You've Got Mail! #1

Message for you about i originally started in his video blogs to save myself some time. Basically i don't have a large staff and try to do a lot of things at the same time in uh... so far it really hasn't then actually saving me much time because uh... of the fact that uh... well i don't get no programs all of change programs couple times change cameras couple times.

And uh... i also put a little more information into these and maybe i probably should like time when i subtitle the fellow reading the khan uh... not too many people really uh... were blessed by that had uh... maybe few arabic-speaking muslims.

And that's nice of you to do that good for my arabic. But other than that uh... so some of the tribunal more a disciplined and actually just provide some quick responses not put a bunch of power points together and things like that.

Uh... first is uh... our our friend william albrecht is uh... posted some uh... some responses to my series on ignatius. Now uh... what that was as i went through uh... the second portion of ignatius is uh... second chapter of ignatius' epistle to smirnians.

And uh... did that a number of years ago on the dividing line. I just took that gave you the text and what i can do it. I invite you to track down william albrecht's videos. I really would uh... i would i would invite any rational person uh... to watch what i said listen what i said look at the original materials and then listen to william.

And honestly uh... i can allow you to make a decision from there. It's just that obvious painfully obvious for william uh... your church believe what i believe and a basis of the wise to take him out of context.

That's it. And there's no reasoning with someone who does not realize that they have to back up with their saying they cannot start with inclusion of their argument. And uh... i've come to clear conclusions.

Many other people have the past that there is no reasoning uh... with william. But unfortunately william represents uh... a lot of the way people think in this uh... in this area you respond what they say you demonstrate with the wrong you move on from that.

There's no reason do anything else. But here's an example of uh... from the beginning of williams response on.

Ignatius. But i'm here and i want to do a few things that james white has been up to once again uh... a little while back james white posted a video series dealing with saint ignatius of antioch. And uh... if you watch his video set he criticizes catholics in a very ugly manner.

He even uh... gives impersonations of us in a in a very very rude manner. You know james white sometimes lacks a lot of respect. He needs to be put in his place. And that's what i'm here for. I'm here to defend the catholic church of christ as founded uh... the church of which the gates of hell will never prevail over.

I'm here to defend it. I do my best to serve christ in the fullest. And i believe that james white is very dishonest when it comes to the usage of the church fathers. And i believe he has to be. You know as a protestant james white is stuck in a rough position.

You know the other church did not believe or view the bible in the way that he does. So it's rough for him to really read the early church without ripping them out of their context. And um... well you know i know that james white knows that the early church was not protestant.

So i do not. That is why i do not understand why he can rip them out of context the way he does. But anyway we're going to touch upon the series in which he deals upon. He actually is attempting to uh... to to uh... to make steve ray a catholic apologist whom i have uh... spoken with uh... look bad.

He's attempting to make steve ray look bad here. I think i'm going to go ahead and try and uh... lend steve ray a hand here because i know uh... i know he's really busy right now. And um... i want to start off with this video and we're going to cover all five of the videos and the relevant parts that we need to that james white has done on ignatius a minute and twenty eight seconds into the video we hear james white make the accusation that roman catholics cannot handle the early church fathers in an accurate fashion.

Then we hear that only really protestants can handle the early church fathers. I couldn't help but laugh a little here. The early church which believed in the primacy of the pope, prayer to the saints, gave respect due to mary did not believe in the premillennial rapture believed in the real presence of christ in the eucharist.

And the early church that gave us the bible not the protestant bible lacking seven books but the complete bible. It's that early church that the protestants can handle. That makes no sense whatsoever.

But it's no wonder why james white has never been able to deal with the early fathers in a cogent manner in each one of my videos i have done i have demonstrated that james never dealt with any of the fathers that i mentioned that refer to the eucharist being the substantial presence of christ.

Now the irony in all of this of course is that right at the same time william is faulting me for disagreeing with him that the early church fathers were twenty first century roman catholics believing everything that modern rome teaches.

