good evening everyone if everyone could find your seats we're about to get the show on the road my name is Keith enck I'm one of the Elder pastors here at uh 125 Church there's three of us another one is Jeremiah nortier they'll be doing moderating tonight and Nathan Hargrave he's overlooking the feed going out but 125 Church would like to welcome all our visitors and guests tonight and looks like we have quite a few it is our pleasure for y'all to come and we just hope that you enjoy yourself and of course it is our desire that we can learn more about our Savior Jesus Christ so if you would join me in prayer and then we'll get going Lord God Heavenly Father we humbly come before your throne just amazed and in awe of all that you've done for us for your word that you've provided for us how you've revealed yourself how you revealed your purpose your character your desire for our lives and father tonight I just pray that we would learn more about you through your word as we discuss these very important tactics please be with us this night I pray in Christ's name amen amen amen well welcome to am I on by the way can y'all hear me out there yes I'm hearing a little something something well thank testing testing I think we're good welcome everybody to the apologetic dog where it's our heart's desire to contend for the gospel of grace tonight you're in for a real treat because we're going to have a live and in-person debate um here at 125 Church in Jon Boro Arkansas that is Northeast Arkansas 125 church is a Reformed Baptist Church where I also serve as pastor and Elder and I will be the moderator this evening and so our debate topic is is the mass a propitiatory sacrifice the affirmative is going to be with Joe hesm he is a staff apologist at Catholic answers where his job is to help explain and defend the Catholic faith he's a former attorney and a former seminarian uh for the arch dicese of Kansas City in Kansas a former instructor at the Holy Family School of Faith Institute and he's taught at donelli College he holds degrees from westurn University Georgetown University Law Center Kendrick Glennon Seminary and the pontifical University of St Thomas aquinus angelicum in Rome he lives with his wife Anna and their three children in Kansas City Missouri so Joe hesm will be the affirmative this evening and the negation is Dr James White he is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries he is a professor of church history and apologetics at Grace Bible Theological Seminary he has taught Greek Hebrew Systematic Theology textual criticism church history and various topics in the field of apologetics for numerous other schools he has authored and contributed to more than 24 books includ including the King James only controversy the Forgotten Trinity The Potter's Freedom he is also an accomplished debater having engaged with this is his 195th debate so that is Quite a feat and so um he's done so many uh public debates moderated um he is the pastor and Elder of uh apia Church in Arizona and he has been married to Kelly for more than 40 years and has two children and five living grandchildren so Dr White Once Again is taking the negative this evening a few announcements tonight tonight's format will has been agreed upon by each of the participants for 30 minutes of presentations in Total 1 hour of cross examinations 10 minutes of closing statements ending with a 30 minute Q&A and so we'll be taking in-person questions so be sure and have your questions ready we're also going to try to get to the online questions uh please preface your questions online with the letter q and the name of who the question is directed to we will only take online questions up through the cross examination so once the Q&A starts we will no longer be accepting the online questions super chats will be taking priority and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to get to them all but we thank you for your support and so as the moderator my job will be to ensure a cordial and productive conversation I will not tolerate at homonym attacks or inappropriate unnecessary Behavior we want to have a Christlike spirit with respect for one another and so with that being said we we are going to begin uh with the affirmative Joe hesm you may begin your opening statement you will have 15 minutes and the clock will start once you are ready to begin can you all hear me oh hang on give it a second can you hear me okay now okay great uh I asked for permission to do a couple thank yous Before Time started I hope you don't mind first to Jeremiah and to everyone here at 125 you guys have been incredibly hus I know my wife is watching so I won't mention the offers of cake or cheesecake or any of that stuff uh additionally to James White for agreeing to do I didn't realize it was his 195th I actually thought he'd already hit 200 so I'm I'm happy to be a part of that Journey uh and it's an exciting topic I know it's been a while I think since you've done this particular one so I'm grateful to be doing it with you uh for Miles Christian for uh recommending me and I know he's a friend of Jeremiah's mine uh Jimmy Aken and Dron Williams for reviewing my opening statement to make sure I wasn't saying anything stupid or heretical uh father Jeff AAR who I known your will for two hours to be here and uh whoever it was from Magnolia candles who gave me or Magnolia soaps who gave me the soap appreciate that and then uh everyone watching online and participating we know an apologetic dog sheim popery Catholic aners thank you all so much I appreciate that and then finally uh to my wife uh we've got three kids under six so me being away doing a debate is a mini vacation for me and uh extra challenging for her in your generosity I'd ask you finally to uh say a prayer for Pope Francis whatever you may think of him whatever you think of the Catholic church this is a man who's nearing death about to meet his maker so I just ask for for your prayers for his health and and for his preparation for eternal life God willing all right with that I want to begin uh by asking you a quick question by show of hands can you point to a moment in your life when you got saved all right several hands that's very good I'm happy to see that and I got to tell you something when I talk to people and ask them when they got saved you know an answer I've never once heard no one's ever said to me Good Friday and I think that's actually a good sign that Catholics and Protestants alike recognize that the work of Salvation Jesus accomplished on the cross on Good Friday still has to be applied to our life in some way and that's that's what we're going to explore tonight let's start where we agree as Catholics and Protestants Christ's death on the cross is to use the technical language atoning expiatory and propitiatory we can get into all the definitions there if we'd like but in essence it means this Christ on the cross is the solution to the problem of sin and he is the means by which we become at one with God that's where the word atone comes from but how does the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross in roughly 33 become our sacrifice as Christians how does it do that for 2,000 years Christians have had a very clear answer to that question that in the Liturgy in the mass we participate in Christ's own saving sacrifice not as a second sacrifice but a participation in the one Eternal sacrifice now how do we know that I'm going to give you six reasons tonight number one the surprising witness of the Protestant reformers this is probably not where you thought I'd start as a Catholic but let's go with the Protestant reformers remember the resolution tonight is on whether or not the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice and you will find in a Protestant country like the US hot debate on that if you were to jump in a time machine and go back right before the dawn of the Reformation you would find no debate on that everyone knew that the mass was a propitiatory sacrifice and you don't have to take my words for it Martin Luther tells us as much he complained in the bondage of the will that there is no opinion more generally held or more firmly believed in the church today than this that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice similarly John Calvin I know many of you are Calvinists John Calvin complained that Satan must have not only obscured and perverted but altogether obliterated and abolished vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man the original Lord's Supper when with most pestilential error he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins so let's start there at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation the whole Christian world is United and the reformers acknowledge this their argument is everybody on Earth is worshiping God wrong and if that argument doesn't sound a little wild to you it should if somebody came along today and said everybody on Earth is worshiping God wrong I'm going to give you a new way red flags right well this is how it was when you go back to the 16th century their argument is that Jesus created the Lord's supper and Satan somehow both abolished the work of Jesus in the Lord's supper and somehow made all Christians forget about it and somehow made all the historical record of us ever worshiping God a different way disappear that's pretty incredible and it wasn't just that oh there were some ignorant Catholics in the 16th century no no no Calvin is is actually quite explicit that the expiatory or propitiatory nature of the sacrifice of the mass is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar meaning like Ordinary People but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead the Catholic view of the mass is built into the nature of the mass itself Martin Luther agreed with this he pointed out that the very words of the mass speak in unmistakable terms of the sacrificial nature of the mass at the altar but then he admits we can add to this the sayings of the Holy fathers he means the early Christians the great number of examples in the widespread practice uniformly observed throughout the world I think it's important to start here because it's easy for apologist to quote some Theologian or Church Father out of context and you don't necessarily know if that quotation is a fair representation of their beliefs or whether those beliefs were the norm or the exception that can make it hard to a a debate like this but here the reformers are telling you that the expiratory nature of the sacrifice of the mass the propitiatory nature was the universal opinion of the church Everywhere by theologians and Le alike found all over the world found as far back as we can go and that this is what Christians were praying in their worship every week all across the church so when they tell you that believe them second point the Old Testament evidence you you might be wondering why Christians for 1500 years before the Reformation uniformly belied this and it's because the Bible teaches this we're going to start with the Old Testament I'm going to look at for purposes of time just two passages the first one is Isaiah chapter 66 it's the last chapter of Isaiah it tells how in what werein the days to come the Gentiles would come into the people of God and then in verse 21 we get the kicker speaking of these new Gentile Believers God says through Isaiah some of them I will take for priests and for Levites notice he doesn't say there are no Christian priests only Christ is the high priest he doesn't say all Christians are priests you can find ways of harmonizing all of that with a Protestant view he says some not all of these Gentile Christians are called to be priests and what is a priest definitionally as Hebrews 5 tells us a priest is one who offers sacrifice but here's the second Old Testament passage Malachi chapter 1: 11 in context God is rebuking the corrupt Jewish priests for offering impure food sacrifices at the altar of the Lord which he calls in verse 7 the Lord's table we're going to hear about the table of the Lord later keep that language in mind he then tells these priests he's going to reject their sacrificial offerings but he's not going to get rid of Priestly offerings completely instead he's going to bring in the Nations that is the Gentiles to offer a better sacrifice he says this explicitly verses 11 to 12 for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the Nations and in every place incense is is offered to my name and a pure offering for my name is great among the Nations says the Lord of hosts but you profane it when you say that the Lord's table is polluted and the food for it may be despised so that's pretty obviously a prophecy of the New Covenant the Gentiles are going to be incorporated into the people of God some of these are going to be priests offering incense and a pure offering to the Lord not in one place but from the rising of the sun to its setting from east to west the language there is UN mbly sacrificial and the Christians from the first century forward used this passage of the Old Testament to explain why what they were offering to God in the Eucharist was a sacrifice the third way we can know this is from the New Testament now there are plenty of places we could go we could talk about John 6 we could talk about the institution of the Lord's Supper I'm going to actually go to a lesser observe lesser focused on passage this is 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 in 1 Corinthians 10:16 St Paul asks this question question he says the cup of blessing which we bless is it not a participation in the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not a participation in the body of Christ so how is it that we can participate in the body and blood of Christ in the next verse he says because there is one the word there is actually loaf arton because there's one loaf we who are many are one body for we all partake of the one loaf this is Eucharistic language if that wasn't clear enough he's got an entire chapter on it in First Corinthians 11 but Paul's explanation that follows makes no sense unless you understand something about sacrifice I'm going to return to this more a little bit later but for now just know this for certain sacrifices it was not enough to kill the animal you then had to eat the animal so Paul makes a fascinating three-fold comparison to explain the Eucharist how does we participate in the body and blood of Christ he says in verse 18 consider the practice of Israel are not those who eat the sacrifices Partners in the altar so that's what I just described but then he says something more shocking he compares the Christian Eucharist to Pagan sacrifices he says what Pagan sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God and he warns the Christians you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons now the parallelism is unavoidable but only if the Eucharist is a sacrifice like the Jewish and the Pagan ones were only if the table of the Lord is an altar like the table of demons is and like the of the Lord in Malachi 1 is let's look forth to the witness of the early Christians how did the early Christians understand this I'm going to stick to just prior to the year 200 this is super early on right we got the diday now in one of his other talks I heard James I think say that you believe this is from the first century I also believe the deday is a first century document some Scholars put it as late as 150 but it's super early either way it is quite possibly older than parts of the New Testament and in it it says about worship quote on the Lord's day of the Lord come together break bread and hold Eucharist after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure but let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled that your sacrifice be not defiled it is explicitly an offertory it is explicitly a sacrifice and then Malachi 1 gets quoted St Justin Martyr writing in the mid 100s likewise points to Malachi 1 as proof that God anti ipating all the sacrifice which we offer through his name and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup so right there he's explicitly telling us again Malachi 1 is about the offering sacrificially of the Eucharist and that this is well pleasing to God jump forward to now 180 staus of Leon he's the first guy to tell us Matthew Mark Luke and John are the four gospels he also tells us that the Malachi Passage shows that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the New Covenant and he argues that this is that Worship in spirit and truth that our Lord spoke about in John 4 when he's talking to this Samaritan woman now there's much more that he has to say on that but I'm going to for interest of time speed along here fifth let's talk about the logic of sacrifice as I said before some sacrifices it wasn't enough to kill the animal and also eat it because many of you might hearing this and saying okay does sound from the old and the New Testament evidence and from the early Christian evidence that we're supposed to be offering weekly sacrifice but what about Jesus's sacrifice being once for all and maybe a second question you could ask is why did none of the early converts to Christianity raised that objection when they heard