292: Colin Badger - How Sure Are the Foundations?

Automatically transcribed. Accuracy is good but not perfect, and words are sometimes wrong. Trust the audio over the text.

1. 0:13

   Welcome to good Chris selfie and talks. I’m Levi. And I’m Chris, and I’m Brian, thank you for joining us this week. On this podcast, we select one talk a week to help us get the Bible in our Daily News feed. We post a new episode at the start of each week, with a short intro beforehand to kind of set the stage for the talk you’re about to listen to.

2. 0:33

   And now let’s talk more about this week’s talk. This week’s talk is a public lecture that was given at the Glendale Ecclesia here in California. It must be in the early 80s. I think it’s 198182 range by Colin Badger from Ontario. So he was on a, a visit here in Southern California. This was really a fun talk to listen to. It’s a, it’s kind of a style that we don’t do anymore, being such an overt public lecture, you know, clearly on theology and the difference in Catholic theology. A fun thing that we’re including is Brother Bob Lloyd, who attended the Glendale Collegia at the time, does the is the presider.

3. 1:32

   And so we’re going to include his remarks. And there’s there’s he has a some wrap up thoughts after the talk as well. He refers to a hymn in a prayer, but the recording didn’t include the hymn. We will be keeping the closing prayer by Brother Bob. So, yeah, again, this was a very fun lesson because it’s a very different style than what we usually run on the show and obviously kind of a piece of our of our history being this is nearly 45 years old. The brother Colin does a really good, good job kind of running through some Catholic writings and they’re in congruence with Scripture.

4. 2:17

   He also spends a lot of time talking about how tradition or oral tradition cannot be or should not be equated or ever superseding scripture. And there’s some really interesting verses there which which I really enjoyed. So very happy to share this talk. Brother Colin Badger, how sure are your foundations? Going to engage our attention tonight is actually a question.

5. 2:45

   It’s not a statement. The question is how sure are the foundation? We’re appealing to you to examine your foundation to see how sure they are. And it’s our pleasure to call on our friend and brother, Mr. Colin Badger from Toronto, ON, Canada, who will bring us this important Bible lecture. Incidentally, following the lecture, there will be opportunity for questions from the floor or they may be written.

6. 3:15

   You have a card in your little book, you’ll write a question on that. They can be sent forward or you may ask it verbally at the conclusion of the address if you so desire. Also, you may see him afterwards privately to engage in a one to one conversation. He’s pleased to do that. So now we call on our Mr. Badger to bring us this lecture. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It’s encouraging to find the number of people this evening that are interested enough on a topic such as this that he will come out and spend part of an evening with you, with us rather.

7. 3:47

   And we are encouraged that people are willing to examine some of the foundations for their faith and to open the Bible with us this evening and consider how sure the foundations are. If one looks out in the world today. Such a topic as we have selected this evening, an examination of a particular religion or an examination of a particular form of conviction, it is viewed by many as being rather narrow. It’s viewed even by some as being rather an unchrist like kind of examination.

8. 4:22

   We understand that kind of feeling is there among many, many people. But if one sets Christ and his apostle as the standard for Christian conduct and approach, one finds that the apostle Paul and the other apostles encourage people, and that includes Christadelphines, of course, to consider the very basis of their faith time and time again, not just once in life. There is a section in the New Testament from the book of Corinthians where the apostle Paul wrote, and he asked them to examine their convictions.

9. 5:04

   He wrote a similar passage in the book of Timothy. We’ll look at the one from Timothy, or at least quote it first, and then we’ll look at the passage from the Corinthians. Paul said to the young man. Timothy and the 2nd Epistle, chapter 4. Before God. Paul appealed to Timothy and before Christ Jesus, who is the judge of men living and dead.

10. 5:27

    I charge you solemnly by his coming appearance and his reign. Proclaim the message. Press at home on all occasions, convenient or inconvenient. Use argument, reprove and appeal with all the patience that the work of teaching requires. That’s taken from the New English Bible. That’s in Second Timothy, chapter 4. It’s in the spirit of the Apostle Paul’s appeal that true Christians should be willing to appeal to others.

11. 6:08

    Our appeal, therefore, is offered this evening. Ladies and gentlemen, in the spirit of those words, there’s another passage I mentioned in Second Corinthians. We’ll put this on the overhead Second Corinthians chapter 13, verse 5. Paul wrote to a group of already convinced professing Christians. Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith. Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith. Prove your own self.

12. 6:43

    Now keep in mind, this was written to a Christian community. They were already professing Christians. It was not contrary, therefore to the spirit of the apostles or to the Spirit of Christ for people who already felt that they were secure Christians to still keep open their minds and hearts to a critical self examination and to appeal to others as Paul was to do the same. It is not an unchristian spirit and it is not an unprice like thing to do to appeal to ourselves and to fellow professing Christians to consider the basis of their convictions, whether they are firm and sure. Thank you.

13. 7:26

    There is another passage in the New Testament that strikes a very similar note. Perhaps you’re familiar with it. It’s in the book of Jude, in that little tiny book which really has only one chapter, Jude three and four. Another apostle wrote this, and this is from the New English Bible. It became urgently necessary, writes Jude, to write at once and appeal to you to join the struggle in defense of the faith, the faith which God entrusted to his people once and for all.

14. 8:05

    You see the Spirit that’s behind those words, like those behind Paul’s. It is a Christ like thing to do to try and go forward to people, encourage people to examine the foundations of their convictions and to apply that equally to oneself. It is in the Spirit of Christ to contend earnestly for the faith. Contention is regarded by many people in the outside in a very negative thing.

15. 8:34

    In the New Testament the word contention is used a number of times in a Christ like context. As long as the motives are right and the approach is Christ like, contending for the faith is something a Christian ought to do, providing of course it’s in the right spirit. We notice also that Jews speaks of something he terms the faith he had a kind of, it would say, exclusive definition of faith. He didn’t refer to simply Christian faith in general. He used the definite article contending earnestly for the faith that was once entrusted to his people once and for all. You know, that’s quite a contrast to the spirit that is typical in the world today, even amongst people who are professing Christians.

16. 9:21

    The apostles, you see, held to something which they called in an exclusive sense, the faith. And moreover, the apostles, as we can see in the Acts and in these writings of the early Christian community, the apostles enjoin true believers to join in the struggle for the defense of the faith. Although that’s regarded perhaps as being rather negative terminology, it is the inspired terminology of your New Testament. A vigorous direct approach with an appeal to return to the faith as it was first delivered was in fact the posture of the first apostles who preached on the face of this earth following their Masters example.

17. 10:10

    So that if today such an approach is regarded as being narrow or unprice like, it is only because the example of Christ and the apostles in their New Testament preaching is ignored. New Testament appeals such as the ones we’ve just looked at should then make it obvious that such an appeal for self examination is legitimate.

18. 10:32

    In fact, since we are considering the Catholic community and some of their convictions, it’s I suppose, in keeping with such a spirit that we find a pamphlet such as this published by the Knights of Columbus with official endorsement of the Catholic Church, offered quite often in Time magazine. Where I found the advertisement and the address I wrote to was in New Haven, CT.