I'm a directed to a website called catholic visions i'd like to tell you something about whoever's behind it but i can't. I couldn't find any meaningful information about the person on their own blog site but catholic visions dot blogspot dot com i think.

And uh... just i i i grab a couple of quotes here that are that are interesting in today's apologetics world many process now more than ever are misinterpreting the early church fathers just as they do the sacred scriptures.

For example james white over his aloha i mean alphanumeric ministries not sure what that was. A because i went to hawaii me and arcee sprawl took the james kennedy's place on his cruise last june. I i don't know uh... seems to have an absurd fallacious idea that we must find every single doctrine the catholic church teaches in the second or third century church father writings.

Or they are simply not true. Where he has come up with this absurd chuckle-headed that theory is anyone's guess what is equally absurd of these catholic apologists few few who humor him by trying desperately to find some one-line passage from an early church father to prove some doctrine.

The catholic church obviously uh... i don't believe that's. Finding a single-line early church means that we should or should not believe that. I think i've been pretty clear over the years that the only reason a christian should believe something is because it's found in divine revelation that is in the sacred scriptures.

But when i'm dealing with roman catholics who claim that their beliefs are in fact the consistent teachings of the early church fathers. Then if i demonstrate that's not the case then all of demonstrate is that their arguments are untrue.

Uh... this guy isn't even even slightly seriously interacting with ninety percent of everybody who watches the debates listens has some modicum of fairness in their thinking is clearly able to see. Here's another example.

If we read saint ciprian when he writes of the eucharist in a mystical symbolic verbiage. Does this mean that he did not believe in the real presence. Notice. These folks can not grass the idea of recognizing the historical difference between real presence and transubstantiation.

They can't do it. They just go tilt stop working you know. So like this that you know him uh... just can't handle it. James white and those like him would like to think so doesn't make more sense that he was addressing something entirely different than the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Uh... yeah sense of no one was talking about that uh... would we even expect such a turn to be used from that era. No i wouldn't. Because they didn't believe in it. Uh... i don't think. So this over is certainly no proof that saint ciprian denied the real presence.

See the flipping back and forth between two different concepts. All this hurling early church father quotes back and forth is just as absurd as hurling sacred scripture verses back and forth. This is the madness of amateur apologetics.

Unfortunately many of these do-it-yourself a seat apologists are making money and hope for this putting out inept information passing it off as reliable. There you go. Once again it is not a list of this is not the writings of the fathers themselves for the sacred scripture alone but the correct interpretation of them that matters.

All this once again comes down to authority and historicity. The apostolic succession that passes on doctrine by the guidance of the holy spirit is what matters. And isn't it funny. We could put these two guys in the room.

And they would have uh... william and this fellow. And they would have to completely disagree with one of them. He's clearly taking a completely different position uh... than william does. And both of them assume the other guys are so completely wrong side funny.

But then they all come back to the same idea. And this idea that you need is apostolic tradition. You need this mechanism whereby you can interpret both the scriptures nearly church fathers. Evidently if you write something no one can possibly interpreted except for the church.

Those are people that can do it. We can go back. And we can look at the context of the and ignatius a cyprian. We can look at the words he used. We can examine his writings with his grammar. Everything like that.

Not enough. You gotta have the church to tell you what. Even saint cyprian well i know it's a separate man. I know what he meant when he rejected rejected uh... the meddling of the bishop of rome in the north african seat.

I know what he meant. Bc once development takes place in rome will tell you all he didn't really mean that. That's the kind of magical patristic interpretation uh... that someone like uh... the fellow catholic vision.

And finally real quickly cuz i'm almost out of time over it's a mormon apologetics dot org a thread started because in coming on airmen it is very briefly said the mormons have a very low view of god.

Uh... they do uh... when you believe that god's exalted man that's a very low view of god. That's not the god of the bible. I'd just direct this to those folks over there is a twenty nine sixteen. You turn things upside down as if the potter was thought to be like the clay shall what is for the state of him who formed it.

You did. He did not make me can the pot save the potter. He knows nothing. That's the truth of the bible not the exalted man of joseph smith. Thanks for watching.