other Christians talking this way and I'm going to venture a theory that the early converts from Judaism and from paganism knew about how sacrifice worked in a way that none of us do today because none of us came from animal sacrificing backgrounds I think that's safe to say so with animal sacrifice take the Passover on the Passover 14th day of the month of Nissan you have what's sometimes called preparation day you have the killing of the Lamb that is not the end of the sacrifice it is from the Lamb's perspective but on the 15th day of the month you then have the Passover meal the death of the Lamb is applied to your life in part by the smearing of the blood on the doorpost and in part by eating the lamb so if the 14th day of the month preparation day course responds to Good Friday as John tells us in his gospel how is the blood applied to us well in the Passover context which is what we're supposed to understand Christ's death through in 1 Corinthians 5 St Paul refers to Jesus as our Passover Lamb verse 7 what then happens with the Passover Lamb well you had to eat it now you might hear that language do this in remembrance of me but that language of anamnesis that's the Greek word there actually has sacrificial connotations the only other time it's used in the New Testament is in Hebrews talking about the memorial sacrifice it's not just oh hey remember Jesus that's not what's going on this is a memorial sacrifice and like the Passover sacrifice of old we participate in the Sacrifice by eating the sacrificial victim so Christ's death happens once for all our participation is ongoing like if you went to the Passover meal let's say you're a Jewish Family and it's the Passover when you go and eat the Passover Lamb are you reking the Lamb of course not it's as dead as it's ever going to be you're participating in a death that's already happened Sixth and final point the nature of worship the reason it's so important to return to this historic understanding of the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice of the mass is because sacrifice is at the heart of true Christian worship biblically I'm only going to sketch this out very broadly in Luke before we find Jesus going into the synagogue and in the synagogue it's an important place to go it's good not unlike what you would find here the reading of scripture and the preaching that is all good I'm not knocking this at all but here's what it's not it's not a place of prayer and it's not a place of worship how do we know that from the Bible the only time synagogue and prayer get mentioned together is where Matthew 6 when Jesus says not to pray in the synagogue and it's never described as a House of Prayer or a house of worship as the conversation in John 4 makes clear Samaritans believe to worship you had to make your offerings on Mount gazim and the Jews believe to worship you have to make your offerings in the temple in Jerusalem so what was distinct about study prayer and worship study is talking about God that's what we're doing tonight prayer is talking to God worship is offering to God and so if all you do is talk about God and even talk to him those are good things but your life is not complete as a Christian because you are not offering Worship in the biblical sense of worship so that's what I want to leave us with here for now in the words of Everett Ferguson a Protestant scholar sacrifice was the universal language of worship in the ancient world and that is why we need to claim the sacrificial dimension of Eucharistic Worship in the mass once more thank you God bless you thank you Joe Joe hesm once again is the affirmative now Dr James White you will have 15 minutes to make your negative opening statement and the clock will start when you begin speaking all right well it's great to be back here again uh this evening the double header has uh begun and I'm going to ask uh that uh whoever wins the debate this evening gets to take the little desk lamp home with them uh I think that should be the U the reward for for that work that's really cool I've never had a little desk lamp before on my on my desk that makes me feel very warm and fuzzy inside okay and I also need to make sure the bow tie is straight since I'm the only one wearing a tie uh this evening just thought I'd mention that and uh check the shoes out too just thought I'd sorry um that's just wow okay anyway your wife let you go out like that huh okay all right sorry ma'am wherever you are that's right that's right I've already w the debate but anyway okay I want to read you a um a official statement from the Roman Catholic Church from December 7th 1865 from Pope Paul v 6 priests as Cooperators of the Episcopal order are consecrated to preach the gospel and to Shepherd the faithful to celebrate Divine worship especially in the Eucharistic sacrifice which is the source and Summit of the whole Christian Life in the Eucharistic sacrifice which is the true and proper sacrifice they offer in the person of Christ that is they're acting in the person of Christ when they're ordained they are called an alter Christus the propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of living and the dead and they apply its fruits to the people and trusted to them by this sacrifice listen to this this is what I want you to hear by this sacrifice the church through Christ the high priest perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages so what we have being presented to us this evening you need to understand all the references to saying for example anomis in the New Testament well it has sacrificial overtones and there's many references to sacrifice well of CH of course Christ is that sacrifice and when we participate in the supper we are commemorating remembering what he did and as every person male female who is in the body of Christ is part of a holy priesthood we are called to offer our bodies not as a propitiatory sacrifice but in sacrifice in service to Christ we give sacrifices of Praise so on and so forth but keep your eye on the ball propitiatory is the key term and that is what we have right here in this official statement from the church that by this sacrifice the church through Christ the high priest perpetuates the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages so what you need to understand is our debate this evening is the contrast between the assertion that through the instrumentality of a sacramental priesthood which I would assert to you is nowhere to be found in the New Testament whatsoever through that sacramental priesthood and the Miracle of transubstantiation this is especially important important in regards to the current understanding of the mass which developed over time it is not the Primitive understanding the Primitive Church did not have the categories of accidents and substance from Aristotle that eventually aquinus and others used to explain the a miracle of transubstantiation it was a real presence concept not a transubstantiation concept but through that changing of the substance into the body and blood of Jesus Christ you have Jesus rendered present upon the altar as a representation or this say a a perpetuation the difference being in manner an unbloody manner is a terminology used by Trent and Vatican 2 and so on and so forth an unbloody sacrifice which I would argue is not propitiatory and cannot be propitiatory in of itself and it is perpetuated throughout the ages that's the one perspective I going to present to you the perspective I believe of the New Testament that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ was once for all that's a temporal adverb not once for all people but once for all happened only once and it perfects those for whom it is made we'll look at Hebrews chapter 10 and others in just a moment as soon as I get through this and so it's the difference between a finished and completed sacrifice that does not have to be perpetuated but is commemorated and remembered in the supper not by a priest not by a changing of substance not by any kind of reoffering in any representation whatever terminology you want to use it is a finished work at the cross of Calvary and there is a very true sense in light of the Union of God's people with Jesus Christ that that is when we were saved of course normally when you ask that question you're asking when did you come to understand who Jesus Christ was and when did the spirit of God uh Grant to you the gifts of faith and repentance so on and so forth so this is the real issue this evening because remember within the Roman Catholic system within the Roman Catholic system you can come to mass 10,000 20,000 30,000 times in your life and that is supposed to be the sacrifice of Christ you are coming to the Cross that's what you're doing and yet in Roman Catholicism the vast majority of people who do that upon their death will not go into the presence of God because they are not perfected they will go into purgatory and they will undergo sadis pasio and you can have masses said for them back here on Earth to lessen their time in purgatory or if they commit a mortal sin and are not reconciled to the church before their death even though they've gone to the cross over and over again they die under the Judgment of God and are lost and so there is the difference you have a completed sacrifice that perfects those for whom it's made because of the Union of the elect with Christ versus a perpetuation of a propitiatory sacrifice that does not perfect you you can come to the cross in the mass you're not perfected by that you can receive Grace you can receive forgiveness but it's not Perfection that is the vast difference between these two perspectives and that is why when you boil it all down when we talk about having peace with God why is it that Ludwig a in fundamentals of Catholic dogma said the reason for the uncertainty of the State of Grace lies in just this that without a supernatural Revelation from God no one can know for with certain certainty whether they have fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification that versus Romans 51 therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ that's the difference one gives peace one does not and that is that all comes back all of it comes back to whether you have a finished and perfecting sacrifice or whether you do not so let's not just I want to make sure right from the beginning there's all sorts of references to sacrifice but it's not propitiatory sacrifices offering of praise and everything else that's not what we're talking about what we're talking about is what Christ accomplished on the cross and is that perpetuated throughout the ages through a sacramental priesthood in something called the mass and that veled over time just ask Cardinal Newman about that now I want obviously from our perspective to spend the last few minutes we have looking at the text of scripture I will have to be fast but I want to remind you of text that I went over last evening in Hebrews chapter 7 Jesus who holds a permanent priesthood because he continues forever holds his priesthood permanently by the way that's without a successor so if there's anyone who claims to be a melkisedek priest you're in contradiction of Hebrews 7 24 holds his priesthood permanently therefore he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them the sacrifice of Christ and the intercessory work of Christ one work which results not in our ability to save ourselves but in the assertion that he is able to save forever and completely those who draw nigh unto God by him that is not through a mass that is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that is his ability to do that and then of course Hebrews chapter 8 the description of the New Covenant what does it say I will put my laws in their minds and upon their hearts I will write them I will be their God they should be my people and they shall not teach everyone his fellow Citizen and everyone is brother saying know the Lord for all will know me from the least to the greatest of them for I'll be merciful to their iniquities and I will remember their sins no more that's why Paul says in Romans chapter 4 who is the blessed man the blessed blessed man is the one to whom the Lord will not impute his sin why because his sin has already been imputed to another it's been imputed to Jesus Christ he has taken that sin away he's nailed it at the cross of Calvary that's why we can have peace with God that's what the New Covenant is all about and it is a tremendous tremendous promise and so we are told when Christ Hebrews 9:11 when Christ appeared as a high priest with good things to come he entered through the greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands that is say not of this creation and not through the blood of goats and cows but through his own blood he entered the holy places once for all having obtained Eternal Redemption I I don't know that we want to to go back to the Pagan religions and say well they understood animal sacrifices well what the Pagan religions did not understand was a high priest who would sacrifice himself give himself as the means of bring about perfection of those for whom that that atonement is made and so you have the assertion at the end of uh chapter 9 uh Christ did not ENT verse 24 Christ did not enter holy places made with hands mere copies of the true ones but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us notice again intercession together with the the sacrifice nor was it he would offer himself often as the high priest enters the holy places year by year with blood that is not his own otherwise he would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world but now once at the consummation of the ages not throughout the ages but once at the consummation of the ages he has been manifested to put away sin how by the sacrifice of himself that is his perfect work and so then chapter 10 wraps this all up and this is really really important I wish I had more time to deal with it for the law since it is only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things can never by the same sacrifices they offer continually year by year make perfect those who draw near otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered since the worshippers having once been cleansed would no longer have consciousness of sins but in those sacrifices there is an anamnisis an omnis of sins year by year if you have a repetitive sacrifice the point of Hebrews 10:3 is that the repetition creates a reminder of what sins sins why because if the sin if the if the sacrifice perfected then you would not have to keep coming back to it over and over and over again in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year for it is impossible for the blood of BS and goats to take away sins and then a number of Old Testament passages are cited about Christ coming to fulfill the will of God verse 10 of Hebrews 10 by this will we have been Sanctified through the offering the body of Jesus Christ how often once for all temporal adverb once for all was it does it say that that that we we can receive some sanctification we can receive some Grace now and we'll get a little bit more the next time a little bit more the next time no by this will that's the New Covenant we have been Sanctified we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all and then verse 14 likewise says for by one offering one offering not one dragged out through the ages for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being Sanctified he has perfected not us not a sacramental system he has perfected for all time by one sacrifice one one and one only and so the question for us today is Christ able to save perfectly when we when we remember what the words of institution of the supper are do this in remembrance of what me guess what the word remembrance is an omnis same one used here in Hebrews chapter 10 the supper is an anamnesis it is a remembrance not a sacrifice it's a remembrance of a sacrifice but it's a remembrance of a sin Bearer you see we go this we go to the table all the time we we do it every week but not to gain forgiveness of sins but to remember the one who gained the Forgiveness of our sins that is the vast difference between a repetitive non- perfecting sacrifice and the once of all once for all sacrifice that perfects those for whom it is made that's the issue this evening keep your eye on the ball thank you for your attention all right thank you Dr White for that negative opening we are about to transition into our first round of thought it was sort of positive I mean come on yeah yes thank you for that we're about to transition to our first raw uh round of cross-examination I want to say we have over 1,1 100 live audience members so they really care about what y'all are talking about members have oh yeah yeah so all right we are going to begin our first round of cross examination we're Dr White you are going to begin by cross examining Joe hesm for 15 minutes so when you start we will begin the timer oh my go straight from your presentation to crossx all right okay um would you agree uh Joe that to have an orthodox understanding of the MTH today within Roman Catholicism that you must believe that the apostles ordained El uh priests yeah I mean I don't think that's relevant