19. 10:56

    This is a Catholic brochure for someone who is a non Catholic. It’s entitled Some Beliefs have Got to be Wrong. We would concur with that. And the whole spirit of this pamphlet is an appeal to a community, not for Adelphian, a very small community that have differences with the Catholic community. And this Catholic brochure is examining in detail the differences they have with this community and making an appeal to them to consider the foundations of their faith. So it would seem that even the Catholic community itself feels that this is not on Christ like, and it’s in the same spirit of that kind of brochure that we make our appeal to the Catholic community this evening.

20. 11:38

    We might ask a further question of the Christadelphian this evening. Why are we making an appeal in particular at this time to the Roman Catholic community? Well, really, when you think about it, never before in the history of this country and the country from which I come, has there been a time when the Catholic faith has been in the eyes of the public as much as it has in the past few years.

21. 12:01

    Mainly because of the present Pope visitation to both Canada and the United States, and because the Catholic community and its convictions and the head of its Church have received such public concern and such public interest. We feel that it is time this evening, and it is timely when we’re, for example, talking to our own friends who are Roman Catholics, to discuss the basis for conviction and to appeal to Roman Catholics, especially at this time, to really consider carefully in the Bible the basis of their convictions.

22. 12:36

    Well, that’s one reason why we would make such an appeal to Roman Catholics in particular at this time. But perhaps there’s a more profound really reason than that. The reason would be this that the Catholic Church does make a number of very important claims for herself as a church. Those claims are really quite unparalleled in any other church in Christendom.

23. 13:01

    If those claims are correct, then there are many people who are professing Christians that are sadly astray. On the other hand, since the Roman Catholic community embraces so many people, if in fact the foundation for the the community of a Catholic Church is itself on questionable grounds, the situation is equally tragic. And since we as Christadelphians and the community are convinced from an examination of the Bible that some Catholic doctrines are indeed a stray from Bible teaching, we feel as professing Christians that we would be sadly astray to neglect a responsibility to make an appeal like we would this evening.

24. 13:46

    So it is in the spirit of those two main reasons we’ve mentioned already, ladies and gentlemen, that the Catholic Church makes a number of very unique claims about herself and those who minister on her behalf. Let’s just be a little more specific about what we mean now. Could we have our first overhead? Thank you.

25. 14:07

    Going to quote from a current Catholic publication. It is written by John O’Brien who is an American Catholic, or was rather. He has since deceased since he finished the last edition of his book. John O’Brien wrote The Faith of Millions in the early 50s. Since it has gone through free edition and is regarded as being perhaps one of the most popular Catholic appeals to the non Catholic. The book is not a catechism for Catholics. It is an appeal to Protestants or to non Catholics. It tries to come to grips with what they would regard from the major differences with people who are not Catholics. And in passing, it comes with full approval or authority from the Catholic community.

26. 14:56

    Now when we say that we should explain what we mean. Inside certain Catholic pieces of literature one might find what we call the imprimatur. The imprimatur is a seal of approval that it has been carefully scrutinized by representatives of the Catholic community for being faultless in terms of the basics of moral and teaching for the Catholic community. It also has a second stamp of approval that goes with the informatics called the Nil Hill Absa. Well, those two fields of approval are attached to all the literature that we recently referred to. The feeding.

27. 15:35

    Any Catholic literature that I refer to has that kind of authority so that it is as representative as literature can be of the Catholic community. Well, John O’Brien wrote this in one of his earlier editions of the Faith of Millions. The voice of history shows at a glance that the Catholic Church is the only Church in the world today which traces their origin back to Christ. It shows that she along was founded by Christ, while all other churches were established by men. That’s a fairly unique claim.

28. 16:10

    That’s the kind of claim we’re referring to. It is, we would say, a claim for very special privilege and authority. The Church believes they have a pedigree that goes back to the 1st century, being linked with Peter himself. One of the most popular catechisms in the United States today, written by Lawler and Lawler, two brothers, both of whom are Roman Catholics, of course, is called The Teaching of Christ.

29. 16:37

    Since its first publication, it has passed into a number of languages all over the Latin world and parts of Europe. It is a current up to Now it also comes with Inframatter and Nilhilabsta. It is a catechism for the teaching of Roman Catholics. In that book we have another rather pointed quotation representing one of our points.

30. 17:09

    Lawler writes. Come to the Catholic faces to see that the Church asks for Christ. It is to understand that when a priest gives the sacrament, it is Christ who gives us the sacrament through him. That is a very important and certainly a rather unique claim for those who minister on behalf of the Catholic Church.

31. 17:33

    But it does illustrate for us the kind of privilege or the kind of authority that we’re coming to grips with here, the kind of a question of authority or privilege that we would like to examine this evening. There’s another quotation we would like to share. This also is from the same current catechism. Outside the Church there is no salvation. For this reason, those who are aware of the fact that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would yet refused to enter her or persevere in her could not be saved.

32. 18:09

    Now that is simply a logical outcome of what the Catholic community believes is true of those who minister on her behalf. All of these rather current statements from authoritative Catholic documents are concerned with the unique authority playing for the Catholic Church, and they are in accord with the former claims made by earlier popes going right back to the time of the Middle Ages, for example, Pope Boniface the 8th. We could again show you the quotation we’re referring to. Wrote as follows or declared as follows. Redeclared Stay.

33. 18:46

    The farm pronounced it to be of necessity to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Congress. And that is taken as a citation from the Encyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, the 69 edition. So that’s what Pope Boniface declared there, seems to be quite consistent with what we find in modern current Catholic literature.

34. 19:12

    That kind of statement again reinforces the kind of position that we’re concerned about and want to focus on this evening. Such claims as these for authority, ladies and gentlemen, establish really the very foundation of the Catholic conviction and the Catholic community, of course. And we’ve said before, if these convictions or claims for special authority are correct, many people who are professing Christians are sadly astray. And on the other hand, if they are incorrect and do not correctly represent Bible teaching, then there is an equally tragic constituent situation. The issue of authority is going to be central to our consideration this evening.

35. 19:59

    We’re not going to consider all the doctrines with which we have some variants. We’re going to look at that one particular area since it’s so basic. We could state it this way quite categorically if the Roman Catholic understanding of its claims for authority are not endorsed by God himself, if they contradict. Divine revelation. There is really serious concern for Roman Catholics to reappraise their convictions and we leave the verdict, the seeking to yourselves to consider that sincerely in the light of divine revelation from the Bible. Now you may ask at this point, what exactly are we driving at in this issue of authority?

36. 20:46

    Well, our contention is, ladies and gentlemen, quite sincerely, that a number of very fundamental Catholic beliefs and practices are either contradictory to God’s revelation in the Bible, or they are practiced without any firm, clear biblical basis. That is our conviction. And yet, since they are so very fundamental to Catholic worship, we believe we have every reason to expect a clear biblical appraisal of them. And that is really what we have chartered for ourselves this evening, at least a small way.

