UN’s “Equiterra” Exposed, Trent Horn Response Continued

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We are in the AO Max studio today because we are going to be toward the end of the program, continuing our response to Trent Horn and Catholic Answers on church history.

So if you're one of those church history geeks, stay tuned. We will get to it as quickly as we can here. But I've had this item from the UN in my Evernote file for a long time and I thought, you know, we've got the screen up.

We can, we can take a look at this. This is, this is Equiterra. This is, this is what your money goes to when, when the United States pours its wealth into the United Nations. And it's just fascinating to look at this.

It's sort of like a where's Waldo type thing where everybody's different sizes and the buildings are really small and weird stuff like that. But you look through this thing and it is the wokest, most, well, just simply this is the Marxist utopia as it now exists in, as it seeks to degrade and destroy the West.

That's what you have here. So for example, no, it was, it's the tablet over there. Evidently it's probably going, no one loves me anymore. No one uses me anymore. Yes. You're shame on you. Anyways. So for example, we have un-stereotype Avenue, violence-free alley, equal pay street, climate action street, inclusion square, equal representation Avenue, education Boulevard and freedom Avenue are the various streets that we have here in Equiterra.

And if you look closely, for example, here's a woman in a wheelchair. This would have to do with ableism, I suppose, walking with a black woman and the woman saying, I felt respected and heard in that meeting today.

And she's saying me too. And over here we have a item, a crane taking down, destroying workplace discrimination and we've got equal work, equal pay over here at a childcare center. Of course, the one thing you will not find anywhere in this picture, anywhere in this picture is a father, a mother, and their children doesn't exist.

Not in Equiterra because that's the patriarchy and that's, that's the old way. And that's what we're now against up here in the upper left hand corner are two women in wedding dresses, plan your wedding with us beneath that as a man taking care of two children, no mother to be found anywhere here.

Here are two women holding hands. I would assume lesbians here. Here's two gay guys down here holding hands. I can't tell if these two women are holding hands or not. One saying, remember the gender pay gap.

What a joke lol. But then we have children playing football as it's known around the world. But you have one guy, three gals and somebody in a wheelchair. Now I have seen some pretty impressive wheelchair, basketball games and stuff like that, but I'm sorry.

That's not going to work in real life. It's just, you know, not going to work, but there it is. Let's say we have a renewable energy center down here. Let's see here, right over here. Oh, we've got sustainable fashion, sustainable fashion.

Rich wears sustainable fashion all the time. That's just because he just wears pretty much the same thing all the time. So it's very sustainable. Over here, we've got toxic masculinity recycling plant.

Can't make this stuff up. Toxic masculinity recycling plant. So we've got girls are weak. Men don't cry. Men should be aggressive. Boys will be boys and sexist jokes going in and inclusive language, respect, equality, self-expression, no means no.

We value all genders and express yourself is what's coming out the other side, isn't that isn't that lovely? That's what we have over over there. And then down here at the bottom, we've got Equiterra government.

The CEO of the year is a black woman, a stem for all. I would assume it'd be stem cell research, I guess. Like I said, we've got two more gay guys down here on the beach. Education is a right. The humanities.

Oh, and then, of course, we have two women holding hands. We're going to be the best moms. And she's pregnant, obviously not by a man. But, you know, there you go. They're right next to the Reproductive Health Center.

They must not have gotten down Freedom Avenue fast enough to stop that from happening. So, yeah, this this is your U .N. in action, and this is the utopian vision. Everyone just gets along and you can and and what's the one thing you got to get rid of?

You've got to get rid of Western values. You've got to get rid of the family. You've got to get rid of fathers and mothers and and the nuclear family. And you have to redefine everything. And fundamentally, when I saw this, the first thought across my mind was.

You have to. Have a completely different view of man. It's a it's disconnected from history, of course. You cannot recognize man's evil toward man. You cannot understand sin and power. You don't understand why there needs to be law.

It is it is all made up fantasy. That never exists, but the tired, worn out, but still working playbook of the leftists, of the communists, is to present the mantra, present the utopia and say, this is what we can build together.

If you will just give up your freedoms to us because we love you so and we will take care of you. Which is why we see everything happening today. But you see, to make this happen, you have to break up everything that made the West strong and allowed the West to stand against communism.

You have to break all that up. You have to make the family up. And that's exactly what they're all about. United Nations, it is a destructive system. And the idea that we pour. Well, I used to say the idea that we pour tax money into something like this, we don't.