for the topic but yes how could it not be relevant to the topic the the if the mass is to be propitiatory um and you were quoting from Malachi and stuff like that um sure I mean I'm if you think Apostolic succession is a good angle I'm happy to go there I wasn't talking about Apostolic succession I was talking about I was talking about the necessity of having a sacramental priesthood so that the uh act that they under that they undertake is a proper Mass I mean wouldn't you agree that a non-ordained person cannot absolutely and I I think maybe a word of clarification might be helpful here because they I think usually at this point people stumble because they say they don't call them priests in the New Testament right because at the time priests had specific meanings in a Jewish or Pagan context so for instance in Acts four Barnabas is a levite calling him a priest is confusing rather than helpful because was he a levitical priest was he a Christian priest in fact the only time Jesus is called the priest if I'm not mistaken is in the epistle to the Hebrews and yet all the other books of the Bible treat Jesus as a priest even though they never Ed that title right so even when they call him Chief Shepherd you know like Pastor or when they call him the overseer of our souls episcopos Bishop they still mean a priest and we would just say likewise when they refer to human followers of Jesus Christ as episcopo Bishops or as pastors that they also have Priestly understanding when they use them in those categories as well as when they apply it to Christ so but you would have would you would you admit that there is no reference uh to a sacramental priesthood in the New Testament no I I wouldn't I would if you're going to do the like oh the word Trinity isn't found in the Bible kind of level of exegesis I would admit that but in 1 Corinthians 10 St Paul Compares what he's doing in the Eucharist to what a pagan or a Jewish priest does okay but um we have a qualific we have the qualifications of Elders Bishops same office um in the New Testament right I don't think they're the same office well Paul uses them interchangeably so Paul the the Apostle this is a problem with using the terminological like if you take diakonos right for Deacon right it's never used to describe the first seven deacons in act six and it's used to describe Jesus it's used to describe but Paul provided qu the qualifications for elders and deacons so th those are laate out for in firsty right first Timothy and Titus right so in first Timothy and Titus the question is not terminologically right this is why like the fact we don't find the word Trinity doesn't mean a lot for a Christian because we find the concept so likewise do we find a single person overseeing an entire church say the Church of cre or the Church of Ephesus well Timothy and Titus are obviously those two people likewise in Revelation 2:3 or excuse me 1:2 when Jesus is talking to the seven churches of Revelation the seven angels aren't literally like Angels like Gabriel because he talks about the risk of them being in prison they might they might pastors yes but but my point is but my point is we have qualifications for those offices are there any qualifications ever given for a sacramental priesthood it's not a separate thing from the Presbytery presbyter and priest I mean even the English word priest comes from presbyter but there's a perfectly good Greek word for priest and it's not used is it that's right for the reason I said for the same reason that in 26 of the 27 New Testament books Jesus is never called the priest even though he's universally understood to be a priest because has the wrong conation so PA so Paul can use preser and episcopos interchangeably and give us the qualifications but you're just going to assume that the term preser is act actually means priest I think we can see that very clearly from the way it's described so for instance if you take the leg so St Ignatius of Antioch in 107 when he talks about how the bishop and the presbyter are clearly two different offices he's a disciple of the Apostle John writing in 107 he talks about what they do and they celebrate the altar he's describing the priesthood I don't think there's a way of harmonizing the early Christian evidence with your model of what the the church officers are meant to do it is perfectly clearly what the Catholic priest does everything but the name priest so everything that we have regarding the Catholic priesthood today an altar Christus a mark upon the soul you think that that's actually can be derived from the simple term preser no I don't think it's derived just from one word I think if you look at how pres are depicted uh in especially both in the New Testament and the surrounding evidence including first century evidence so you don't you don't the these are these are clearly married individuals uh in fact we're told that they're they're not to be unmarried oh really so first first Corinthians when St Paul talks about himself as unmarried you think he's not qu the qualifications that are listed uh in Titus and First Timothy say they are to be a one woman man but that is a ceiling not a floor okay but otherwise you'd have Jesus couldn't Le his own church Paul couldn't lead the church okay okay I mean none of the Apostles are described as having wives with the exception Peter is mentioned as having a mother-in-law there's no living mentioned me left behind this is this is what I'm supposed to be asking questions and supposed to keep going on and on about that so to have a mass that propitiatory requires a sacramental priesthood would you you've already agreed with that correct yeah I think that's fine okay so how do you go from the teaching of the New Testament that we just looked at in Hebrews chapter 10 that says that there is a once for allness to that sacrifice to what I assume you agree with the uh with the quotation that I read politics yes yeah okay so so it is a perpetuation of the sacrifice of Christ of the once for all sacrifice in the same way that like everyone in here who was ever saved by the blood of Jesus Jesus didn't have to die again for them the blood of Christ was applied in our temporal setting so one of the mistakes you're making is you're reading Hebrews once for all sacrifice as referring to Good Friday when if you read the pass both times it talks about not good Friday but Christ's Ascension into heaven 43 days later we can go through that if you'd like I I don't understand what you're saying but but when it talk about the once for all sacrifice you say it's all over and done with on Good Friday is that a fair well the there is the that you're you can't ask me questions but trying make pres that Hebrew that Hebrews chapter 10 uses F apox and that is a once for all situation Christ entry into heaven presenting the merits of the Cross is once for all when when you go to a mass Christ doesn't reenter Heaven he doesn't red on the cross the only difference between the Catholic and the Protestant view as far as I can tell is whether the merits of Christ are applied just once in the life of the believer or multiple times because so you wouldn't see Union with Christ as I mean we we believe that the elect are united with Christ in his death burial and resurrection and so so and I'm I'm speaking uh in this this context here that's what we believe so that is a one-time finished work that perfects those for whom it is made which is why we have peace with God but I I take it you're not disputing what I said that and that is that you could uh having gone to mass um both commit venial and Mortal sins that means that you are not perfected by your coming to the mass you can go to go to mass multiple times per week right yeah John when talking about Sin says if we say we're without sin we're Liars similarly there's the distinction made in what is it first John 5 between sin that is deadly and sin that's not deadly so all of that is just straight New Testament well except so so you reject even the Roman Catholic Scholars that see first John 5 as talking about the sin un death which is which is the denial of Jesus Christ in First Corinthians 11 St Paul talks about receiving the Eucharist unworthily as causing sickness and death that I would argue doesn't make sense on a merely symbolic view if so if I looked in here would they agree or disagree with you I'm sorry this is the the the Drome Bible commentary with the forward by Pope Francis uh the Jerome Bible what you I don't I have no idea not Bible ver that's the current one yeah third fully revised Edition Pope Francis yeah writing the forward doesn't make it like an official magal and imp premature so you're giving me that's like hey I've got a presbyterian author over here does he agree with you we don't have Pope so that doesn't really work the same way write the Bible but the point is he wrote that forward yeah he did and he recommended it to us so I don't think Pope Francis is claiming he's read every page of it and personally reviewed it right like no one takes that that claim seriously I think we're getting off the topic I don't think you're going to prove whether the mask if I forward to a book I would do that but let's I know plenty of au you don't well if you want to accuse Francis of that that's fine but the point is this you just said that yes I disagree with those people who look at first John 5 in that way would you agree that any that all of the interpretations that you have given to us already this evening whether it be Malachi or Isaiah or anything else that these are your personal interpretations are have have any of these verses been infallibly defined by the Church of Rome this is not a debate about infallibility what I'm arguing is that Malachi it was understood by the early Christians as being about the sacrifice of the mass and I gave several citations from 180 and before okay now that's not my personal interpretation I don't think we should decide this like all of your speech was your personal read of Hebrews right first but first John 5 you said you disagreed about that what that you don't have to accept me on I could be wrong on on the Mortal venial thing I'm just saying he describes to sins that which is deadly and that which is not right okay I take that to mean that there's two types of sin that which is deadly and that which is not but when it comes to uh is it is it even slightly possible Joe that there is a uh lens through which you are reading the New Testament that is given to you by the authority of the church that then claims to produce the priests that then perform the mass absolutely I mean I would hope so I like so Keith mat if you remember his book the shape of Soul scriptura he says no appeal to scripture exists by itself every appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture the only question is who interpretation I agree with that I think we should think with the church do you do you think that that is a fair use of mat because he would of course recognize that in the Roman Catholic situation there is the claim that the church has the final authority to interpret scripture and to scripture and even even determine what script is right that there is no such thing as just a like you can't just say here's what Hebrews means it's here's what Hebrews means to you or here's what Hebrews means to me all of us are doing theology here and all of our theology is fallible we have the what St thas aquinus calls the twoof full Darkness so you so you don't think that the actual text of scripture um can have an objectively verifiable meaning it's all just personal interpretation meaning of scripture is objective our access to the meaning is inherently by the I mean literally by what the word subjective means the subject accesses the objective meaning and so there's room for misinterpretation so so if if I say to a Mormon um that I'm not saying all of them are equally good interpretations I hope that's clear okay so so there is there are objectively verifi the the scriptures are clear enough uh Peter warns that untaught and unstable men distort Paul's words but he also says Paul is hard to understand and then but but if he says untaught and unstable men would it not follow that a taught and stable man can understand Paul's words and can accurately handle what he wrote no it doesn't that doesn't follow logically doesn't follow no then why did he use the term untaught and unstable men there's two warnings he gives in that passage one is that Paul's writings are hard to understand and the second is that there are wicked men who are misusing Paul's writings why does he say untaught and unstable if a because people he's warning about okay like if I said gnostics misuse this text that doesn't mean if you're not a gnostic you're going to use it correctly that doesn't follow at all that's not logical wouldn't but it might be true Pro it from the text I'm just I just I I'll use my last minute here it because I'm I'm really not following how you can say it is not logical if Paul introduces the C atory of untaught and unstable men M does it not follow that taught and stable men can accurately handle the word of God clearly doesn't if I say idiots are out there honking their horn that doesn't mean non- idiots aren't honking their horn that's a logical fallacy if I say dogs are animals that doesn't mean non- dogs aren't animals this is literally a log what you're presenting is is a formal fallacy I can't AR I can't argue during cross X so well I'll have to find the time to point out where that's wrong later we'll we'll we'll move on all right thank you gentlemen now Joe hesm you will begin your cross-examining of Dr White for 15 minutes when you start speaking we'll begin the timer right testing and as a reminder uh Joe you will be controlling this time so um it's kind of your prerogative how you want to lead with questions and dialogue and jeremi do you want to remind folks about the questions because you said is there's a sort of a cut off time yes um everybody inous be thinking about your questions uh towards the end we'll have two lines one for each debated opponent and thank you for online that's been submitting um a ton of questions once the Q&A actually begins we'll be cutting off those online okay okay you want to begin I guess that's the first question so I guess we're starting uh let's start with Hebrews because that's obviously the Crux of your argument is it fair to say that your view is that Christ's sacrificial work is completed in its entirety on Good Friday uh it is my view and I did not get a chance to develop this that the offering takes place upon the cross and then the Fulfillment of the high priest um parallel that is provided from 7 through 10 includes udes the the sprinkling of the blood upon the Altar and the work of intercession that's what I read Hebrews 7:25 which specifically says because he ever lives to make intercession for it great so something has to be happened after good Freddy is that fair uh it is not a separate work because when we see Jesus in heaven in Revelation chap 5 the lamb standing as if slain so it is the completness of the sacrifice that is seen in in the lamb so it's not sacrifice so far we're on the same page it sounds like but there's something after Good Friday we'll find out here in a second if we really but I mean it sounds like you can at least say because I I often hear reformed people say oh when Jesus says it is finished that means the sacrificial work is done and if I understand you correctly you realize that can't be true no no the sacrificial work is done is an offering the but the but the union of the elect with Christ and his intercession for them is not only something that is seen in Christ entering into the holy place the right hand of the father but then temporally we experience that in time long after that okay so Christ continues to act in a Priestly role for us in in in the sense of he is resurrected and bears in his body the marks of death and victory over that death so and also interceding though right didn't you just say and didn't you say in your talk that this is the same work as his sacrificial work that's what the high priest in Leviticus 16 he's continuing the sacrificial work even now in heaven is that fair to say it is a completed work that is presented before the father okay so it's still has to be applied and he's applying it on the heavenly side in an ongoing I think you would use the ter iterative manner in heaven this interestingly this came up last evening too um we're we're we're touching on the difference between the Eternal yes and the temporal so in Romans chapter 8 it said that we are already glorified okay but we do not yet experience that so that is something that we will experience uh after this life but the reality of it is already completed just as the reality of the sacrifice is completed in the giving of the perfect life of the Son of God okay so let's let's turn to Hebrews 9 could you read 15 to 17 is actually I'm sorry could you read uh 24 to 25 first I know I'm jumping a little bit out of order here I'm assuming for Christ you want to start there yeah please for Christ did not enter holy places made with hands mere copies of the true ones but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us you