37. 21:24

    Let me illustrate what fundamentals of doctrine I’m referring to. No Catholic, I’m sure, would deny that the seven sacraments are the spiritual foundation of a Catholic community. Anyone who is red Catholic or not anything about the Catholic basis of conviction, I’m sure we’d be impressed about the central importance of the seven sacraments. They could be termed really the seven fundamentals. We’re referring specifically to the sacrament of baptism, confirmation, marriage, extremumction, priesthood penance, and the sacrament of the Eucharist. Now we might add, by what authority, by what authority are those seven sacraments established as Catholic fundamentals?

38. 22:18

    Two of the sacraments that we just listed provide pointed illustration. We believe for discussion this evening, the right of confirmation as one, and the practice of the sacrament of baptism in the way the sacrament is practiced. We’d like just to look at those two. First of all, I’m going to quote again from Lawler’s current Catholic Catechism.

39. 22:44

    It’s not the only catechism, but it provides an illustration. This is the 1983 edition, page 462. Not everything the Church believes is explicitly articulated in abstract statement.

40. 23:03

    The faith can be embodied in its attitudes and right before it is explicitly formulated. This is certainly the case with the Sacrament of Confirmation. The Gospels contain no direct teaching on it as they do the Eucharist, Baptism and repentance. Now that we believe, is a very important statement to weigh. Here we have one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic community granted by all Catholics as being very fundamental at the centre and core of their community, part of their foundation.

41. 23:45

    And yet in our current Catechism, with full approval of the Church, the admission is made that there is, and again we quote in the Gospel, no direct teaching on one of these sacraments. Now what we believe is that the Bible should be brought into our concern. Here we find that as Christadelphians, as students of the Bible, to be a rather alarming admission or statement.

42. 24:14

    We would like to consider that along with a few others this evening. You notice something else that is said, that not everything the church believes is explicitly articulated in abstract Satan, The faith can be embodied in its attitudes and rites before it is explicitly formulated. Now the Bible, we believe as we look at it this evening, and we’ll share this with you, seems to stress one very clear and obvious principle from the words of Christ, his example of teaching and from the example of the apostles, that anything that is basic to to salvation, anything that is foundational can be expected indeed to be found explicitly and clearly in the Bible. So we would take issue with that temporarily. Let’s look at another quote.

43. 25:05

    Perhaps we could just put up one more quotation. This is from page 458. You got that one. We got that up there. See, I’m looking at the church has solemnly defined. I want that one. All right, I’ll quote it then. Sorry, I thought we had that one. Page 458. Ladies and gentlemen of the same catechism, Lawler writes.

44. 25:29

    The Church has solemnly defined the validity of infant baptism. In fact, the Church law commands Catholics to have their children baptized within the first weeks after birth. In any case, Lawler writes, infant baptism clearly was practiced very early origin. Writing in the 3rd century expressly states the Church’s tradition of baptizing infants as it came from the apostles. Now again, here’s one of the other con, one of the other sacraments that we referred to.

45. 26:11

    It’s one of the seven, along with the one we just considered. And the particular form of baptism as it is practiced in the sacrament of baptism, infant sprinkling, or infant baptism, is something admitted to be something that comes from tradition rather than from a direct biblical statement. I read the key line again from Lawler’s Catechism.

46. 26:36

    In any case, infant baptism clearly was practiced very early. Origin writing in the 3rd century expressly states the Church’s tradition of baptizing infants came from the apostles. But you see, there is an invasion of what we would regard as a very important point. What Origin said in the 3rd century is second hand in a certain sense, something as centrally important to a child’s salvation as baptism. And the particular form of baptism that Christ wishes a child to experience through the Church is something that’s very fundamental and important.

47. 27:19

    And yet, if we can’t find clear Scripture to indicate what form of baptism the Catholic community uses, then again we feel as being students of the Bible and respecting its authoritative voice, we have reason for strong concern as people who respect the Word of God. We would appeal to take sacraments such as the two we’ve just looked at, and look at them carefully in terms of what the Bible does say, not only about baptism, whether you should or should not be baptized, but about the particular form of baptism that is really acceptable.

48. 27:55

    We’d like to refer to another quotation, this time again from a very well respected Roman Catholic, on the subject of baptism. This is taken from the book called Enthusiasm by Monsignor Knox. Now Knox was responsible for what was called the Knox Catholic translation. He was a prolific writer in his own days. He wrote mostly in the 1930s and 40s, and his translation up until only the last few years was regarded as one of the best Catholic translations, the Knox translation, and he says this in his book on Enthusiasm, page 134. It is not by any means easy to prove the doctrine of infant factorism if you are based in your argument on the Bible only, without any appeal to tradition.

49. 28:49

    So here’s Knox, a well respected writer in the Catholic community, noting that when you really get down to it, but confirmation, well, really the baptism itself of the child, the form of baptism regarded as central to the church’s sacrament of baptism is in form not clearly established in Scripture. Here we’re not talking about whether he should be baptized or not, but the form of baptism in particular, baptizing infant within a very short period after they’ve been born. He admits really there isn’t any clear cut scriptural indication, but instead without any apology, of course, as a believing Roman Catholic, he relies instead on The Voice of tradition, which certainly he believes is sufficient grounds. Now again, in terms of what where we’re coming from this evening as Christadelphians and what is the basis of our appeal, we find personally that kind of admission for such a fundamental doctrine to be rather disturbing. The meaning and the importance of course, which the Catholic Church attaches to tradition.

50. 30:01

    The meaning which Knox of course attaches to tradition is rather essential. I’m sure you’d agree to consider in order to understand Knox’s own conviction about this and why he would feel without apology, although he can’t turn to the Bible, he could turn to tradition. So we’ve got to concern ourselves with what the Church means by tradition. We noted that the seven sacraments already are rather fundamental, to say the least, a Catholic belief. But really, if there is a doctrine that is in turn fundamental to the seven sacraments, it would be the belief in the immortality of the soul as an essential part of man’s being.

51. 30:44

    You see, the very role of the seven sacraments is in fact to administer Sacramento Grace to the individual soul. When a believing Catholic is receiving one of the seven sacraments, it is understood or believed that what is happening in the administering of one of the sacraments is that a Sacramento Grace is being infused by the mediation of the priest through that sacrament to the soul of the recipient.

52. 31:16

    So that the concept of the immortal soul is fundamental, as it were, an underlining burden principle underneath and holding together really the seven sacraments. And in a current publication by the Catholic Church, the question of the immortal soul is discussed in terms of its biblical basis. I’m referring particularly to this pamphlet. It’s written to another community, and the Catholic Church is trying to answer some of the community’s objections to the Catholic understanding of an immortal soul. I’m going to quote from this pamphlet. We’ll use our overhead.

53. 31:53

    Some beliefs have to be wrong. In that pamphlet. The Catholic writer says it, the Old Testament word nayfech, that’s the word for soul in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for soul. The Old Testament, we could say the Hebrew word nepesh simply meant a living soul, and the Hebrew would use the same word for any living being, animal or human. Now what’s being said there is that in the view of the community looking at the Old Testament fairly, there is an admission being put on the table. When we look at how the Old Testament uses the word soul, the Hebrew word nephesh, it uses it in a very elastic way. That’s being admitted.