Yeah, your taxes are going to be going through the roof. All of us are. Inflation's on the rise. Energy prices on the rise. Clothing costs on the rise. Food costs on the rise. You know, your standard of living is going to be going down tremendously in in the future.

But you could not tax the entirety of the population United States. You just can't. We don't make enough money to pay off the debt. That has we wouldn't pay off. We would not be able to pay off the debt that has accrued over the past year.

One year, 25 percent. Of the debt of the United of the United States in one year. I remember the Republicans were in charge for a lot of that, too, even though the Democrats are going, whoo hoo, let's let's let's.

Trillions are fun. Let's let's. I was trying to figure out and I and I didn't I didn't sit down my calculator. I was driving at the time, but but it's sort of like, why not just give everybody in the United States a million dollars?

Why not? And the sad thing is, most of the young people in our country could not answer why that is insanity. And right now, nobody who's in charge could answer why that's insanity either. But if you're wondering the reason why you can't just give everybody a million dollars, aside from the fact that even if that was possible to do.

In one year, we'd be right back to where we are. The rich would be rich, the poor would be poor, and the people in the middle would be the people in the middle, and nothing would have changed. But the real reason is that if you gave everybody a million dollars.

The inevitable result would be that a loaf of bread would cost you 50 dollars. A fill up at the gas station would cost you 500 dollars. And any house would would would cost you your entire million plus.

So it's it's insane, but that's what people think you can just do. And so you have the government right now. The next multi trillion dollar thing is supposed to be for building bridges. Well, you know, we do need bridges and bridges need to be maintained.

But anyone who's actually looked at the bill knows it has next to nothing to do with that. It's about collectivizing the entire economy of the United States. It's it's to do what the Soviets tried to do and destroy their economy.

We are doing what Ronald Reagan only 40 years ago warned us against and mocked the Soviet Union for. He mocked them for it and rightfully so. But that's what's going on in the United States right now.

Anyway, there you go. There's Equiterra, the Marxist utopia that cannot exist. Why? Because it does not recognize what man is. It fundamentally rejects biblical revelation and categories as to what man is.

So life doesn't work this way. There you go. There you go. So this is going to look a little strange because I need to use accordance for both this and for the next thing. And I can't put it all back together again on the fly to make it work.

So just look at the biblical section and try to ignore the church father stuff that we'll get to a little bit later on. You really can't see that in that shot. Anyways, it just sort of whites, whites out that section and just goes bye bye.

I've noticed that particular camera does that when you switch over to other ones. You can actually see what's there, but I'm not sure why it is about that particular one. But anyways, things that we are learning.

I was going to yesterday get into a discussion of two of the texts that came up in the Josh Bice discussion. That's Acts 2, 23 and Acts 4, 27, 28, but didn't have the opportunity to do so. I wanted to touch on them before I dive into them.

I was just a few weeks ago. I ran into this guy on Twitter who's a graduate from Truett Seminary. And look, every seminary could put out, you know, some bad products. But if this guy's representative of what Truett's putting out.

Oh, my. So he was talking about the issue yesterday. One of the things that I've noticed. Is that the responses that have been provided to what I said, well, first of all, that really haven't been any, not that I've seen.

There may be some very often what people do is they will respond in private groups and things like that. They don't want me to see it. They don't want to have to be able to. They don't want to engage me.

They just want to do stuff over there because they know that if it gets public, it might show up on this program. That might be a bad thing, given the kinds of argumentation they're using. But the the responses in general have been to attack individuals and completely ignore the substance of the issue as it was being.

I have no idea where I'm looking. Where am I looking? No, I'm not. OK, see? See, you didn't even know where I was supposed to be looking. That's that's the problem. I'm sitting here. I can see myself back there.

I don't know where I'm there. You know, I have no idea what's going on here. But anyway, these responses have been focused upon individuals rather than actually dealing with the substance of the issue.

And that is what was Josh Weiss's intention? So this I just saw I didn't have time to bring it up, but I just saw this guy. Like I said, from Truett. And he literally well, first of all, he had said that my comments were a complete waste of his time.

And I said, well, I'd love to see you interact with that. This is OK. Here's Calvin. And what he does is he provides a screen capture where three places Calvin uses the term victim of Jesus, not victim of injustice, which, of course, is what Josh was talking about and which, of course, has a modern meaning and which, of course, Calvin would never have even understood that modern meaning because it would be completely anachronistic.