want to go through how far uh through 25 nor was it that he would offer himself often as the high priest enters the holy places year by year with blood that is not his own okay so what is that an illusion to in the Jewish life Leviticus chapter 16 right yam kapor right like the day of Yim sure well no I I think it's important because the high priest had to offer sacrifice for himself before he then offered the sacrifice for that's great no this is I think this is wonderful this gets right to the heart of it because what happened repeatedly was the presentation by the priest of the sacrificial offering on every yam kapor year after year after year and when does it say Jesus does that here in Hebrews when does it say Jesus does when does he fulfill what yam kapor prefigured on the cross H read it again when Christ enter into where well yeah he into heaven itself did that happen on Good Friday um no it didn't happen on Good Friday 43 days later he because he well he rises from the dead and then ministers to his disciples when does he enter into the holy place in verse 24 well there's there's question about that because there's there's statements that that Jesus makes even after the resurrection we don't know exactly what happens during the time between the crucifixion okay what do you tell Mary Magdalene when she tries to touch I don't I have not yet ascended my father exactly so it had to happen not on Good Friday so we can't say Hebrews 9 is a reference to Christ doing the once for all sacrifice and is all completed on Good Friday is that fair because he has I don't think it's fair because because the term offer himself often is is the is the controlling phrase okay because that's the cont he's contrasting nor was that he would offer himself often is the contrast to as the high priest enters the holy places year by year so so there's these two aspects you got the killing of the Lamb suffering and death that's not repeated but then you also have the offertory aspect right if you're are you talking about offering as in something separate than the death yes okay like just killing an animal isn't automatically a sacrifice the the high priest takes the blood and sprinkles it on the mercy SE which is distinct from the death right it's it is but it is one it's a separate lurgical high priest did not go into the holy place he has not fulfilled his work correct so since and Christ doesn't do that on Good Friday though right so since Christ is the great high priest then he fulfills that work but not in a li not limited to just simply the old um what's the terms Ed your type and Shadow type thing so that's why there can be the establishment of the church training of the people are you saying that Christ does the Priestly work of entering the place on Good Friday or at a later point no I'm saying that the work of intercession and the presentation of the finished work goes beyond the types and shadows okay because he's not offering the blood of boats goats and Bows he's offering his own blood and therefore when he enters into the holy place which the high priest could not stay in the Holy place we are now breaking the categories of the he goes only place sits down right and what does that ref there's there's no place to sit down no I'm saying Christ not the not the high like the high priest of old entered every year couldn't stay in had to leave there's no place Christ comes in and sits down is that right he's at the right hand of God when does that happen at his Ascension Daniel Daniel 7 so there's still a part of the sacrifice that is not completed on Good Friday no I I believe that it is completed and it's the presentation of that finished work that is what brings Perfection to us but if if this is the version of yam kapor fulfilled how is that hasn't happened yet until he ascends into heaven how can you say it's completed when he has not gone into the holy place that Hebrews n describes as being the because it's his offering that that offering takes place upon the cross of Calvary that takes place in history the presence of the lamb in the Pres in before the father today is not an addition to what he did it is the reality that the God man has given his life and since we are united with him then he becomes the shity that we have in the very presence of God and that then becomes the contrast between the repetitive sacrifices of Hebrews 10 and the anomis of sins versus the anomis we have of a sin Bearer okay so how about in Hebrews 7 that's the other passage we can go backwards if you want to I know I'm jumping I'm gonna go to the middle in a minute here and Hebrews 7:26 when it talks about Christ as high priest exalted above the heavens can we agree that's also a reference to his Ascension and not to Good Friday well we for it was fitting for us to have such a high priest holy innocent undefiled separated from Sinners and exalted above the heavens well he C he exalted above the heavens before the Ascension well he was before the Incarnation he's always been hly unded separated so on for but it says who does not need daily like those High priests to offer up sacrifices so why because he is ascended and the work is completed okay so when is the work completed in your view I thought we've gone over this well I'm trying to make because Hebrews 7 just said after he is ascended into heaven seemingly and it sounds like you're still saying Good Friday no but but again how is it in the pre preceding context how is it he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him because he always lives to make intercession for them yeah his priesthood is a continuingly valid priesthood it is finished it is completed and the reason that we can talk about his intercession today is not because that is something lacking but it is the natural result of that obedience that he shows the father that Philippians chapter 2 tells us is the basis upon the exalt upon which the Father exalts the Son in the first place okay so I guess guys I'm I'm trying to understand is he still operating in a Priestly capacity when he goes into heaven and presents the offering that he made on Good Friday as the finished sacrifice as the lamb standing as if slain it's not it's not something lacking in the offering it is the finish of it that we the description in Hebrews chapter 6 is the the the anchor that goes into the holy place that is the foundation we have is because he has in there he represents us it's not like he has to add something to what he's already done it's a completed and finished thing okay let's go to Hebrews 9 verse 18 like I said we're jumping around in the middle now we we are all right when it says wait a minute we were just in yeah we were in Hebrews 9 that's right we we were after that we're in 24 now we're going back you're reading in the same order that Harold Camping used to use yes exactly I got that reference all right you're old enough to get that I know it's not the end of the world um that's a camping reference and it's going to be lost to 99% of people all right is that am years ago I know uh that even the first Covenant was not ratified without blood in Hebrews 9:18 to 22 what event in the Old Testament is being referenced well it Moses and the and the establishment of the Covenant by the sacrifice and the the the blood on the on the hsip and spring of the book it's so but is it fair to say that it's not just that the animals were killed it's also that the blood was applied yes okay great so let's go back to that in Exodus 24 I know we're jumping we're jumping this is a full Bible in Exodus 24 verse 6 Moses takes half of the blood of the animals and he puts it on the people and half on the alter how do you understand the Bloodshed there well again this is the establishment of the covenantal language it's the beginning of the types and shadows um behold the blood of the Covenant which Yahweh has cut with you in accordance with all these words so okay so would we could we agree that that's really a critical moment for the creation of the first Covenant yes okay great what language I mean so this is the blood of the Covenant when do we find Jesus saying that when he uh speaks of his coming sacrifice on the night of his betrayal so when Moses is doing it does he have just a symbol of blood or does he have real blood well he has animal blood okay and he actually creates a New Covenant Moses or Moses in Exodus 24 here well it's not called the New Covenant it's the Covenant it's he does actually creates the new he does what God has commanded him to do yes and does he create a covenant when he performs all the actions he's been commanded to by actually God created the Covenant because that's what it says right there which Yahweh has cut with you okay sure so God's but in this action is the way God acting mes being Obed to God's command how do you make sense of that and of the parallel to the New Testament the only time Jesus mentions Covenant at all in his ministry is when he lifts the chalice and says this is a covenant in his blood which sounds remarkably like the language in Exodus 24 and even more remarkably in Hebrews 9 when the author of Hebrews Blends the language of the two together if you look carefully 15 to 17 what when you say how do I well yeah I mean if Moses is inaugurating the Covenant with the this is my blood or this is the blood excuse me this is the blood of the Covenant it sounds like you see that as an actual inaugural covenantal event but when Jesus does it even though Hebrews says that the old things are prefigurement of new and better things when Jesus does it it doesn't inaugurate a covenant it's not real blood is that fair to say the Last Supper when Jesus says this is the blood of the Covenant it's not the blood of his Covenant anyone who's familiar with the Passover supper knows that everything on the table represented something in the history of Israel and that's what Jesus is saying he's saying this is this is my body this is my blood that does not require transubstantiation it does require an understanding the blood of the Covenant it really is and when Jesus says it isn't uh no it's not a matter of it isn't it is the absolute certainty that Jesus is about to give his life upon the cross of Calvary is it his blood or not no it's not okay so when I said Moses said it's the blood and they never they never would have even dreamed it nobody in that room would have ever understood those words in that way did anybody in the room exod that is massive anachronism it truly is and yes they they yes they did when Jesus opened their minds to understand the scripture after his resurrection most most definitely they did but the but the reality is if you're saying hang on I got one final question I only have 40 seconds in Exodus 24 after that this is the blood of the Covenant language go down to verse 9 and Moses and then all the priests and the Elders of Israel or sorry excuse me Aaron and naab and abaho who are the priests and the Elders of Israel it says they saw the god of Israel and they ate and drank right do you see in that a parallel to the last supper and the eating and drinking or is that a coincidence well eating and drinking is often associated with the establishment of a covenant that's right so when Christ establishes a covenant or says he's establishing a covenant at the Last Supper and they eat and drink is a covenant being established there and then at the Last Supper or will the covenant not be established until the next day well when you say the Covenant is being established again that this is the same situation I know we're out of time but I need to be able to have an opportunity to answer the question that's been asked um this is the same situation we have in Romans chapter 8 that I mentioned earlier the scriptures describe us as being forn predestined called Justified and glorified those are all past tense actions but we have not yet been glorified so there is when God does things the certainty of those things uh transcends our little time frame yeah and so what happens in the establishment of the supper can only be understood in light of what's going to happen on the cross which the disciples could not comprehend at that point in time all right thank you so much gentlemen we will now transition to our intermission which will be 10 minutes restrooms are located in the back coffee and snacks will be available at the reformed coffee bar so while you're taking a break please be thinking about your questions for the Q&A at the very end and for our online audience um also send in the super chats they will get priority for questions at the end we will rotate through that we will see you back in 10 minutes e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e hey please find your seat we are getting ready for another awesome round of cross examination everybody favorite part of a debate so we are done with the intermission if you would please make your way back to your seat we will give yall another couple of moments but we are about to get started where Dr White will continue to cross-examine Joe hesm for 15 minutes all right gentlemen Dr White when you begin to speak we will start your timer thank you not everybody's back their seats yet come on people [Laughter] okay all right uh Joe I'm sure you're familiar with John O'Brien's work the faith of millions can you hear me now okay we can hear you now you you now work for Verizon um so so you're familiar with the book uh the faith of millions by John O'Brien I am um would you agree with his statement and I guess I have to say this from last century sounds so old now well it's also like a almost 100 years it's an early 20th century book yeah yeah yeah it's it's back there when the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration he reaches up into the heavens brings Christ down from his throne and places him Upon Our altar to be offered up again as a victim for the sins of man it is a power greater than that of saints and Angels greater than that of seraphim and cherubin uh I'm G to go out on a limb and say you have not read the book is that fair of course I've read the book okay then you would know that part is in the section on on the priesthood and not on the Eucharist yes that taken literally that is not Catholic teaching because it would deny that Christ's local presence remain in heaven so when we talk about transubstantiation you talk about this like it's like complicated theological language all that's saying is that the substance of the Bread and Wine becomes the substance of the body and blood of Christ but other properties that aren't substantial we're not claiming that so it still looks like bread still tastes like bread but also location is an accident and so in his section on the Eucharist obrien explicitly acknowledges that Christ is not present in the Eucharist dimensionally he's using poetic language in talking about the priesthood that taken in a non-poetic way would contradict not only Catholic teaching but O'Brien himself so he says of what Sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the Ambassador and vice Jaren of Christ on Earth he continues the essential Ministry of Christ he teaches the Faith with the authority of Christ he pardons the repentant sin with the power of Christ he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement I guess would we could we agree that that would be the propitiatory aspect yeah that's right which Christ offered on Calvary no wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus for the the priest is and should be another Christ yeah so like Christi like little Christ right I'm so all of us share in the three-fold office of priest prophet and King and so if you follow Isaiah 66 that some Christians share in the priesthood of Christ in a special way that it makes sense this is not a priesthood apart from Christ they're sharing in the priesthood of Christ I I I understand that the point here however is that as we were talking about in the previous section um the necessity of the sacramental priesthood to bring about would you say the sacramental priesthood is necessary to bring about the propitiatory aspect of the mass in light of the doctrine of transubstantiation if you don't have the doctrine of transubstantiation do you still have the propitiatory aspect you need the reality of transubstantiation but you can find uh for instance uh Eastern Orthodox writers talking about the pro propitiatory nature of the Divine Liturgy they don't use the language of transubstantiation but they're affirming the same reality okay but you would you would agree that there are some pretty important distinctions between Roman Catholicism and Easter Orthodoxy in its view on this point despite our differences in areas of theology on is the Liturgy a propitiatory sacrifice the Eastern Orthodox agree well liturgy or the actual uh say liturgy because mass is the Western term Divine Liturgy is Eastern term if you want to say Mass that's fine true true but so for instance I'm Russian Orthodox Theologian protopresbyter Michael panski in his Orthodox dogmatic theology says quote the Eucharist is likewise a propitiatory sacrifice for all members of the church it's pretty unambiguous he goes on and says that from the beginning of Christianity the bloodless sacrifice was offered for the remembrance