54. 32:49

    In fact, it is so elastic they are suggesting that it could be used to describe any living being, animal or human. We would concur with that. One takes the Bible concordance and looks up the word soul, or the word nay fashion in Hebrew, sees how it’s used in the Old Testament. It is very eloctic and it is used to describe animal as well as human. We might add.

55. 33:15

    Why would soul be used to describe a animal if it’s something that’s immortal or intangible? If it’s a spark, as it were, from the divine, that is infused into the child at a certain point near or after conception, how could it be describing an animal in any sense if it is a spark of the divine, something that supposedly marks man out as being different than animal creation?

56. 33:45

    Page 10 of the same pamphlet. Thus we read, whereas the Bible does not. It is true. Think of the immortality of the human soul, a concept which it does not have in our sense of this word. It does speak of the immortality of the human person. Frankly, I’m not too sure what that last line means, but we believe that the basic admission is rather important, and we would find that rather disturbing.

57. 34:20

    What we have found is so far in looking at two of the seven sacraments that at least on two of them, it’s admitted there is no direct biblical evidence for the Catholic community’s understanding of that sacrament or the way it is practiced. We have seen that underneath all the seven sacraments is the undergirding conviction that man has in a mortal soul to which the seven sacraments are administered.

58. 34:47

    The seven sacraments are viewed as 7 channel through which through which divine energy is administered through the priest pen to the recipient. And yet it is also admitted that even the concept of the immortal soul does not have an Old Testament basis whatsoever. There’s no clear indication of it. Again, I guess one would have to refer to tradition. Now with those admissions in mind, we can sort of crystallize the central concern of our lecture in matters basic to salvation, such as the seven sacraments and the undergirding conviction that is there with the immortal soul. We see Catholic spokesman now admitting in current literature that a number them lack a clear or a direct or an explicit biblical basis.

59. 35:44

    And then if we were to ask on what authoritative basis are such convictions or forms of conviction held, the Catholic response would be on the basis of Catholic tradition. So then a tradition admitted of course to be outside of direct biblical revelation is seen to supplement biblical revelation, not to be in contradiction to biblical revelation.

60. 36:13

    A Catholic would certainly stress tradition is viewed as being harmoniously married with divine revelation in the Bible and not seen to be at variance. So the really to many Catholics, there’s no apology for the fact that such fundamental doctrines are not not all of the many ways on a firm or direct obvious explicit biblical basis. Tradition is seen as another form of divine revelation and is equally authoritative.

61. 36:42

    I think that perhaps crystallizes some of the statements and some of the reasons why Knox and others freely make those admissions without apology. John O’Brien, in faith of millions, helps us to see where the Catholic Church places the importance of tradition next to the Bible, which is our next concern. Let’s see if we can crystallize that.

62. 37:07

    Could we have the next overhead, Page 186 of the faith of millions? There are certain truths, he says, which are not recorded in the Scriptures, but which are embodied in the life, the practice, and the ministry of the Church in her written and unwritten traditions which supplement the biblical record. She, meaning the Church, of course, is not dependent on it meaning the Bible for her existence, nor is she limited in her doctrine to it.

63. 37:49

    So then, tradition and Catholic definition, and this is a fairly typical quote, is not seen to be at variance. It is seen to supplement the biblical record and the Church claims that she is not dependent on biblical revelation in particular for her existence. So that concerning another doctrine, such as purgatory, A doctrine really that is quite related, quite related really to the Catholic community’s view of what happens to a man when he dies and how the Catholic Church views the nature of man. A Catholic writer could say this if we could just use this quotation on purgatory.

64. 38:32

    Again, the same cataclysm. The word purgatory is not in the Bible, nor is the doctrine of purgatory explicitly taught there. Notice this time we’re not just looking at the Old Testament. As with the case of the soul here, a current Catholic catechism, this one is saying that a concept or a belief so fundamental to man’s understanding of the nature of man and what happens to him after death, where he goes, if anywhere, is described in non biblical terms and it’s admitted that really neither the word nor the concept or the doctrine is taught there.

65. 39:15

    Again, without apology, the Catechism would direct us, as it does in the Catechism, to tradition. So then you see a certain perhaps number of pieces falling together, especially for those of us that don’t come with a Catholic background. Tradition is viewed in very high esteem and it is viewed as a supplement, you see, to what is not there sometimes in the biblical record.

66. 39:41

    Now another quotation that again makes this concept a little clearer. Page 176. I’m going to refer to John O’Brien’s writings again from the faith of millions. She the Catholic Church is not the child of the Bible as many non Catholics imagine, but its mother. She derived neither her existence nor her teaching authority from the New Testament. She had both before the New Testament was born. We said at the outset of our address that the Catholic Church makes a number of claims for herself that are rather unique. This again illustrates the uniqueness of such a posture. Another Catholic writer, a man called Wilford Dewan, and I have his book here.

67. 40:32

    It’s a current book. It’s used for Catholic study Circle on page 88. Tradition, The life and consciousness of the whole Church, is the necessary interpreter of the scriptural message, the Word of God in the church, in the Church. Notice, clarify and interpret the Word of God in Scripture. Now we see perhaps a fuller picture coming into focus here. For those of us who are non Catholics especially, but just perhaps being exposed to this perception for the first time, it’s not quite true to say that tradition and Scripture are exactly on a par.

68. 41:21

    This is apparent from this quotation and many others that could supplement it. Tradition and Scripture are not viewed as being contradictory, nor are they viewed as being at variance. But on the other hand, a close examination of Catholic writing shows they’re not exactly viewed as being equal either. Tradition really is being viewed as the interpreter of the Bible. The Bible, in other words, is somewhat subject to the voice of the Church, to the interpretive voice of the Church, some Catholics would say, to the living voice of tradition, the so-called living voice of tradition. In a certain sense, overseas interpretations of the Bible. It is regarded as the divine hand telling us what to believe about the Bible, how to understand it, how to apply it, and of course, to supplement.

69. 42:16

    But such a statement, and it’s typical, shows that not exactly on an even plane. In fact, we’ll show you a number of quotations that show that tradition is viewed as being all-encompassing and bringing into its embrace or its circle the Bible as being one form of divine revelation. But there are others. Let’s just take a look O’Brien the one of his earlier editions on the faith of milling.

70. 42:44

    The only authority he says which non Catholic have for the inspiration of scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church. Very important claim. We regard that as being rather unique compared to most of Christendom. Don’t know of any other church that would quite express it that way, that their church in fact was the only church or the first church for the main authority upon which we know is non Catholic, that the Bible’s inspired. And again, that is not an isolated quotation and I would invite anyone to take a look at full context of that. We have a number of these on Xerox. Let’s take a look at another quote. Again, O’Brien says if she the Catholic Church, had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be the inspired Word of God, we would not know it. A unique and very authoritative claim, but it is, in view of the Catholic community, quite consistent. It is a consistent claim since the Catholic community believes that they are the true representative of Christ on earth, and since they believe they have a consistent link to the early apostle right back to Peter, and since they believe it’s essential to salvation to know, understand, accept, and practice Catholic belief.

