kidding me. And, you see,

I'm used to that from certain people. If Robert and Jennison said that, I wouldn't have been surprised at all.

But I didn't expect that from someone like Mitch Pacwa. I really didn't, because I didn't point out a number of problems.

Even in the cross -examination, I got him to...

I asked him, I said, now, obviously Hebrews violates this rule you've laid down regarding Paul, and used the term

Chohen. He uses it of Christ in a way that would violate everything that your professor said, right?

Oh, yes, that's true. So, you have one New Testament book that he admits completely violates the rule.

And the funny thing is, it's written to whom? The very people this rule allegedly have the most meaning to. And then

I pointed out in my own comments later on, look, in the books like 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus, he's not even writing to Jews.

He's not writing from Palestine, he's not writing to Palestine, he's not writing in Hebrew. There would be absolutely, positively not the first reason for this to take place.

There wouldn't be the first reason to follow this kind of argumentation. There's no reason at all to believe that that's why the term priest does not appear in the

New Testament. I mean, even if you were to grant that the attitude of this Hebrew professor has some validity 2 ,000 years ago, it would only have validity maybe in the

Gospels. It would not have any validity in Paul's later writings at the church.

I mean, it just simply didn't make any sense at all. It was extremely, extremely weak as to the whole form of the argumentation.

It was something else. So, there were your arguments. The 24 elders in heaven in Revelation, and you can't use

Kohen because your Hebrew professor said you're not part of the Klan, and that's why a priest doesn't appear.

That amazed me, and I think anyone who listens to the debate fairly, and I'm excluding the ladies on the front row, would have to admit that as far as every argument he presented,

I rebutted with documentation. He tried to do some stuff in the early church and then basically abandoned it.

I was able to cite scholars. I didn't have to cite myself. I was able to cite others in regards to Clement chapters 40 and 44.

He didn't bring up anything out of Ignatius other than Ignatius was representative of a monarchical episcopate, which was true.

That's very well known, but Clement's epistle is a demonstration of plurality of elders in the church. So, the early church history information, even though he would later say this has been the faith of the church for 2 ,000 years and this is what

Christians have always believed, that wasn't true. I mean, I pointed out the fact that those first generations did not have that office, and I don't think he responded to that.

And as far as the biblical argumentation went, he didn't present anything that was not rebutted, and I presented much that was not rebutted and would have to be rebutted.

The identification of episkopos and presbyteros as being interchangeably used by Paul.

It's, you know, very, very compelling argumentation.

And so, that is, the debate itself went well, and I'm going to invite you all to participate.

877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341.

You can make this a long -distance phone call of mine, a little bit more worthwhile. Maybe you were there, or you have some questions you would like to ask.

I understand we're having some difficulties with the webcast, and folks are having a lot of skipping and things like that.

I'm not sure. I'm just sort of catching things up. I'm watching the channel as I'm sitting here talking.

But 877 -753 -3341. If you were there, you can get some questions to ask concerning that debate or debate in general.

Please feel free to participate in the program today. I have a few other things to mention about the debate itself, and the fact that what was most interesting, as far as what people will remember from the debate, or at least what they demonstrated they remembered that night, some comments that were made to me.

But we're going to take our break first and let you get online at 877 -753 -3341.

And when we come back, we'll talk about that and take your phone calls here on The Dividing Line. Answering those who claim that only the

King James Version is the Word of God, James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin

.org. Incorporating the most recent research in solid biblical truth, Letters to a

Mormon Elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary, examining the teaching and theology of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

With well -defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the

Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism, and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS Church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons, Letters to a

Mormon Elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at www .aomin

.org. Millions of petitioners from around the world are imploring Pope John Paul II to recognize the

Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ, elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion.

In his book, Mary, Another Redeemer, James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic.

He traces how Mary of the Bible, esteemed mother of the Lord, obedient servant, and chosen vessel of God, has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed

Queen of Heaven, viewed as co -mediator with Christ, and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

Roman Catholic Church. Mary, Another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman the

Bible calls a blessed among women, and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth.

You can order your copy of James White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer, at www .aomin .org.

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free? A new cult?

Secularism? False prophecy scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation, and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at www .aomin

.org. Well, I can guarantee you one thing.

I've heard my brother Steve Kamps sound better than he does through a long -distance cell phone connection.

Can barely hear what's going on the other end, but I think it's time for me to get started again. I want to mention something.