of both the living and the dead and for the remission of their sins this is evident from the text of all the liturgies beginning with the Liturgy of the Holy Apostle James for your name sake so the the the bloodless sacrifice is still propitiatory how can that be in light of the teaching of Hebrews that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin that's a good question this is what I was trying to it is a good question thank you that's trying to explain like when not to knock your drink over when Jesus uh goes up to heaven and he presents the offering of Good Friday to the father he's not dying again right so you can have that offering he's it's a Priestly thing it's part of the same sacrifice like if you understand why Passover was both on the 14th and the 15th day of the month then you can understand why Holy Thursday and Good Friday and the Ascension into heaven are all critical for understanding the sacramental nature in the sacrificial nature of what Christ has done for us like the problem is we don't understand the way sacrifice works there's no one in the early church like not one Jewish convert not one pagan convert makes any of the arguments you're making because they know how sacrifice works not enough to shed the blood wa wait wait wait wait wait you're you're making a pretty big claim there they they don't they don't make since I'm making since I'm making the argument of the book of Hebrews they did make that argument yes we absolutely believe in Hebrews we don't understand Hebrews in such a way that we think it contradicts the propitiatory nature of the mass okay so and this is every early father before the Council of Na the Anglican lurgical scholar Gregory dicks in his book shape of the Liturgy says there is no preyan father Eastern or Western whose Eucharistic Doctrine is at all fully stated who does not regard the offering and the consecration of the Eucharist as the present action of Our Lord himself right that the sacrificial action is ongoing and then he goes on in the overwhelming majority of writers it is made clear that their whole conception he means of the Eucharist revolves around the figure of the high priest in the altar in heaven like there's a reason in the book of re still describes an altar in heaven because there's still the presentation in heaven and on Earth of what Christ has done once for all on Good Friday okay so do you do you not see that when you're looking at Hebrews what you just said you are told in light of the current form of Roman Catholic theology this is this is the teaching of the church how could you look at Hebrews and see anything that would contradict your ultimate author Ang telling you what the Christians before the year 300 believed are you saying that he's like so informed by Catholicism that like the pope is making him think that no he's a lurgical scholar looking at the ancient liturgy okay um Let me let me let me finish let me finish let me finish the question so so we can actually get to it that Anglican scholar was not saying that the early church held to transubstantiation the mass and this created propitiation which meant that you can come to the mass thousands of times in your life and still die impure there is a huge difference between there's a huge difference is there not is there not a huge difference okay is there not a huge difference between the concept of real presence in the supper and the modern Concept in Roman Catholicism that developed over time or do you not believe in development in this area you believe in devel in the papacy maybe you believe on this point we find first century evidence that they believed in the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist you said in your debate againsts have that you need a transubstantiation if you're right then the first century fathers talking about the sacrifice of the mass must have believed in transubstantiation by your own logic okay so you are asserting that if sacrificial language is used that's being understood in the way that it's understood say at the Council of Trent or even for fourth lering Council because now you have transation the fourth Ling Council you do not believe that there was development no on on this point when you hear unanimity of the pran fathers on this point there's no development at all we see not one iota of difference now you find other Eucharistic questions that become clearer the mode of presence and all of that on the sacrificial nature which is what we're debating we're not debating transubstantiation we're debating the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice that part is absolutely unambiguously clear so you are making so you are making the assertion that you can actually distin you can separate out the issues of priesthood which was developmental which I don't believe it was development you're assert that that is how many how many of your own Scholars admit that liberal Catholics would be like meting to Liberal Liberal Catholics I'm just saying like I could point to Liberal Presbyterians and you wouldn't take that as any Authority I'm talking about church I'm talking about his okay why did Newman have to come up with his development hypothesis if there wasn't any development you seem to be assing are absolutely issues that develop and we have greater Clarity of the the wills of Christ if you were to read just fathers from the first 200 years you won't find clear understanding about the papacy sure the papacy and like the the role and authority of the papacy becomes clearer over time how about infallibility marry and dogmas a lot of things I mean I'm example of theity so things that the church saying development of Doctrine is true for Catholics and Protestants alike so things that that have been so things that have been dogmatized had to develop not as a rule the B assumption I'm saying not as a rule like you can't say things that are dogmatized therefore like when we talk about the Divinity of Christ that is dogmatically held that is not a development that was believed by the earliest Christians all of the universal evidence points to the early Christians believing Christ was divine right well of course okay they also beli the Eucharist was a so the fact that something is a dog doesn't mean it necessarily developed do you not recognize that you keep equivocating on the term sacrifice no you you you don't see that because I can point you to fathers who explicitly call it a propitiation like you think I I remember this from your debate with Jerry matics you claim it's not tell fourth l in 1215 or sometime a little bit before that right okay and you say transcen is needed to have a propitiatory model well certainly O'Brien agreed with me okay great so if I can point you to early church fathers who speak explicitly of it being propitiatory will you concede that those points are are false like your timeline is is clearly no because because okay even if it uses the word propitiation I'm asking the questions so I've I've let you I've given you free rign I really really have to to just run over me when I'm trying to ask ask you questions so I'm I'm going to have to slow you down there because that's what you're doing do you not so you do not see that there is a difference between using sacrificial language when you're talking about a sacrifice and using and presenting the idea that there is a uh propitiatory limited propitiatory effect in the representation of what you call the mass by a priest you don't see any there are different types of sacrifice you have for instance sacrifices of Praise on that point we agree you have the kind of sacrifices Romans 121 talks about so I I totally understand there different types of sacrifices my argument and the argument of Scholars who studied the early church on this I'm happy to give you a whole slew of direct you can read them for yourself citations the type of sacrifice the early Christians believed the mass was was the one sacrifice of Christ for the Forgiveness of sins okay for example you you put a lot of weight initially in Malachi chapter One MH for from the rising of the sun even to its setting my name will be great among the Nations and in every place incense is going to be presented to my name as well as a grain offering that is clean for my name will be great among the Nations says Yahweh of hosts are incense offerings propitiatory they that by itself the incense no are grain offerings repitor uh in this context because they're prefiguring the Eucharist well that's so that's your understanding but we grain offerings under the Mosaic Covenant propitiatory was there a blood you need the actual shedding of blood it's you're right right so so can you can you explain why it is that the the key text that you presented there does not present propitiatory sacrifices because it is not just a grain offering it is also the shedding of blood Hebrews 9 talks about this so what the Old Testament doesn't where where in Malachi 1 I'm I'm missing that word I said Hebrews n that's I'm reading you Malachi 1 I know I'm saying so for instance if you were talk about the Virgin birth and you were to point back to Isaiah 7 that is a prophecy of the Virgin birth but doesn't tell us everything about it of course not but if this is if this is being fulfilled and and you you put a lot of weight on this a lot of a lot of writers do but it's not the part that keeps being missed is the propitiatory aspect uh yes I understand that that's your AR argument my point is that the early Christians whether you agree with them or not view this explicitly as a propitiatory sacrifice well and the same thing the other text you used in Isaiah oh good grief Isaiah chapter 66 who keeps making that clock go faster in Isaiah chapter 66 um this is the quotation you only gave it to if you didn't read it you didn't have time to I imagine but that's right uh in uh Isaiah 66 um 21 I will also take some of them for for priests and for Levites says Yahweh but who is the them if you look back uh it says um uh they will declare my glory among the Nations then they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as a grain offering to Yahweh on horses and chariots in litters on mules and on camels to my holy mount in Jerusalem says Yahweh just as the sons of Israel bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of Yahweh so again what did did the New Testament writers and I'll finish this did the New Testament writers interpret these texts the way you do uh I don't know on Isaiah 66 the absolutely in terms of the Fulfillment of Malachi being sacrificial 1 Corinthians 10 but there is no direct citation I think in either case to talk about what the first century evidence tells us within just the cannon alone if that's your argument all right thank you gentlemen now Joe you will have 15 minutes to cross-examine Dr White okay so Martin Luther in his the abomination of the secret Mass talking about what's the date on it I don't know the date on it okay it it's I think it's 1519 to 1521 somewhere around there I think it that sounds right given uh captivity of the will it it's a similar line of argumentation that he makes there in that's 1520 he talks about the priest and he says they thereby deny both of their deeds in their hearts that Christ has washed sin away and has Di died and risen again this is such an Abomination that I don't believe it could be sufficiently punished on Earth if it rained fire from heaven the blasphemy is so great but it must simply wait for Eternal Hellfire so my question to you is is Martin Luther correct like if someone takes the understanding that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is that a damnable error yes okay does it make someone not a Christian well I I I leave I leave the decision of your soul and anyone else's soul in the hands of Christ I judge teaching okay makes a Christian externally well well wait a minute I I want to make sure that you know it's it's far too easy to throw that out there and say you know this is this is the position you're taking um I have met Roman Catholics who would agree with much of what you have said this evening on a surface level but they've also expressed a simple trust and faith in the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ in their behalf and so my hope and prayer is that there are many people whose object of faith is better than the content of their theology let's put it that way I appreciate your generosity there my question is externally would they cease to be Christians in your estimation would they or would they not be Christians like someone who's proclaiming the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice well when you said cease you're talk about I want to get into last night's debate no no if you're talking about if you're talking about someone who once professed what I'm saying and who then abandons that that's very different than someone who has never necessarily known or something along those lines I I do I do struggle with with those who look me in the eye and say I once believed everything you believe and I understand it'd be hard to square that with perseverance of the Saints well not only perseverance the Saints but just simply what they're actually what they were trusting in then and what they're trusting in now as to how they have peace with God so yeah I struggle with that okay I think you could you could probably see that I'm not a former Catholic that I totally it makes sense I'm I'm not critiquing that at all yeah but it sounds like this is maybe an area of difference or excuse me an area of agreement this is a major we can't have we can't have areas of agreement excuse me yeah sorry well we're disagreeing that the other person is Gravely wrong can we disagree to that we definitely agree each one is some somebody's not right all right so this is this is a high stakes debate is it your view that in the 16th century the visible church was in global apostasy Global apostasy I I have you read Calvin's letter to satto uh I've read parts of it I've not it's it's classic and I I think it would I and interestingly enough I recommended it last night too um and I will recommend it to everybody again uh I think he does an excellent job in talking about the the light of the Gospel going forth and it's not in the sense of everybody before me is going to hell there weren't any Christians um are you familiar with the bishop F gentius of I am early augustinian uh exactly and uh this is well into the early medieval late classical early medieval period And he says all sorts of things that I would go this man looks to me like a fellow believer okay so I'm not even even Augustine himself is that fair to say he on the one hand believes in the propitiation Mass exactly and and I I hope you understand that I see a I I agree with Newman there's doct development that takes place and it's a it's going the wrong direction but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that there wasn't Sub in 1000 that that that had erroneous beliefs but still has a true faith in Christ okay but it I'm just asking in terms of the visible church is there a visible Church on Earth using your understanding of the word church well the reform the reformers the reformers differentiated between the visible Church represented by Rome and individual churches outside of that that have been in communion with Rome but did not have the same level of corrup to a visible Church on Earth and say that you're 1500 that would meet your standard of a church I think we can point to Christians that's not my question though right in book four of insin argues there's no salvation outside the visible church but the problem but the problem is um at that point in time let's be honest if someone tried to have that kind of truly biblical Church Rome would kill them I don't think that's true but I think you if you want to advance that argument I think that's very true okay so you think that there was no visible church because people were afraid of getting killed that's not the only reason but that was that was a that's a big part Calvin right that there's no salvation outside the visible church I'm sorry is John Calvin WR in book four of institutes that there's no salvation outside the visible Church well and in light of his own definition of that and I'm ask because he's not he's not limiting the visible Church to just Rome of course not I don't even think yeah but his his point is we are joined to the visible Church in regeneration okay so and we're in Rebellion if we if we do not submit I want to see if I can string together a coherent vision of what you think's happening with the church in say 1500 it sounds like you're saying are we going to get to propitiation here I'm hoping I'm trying to understand because you think the propitiatory nature of the mass renders one it it it renders is the gospel it's not one it's what it does to the gospel and inability to give peace okay and I guess I'm trying to understand if every Christian before the year 1500 that we can find believes in this is your belief believes in what the propitiation of the mass well again we don't have any counter examples we have your definition of Hebrews and that's going up against me quoting no known Christian before 300 believes in anything other than this and