71. 44:10

    It’s consistent for a Catholic to make that kind of state because they regard themselves as being, in a certain sense, the mother of the Bible. Let’s look at another quotation again, O’Brien, just as the Supreme Court is the authorized living interpreter of the Constitution, so the Catholic Church is the living authoritative interpreter of the Bible. Now notice at this juncture, this is really indirectly referring to what is regarded as the living tradition, the living voice of the Church.

72. 44:52

    The stress is on the word living, you see, because the Catholic Church believes that those who minister on her behalf have a direct connection with God. Because they believe the Holy Spirit works in and through their magisterium, their officiating people. Because that is their conviction. Because they believe the Holy Spirit works today to guide the Spirit’s interpretation. Because they believe that tradition is ongoing and living and dynamic and fluid.

73. 45:22

    In that sense, they see tradition really as being a kind of adjudicator over this. Again, they don’t think to be in contradiction with the Bible, but rather it overseas interpretations of the Bible. It tells its people how the Bible is to be interpreted. The Bible, in other words, does not or is not left on its own to interpret itself.

74. 45:45

    We don’t necessarily compare Scripture with Scripture to come to a conclusion or a definition. The church can provide that for us. It is the claim of the Church, these kind of quotations and one more that perhaps provides a clear focus for what we’re saying.

75. 46:03

    O’Brien, consistent to his own argument, and it’s consistent with many Catholic writers on this subject, finally comes to this rather direct statement. The simple fact is that the Bible, like all dead letters, calls for a living interpreter. That’s not regarded as being disparaging, not by Catholics anyone, anyway. It’s not regarded as being a disparaging statement of the Bible.

76. 46:29

    They do believe this is divine revelation, indeed, but they believe in a certain sense it is only inked on paper. In that sense, it’s dead. It is regarded by the Catholic Church as necessitating a living, dynamic force to bring it alive, to make it meaningful, and to describe and define and constrive exactly how it’s to be applied and how it’s to be understood. Now we’ve attempted to give the Catholic viewpoint, ladies and gentlemen, a fair representation. We have tried to make sure that any of the books we refer to are as current as possible, are by respected and well known Catholic writers, and that they do have the imprimatur, the approval of the Nil Hill obstacle. Let’s see if we can now bring some of those quotations to a kind of focus.

77. 47:22

    We want to crystallize some of the main contentions of those folks, which represent how the Church in most cases would define her authority as she views it. We would see the first if we could just open the screen, the first window. It would seem from such quotation, which we believe are fair and representative, that the Bible, according to the Catholic community really does not have any authority on its own merit.

78. 47:51

    The presider over the Bible is the living voice of the Church. In this view, the Church with its living voice is the dynamic interpreter of the dead letter. And if it wasn’t for the Mother Church, we would know, according to O’Brien, that that was an inspired book because we know it, because it’s come from the Church. Secondly, another contention would be, I think, fairly representing the point.

79. 48:18

    The Bible is regarded as a kind of dead letter and a certain qualified sense apart from the living voice of the church. Thirdly, tradition or the oral message is regarded as having a kind of priority over the written word in the sense that it is the living interpreter, in the sense that it embraces divine revelation in the Bible, but including others as well, it is an all embracing term. Fourthly, perhaps we should just maybe just put that up a little bit.

80. 48:52

    Thank you. Saving power. Saving power, we qualify. That can be administered apparently through the church, apart from the direct interaction with the Bible. Now, that comes quite obviously from a number of O’Brien statements and from some of the others we’ve looked at. We’d like to look at those major contentions, then, for the remainder of our address, all of which focus on foundations of the Catholic belief.

81. 49:23

    Let’s look at these four implications. Let’s open our Bibles and see whether they each harmonize with biblical revelation. We ought not to find it in contradiction to biblical revelation. Let’s look at #1 in the light of Bible teaching. If you have a Bible, we’d appreciate it that you turn with us to this statement by the Apostle Paul, Second Timothy chapter 3, a very important Bible quotation central to New Testament teaching. If you don’t have a Bible, we’ll project it for you and then come back to the four points.

82. 50:04

    Second Timothy chapter 3 reads us. Follow if I go back to verse 15 for the context of Second Timothy three we read Paul writing to Timothy. And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Verse 16.

83. 50:36

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now we believe certain conclusions fall out of those verses. Firstly, from those very verses that Paul has just 10 here, contrary to the Catholic notion, ladies and gentlemen, that the Bible does not have any authority on its own merits apart from the church.

84. 51:21

    Here is scripture of itself claiming unlimited authority. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That’s a biblical claim. We didn’t need the Catholic Church to tell us that it is furthermore profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. For what objective? How pervading is this objective that the man of God may be generally instructed? No, they might be helped.

85. 52:03

    No, it’s not that general. Rather verse 17 that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly, not partially, not in part, but thoroughly furnished unto not some good works, not most good works unto all good works. The apostle Paul, you see, couldn’t have been more exclusive in terms of where he placed divine authority. He couldn’t have attributed to the Scriptures to the written record apart from the oral.

86. 52:43

    He could not have attributed to the written record a more encompassing, a more encompassing kind of authority than to express it the way he does. In verse 17 we noticed those words perfect, which means fully mature in the Greek, thoroughly furnished all good works. In other words, the scriptures are rather self-sufficient. The scriptures are self-sufficient if the scriptures says Paul can make us wise unto salvation, verse 15, through faith which is in Christ Jesus, if they are given by inspiration of God for doctrine and correction, and so on.

87. 53:33

    If by them thereby men can become perfect as a Christian, or fully mature, if by application to those scriptures he can be thoroughly furnished onto all good works, then it’s no contradiction or straining of the Apostles language to say that Paul believed this book is self-sufficient. Contained within its pages are all that a professing Christian could need or should need to become a fully mature, fully mature Christian, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

88. 54:15

    Contrary, as we’ve said, to O’Brien’s assertion that we would not know the Bible to be inspired unless the Catholic Church as its mother had told us, though, here is Bible. Here is the Bible on its own merit, explicitly claiming inspiration for itself. And by the way, the word inspiration is the most important word there in the original. If you have a Bible concordance, you can check this. In the original, the word inspiration is the Greek term Theo, meaning God, Theo, new Toth, from which we get the word pneumatic.

89. 54:52

    New Toth means breed the Greek term one word Theo newtok means God breathed or God spirited and so it would read in the original to a Greek the original audience for most of these scriptures, all scripture is God spirited or God breathed. You don’t use a term like that, ladies and gentlemen, to describe a dead letter. If all Scripture, the written record, and that’s what Scripture means, it means the writings in the Greek, all the writings are God read or God spirited, then these words are not dead words, ladies and gentlemen. They are dynamic.

90. 55:38

    They are obviously viewed by the Apostle Paul as having a dynamic force intrinsic to themselves apart from any other authority or any other voice or any other community. That’s why, and that’s the only reason why they can make a Christian perfect or mature. That’s why they can make you thoroughly furnished onto all good works because and only because that the apostle tells us by divine revelation.