So on any theological or historical level, this is absolutely hilarious. But he used the term victim. Now, of course, the term victim has a very long history in the history of the church. It goes back to a fundamental understanding of the book of Hebrews in regards to the high priest and the one who offers the victim upon the altar.

He is both the priest and the victim. No question about that. No one's arguing about that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. If this is what's coming out of Truett Seminary and you're paying to have somebody in Truett Seminary, I would suggest you get out of Truett Seminary very quickly because they are not being taught how to think.

They're being taught what to think. It was it was embarrassing. Whoever that young man is, I'm not even going to mention his name. But ow. Oh, embarrassing. Really, really bad stuff. But anyway, so what we didn't get into and what I want to touch on.

We've talked about Acts 4 .27 .28 many times. And it's excellent in regards to dealing. What makes Acts 4 .27 so useful is that it specifically delineates Herod and Pontius Pilate and the Jews and the Romans.

And so you have wildly different intentionalities on the part of these groups in their actions. And yet, according to what is said. By the early church, they did their actions, some of which was cowardice, some of which was just nuts.

I mean, Herod was not a. Not an overly balanced individual, shall we say, Pilate, the Jewish leaders, there was even differences in the Jewish leaders as to why they were doing what they were doing. The Romans, indifferent.

If you want systemic oppression, there's, you know, the Romans actually defined it. But like I said, they were systemic oppressors of white people, actually, which is interesting. But you put all that together and the fact that they did what they did exactly as they were supposed to do it tells you everything you need to know.

That God's sovereign decree orders everything in time. Not the other way around. That's what mankind wants. But but but God does it. That is the faith of the early church. So here in Acts chapter two, you can see even in the the preaching of the church.

This strong emphasis upon the freedom and power of God. So men of Israel. Hear these words or listen to these words. Jesus, the Nazarene, a man. And I know my my Muslim friends always look at stuff like that and go, see, he was a man and we all go, yes, he was.

That's what the incarnation is all about. The God man, a man attested, documented, you might say, demonstrated by God to you. So God, the reality is that from God's perspective, the clarity of his revelation concerning the person of Christ is made to each individual, to you, because I mean, think about it.

Would there be some in the audience who had. Only a matter of weeks earlier, been saying crucify, crucify. Yeah, but was everybody. No. And yet God had given demonstration. That this Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested to you by God with miracles, works of might and power.

Wonders, signs, that's the term that that that John likes to use. Which he did, which God performed through him in your midst, just as you also know, this one, this this man who was delivered by the predetermined plan, the predetermined plan, the specific plan, not the plan B, plan C, plan number one hundred seventy seven thousand.

After all the free will acts of man have forced us down to this level. This man was delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. Foreknowledge is not God looking down. In fact, this is this is an active.

So this is this is God being involved in doing something. We like to try to turn foreknowledge into some passive thing where God's learning something. No, this is something that God is doing, that God is accomplishing.

And this is this is an act of power on his part. It's not it's not. It's not some passive receipt of something from outside of himself. There's a predetermined plan, counsel, will. And knowledge of God.

So this is the basis of it. He was delivered. He was given up. Then by the hands of lawless ones, lawless men crucified, nailed to a tree and killed. But notice what nailed to the tree is. Now, that is.

Without going into a lot of details and aorist participle, and it is in the plural, nominative plural form. You. Did this now. There is almost no chance whatsoever. That in the audience were the soldiers that actually drove the nails into Jesus.

There's there's there's no reason to believe that would even be a possibility. And. Notice, as you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death, think about that. Because here we do have if we if we are careful, if we sit back and consider.

What is being taught here in this sermon? What are the apostles communicating from the very beginning? Some of you remember back. I don't know. When when was it that the passion movie came out? I've forgotten what year that was, but.

Mid 2000s, somewhere 2005 ish or something like that, I don't remember, but. You may recall that there was a. That they had the scene where at the trial. Pilot comes out, you know, I find no, you know, he's innocent, et cetera, et cetera.

And. They actually have it being done in like Greek and Latin and Aramaic. But they have subtitles. And. I think just a day or two before the film was to be released, there was such an outcry because they had quoted from Matthew, let his blood be upon us and our children.