I notic when you read that what it said was in those who give us a Eucharistic theology right doesn't you're lady on the street hippo we don't know what she believed and so maybe she was secretly a calvinist but everyone we actually know is is a Catholic everyone we actually know in the early church believes in the propitiation of the mass I think even I think even the EAS Orthodox would have a little bit of a problem with what you're trying to say there they make those claims of Christ in the M but again I I don't accept the defin the fact that you are using different definitions I keep saying to you obviously anytime you're talking about the supper you're going to be using sacrificial language okay but the I but the whole point that we keep focusing on here is is a is a uh sacramental priesthood and the changing of the elements and the offering of an uny sacrif propitiatory nature of the sacrifice but and we have and we have to agree about that because I think it seems very obvious because just look at what happens once transubstantiation becomes the the the Dogma that's when all the Eucharistic Miracles and everything else start exploding in the mid 300s cical lecture 23 I'm going to give you a quote you tell me if it sounds like a propitiatory sacrifice or some other kind he says then having Sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns we beseech the merciful god to send forth his holy spirit upon the gifts lying before him that he may make the bread the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched is surely Sanctified and changed then after the spiritual sacrifice the bloodless service is completed over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the churches for the wellfare of the world for Kings he goes on to say we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us first Patriarchs prophets Apostles Martyrs right is that a propitiation for the living and the dead and and again I would want to interpret him not only in his in light of his strong command to his cumans to judge everything by scripture but I would also want to interpret him as not having been influenced by Aristotle and arist aristan talk about wait a minute now why why do you get to read all that and I only get okay go ahead well because you're claiming that four letter in Council is arilan right I'm sorry you aren't you claiming the fourth letter in Council is using arilan I'm claiming that the doctrine of transubstantiation is depend upon artian categories of accidents and presents that would not have been functional category um for the fourth Century early fathers and and I would like to finish by saying that the 4th Century fathers had a very high Sacrament Loy that doesn't mean that the propitiation was a uh something that you could go to over and over and over again and that that was part of how you received uh Grace in the sense of so my original question to you is when he calls it a propitiatory sacrif for the living and the dead does he mean it's a propitiatory sacrifice of the living and the dead and your answer he means that the sacrifice of Christ is and that represents what sacrifice of Christ is yes that doesn't mean that and and that's why I I read O'Brien even when even when he calls it a propitiatory sacrifice of living in the dead about the Eucharist explicitly saying it changes he still doesn't mean that if you say changes and if if you think that that's transubstantiation and he doesn't have the categories for accident and substance then it it's it's real presence have you have you ever you know there's a lot of people who believe that Christ is truly present with his people in the supper yes but do you believe that the Bread and Wine change it doesn't he doesn't say what it changes into he he's simply talking about the fact that it is it is different than just you go down to McDonald's and get up and and grab a grab a Big Mac that's not the same thing because it is being done in The Fellowship of the church and in commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ I wouldn't use that terminology okay I wouldn't imagine you would okay no I wouldn't but that doesn't that doesn't change the fact that I believe that you are anachronistically taking modern dogmas and reading them back into things where the foundation simply cannot be found there to understand in that way okay so it seems like critical to this argument of yours is the idea that transubstantiation is only possible with Arista tilian categories is that right well if you can Define uh if if let's let's put this way I can't Define transubstantiation without utilizing the same language that the Roman Catholic church has utilized uh which involves such things as accidents and substance where and when where and when what where and when does the church use the language of substance and accidents in the not only in the definition of what it means but in aquinus explication which becomes the very foundation of the defense of that the Council of Trent I mean by tradition the Bible and the Suma were sitting on a table at the Council of TR so I think asking trans substantiation is explicitly mentioned in the fourth letter in Council in 12 before Aristotle's Works have widely disseminated through Europe the term accidents is never used but it seems like you're saying substance and accidents is critical it the only term used that has an arisan counterpart is substance right but but the change the the very discussion and then again read ainus this this is the defense Sor the defense the defense of transubstantiation provided at the Council of Trent with the anathemas for anyone who would deny it is fun Fally based upon the thinking of Thomas aquinus okay so to be sure aquinus defense of transubstantiation is artian he is very clearly an aristan and wouldn't you he is the fourth l in Council and I and I believe that Trent goes beyond the fourth L and Council in the defense of the mass because of the Reformation right it sounded like you were saying trans substantiation couldn't exist that aristan categories but it exists not as it's defined today because Trent has has provided us with that that particular definition what was needed for the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice to exist that didn't exist in the first century I don't understand the question you seem in the first Millennium excuse me you seem to be saying it's impossible the early Christians even when they say they're coming nature right because their understanding of real presence would not have the physicality uh sha discusses the the discussion of this and you can go back to gots chock and and what happened with him and and and the development of theology at that particular point in time but the idea of real presence is a spiritual presence it doesn't have the limitation of physicality that unfortunately um enters in not only with uh forth lerin but but because of the defense of these things by the Council of by the Council of Trent if people like Ignatius in 107 don't believe that the mass is propitiatory why is he calling it The Medicine of immortality and the antidote to prevent us from dying but that causes we should live forever in Jesus Christ okay we only got 90 seconds here but two things if we have what Ignatius wrote there since I was the Seminary and I'm not sure if you're aware of this over the past 25 years there has been a tremendous amount of skepticism uh scholarly skepticism okay let's make sure we don't there we go the light's the light the light came back on um there has been a tremendous amount of scholarly skepticism expressed as to whether Ignatius even existed and which letters are actually because there's a Latin and there's a shorter and there's a I was not taught that but I'm sort of catching up with that so if so so that I hope and people like that are are VI but it is a fringe view in I hope it's becoming the Central View I hope ignacius existed and wrote the things we have schar I'm sorry you're saying the central VI scholarship is IGN didn't say I'm saying that the expression of that that there people going did these letters actually have an original form there are so many forms of it why that's not relevant to our debate right now I'm simply saying okay he may have written in 107 108 I hope he did but but maybe not but what he's addressing what's very important whenever it was written some people are saying it was 150 something like that whatever he was addressing he was addressing the influx of gnosticism and so his emphasis upon the medicine of immortality they will not partake in the Eucharist why because they deny that Jesus Christ had a body of Flesh and Bones he's arguing against the Dost to change that into an argument for chti a huge AB right that will conclude our cross-examination period gentlemen thank you so much that was a lively one I know everybody enjoyed it yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah okay we will now begin our closing statements and so Dr White the the negative will go first and so the floor is yours you will have five minutes to give your closing statement well five minutes is a very long time when the other guys talk in a very short time when you get to talk I can assure you of that but I want to thank Joe for a very uh Lively uh debate a little more interruption than we needed from my perspective but uh it it uh it made for a very well what did Trump say a few days ago made for great TV uh something like that um uh I'm not sure who Trump is and who zalinski is but we won't make any further comments about that however what we really need to emphasize in these last few minutes and I I hope you will hear me is when we talk about propitiation if if this is what we have from the apostles not later counsels not later writers who contradicted each other and who had all sorts of different perspectives and views on things if this and this is why solar scripture is so foundational this is why it's been debated so many times if this is what we have from God what have we heard did we see any examples we we were told well they must have functioned as priests to do this that or their thing but we have no qualifications for priests we have no references to priests we don't even have the use of the word priest of somebody doing something that would be sacrificial in the sense of bringing about the Forgiveness of sins but what we did see what we did see is that the New Testament teaches not only the once for All In of the sacrifice of Christ but what that results in that becomes the foundation of his his intercession and what's the result of his intercession the salvation of all those for whom he intercedes within Roman Catholicism you can be justified put in a state of grace you can go to mass you can go to the cross and you can lose that justification lose the state of grace and go to hell I'm not sure the current pope believes that but that's the that's the teaching at least up to the current period of time and that intercessory work does not perfect you and does not keep you and in fact if you go to Purgatory you undergo what's called sadis pasio The Suffering of atonement to bring about the Forgiveness of your own sins the cleansing the temporal punishments of those sins upon your soul this is why there is no peace because there is no finished work there is no foundation and grounds for that and so when we talk about Christ being able to save forever that's the focus that must be understood this evening when we talk about is the mass a propitiatory sacrifice now I believe very firmly that once Rome speaks dogmatically for the faithful Roman Catholic they cannot look back through history and see anything other than what they're told to hear by the Roman Catholic church and that's why you can look back in periods of time where you do not have development developed Theology and assume every word they use oh that's that's that's this that's that's the mass I can't tell you this becomes really really plain when you talk to people about Mary every reference to Mary becomes foundational to the dogmas that were defined 1,00 1900 years after the birth of Christ Christ that's not how you do church history that's not how you deal with church history in an honest fashion but again I would submit to you the fundamental Authority for us to decide this debate is not someone who lived 1,00 years or even 800 years or a 100 years after Christ what does the inspired scripture say the inspired scripture has told us the sacrifice of Christ and we can we we spent all this time talking about well what there there 40 days and is there a distinction here and when Christ appears in the Holy place in our place that is the foundation of our peace with God that's how you can have true Salvation And if you're a Roman Catholic and you know that you're going to go to mass uh tomorrow will you be perfected by that or or will you go back again the next week as I mentioned at our church we have the Lord's Supper every week but we always say it each time these elements are not adding to what Christ did they're not they're not representing they're not propitiatory they're reminding us we have a reminder of a sin Bearer who gave himself once not a reminder of our sins because of the repetition of going back and forth thank you for being here this evening all right thank you for that Dr White Joe hesm the floor is yours you will have five minutes for your closing statements yes absolutely we got your back Joe here's my stand I can do no other it was that or last stand it was going to be one of the two [Laughter] oh I'm sorry hang on just a second I left one of my pages I've made a bigger mess there we go all right I want to again thank everybody for being here you guys have been wonderful I want to thank James in particular I know it was a spirited cross-examination but I think for a good reason James's claim is that the only reason that a Catholic would think church history talks about the propitiatory sacrifice of the masses because some big bad thing called Rome tells you so but I quoted an Anglican scholar who presumably is immune from the deleterious effects of Rome talking about how everyone in the pran church everyone before the year 325 believed this about the Eucharist that's a big deal because it's not just a question of scripture verse tradition these are the people who tell us which books are in scripture in the first place the question is who reading of Hebrews do you trust more someone who experienced sacrifice from their own life as a Jewish or Pagan convert someone in the very early days who may have known St Paul personally or James White telling you at Hebrews means in the year of Our Lord 2025 the question is as I said before with Keith ma there is no s thing is just scripture there's appeals to scripture you can't just put the Bible on here and say settle this debate because we're both going to read it and interpret it the question is whose interpretation do you trust The Unbroken line of Christians for 2,000 years or James White telling you it actually doesn't mean anything that they thought it meant and you can read for yourself when St serel of Jerusalem says that the Eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice of bloodless service a sacrifice of propitiation for the living and the dead in 348 to 350 that either means what it says or it couldn't possibly mean that because according to James White no one believed any of that stuff for another 700 years those are the stakes this matters remember the original thing I said if you go back John Calvin Martin Luther didn't claim nobody believed that they acknowledged that everyone believed the Catholic view the Orthodox view that this was The Unbroken witness for the 1500 years before them that should give you extreme pause of her overthrowing historic Christianity Remember by James's view you'd have to say every Christian on Earth every week when they go to church they're doing something that is displeasing to God when they think they're worshiping him because it wasn't just priv private theological opinions these were the texts of the mass and the Divine Liturgy that we find as far back as we go we don't have to guess what people believe because we can see how they worshiped we have those texts still now when it comes to scripture we have Malachi for telling how there will be a sacrifice and you have the early Christians telling you this is fulfilled in the Eucharist they're interpreting Malachi for you so again it's going to be a interpretation of scripture or the interpretation that the earliest Christians take even all the way back with the diday in the first century that while the apostles are on earth we have historical evidence that the Christian mode of worship was the sacrifice of the mass we're told that by Christian sources you don't have to wait till ignacius in 107 and by the way he did exist he did write we have his writings you can go back even before Ignatius you also have the logic of the sacrifice and I want to make sure this doesn't get omed one of the reasons why people today modern Protestants modern Calvinists can think Hebrews disproves what every Christian believed was because now when we think of sacrifice we think of just killing the animal that's incomplete sacrifice included at least two aspects