There were two things, two really memorable things. At one point during the cross -examination, well, first of all,

I was surprised. I had read a quote at the beginning of the debate that referred to the term the

Roman Catholics use of priests, alter Christus, another Christ, and I had wondered if Packer would just sort of leave it alone, if he'd refute it, or just what.

Well, he embraced it, and he used it himself. During the cross -examination, I said, would you just make sure that everyone understands what does alter

Christus mean? And he said, another Christ. And he did not compromise that in any way, shape, or form.

And so that was interesting. And then one of the things that really bothered me, everyone in the chat channel knows, the most certain way for you to get yourself kickbanned, other than using profanity and things like that, the most certain way for you to get yourself kickbanned out of prosopologia would be to basically make the argument, as Roman Catholics frequently do, that the evidence for, and then fill in some traditionally driven man -made doctrine, like the bodily assumption of Mary or the priesthood, that is parallel to the doctrine of the

Trinity, that the Bible doesn't explicitly teach one or the other, and that the evidence is equal for both.

I get very angry when that kind of blasphemy is uttered, and so I was more than just a little bit surprised when

Mitch Packer, in essence, said that very thing in regards to the

Trinity and the priesthood. So during the cross -examination, I specifically challenged him on that point and said, are you saying that the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the

Trinity and the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Roman Catholic priesthood are equal to one another?

There's an equal amount of evidence for the one as for the other, equal clarity. And he said, yes!

I was absolutely shocked, I could not believe it, until when

I got up in my closing statement, I said right there,

I am offended that a truth that is so plainly revealed in Scripture, the deity of Christ, the personality and deity of the

Holy Spirit, that that is so plainly taught in Scripture, and yet you then got a belief where you have to go to heavenly creatures and import all sorts of anachronistic concepts into the text of Scripture, as he had done during this debate.

That somehow is equal to the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity? What an amazing statement!

I certainly don't think that set him in good stead with many of the Protestants there who have any knowledge whatsoever concerning this particular issue.

And so, anyway, it was most amazing. But then, you always have to remember, whatever is said last, if something memorable is said last, it's going to be the main thing that people remember.

And this year's debate was moderated by Pastor Bill Shishko.

He is the pastor of the Franklin Square Presbyterian, Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, Long Island, and he moderated last year's debate.

And he had made a very cogent observation, and that was that the audience questions which we had had the first seven years, we set up a microphone and, you know, you basically have to put a bouncer there to beat somebody up if they start preaching, which is what everybody does.

That just didn't work well. And so, he suggested that we do what we normally do in other debates, and that is utilize notecards to ask questions that way, that everyone turn in their questions at the break, and that then we then answer them as he reads them.

So, you don't have to fight with people who are basically trying to hog the microphone and preach.

And so, that's what we did. We used the back of the tickets you had to get in, and so we only had,

I'd say, about 15 minutes, 10 to 15 minutes for audience questions, even though we had pretty much started close on time and done a real good job in staying on time.

Pastor Shishko is an excellent moderator, and he rules with an iron hand, shall we say.

And so, anyway, we got into the audience questions.

The first questions were pretty much for Paco a whole series of, you know, do you have to believe the priesthood to be saved?

Do you need the priesthood to be saved? There's a whole series of things, and Paco went on and on and on and on.

It must have gone on for seven or eight minutes just in his response. I tried to be more brief and make just a couple points, but then the last question was about the use of the term father.

And, you know, you can always tell when Protestants have not read

Roman Catholic apologetics works, because there's a proper way to present this question, and it's an improper way, and I've never heard anyone do it properly.

And I know Mitch Paco considers it a setup for a spike, a slam dunk, when you hear someone raise this issue.

He can answer this question, you know, in a coma, because he's heard it so many times.

He knows all the passages to cite, demonstrate the use of the term father. Paul says, I become your father in the faith, and all these other passages, and he can just whip them out there.

Well, I was... if Mitch had been a little quicker in his responses and cross -examination, one of the questions

I wanted to ask had to do with this issue, and I basically wanted to ask him, do you feel it's fair, in light of the fact that the term father is used in Roman Catholic pietistic works, not merely as a title, but to indicate that a person is your father in the gospel of Christ, and that it is a recognition of authority on that person's part, do you feel it is fair to demand that I, who do not recognize

Rome as a religious authority, do not recognize or believe that Rome has the gospel, should have to utilize that phrase?

Because he will not do these debates, and he admitted this during the debate. The condition upon him coming out in 1998 in a debate on the papacy was that we use the term father of him.