91. 56:11

    They are God breathed, they are God spirited. They are not dead. These words are viewed by Paul as being a kind of see, the master used similar language in the parable of the Thor, a seed which has a dormant power or authority, and when in a man’s mind or a woman’s heart, that power can be released and is a dynamic moving force.

92. 56:38

    We’ll perhaps just see that this is not just viewed that way by the apostle Paul. Let’s look at Peter, so pertinent to the Catholic community. Here’s an interesting passage, especially coming as it does from Peter. Let me elucidate what I mean by that. The Apostle Peter is viewed by the Catholic Church as the first of a long line of popes.

93. 57:07

    It is believed that all popes today, or excuse me, the Pope today, and popes in the past can trace their line or their lineage right back to the Apostle Peter. They are in a certain sense viewed as his successors. Therefore, Peter would be viewed as a Pope by model and example for all other popes, and it would be held that he viewed his personal authority as a Pope, the first Pope, in much the same way as of course Pope’s would define or express their authority today. But notice what first the Peter said written from Peter’s own hand.

94. 57:46

    Peter says in first of Peter chapter one verse 23, he says this being born again, not of corruptible speed, but of incorruptible by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. Verse 25 Peter Wright but the word of the Lord endureth forever. Now we might ask what word is Peter talking about?

95. 58:24

    How restricted is this term the word of God means? Does it embrace tradition for example, or some other form of divine revelation apart from the Bible? What the Peter said, verse 25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever, and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. It was something the apostle and the other apostles had preached and were preaching.

96. 58:57

    It was something that was defined as the gospel. It was something that was revealed in New Testament time. Now make that a little more clear. In Peter’s second Epistle, chapter 3, he refers to the word again. Second Peter, chapter 3, he says in verses one and two. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you in both which I stir up your pure mind by way of remembrance, that He may be mindful of the word which were spoken before the Holy Prophet and the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior. What words are they?

97. 59:50

    Is he referring to the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets? And He is stirring up their remembrance of these things. So the word preached is something that they had already been given prior to. This wasn’t something that would be after New Testament times, but something that had already been given to them in the past.

98. 1:00:12

    And He is stirring up the remembrance of them. That’s the word he’s referring to, and he said that you can be born again by this word, which he describes as a seed which liveth and abideth forever. You see, because he says that lives and abides forever, he clearly did not view the Bible as something that was a dead letter.

99. 1:00:38

    He viewed it rather as something that was a dynamic force, something living and powerful. So if we just look at some more of those points by O’Brien and some of the other writers, we see that what Peter says, what Paul says about the Bible and its authority is really quite contradictory to a number of these Catholic statements. The Bible does claim on its own accord to be inspired. The Bible does claim, the apostles claim that the word, the written word is self-sufficient, that it is powerful, dynamic, like a seed, that it lives in a bind and can make a man fully mature, thoroughly furnished onto all good works.

100. 1:01:28

     You see the scriptures if you look at them carefully ladies and gentlemen, never teach the self-sufficiency of the church, that is the people and its administrative body. There is not a statement anywhere in the New Testament that suggests that the Church itself is self-sufficient. Rather, the New Testament writers stress the unrivaled authority and the supreme value of the written Scriptures.

101. 1:01:57

     Indirectly, the supreme importance of the written scripture is demonstrated in the teaching form that is used by the Apostle Jesus despite his divine authority. Ladies and gentlemen, although introducing a new covenant, constantly establish his teaching by reference to the previous record of Scripture. Jesus did this constantly. Constantly. The Gospels show Jesus introducing his teaching although it was a new covenant by phrases like it is written, thus it becometh the scriptures, thus it is fulfilling the scriptures.

102. 1:02:37

     The Scriptures say. And of course the Lord, being the Master himself, could have circumvented that. He didn’t need to introduce his new covenant, his new teaching, in a certain sense that way. But he did because the apostles also did it and because it was the scriptural thing to do. Whatever Jesus taught her said was viewed in the context of previous divine written revelation.

103. 1:03:04

     And we’ll see that whatever the apostles preached and said to their listeners, although they were presenting the new covenant, was always in the context and with the rider that it was found in previous divine written revelation. So that Jesus pinpointed his criticism of a group of people in his own day who the Jews, the rabbi trusted in tradition, they trusted in an oral tradition that they believed supplemented as rabbis, the written record thought wasn’t contradictory.

104. 1:03:40

     And to that Jesus said this, Mark 7, verses 6 to 9. And I’m going to quote the new Catholic Bible, the new American Catholic Bible. Jesus says this in Mark 7 verse 6 to 9, speaking to his fellow Jews who trusted on the authority of tradition that supposedly supplemented scripture. He says how accurately Isaiah prophesied about you hypocrites when he wrote this.

105. 1:04:17

     People pays lip service, but their heart is far from me because they teach as dogmas mere human precepts. Jesus continues. You disregard God’s commandments and cling to what is human tradition. He went on to say. You have made a fine art of setting aside God’s commandments in the interests of keeping your tradition. Ladies and gentlemen, if you look up the word tradition in a Bible concordance, which is like a Bible dictionary, you know what you’ll discover about Jesus use of the word tradition. Every single reference to the word tradition by Jesus Christ is in a disparaging sense, every single one. And the majority of references in the New Testament outside of the Gospels 2 tradition are also in a disparaging context. There are only two in the New Testament that use tradition in the sense of the Apostolic sense. That is tradition referring to what Peter says, what has already been delivered by the apostles and confirmed to them in writing.

106. 1:05:31

     All other references to tradition are disparaging, and all the references to tradition by Jesus himself are purely disparaging. And of course, what he had in mind were the people around him who held to this supposedly supplementary authority. We believe the example of Jesus is pertinent and the example of the apostle. We’d like to conclude by turning to the Bible passage we had read this evening. This, we believe, is an appropriate summary of our appeal.

107. 1:06:02

     This is found in the book of the Acts. We believe it’s a very important Bible passage to clearly think about Acts chapter 17 before we just look at the pertinent section. We believe it’s pertinent to the Catholic cause and to the Catholic conviction. Can we just preface why we’re looking at this passage in Acts 17 as a summary? The reason why we’re looking at this passage, ladies and gentlemen, is as follows.

108. 1:06:39

     The Catholic community views oral tradition or the living voice as being something which, although it doesn’t contradict supplement, presides over, interprets as the living voice the written message. They believe that on all scores, therefore, the living voice is more dynamic and is in a certain sense the greater authority. It embraces Scripture in that sense. It is believed that because the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the officiating body, is guided by the Holy Spirit and has such a living, dynamic present voice that is guiding them, then you should trust and put your faith in what they say, even though certain doctrines may not be directly in the Bible.

109. 1:07:28

     Now it would be helpful to test this in a scriptural sense, and we can do this with Acts 17. If we could find an example, ladies and gentlemen, in the New Testament of a case something like this, where we have an apostle, let’s say someone like Paul, who is speaking to an audience not converted.