in cases like this it's not true of every sacrifice but in cases like this you had the killing of the animal you had the eating of the animal well the killing of Christ Our Pascal lamb happens on Good Friday but that cannot be the end of it we know this in two ways one Hebrews talks about this as an ongoing role so Christ 43 days later is presenting the blood to the Father in heaven so it's not one and done on Good Friday by Hebrews itself but second if you understand how a sacrifice Works in a Jewish or a pagan context then you know you have to also eat the sacrifice where does that happen we don't have to wonder St Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10 he explicitly holds up the sacrifice of the Eucharist as parallel to the eating of these propitiatory sacrifices in Judaism and in paganism so the depiction as a propitiatory sacrifice is right there on the pages of scripture now James is right he doesn't use the word priest in fact Paul never even uses the word priest to describe Jesus but we still know Jesus was a priest this is still a Priestly sacrifice as Hebrews 5 tells us a priest is one who offers sacrifice so when he describes the Eucharist in these acal terms he's also describing it in Priestly terms even if he doesn't use that word the last thing I'd say just kind of as an invitation what we've done here I think is good but if you want something more than talking about scripture but to offer worship to God I'd invite you to join me tomorrow at 10: a.m. when we go to Blessed Sacrament down the road here thank you and God bless you all right thank you so much Joe for those closing statements go ahead we'll we'll clap for our Debaters thank youall so much for um everything your preparation and the Lively interaction we now are going to transition to our Q&A so how this is going to work is when there is a question directed for one of you you will have 60 seconds to respond to that question and then the other person will get to chime in for 30 seconds to weigh in on that question so in-person questions here at 125 charts are going to have priority over the questions that were online so if you have a question for the affirmative with Joe we ask you that you would come line up right in front of him at this microphone and if you have questions for the negative and Dr White please uh start making your your way to the microphone and please when you ask a question you only get about 30 seconds or so we got to keep this short we have about 30 minutes and please speak directly into the mic so we can all hear so if you would once again line up to the microphone we're going to start out with the Super Chat question as you're getting your questions ready to come up to the microphone oh this is for you how do you reconcile the catechism saying the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as the cross with Hebrews 9:22 wouldn't the manner of shedding of the blood in the mass also need to be the same based on Hebrews 922 for the Forgiveness of sins I'm going to help you keep up with the time so okay cool minute I think I can do it even faster when you ate the Passover Lamb that was a distinct sacrificial action it was not a distinct sacrifice so if you think of the killing of the lamb as prefiguring Good Friday the eating of the Lamb is prefiguring Christ Passover at the Last Supper in every Mass sense awesome Dr White 30 seconds well I I think it is important to point out that if you're going to say that an unbloody sacrifice is propitiatory you're introducing something that is not in the categories of biblical Revelation to begin with uh not in regards to the sacrifice of Christ and in Hebrews it would be particularly Troublesome because you you'd be using categories from what the writer of the Hebrews is saying that's all passed that's that's passed away there's something new there's something that's been fulfilled uh and it's greater than what had come before can I respond to that or no uh no we're we're going to have just this kind of interaction okay we'll go uh question for Dr White like I said under 30 seconds please what's your favorite book of the Bible so good well you get 30 seconds to answer that too uh so there you go what's my favorite book of the Bible uh um I would say Hebrews not because of this debate but because I preached through the book of Hebrews for years I think it was 85 sermons and it went from lower on the list to the top of the list because of all the work that had to be put into uh working through that text uh in on a basis of the original languages and and it just uh it speaks so much to the deity of Christ his exaltation and when you're telling the ancient Jewish Christians there's nothing to go back to man modern American Christians need to hear that same message today to be honest with you uh so I would I would say Hebrews thank you you get 30 seconds 30 seconds okay uh I love Jonah and I love first John um I think if you look at Matthew 16 when Jesus talks about the sign of Jonah and look at the three-fold way that Jonah preaches 40 years or 40 days ninev will be destroyed tie that to the 40 years in which Jerusalem's destroyed you talk about the three days obviously prefiguring death and resurrection and then the whole point of Jonah is he's preaching to the Gentiles it is a great prefigurement of the New Testament I love that thank you all right question for Joe first of all thank you so much for being here um pleasure correct me if I'm wrong but it it almost seems to me that within Roman Catholic theology Grace almost seems to function like a commodity where you've got indulgences acts of service and the mass as a prary sacrifice kind of being part of all that and so if Hebrews 7 25 which you know able to save completely the other most is true wouldn't going to the mass basically wipe out things like temporal sins Etc uh eliminating the need for p Purgatory confession all right that's a very good question it's a little more complicated than that because the the closest analog to what happens at the mass is what happens between a husband and a wife and I know we're in mixed company I'm going to just leave it at like there's a unitive aspect of communion between husband and wife but if you've ever gotten in a fight with your wife or husband uh you know that you have to make amends before you engage in that and you have to approach with a certain kind of seriousness and so in 1 Corinthians 11 St Paul says that receiving the Eucharist without Discerning the body and blood of Christ is actually Gravely sinful so if you're conscious of a way that you've been separated from Christ by your sin you should go and get healed first and then in engage in this full communion with him thanks so there's much more that could be said but I don't have time all right Dr White 30 seconds 30 seconds I I think one of the most clear reputations of the position presented this evening is the doctrine of indulgences which I did not get into this evening because I didn't want to go too far a field but when you study what indulgences are it is one of the clearest indications of how this Theology of sacramentalism propitiatory sacrifice does involve a fundamental degrad of the New Testament teaching and the sacrifice of Christ all right we're going to take an online question here Dr White this is for you in your book on solp scripture on page 120 you use the consens consensus of Christians to arrive at a 27 book New Testament yet you dismiss when it comes to their opinions on the mass are you aware that this is special pleading uh no because I didn't do that uh anyone who's read scripture alone knows or watched the presentation I did with Michael Krueger at G3 in 2018 I was wearing a bow tie that day um knows that uh I do not base canonicity upon consensus uh I recognize the historical issues but the whole point of my chapters in scripture alone the whole point of Michael Krueger's books is that the Canon is a theological issue and it is directly related and connected to uh intrinsically the concept of script is being theonas that God knows what the Canon is because God only inspires certain books and not other books and that therefore the church's knowledge of these things is derivative there from so uh the questioner is a misunderstanding uh what the book said and or just doesn't understand the context in which statements were made if I'm understanding uh and I've I've read at least big chunks of Krueger's book Catholics would actually agree like we don't believe that the can becomes the Canon because the church decided one day like we could have just done like a takeout menu and made that part of the Bible we don't think that first Vatican Council explicitly says the church doesn't make the inspired books inspired nevertheless if you think you can reject the Christian consensus on which books are in the Bible if you say every Christian believes Matthew Mark Luke and John are in there but I don't think so that is personal interpretation to such an extreme that it's Sol the scripture are eating itself all right thanks so much we're going to do a question for Joe and if you would please speak really close into the microphone so we can all hear you so I saw that if you would please get a lot closer yeah a lot closer okay eat the microphone one fifth away okay so the I you in the Old Testament about the mass Illusions to it so do priests need to be Jewish or Levites or anything like that because that would be a requirement of the Old Testament priest so why does the New Testament priest not have that that's a great question two things number one in Isaiah 66 it explicitly talks about Gentiles becoming priests and Levites uh and number two Hebrews explicitly talks about Jesus inaugurating a new priesthood not the ironic priesthood of the priesthood of melkisedek now he is the high priest of that but just like the high priest Aaron had priests with him a high priest the reason you say high priest is because he's not the only priest Christ is not the only priest of the new priesthood in one sense all of us are priests just like all the people of Israel were priests in the Old Testament so when St Peter says that you're a Priestly Nation he's quoting Exodus that there was a Priestly people a ministerial priesthood and a high priest in the New Covenant we also have a Priestly people a ministerial priesthood and a high priest awesome thank you um there there is no New Testament priesthood that is sacramental uh all new testament Believers are priest but they do not offer propitiatory sacrifices uh there is no foundation for changing presbyter into priest uh and if you'd like to see a full discussion of that that isn't limited by um cross-examination Time stuff like that I debated father Mitchell Paca on that subject about wow about 20 years ago now I'd say and we got much more in depth into that kind of stuff so I it's available on YouTube you could look it there thank you so what what exactly did Christ finish when he said it is finished since he had begun his intercessory work as being part of salvation for his people well again uh I I reject the idea that intercession is an additional element of the work just as the high priest uh he had he had one job on Yom Karim and that had multiple aspects to it but you can't divide those out if he didn't he couldn't do the intercession without the sacrifice and if he did sacrifice out the intercession then that's not complete and the point is that when Jesus is seen in the New Testament in his position as high priest in the Heavenly Realms the lamb standing as if slain he is there not adding something to what he did but it's the very fact that he has been slain and has been resurrected that is what provides that sacrificial completness that does not have to have anything added to it and so there's the there's the picture how how can the lamb standing of is slain mean anything if that's not how we're understanding it thank you if James was right then there' be no reason for Christ to enter into the Heavenly places to present the offering because it would have all been done on Good Friday an actual Jewish understanding is there's two distinct steps killing of the sacrificial victim that happens on Good Friday that is finished and then the presentation of the blood that happens in heaven with the Ascension it happens on Earth with every math which is why Christ's sacrifice can be applied to your life saving you awesome we're going to take an online question for Joe someone online says I was raised Roman Catholic I am now a member of a Reformed Baptist Church does the Roman Catholic Church teach that I am no longer saved because I do not participate in your Traditions I would say a very similar answer to what James said what you're doing leaving Catholicism is Gravely wrong but God is merciful and he knows those people who sin knowingly and those who sin erroneously I mean if you remember Jesus's words on the cross father forgive them for they know not what they do we can say something is materially wrong but we can't say whether the person who does the wrong thing KN knowingly did something that they knew was wrong so it is a serious matter but like with any serious matter it may not have done like if I give somebody a peanut sandwich and they've got a peanut allergy and it kills them I'm not a murderer because it was an accident but what I did was still Gravely wrong awesome well I I I would point point out that that that's sort of how it's handled today uh unfortunately our ancestors didn't handle it quite the same way um and so for example there was a stream uh continuous stream of missionaries that came out of Calvin's Geneva that went into Italy every single one of which was mured and so I'm glad we don't have to worry about that tonight uh but it does point to how very important this issue uh is uh with eternal consequences all right we're going to take a question right here uh if trans signification was the rule of the day are you looking at him or me oh you're in the wrong you're in the wrong L we're to ask go go ahead go ahead just go ahead and do it we'll just switch it over if trans signification was replaced transubstantiation would it still be a prary sacrifice in your mind I don't know enough about the ins and outs of trans signification but I mean one thing I want to be really clear on is you don't need aristan categories to believe in trans substantiation you just need to believe in substance the First Council of NAA when it talk about Christ being consubstantial with the father has the category of substance it's not true that substance only comes from Aristotle that's just like you can see it's not true because Aristotle's Works aren't in Latin until very shortly before 12:15 aquinus hadn't been born when trans instantiation is being used at the fourth Ling Council so we are not married to any one philosophical conception Aristotle does a fine job of distinguishing substance from accidents you don't need to believe in that distinction to believe in the reality that there's a change but of course it's been dogmatically defined as being such and that is directly related to how the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice and that differentiates the later understanding from the earlier understanding which was spiritual not physical and that's why you ended up with all these weird um you know bleeding hosts and and hosts being put in beehives that beehives the bees start worshiping the host when did all that stuff happen after the physicality was introduced around the turn of the Millennium thank you we're going to take another online question for James wi even if we Grant the mass is a later development why is this not allowed but eternal security took 1.5 Millennia to exist that is allowed as an argument against the nature of the mass well of course Jesus said he knows his sheep and uh he says he's going to do the father's will and not lose anyone that's been given to him so that doesn't take 1.5 uh, years to recognize that Jesus is a perfect savior what does take 1.5 th000 years is to recognize that it is the natural bent of mankind to seek to control the grace of God and therefore to reject the perfect um perfectly clear New Testament teaching that God has an elect people and that those elect people are united with Jesus Christ in his death burial and resurrection and that therefore those elect people find Christ to be a perfect Savior and they will not be lost that doesn't take 1500 years uh that's in the New Testament it can be defend defended on that but there are many people who rejected that why because the same problem that Paul had with the with the judaizers in galatia God's Grace has to be controlled by people who do not want to submit to the fullness of God's truth all right I'd say two things one I think the commentary is absolutely right like development of Doctrine is not an argument against Catholicism because Protestants also have to concede that questions get asked in the 4th Century that weren't being asked in the third Century Anyone who reads history knows that much there's work on what the Bible means over time but second on the Eucharist this is actually something the pran fathers are very clear on James claims with no evidence that they believed it was spiritual Ignatius who he