He would not do it if we would not do that, and I felt debating the issue was more important than worrying about titles, and so we did it, but I still object to it, and so I was going to ask that question.

Well, the question was asked of him, and so I then had the last word in the debate, and I briefly explained what

I just explained, and that is, well, I would like to point out that, in fact, I then quoted.

I quoted from a Roman Catholic priest and an author as to the meaning of the word father when used to the priest, and said, since I do not believe that Rome possesses the gospel, then

I cannot acknowledge this alleged authority, and it is offensive to me to have to use this term, and I think

Roman Catholics need to understand that. Well, that was the thing that got remembered.

Man, I had two little...well, one of them was taller than I was. The Roman Catholic ladies come up to me.

There's, you know, this big long line formed with people who want to ask you questions and either debate with you or whatever, and these two

Catholic ladies came up. We are so angry with you. Why is that? Well, we can call you

Dr. White, but you just said that you refused to call...that Father Pacwa is not worthy to be called

Father Pacwa, and I said, well, actually, what I said was, and I did include in my comments,

I would never require that someone call me reverend, because that's a religious title, not a title in regards to what work you've done or graduate programs of study or writing that you have accomplished in the past, and I said, and further,

I explained the issue, but I could tell these ladies were very emotional. I even said, well, you know,

I invite you to calm down and reason with me. Well, they wouldn't. Well, we can call you Dr. White, can't you?

And I kept trying to reason with them logically for a while until it became very obvious that they had no interest in reasoning with me logically at all, but I heard other people talking about how mean and nasty and unkind

I was, because I dared to make that statement. It is very clear that when it comes to issues of Mary and the priesthood especially,

Roman Catholics generally listen with their emotions, not with their minds, and even if a person states an objection in a cogent, compelling, and kind fashion, it does not make any difference.

They will still be identified as being mean, horrible, nasty folks, and so it's truly an amazing thing to observe that.

So those are some of the very memorable things that came out of that particular encounter.

877 -753 -3341, I think. 877 -753 -3341.

As far as I can tell, we only have... Oh, you got a... Oh, I got a bunch of pictures of that line.

Okay, I thought you said of that online. It would be nice to have some pictures up there to fill in.

In fact, someone sent us a URL to some sort of archiving service, and they had our 1998 website fully functional, archived online.

Why in the world anyone would do that, I don't know, but it had all the pictures from the 1998 debate.

My goodness, but I look different. Back then I looked pretty much the same, but I looked a whole lot different. I was riding back then, and riding that year was my biggest year.

I rode over 6 ,000 miles that year, and so anyway, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

I am live from Long Island today, and having a good time out here.

Opportunity went down to Trinity Fellowship Church, spoke there Sunday down in New Jersey, and I had a wonderful time with them.

And I'll just mention in passing, I'm having a blast, because just a quick thing, then we'll go to Mike in New Jersey.

God's providence is a wonderful thing. When I got on Long Island, there's a wonderful brother in the

Lord who provides me with a rental car while I'm here. It's a whole lot easier than trying to arrange rides, and I've actually started to learn

Long Island pretty well. I'm in an area that I don't know real well, but now after a week or so, I'm getting it down pretty well.

And so I had this, what was that thing, a Dodge Intrepid, I think was the car

I was driving around. The second day I had it, the turn signal stopped working, which is not a good thing.

Now I know New Yorkers generally don't use them, but I found it strange that when I couldn't use mine, people would honk at me.

They wouldn't use them, but anyway. And so I had to go back to LaGuardia, where I'd flown in, and turn this car in.

And as I pulled in, what do I see in one of the slots waiting to be rented but my dream car?

And what is my dream car, you ask? Well, anyone who laughs, if you're in the chat channel, you will be kicked out.

But I love the PT Cruiser. I think that is a cool -looking little car.

And guess what was sitting there at the rental place but a little silver 2003

PT Cruiser. So you know what? When I had to drive down to New Jersey on Saturday, and it was raining cats and dogs, and the traffic was bumper to bumper, you know what?

I didn't care, because I'm driving a PT Cruiser. So I'm, you know,

I am very easily made happy. Doesn't take a whole lot. And yeah, yeah, yeah.

See, there's my wife is in the channel. She's going, midlife, midlife, midlife. Josh is laughing hysterically at me.