That they had to remove that. From the subtitles, it was still said in Aramaic. If you if you knew enough Aramaic, you could sort of make it out. But who's going to that? Nobody, not too many people to catch that.

And so they took it out of the of the film. And ever since World War Two and ever since the Nazi atrocities that Auschwitz and Buchenwald and Dachau and Sachsenhausen and every place like that, there has been a especially in Europe, but it's.

It's been communicated across the pond as well to us. A fundamental embarrassment. At the teaching of the New Testament that recognizes the central role. That the covenant people themselves played in the crucifixion of Jesus.

You're you're basically not you're supposed to be embarrassed by that. You're not you're not allowed to to say anything about that, really. And yet. You cannot get around this. This is addressed to men of Israel.

We saw that in the in the preceding verse, men of Israel. And then it says you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death. So there were godless men. Those would be the Romans.

But you nailed him that cross. Which would be the Jewish leaders. Covenantally representing the people. They were the ones who covenantally say, let his blood be upon us and upon our children. And yet all of this delivered up by the predetermined plan for knowledge of God.

You can't you can't escape this. And the problem is when you try. To create a view of God. That turns him into the responder to man. When you say, I simply I'm not going to worship a God who exists outside of time.

I'm not going to worship that free and sovereign God. I want a God who is as limited to the vicissitudes of time as I am. And therefore you put man's autonomous will in control and then God becomes the responder.

Rather than what you have right here, very plainly. You have a sovereign God. You have the incarnation. It has taken place at the exact time and place that God determines. It's the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.

Functioning clearly here and yet. You nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death. Then God raised him up. Death could not hold him. But the reality of their role. This is the part of the sermon that's going to get them in a few verses when they go and brother.

What do we do? Repent believe in Lord Jesus Christ. The gospel included being honest about what took place. About what happened. But you have here. Fundamental compatibilism. If you do not believe. That God's sovereign decree and man's responsibility in time were compatible.

What are you gonna do with texts like this? You end up turning them on their head. Only way around it. Only way around it. And so yes, they were godless men. And God used godless men. But it was by his predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.

And the immediate response is well, then God cannot judge them. It's exactly what you know, they say in Romans 9. How can you still find fault? For who can resist his will? Who are you O man who answers back to God?

Continues to be a full refutation. It really is a full refutation. I disagree with the reformed men who say God doesn't answer that question. Yes, he did. Who are you O man? To answer back to God. The thing formed will not say the one who formed it.

Why did you make me like this? That is a full response, at least for the person whose heart has been changed. To recognize who God is and who we are. There is no question that Jesus is the victim by his own will and might.

There is no question that in the old definition of victim of injustice, that what these godless men did was even unjust by their own standard. But he was not the victim of injustice in the modern systemic concept.

Where everyone is just, there's nothing they can do about it and there's no wills involved. No, God had a purpose that he was accomplishing. And it wasn't that, oh man, I was hoping Jesus was going to be a great Messiah.

But man, that systemic injustice got him. And so now we got to do the best we can. No, that does not work. Never will work. And there you go from there. All right. So I wanted to touch on that. And we will be coming back to that in just a moment because we want to go back to Trent Horn.

And, you know, I'm seeing the Roman Catholics have many of the same problems that we have right now. You have, we have, lots of people who call themselves Protestants, who, and I really wish that some of the Roman Catholics would recognize that the vast majority of people who call themselves Protestants are not.

They don't have any commitment to Sola Scriptura. They have no commitment to the gospel. They have no commitment to supernatural revelation. I would think that a real honest Roman Catholic apologist would look at Union Theological Seminary and not even put us in the same camp.

They'd recognize. Now they may struggle with that a little bit because they have to look at something like Boston College. And the problem is, I see the vast difference that exists between a Trent Horn or Pat Madrid or somebody like that who's consistent with historic Roman Catholic teaching and the wackadoodles that teach at Boston College and it's so many other Roman Catholic institutions.

Who could care less what the church has ever taught in the past? All right, so I can see the difference there, but here's where there's a difference. Nobody at Union Theological Seminary would be considered to be a part, even have the possibility outside of complete repentance for their beliefs of being a part of my fellowship.

It's just not possible. We believe completely different things. The problem is, with Rome's magisterium and especially with the current Pope, you're stuck with those guys at Boston College because the fact of the matter is you know the Pope's actually more friendly toward them than he is toward you.