110. 1:07:48

     Here is Paul and all would agree he was guided by the Holy Spirit and claims such. If we had a case of someone like Paul speaking obviously by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and having his oral message tested, checked, weighed up and weighed against the written message. If we had an example like that, we would find something that we’re looking for to test the Catholic claim quite succinctly.

111. 1:08:20

     Let’s look at Acts 17. Acts 17, verse one brings Paul into Amphipolis in Apollonia may come to Thessalonica, we’re told to a synagogue of the Jews. Verse 2 Paul as his manner was went in unto them, and for three Sabbath he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures opening and alleging that Christ must need have suffered. Notice that phrase in verse two, He reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

112. 1:08:52

     Verse two, as his manner was Paul’s posture in talking to non Christian, although they were Jews and knew the Bible was to make his Apostolic appeal by a reasoning from the written message. Despite his Apostolic authority, despite his inspired Holy Spirit guidance, he stuck to the scriptures. Verse three he opened and he had LED from those scriptures of always preaching the new covenant and of always preaching Christ.

113. 1:09:26

     He does it from the Old Testament. He does it from previously divine written revelation. Then the story continues, he moves on from this place to another, and we read, if we just slip down to verse 10. And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas by night unto Berea little town, who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble.

114. 1:09:54

     These were more noble, these Jews in the synagogue than those in Thessalonica. How so? In that they received the word with all readiness of mind and search the scriptures daily, whether whether those things were sold. Who’s being tested, Paul? Where is he preaching? In the synagogue? To whom is he preaching? The Jews?

115. 1:10:27

     And why are these people commended? They are commended because they received Paul’s word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so, in other words, they went home or they went to the synagogue table, took their scriptures in hand and tested whether the oral message, the inspired oral living message, measured up to the previous divine revelation in their scripture. These were Jews.

116. 1:11:05

     They didn’t have the New Testament. They didn’t accept it. They took their Old Testament scriptures there in the synagogue and daily searched to see whether this man inspired, authoritative as he was, was saying something that squared with the written message. The written message, ladies and gentlemen, was the measuring thing. It was the divine standard of correctness or incorrectness. And here the scriptures do not look at the Bereans as insulting Paul.

117. 1:11:39

     They’re not viewed as being overly sceptical or being rather hard nosed. It says they were more noble than those of Thespoonica in that they did this, they received the Word with all readiness, and they searched the Scriptures daily. Ladies and gentlemen, we have here before us a supreme and startling example that when the living voice was present, guided by the Holy Spirit, people who checked their Bibles, the written message to test whether the oral message was correct were commended for it as being noble. We have some handouts now that our lecture is included, not the book, but some supplementary pages. We’re going to give those to you now, and we’re just going to comment on why we’re giving them to you, and we’ll close and ask for questions.

118. 1:12:31

     Could we have our stewards just give out these pages? It wasn’t the purpose of our address this evening to deal in detail with the Bible teaching of the soul and what it means. But on these pages we have tried to categorize for you a number of very important Bible passages showing we believe quite clearly that the doctrine of the immortal soul as understood by the Catholic Church is quite an error.

119. 1:12:58

     It does not represent nor supplement the biblical revelation. Instead, it contradicts it. When you look at the Bible’s teaching, you find it. But we just browse the few pages we have. The first page shows you that the word soul is used of the creation of man in Genesis 2, but it’s also used to describe the animals, as a Catholic pamphlet admits down at the bottom of the first page. Look at how the word soul is used in your Bible. Rather than describing something immortal, intangible, or a spark from God, it’s used to describe things that can be strangled. Souls are described as having blood. Souls are described as having been bought or sold, touched or eaten in the Bible.

120. 1:13:47

     Second page. Therefore we show you a number of Bible passages where the soul is described as perishing, a soul is described as being able to be put to the sword and of done a soul is used and it is described rather as being unconscious in the death state of being like asleep or oblivion. There are some rather startling admissions listed on the second page from various representations of the Christian community apart from Catholics admitting that the word soul really is not described as being immortal in the Bible. The third page, Some historical references from Encyclopedia Herodotus, the old Greek historian who wrote well before the time of Christ, tells us the concept of the immortal soul came from Egypt, given in his rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

121. 1:14:45

     Candidly knows as an objective historian, and by the way he was an atheist, that the immortality of the soul is omitted in the Law of Moses. Mosheim, one of the oldest ecclesiastical historian, affirms that it was from Plato that the immortal soul concept crept into Christian communities. Justin Martyr, viewed as one of the early church fathered by the Catholic Church, says in the middle of that quote that the concept of the soul as leaving the body and going to heaven when a man dies was something that had cracked in from outside of the true Christian community.

122. 1:15:26

     The 4th page. A quotation at the top from Encyclopedia Britannica showing that Augustine, again regarded as one of the early fathers of the Catholic Church, borrowed from Plato in his concept and his definition of the immortal soul. Collier’s Encyclopedia backed that up. The American Encyclopedia backs that up, that Augustine borrowed from Plato in his concept of the soul. Just notice the bottom of page 4, volume to 1971 and 79 rather that contribution.

123. 1:16:07

     RK Ryan is a Catholic. He signs his name at the bottom of the encyclopedia entry. A Catholic writer in that encyclopedia says this. The sole, according to the view of Augustine, is a true substance and not a mere accidental reality. For its immortality, Augustine advances various proofs which derive from Plato. That’s a Catholic writer. We hope that you will look at the last page. It shows what the Bible means by the word soul in the New Testament.

124. 1:16:42

     In first Two Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul sets up a comparison and Speaking of what happens to a body when it dies and what it’s like when it’s resurrected by Christ. He says that a body is sown first in verse 40 as an earthy body and then raised to the heavenly. A body when it dies is subject to decay, but then it will be raised to be incorruptible. So it’s not incorruptible to start with. A body is ignoble to start with and then glory. A body, he says is sown in weakness, but it’s raised in strength.

125. 1:17:19

     When Christ returns a body he says is natural, it’ll be raised spiritual later. A body he says is sown. A living soul. See what the Bible means by soul? It’s equivalent with a natural body. It’s equated with something that’s weak to the Bible. A living soul is equated with something that’s ignoble, something subject to decay, and below that something that is of the earth, Something he describes as being a flesh and blood.

126. 1:17:52

     A living soul, equated in his comparison with things that are asleep when they die, with something that is corruptible and mortal. And he says that only in the future, at the resurrection, only then will a living soul, something ignoble, something weak, something that’s a natural body, only then will it be clothed with immortality.

127. 1:18:14

     Our conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, is on such basic foundations. We sincerely believe the community, half a community, is a stray. We make an appeal to you to consider these and other doctrines carefully in the light of your Bible’s teaching. Thank you. Yes, we do. Thank you, friends. We thank Mr. Badger for bringing us this message. It’s finally important that we look into this personally because it is a matter of life and death, and it’s your life or your death we’re dealing with.

128. 1:18:53

     When it comes to such things as traffic, we’re not permitted to drive on whatever side of the street we feel is right. In England you drive on the left. Here you drive on the right. When it comes to religion, we do not have the right to make up our own religion and decide that what we believe is correct because we’re sincere, because it’s possible to be sincerely wrong.