Well, thank you very much, Josh. I really appreciate your support, young man. You should want me to get a

PT Cruiser, because then that means whatever little thing I'm driving around, which is a 91 Geo, gets passed on.

See, my son should be very, very happy. I would even be wanting to try to find such a thing.

So anyway, it's a little insight into life. So let's go ahead and see if we can make this long -distance phone connection stuff.

He doesn't want the Geo. Yeah, well, wait till he learns the meaning of something called monthly payment.

Then he'll want anything free. Let's see if we can make the phones work here, and let's talk to Mike in New Jersey.

Hello, Mike. Hello. Hi, how are you doing? I'm doing pretty well. It's been a pleasure to have you out here, too, now.

It seems like wherever I go, you'd end up following in some way or another. But the debate,

I thought, was wonderful. I can just barely hear you, Mike, and I have to speak up just a little bit.

All right. I'll try and do what I can here. No, the debate went well.

I think Pakla started just trying to talk about the priesthood in general, like this vague concept of a priesthood, but not specifically what

Rome teaches about the office. But then you came in and grounded it nicely with the usual quotes and reference to this, with Christ humbly obeying his priest and coming to the altar and whatnot.

I don't know if it really threw him. I'm sure he was expecting it in some way, but regardless, he wasn't able to really deal with it.

And I don't think there's any question who ended up winning that. It didn't seem like, on the part of those that were there, like I said,

I have not heard any Roman Catholics claiming anything other.

It seems to me that most Roman Catholics who have been observing these series of debates have adopted the idea that if their debater doesn't self -destruct, if he makes it through to the end and he can still smile and he can say some nice things, that that is indicative of a victory, whether or not on the debate level there was even any contest.

And so, it does strike me as interesting that the

Church that claims to be infallible, the Church that claims to have this 2 ,000 -year history, struggles so mightily in issues like this to be able to, you know, basically, in this case, just simply seek to activate the base and to excite the people that were already convinced of that position before they walked in.

I would think that if Rome's claims had any meaningful connection whatsoever to truth, that we would have a very hard time.

And it is interesting, someone in Channel last night was mentioning, yeah, you know, we're listening to some Catholics talking about the debate, and, you know, it was the same old, same old.

Well, you know, he's just a good debater. Not the idea that what he has to say is actually valid or has any meaning, but, well, he's just a good debater, and so it doesn't really, you know, it doesn't really prove anything.

It just means someone debated better than somebody else on a particular day. But, I can guarantee you that if I had, if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't be hearing that.

What you'd be hearing was, oh, you know, the truth had nothing to do with whether it's a good day, bad day, doesn't matter who is a better debater.

The truth, I mean, I just know exactly what would happen if the roles were reversed.

So it is most interesting. And as I recall, Mike, you were sitting on the front row, so you got to see the nice ladies down the way, didn't you?

Oh, yeah. I was somewhat offended, I suppose, at them because of their reaction when

Bill Shishko told them to quiet down because they're just taking the time of their own debater.

And they said in return that that's fine. And I didn't really think that was their choice to make, considering that they're, you know, a group of two or three out of hundreds of people, all of whom paid and who desperately wanted to see this dialogue go forth, but they're sovereignly deciding, if you will, to just take up the time because they need to applaud the fact that they think they're right,

I suppose, because there wasn't... Yeah, and the worst part was that that particular point in time,

I was the one asking questions. So they were actually taking time from me, which they didn't, they didn't care at all whether they were doing that or not.

PACWA had made some statement that was very pietistic. It was, you know, didn't really, on a debate level, have a whole lot of weight to it, but it was the type of thing that a captain wants to applaud for.

And so they went, you know, they went nuts on it. And their response was very rebellious.

It was the, hey, we're here to do our thing. We don't care about the rest of you anyway. And so it was somewhat,

I would think, it would be embarrassing, I think, to a person on the

Catholic side that they would behave that way. But they were very typical, emotional

Roman Catholic women who had their rosaries, and I can guarantee you if I had said something about the Virgin Mary, something would have been thrown at them.

So just sort of how you expect that to go. But I did appreciate that not only did you drive up from New Jersey, but one of our regular callers,

Steve from New Jersey, the guy that I try to say is one of the only Christians in New Jersey, was also there, and he pointed out another person from New Jersey.

So that makes three, at least three Christians in New Jersey. So there seems to be a revival going on there in the industrial state.