apparently doesn't believe in says the gnostics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they confess not the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ thanks so much Jo good afternoon gentlemen hi uh hi I think it's good evening though isn't it technically good night uh Mr hesm uh throughout the tonight you've made the argument of the necessity to continue the sacrifice of Christ the repetition of that and I was just curious how would you square that with say Hosea 6 I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice or when Christ quotes that I desire Mercy not sacrifice yeah that's a great question so all of the Old Testament sacrifices are inferior to Christ's perfect sacrifice on the cross but what makes Christ sacrif on the cross so meritorious is not Divine wrath being poured out and bloodshed what makes Christ sacrifice so meritorious is that Christ is the perfect obedient priest and victim in Hebrews says that which is why in John 10 our Lord doesn't describe himself as poting out wrath on the son he says the father is pleased with him because he lays down his life for the sheep that our lord loves it it's not about the sacrificial bloodiness the blood is an expression of his love for us that he's willing to die for us sacrifice of Christ is not meritorious it's substitutionary that's that's the issue is the union of the elect with Christ so that he Bears their sin in his body on the tree and his righteousness is imputed to them not Merit that's a huge difference here massive difference we didn't get into is that it is not a matter of Merit it is a matter of the righteousness that I will have before the father is Christ's righteousness not a mixed righteousness of mine Mary Saints etc etc thank you take a question right here for Dr White uh given the one once forall nature of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and given the fact that justification occurs once how do you understand ongoing forgiveness in the Christian Life in places like the Lord's Prayer or 1 John 1:9 right uh well we are in relationship with God through the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit dwells within us and it is our desire since we still live in a fallen State and since we still um experience sin in our lives that we want to deal with that we want to be cleansed from that we know that that is a all that's already a reality we we read Romans chapter 8 we've been Justified uh we've been glorified we've already been seated in the Heavenly places in Christ Jesus that's the issue of the now and the not yet the the not yet we know finished work of Christ when we stand before the The Throne we will be justified solely by what Christ has done in our behalf not by anything we've done but in this life as we live now when we recognize our sin our lack of Holiness our transgressions then we flee to the same person to Jesus Christ and experience that forgiveness we know he's provided I would say read Matthew 6 remember that this is only children of God who get to pray this because we pray our father and we pray to be forgiven as we forgive those who trespass or in debt against us and then if that's not enough Jesus says in verse 14 if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly father also will forgive you future tense but if you do not forgive men their trespasses neither will your father forgive your trespasses so if you ask can a Christian fall into a place where they're not forgiven by God Jesus says yes in Matthew 6:14 James says no thank you Joe we have an online question for you Joe now um if this claim is true that lifegiving victim by which we were reconciled to the father is day daily imated on the altar by priest that's Trent session 22 what does daily imated mean yeah it refers there to sacrificial offering it's not saying that he is Reed that's why it specifies immediately after that not in a bloody manner like when Christ goes to heaven and presents the blood he is not shedding the blood again he is presenting the blood in an unbloody manner in heaven like however you understand the mass understand Hebrews when Christ ascends into heaven he is acting like the priest going into the holy holy zanam kapor and he's acting in an unbloody manner presenting a sacrifice in which the Bloodshed has already happened that's what we mean by unbloody sacrifice that's also what happens on Earth in the mass unblooded sacrifices are not propitiatory the repetition daily and Roman Catholicism once again runs directly against the reality that repetition of a sacrifice is a reminder of sin because it hasn't been dealt with over against the finished work of Christ which is done once because it deals with sin and perfects those for whom it is made all right we'll go ahead and go again for can you remind me how to pronounce your last name hhm but you can call me Joe Joe um do you think it's unfair to repeatedly appeal to the religious climate of 1500 as authoritative when the access to and teaching from scripture was limited to intentionally limited to Rome well two things number one there were a lot of learned Scholars the printing press had come out the Bible was in the hands of people much more than it had been before 1480 not because of some conspiracy by Rome but just because of the nature of handwritten Bibles as opposed to mass produced Bibles so that's the printing press but two Martin Luther and John Calvin are clear that it wasn't just the Christians in their day that believed in the propitiation with the words of the mass and the universal belief of Christians throughout the ages stood against them so it's not just the Christians of 1500 it's the Christians in 100 and before you know it's interesting we didn't get into this but uh wickliff recognized before the Reformation the newness of the doctrine of transubstantiation and its theological application he recognized that that was a development at uh the fourth lading Council uh what's interesting about that is there was so much anachronism back then that for anyone to recognize development was pretty amazing but he certainly did see that and many other people did too going to take another online question for Dr White how can you deny the presence of the Eucharist when Jesus clarified himself by saying truly truly in John 6 well that's a complete misunderstanding of John 6 we didn't really get into that because it wasn't presented uh as a as a positive thing but uh in John chapter 6 Jesus himself defines the categories that he's using he specifically says that if you come to him you will not hunger if you believe in him you will not thirst so he establishes the fact that the hungering and the thirsting is spiritual because coming and believing is not eating of anything and so it is it is it's amazing to me that a text that is so plainly about the unbelief of the Jews the existence of God's elect the centrality of Christ as the bread from Heaven that provides us with spiritual life can be turned into something that's about Sacramento that nobody there would have had any idea of and the reason that the disciples Walk Away by the way at the end of the chapter is not because of what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood look look carefully he says it's because I said to you you can't come to me unless the father enables you I would just point out that taking a non-sacramental view of John 6 means you have to imagine Jesus is speaking One Way metaphorically in John 6 and using an opposite set of metaphors at the Last Supper when he holds it up and says this is my body that before he's not holding up a host he's pointing forward to the Last Supper so read John 6 in light of the last supper and second read it in the way the early Disciples of John read it da Carson in his Gospel of John commentary points out that Ignatius is a student of the Apostle John and clearly takes a sacramental understanding of John 6 thank you we're going to take another question for Dr White right here Dr White um talked about imputation while ago uh where the the righteousness of chist is imputat would you see that's the better Covenant perspective versus the Roman Catholics where they have an infused uh righteousness um well normally I would just go yes this is this is the difference this is the Council of Trent uh this is the difference between imputation which Roman Catholics have called illegal fiction uh versus the infusion where you become uh uh pleasing to God by the the changing of Who You Are by the infusion of Grace until I debated Jimmy Aken last year and he's goes oh yeah we can we can believe in imputation too and I'm I'm like oh um no one ever debated before has has said that um that's always been the fundamental difference is that we have an alien righteousness it's not our righteousness and the whole idea of indulgences for example um that you can receive Merit from the tharus Merit torum which is made up the merits of Mary and the Saints and the excess Merit of Jesus this is that used to be pretty clear in our in our debates but I guess today Purgatory can be instantaneous and you can have imputation so it's not as clear as it used to be well Purgatory could always be instantaneous but on this issue I think there is a really substantial difference the Protestant understanding that white has laid out is what aliser McGrath and yusa de calls a theological novelty or Noam of the 16th century on this point the Protestant understanding is not found in the prior 1500 years McGrath is a calvinist acknowledging this so this is yet another way where Calvinists may think they're practicing historic Christianity and it's radically unlike the Christianity that preceded the Reformation even in the days of Jesus and the followers of the Apostles thank Joe we have a question online once again for you Joe is it a double standard to appeal to scripture when your tradition is mentioned I.E priest or presbyter but appeal to anachronism or theology by Omission when it is absent no I mean if you believe that God's revelation is not restricted to scripture we both believe that scripture is the honest us we both believe it's God breathed so if you believe Hebrews isn't in the cannon you're not going to appeal to Hebrews but someone who believes Hebrews is in the Canon is they're both going to appeal to Matthew Mark Luke and John and it's not contradictory that we're going to both appeal to things that we think are divinely inspired and we might appeal to something we think is divinely inspired and you don't I don't see a contradiction there well again uh when Roman Catholicism says this is the this has been the view of the church from the beginning they're not given freedom to go well actually it wasn't because you got this person here this interpretation there whatever else so you actually have a problem there and I'm really glad to hear Joe say that Theos means god breathed because there are certain other people with Catholic answers who've raised questions about that recently but I think that is certainly even what Roman Catholicism is taught all alone thank you we'll take a question right here um Joe this came up in the debate but I think I missed your answer in Hebrews 10:14 it says for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being Sanctified so if understanding correctly so um someone can uh properly take the mass which is a Priory sacrifice of Christ um and then later on their in their life they commit a moral sin and they can end up going to hell so how can it be that they've taken the offering but it seems like they haven't been perfected for all time yeah because what the for all time is what Christ has done Christ does not have to be re sacrificed every time a Christian comes to Salvation that is a one anddone aspect of salvation whether a Christian can fall away once they've received salvation is a separate question Hebrews 6 specifically addresses those who go into apostasy after receiving the sacrifice then being beyond the cross and describes him as having no hope so Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 point to the fact uh that you can actually sin fall away that doesn't mean Christ has actually been re sacrificed Hebrews 6 points out Christ can't be re sacrificed so if you reject the one sacrifice of the Christ you're lost and there's no other sacrifice that could be offered like the ones for all is his work not yours except the direct object of the uh ones for all is T haa menus which are those who are being Sanctified so the direct object is it's not it it that that he was just an error at that point uh and I don't have time to get into all the rest that uh there is much could be said about uh Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 in regards to the con the concept of apostasy Dr right we're going to take a question online for you if the finished work of Christ equates to Eternal eternal security for believers how does this not contradict Hebrews 10:26 and 27 when Hebrews was written to believing Jewish Christians well again uh and that's that's the whole point when you if you don't read the apostasy passages for example Hebrews chapter 6 says right in the text we are convinced of better things concerning you things which accompany salvation even though we're speaking this way it's right there I mean it's you have to just not read it the same way Hebrews chap 10 beginning at verse 26 comes after what we've seen in in verses 10 and 14 that has to be the controlling factor and so yes you have warnings the writer of the Hebrews does not know who when I when I preach at my church I don't know who is false professing I don't know who's going to fall away and so you give words of of warning but the important thing to remember is when you get to verse 29 who has Trampled Under Foot the the Son of God and his regard is defiled the blood of the Covenant by which he was Sanctified dig into especially the identification of who the he is what is the antecedent for the word he there all right Hebrews 6 explicitly says it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened who have tasted the Heavenly gift and have become partakers of the holy spirit this whether you knew it or not was a reference to baptism the Eucharist and the laying on of hands We Now call confirmation if they commit apostasy since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold them up to contempt so someone who has come to the knowledge of the truth been enlightened received the Heavenly gift a clear Eucharistic reference and then Falls away it's a pretty dismal thing he doesn't say they're they're good you're good to go all right thank you Joe would you care to excuse me would you care to expand on you know you were standing under a blue light and it made it look like you had long blue hair and I was wondering do we have a really woke person coming up or just just what these blue lights just freak me out they really would do you care to expand on the indulgences issue that you brought up earlier and how it negates the gospel yeah uh you know a lot of people don't understand Indulgence is a lot I've met a lot of Roman Catholics who think Indulgence is got were gotten rid of at Trent they're not there's an extensive section uh in the Universal cath Catholic catechism on this concept of indulgences but indulgences are based upon the idea that there is a tharus meritum a treasury of Merit and that treasury of Merit contains the excess Merit of the excess Merit of Jesus he only had to drop he only had to shed a small amount of blood he shed blood copiously therefore there's this excess Merit this again is is development of theology there's nothing in the New Testament even close to this and of course the idea of saints when if they have excess Merit that's put in the treasury of Merit and the Indulgence is under the power of the keys and withdrawal that treasury of Merit and application to a particular individual uh they were sold for money obviously initially that's no longer the case but hey Pope Francis gave gave plary indulgences just a matter of months ago for people going on pilgrimage during the Year of Jubilee uh these These are this is the teaching the Roman Catholic Church all right Joe i' I've resisted debate every time on Maran dogmas on Pope Francis on indulgences for two reasons one the Orthodox don't agree with us on any of those things and believe in the propitiatory nature of the mass I'm right on the resolution even if I'm wrong about those things second there's an old saying I was a lawyer if you've got the law argue the law if you've got the facts argue the facts if you've got neither pound the table when you see someone getting away from the resolution they're pounding the table and that tells you that on the resolution itself they don't have a winning argument gentlemen that will conclude our debate was anybody out there pounding on the table I didn't see that yes let's give it up for our Debaters thank y'all so much and thank you everybody for attending in person live and in person and live online for um supporting and watching and engaging we thank you so much for everybody that was involved one announcement that I want everybody to know is Dr White will be preaching here at 125 church tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. you are dismissed God bless