129. 1:19:14

     Mr. Badger tonight has shown us how the foundations can be incorrect, so we want you to examine yours. So right now, if you have a question you want to address to Mr. Badger, would you just please raise your hand and he’ll come forward and answer it for you, something that he dealt with in his lecture tonight. Then you won’t have any questions. If you don’t want to ask a question, don’t. It’s all right.

130. 1:19:40

     He’ll be around afterwards to answer them personally in case you would like to talk to him. The Christadelphians meet in this place we have for some 38 years. We’re going to be moving away soon. We want to invite you to come to our new home. We just purchased a building in Tahunga. But the truth is everywhere because the Bible is everywhere.

131. 1:20:01

     And we would want you to follow us if you’re interested in continuing your search for truth. Because it’s sad but true that many, many people are wrong. In fact, the majority have almost always been wrong. At the time of the flood, there were only eight people out of. 1,30,000,000 That we’re right. Well, eight people out of 1,30,000,000 at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, there were four people that left Sodom and everybody else perished.

132. 1:20:31

     So the fact that we’re in the majority doesn’t prove we’re right. So don’t worry about numbers. Let’s concern ourselves with facts. And tonight we’ve looked at some. We hope you’ll read this book. We’ll hope you’ll study with us. We’d like to have your address. One of the presidents of the United States, which is now dead, used to like to say, come, let us reason together. And we’re he.

133. 1:20:54

     He took that from the book of Isaiah. And that’s our appeal to you tonight. We do not want to argue. We just want to sit down and reason together. Let’s take your Bible and our Bible and sit down and open them up and say, what does it say? Are your foundations correct? And if ours are incorrect and yours are right, we want to change too.

134. 1:21:15

     So let’s reason together to find out what is true. Paul told us when he wrote the to the Galatians that even if an Angel from heaven was to preach another gospel, that he should be accursed because he said if there isn’t any other gospel, there’s just one. Now that’s one place we agree with the Catholics. They say that if you don’t believe what’s right, you’ll perish.

135. 1:21:33

     And we say the same thing. Then we have to decide who’s right. The Bible is right. And this doesn’t make a difference what we say or anyone else says. But Mr. Badger pointed out, even the Bereans checked up on Paul to see if he was right. So obviously we would want you to check up on us.

136. 1:21:51

     We don’t say believe it because the Christadelphians say it. We say believe it because the word of God said, But what does it say? You have a Bible, you have common sense. You do not have to have someone tell you what it says. So let’s open our Bibles together and read it now. Mr. Badger will be here tomorrow. He’s going to give three talks tomorrow, one at 9:30 to our Sunday School, one at 11:00, and another talk at 793011 and 7:00 tomorrow.

137. 1:22:18

     You’re invited to any and all of those. You’re invited to come back to this hall for the next few weeks to meet with us. If you’ll give us your address, we’ll put you on our mailing list. We will send you pamphlets, a magazine every month free of charge. We do not charge for anything we have. We just want to reason together with you, examine your foundation, be sure you’re right because there’s no comfort in being wrong.

138. 1:22:45

     And so our time has elapsed. We do thank you for having come. We are going to close with a hymn and a prayer. And then we’re going to ask you if you’d like to stand, stay around and talk to Mr. Badger. Ask him questions. Give us your name and address. We promise this.

139. 1:23:06

     We will not hound you. We will not come to your home uninvited, but we would come to your home if you wanted to and welcome us with our Bible in hand and your Bible and sit down together. It is important that we look into these things because your future is at stake. Your eternal salvation is at stake.

140. 1:23:29

     Do not take this lightly. Do not think. Oh well, it doesn’t really matter. All roads lead to the same place. They don’t. That’s even why we have Rd. maps, because if you go on the wrong Rd. you’re not going to get where you want to go. And a lot of people don’t even know where they’re going. So let’s use our Bible as a road map and it will take us all to the same place.

141. 1:23:47

     And that place is the truth. So we’re going to come to a closed out of Singing Together hymn #161 from the Trusted Alchemy Hymn Book and A Word of Prayer in 161. The first few lines of that hymn read as follows. The church. Interesting. We’re talking about foundation. Check your foundation. The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ our Lord hymn #161 great and glorious almighty sovereign.

142. 1:24:27

     Look down and hear our humble prayer, for we seek thee through Jesus Christ our Lord. We thank Thee, Father, for this time we spent together, this time to open thy book and compare it to the religion of our friends around us, to compare the written word inspired and God breathed with the writings of men. And we thank Thee, Father, for the assurance that Thou has given us, that these words which You have written are able to make us wise to salvation.

143. 1:25:04

     And we pray, Father, that we may not be guilty of that sin of placing before Thy word the traditions of man. For Thy Son has told us that if we do this, that we truly worship Thee in vain. And, Father, we don’t want to be mistaken. Father, we do love Thee. We want you to love us, but we know that You love those that love Thee and put their trust in Thee.

144. 1:25:34

     Help us send Father to not follow comingly divided fables, but simply Thy written words. Father, we seek Thy help, and we thank Thee for this Church that You have given us, that if we lack wisdom, and we ask Thee that Thou wilt give it to us, until we now ask for Thy wisdom, that we might rightly divide Thy word of truth, that we might know Thy plan and purpose, that we might do those things with Thou hast commanded.

145. 1:26:06

     For we know thou hast told us that thy Son is soon to come, that he will take out of the Gentiles of people for his name, that he is choosing those that are to live and to reign with him. We thank Thee for the assurance that you’ve told us that soon Thy faithful sing a new song, singing even to Thy Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

146. 1:26:28

     Think to Him that He is faithful and worthy to open the book, for He was slain and has redeemed us to God by His blood out of every kittered and tongued people and nations, and that we can reign on this earth with Him forever. Father, we want our friends to share in this glorious hope. Thank you for bringing us together. Bring us back together, Father, that we might reason together and walk hand in hand to Thy Kingdom. Dismiss us then, now with Thy blessing, and fill our hearts with joy and peace, Thy peace that passeth all understandings. We offer our prayer and give Thee our Thanksgiving to the worthy name of Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

147. 1:27:28

     Thank you for listening to the good Chris Adelphian Talks podcast. We hope this talk helped you in your walk and brightened your day. If you would like to hear more, please subscribe for new episodes. We are on all major podcast platforms and also on YouTube. If you enjoyed this particular talk, please share it with someone else who you think might enjoy it too. For show notes on the talk you just listened to, visit [email protected] or check out the Show Notes section of your podcast player.

148. 1:27:57

     Please share your thoughts on the talk from this week on our Facebook or Instagram pages where we are at good Chris Adelphian talks or leave a comment on our YouTube channel where these talks are posted as well. If you enjoy listening to the talks that we post and here one that you think we should share, please tell us about it.

149. 1:28:13

     You can send us a suggestion using the Contact Us tab on our website or message us on any of our social media accounts. Thank you for listening. God bless and talk to you next week.