Yeah, there's a reason for hope, I suppose. But no, all in all,

I think it went very well. I think the points were clearly shown to anybody who wants to see them that there is no defense for the

Roman Catholic priesthood, even in the general concept that Packwell was trying to aim for, let alone this office with transubstantiation and confessions and whatnot.

Yeah, I think it would be a very useful tape for churches, very useful for folks who want to be able to give an answer on this subject.

It is not a subject that I have addressed in writing before, and so if you want to sort of expand your apologetic horizon, shall we say,

I think this would be an excellent debate for you to add to your list, and it would be very useful to you in the process.

Again, thank you for driving all the way up from New Jersey to attend. Oh, no problem.

It was a pleasure. All right, thanks a lot for calling, Mike. All right, no problem. All right, God bless. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

We did have a good group of folks there. I would estimate it was probably about 50 -50.

I saw a lot of folks that I had not seen before. I guess I should mention we had an unusually high woohoo factor at this debate.

Individuals who attended who made you go, okay, there were some interesting folks there from both sides at that particular debate.

I think one of the reasons that the Catholic side was as well -represented as it was was because...

It was a full moon. I don't remember. It was because Mitch did mention it on his program, and so I think we had some

EWTN advertising going on there, so I think that helped to make it a little bit more of a success.

Now, you may ask, well, that's the eighth year. How about the ninth year?

What type of topics are there left to do? And our plan right now for next year, we do not yet have our opponent, though I personally would really like to see

James Aiken stand up... I'm sorry, Jimmy Aiken stand up to the... change his name officially, so out of respect,

Jimmy Aiken step up to the plate, and it's interesting when having breakfast with Carl Keating a couple months ago, he said that Jimmy Aiken claims we've never challenged him, because I would have to do it personally.

Now, I know that Chris Aronson has twice had him agree to do the debate on Long Island, and then he's been unable to do so, so I'm not really sure what the story there is, but if I have to pick up the phone and do it,

I think it would be excellent to debate Jimmy Aiken, and the subject that we want to handle next year is the

Apocrypha Scripture. Does the Roman Catholic Church have the right and authority to determine the canon of Scripture, and as the example of that is the

Apocrypha canonical Scripture. That was an issue that came up in the Bible Answer Man discussion.

It was not a debate, even though Catholic Answers presents it as such, and so that will be the subject for next year, we hope and pray will be on the

Apocrypha. Let's see if we can get Eddie in real quick before the end of the program.

Are you there? Hello. Hello, how are you, sir? I'm doing fine.

I was, as an ex -Roman Catholic here in the New Orleans area, it was very interesting to me to actually read the

Scriptures for the first time, and when you're raised in the faith, obviously we weren't really taught

Scripture. We weren't told to take our Bibles out, and we weren't shown the priesthood through the Word. It just existed before us, and to call into question the priesthood would be tantamount to calling to question the entire faith, because the priest was administering the sacrament through the

Mass, and if he didn't have a legitimate position, then the Mass didn't have a legitimate position, and if the Mass didn't have a legitimate position, then we didn't have infused grace through the sacrament.

So, it's interesting for perspective, because we didn't have any challenges.

It wasn't even a question, because you didn't question your faith. Do you see what I'm saying? Right, yes, most definitely.

Yeah, I think it's the emotionalism behind the ladies in the example you gave. Yeah, I think this could be a fruitful direction to go, because it certainly seems to me that most

Roman Catholics have never been challenged in this area, and hence it wouldn't be something that they were accustomed to thinking about themselves.

So, I think it would be good if folks get these takes, and I'm sure, Brother Eddie, in New Orleans, that you're probably going to get these takes and sit down with a bowl of crawdad -flavored, nutria -sprinkled popcorn and watch, right?

In fact, you know, we've had plans at our church, and the gentleman who was involved in that had to leave for work reasons, but that's exactly what we're going to do, the group of men, particularly, getting together on a

Thursday night and go over the debates, because a lot of the fellows thought, well, you know, I don't want to hear people argue about the

Bible for an hour or so. I explained to them the importance of it, because as you've mentioned before, contrary to what some people think, which is that you just like to,

I guess you would say, intellectually fight, this is about clearly representing both sides and having the best debate.

You don't search out the worst debater. You always go for the person who you believe the best at the topic, because that would do the most service for the truth.

That's exactly right. That's exactly how we do it, and unfortunately with that, our program comes to a conclusion, and I do this long -distance version of the dividing line.

I don't believe we're going to be able to do our Thursday night edition this week. We'll have to do it for this week, but Lord willing, next