That's where the issue is. That's why, for example, a couple months ago we responded and I'm going to say it again. Everybody's saying, you need to debate Jimmy Akin. Fine, let's do it. We've got this beautiful studio.

Let's do it. But you have a Pope who is saying and doing things that the last time, let's put it this way, the last time Jimmy Akin and I set eyes on each other in the flesh, I believe, I believe I'm correct about this, was at the headquarters of CRI.

When Jimmy Akin and I were on for three hours in the Bible Landsman broadcast, before the broadcast we had a, I think we had chicken, had a chicken lunch brought in. Hank Hanegraaff and Jimmy Akin and me and a few other people there in the, you know, sort of a dining area outside the studio.

And here's the issue. The Pope that Jimmy Akin referred to as the infallible vicar of Christ on that program did not believe the things the current Pope does. And so why Jimmy Akin wants to go back to Sola Scriptura.

Now I've heard, I've been told that Jimmy Akin believes he has come up with new arguments against Sola Scriptura that no one else has ever come up with before. Now, I'll be honest with you. I get a little bit worried about people who can look at fundamental issues that have been debated for centuries and go, nobody has ever had the insights I have.

Because I've met those folks before. I, unfortunately, Rich gets to talk to them on the phone all the time. And that's why he's, he's starting to lose it on top. And, you know, the grays coming in and he's got a little bit of a tick every once in a while and stuff like that, because they are a dime a dozen.

I'm sorry. There are people all over the place that think they have now. So evidently no Jesuit, no Roman Catholic thinker, John Henry Cardinal Newman, wasn't smart enough to come up with this, right?

I don't, I don't think that, you know, even I've told the story about the bike ride that I did years and years ago, where halfway through it, all of a sudden, the problem with the Roman Catholic argument about the canon of scripture and Sola Scriptura hit me.

And I was so worried that I was going to forget it by the time I got home that I turned around and got home and wrote notes to myself and then went back out and finished riding. Well, the reality is that the, the insight that I gained at that point was something that B .B. Warfield had said.

In other words, Michael Kruger has said it in his own words. I, I, I didn't come up with some new thing. I've been able to find it verified in the words and works of others, even if it was in a slightly different context or something like that.

So I would invite Jimmy Akin, if you think you've come up with new stuff that no one's ever thought of before, put it out there, put it in print, make your arguments. I'll, I'll be interested in reading them.

I'd like to see what this new set of arguments is. I can guarantee you it's just simply a variation on a theme. I mean, this subject has been exhausted. Not exhausted in the sense of it's no longer worth discussing, but I cannot see that there's any, anything new to be discussed, but put it out there.

But stop hiding from your own claims. The reality is when you convert the Roman Catholic church, you had John Paul II, right? Francis is not John Paul II. Francis doesn't believe the same things that John Paul II did.

There are fundamental issues that are introduced by liberation theology, which he plainly embraces. That you can't just simply go, well, you know, I mean, if you will not defend your ultimate claims of authority, but demand that we defend our ultimate claims of authority over and over and over again, which I have done over and over and over again in numerous different contexts.

But if you're going to say we won't defend ours, then you don't have any reason to be criticizing somebody else. I just thought I'd throw that in there. But at least folks like Patrick Madrid and Trent Horn, I can respect where they're coming from.

I have a hard time respecting so many of these Roman Catholics today that just make it up as they go along. And I don't have respect for the Paula Whites of the world either who make it up as they're going along as well.

And I would not expect that Trent Horn or Patrick Madrid would have respect for that kind of silliness. And I would hope they would recognize these folks don't really care about being connected to what came before.

They don't see any value in there being consistency from generation to generation, stuff like that. And I realize that a lot of Roman Catholics who converted from Protestantism, they converted from denominations or churches that had no concern about connection to the past.

Or they were fundamentalists whose view of church history went back exactly 10 years and really didn't care what was believed 100 years before or 500 years before or 1 ,000 years before. I get it. I understand that.

I think that's why Reformed folks have provided the best apologetic against Rome because we are concerned about that. We are concerned about the early church. And in this presentation, Trent Horn had just said that back in the late 80s, early 90s, finally Protestants realized they needed to start getting into early church fathers.

Well, I think we point out last time, at least I hope you point out last time, that's just simply not the case. The reality was that the people that were being debated by Carl and by Patrick and eventually by Jerry Matitix, they just don't want to mention that name for understandable reasons, that the people they chose to debate had no knowledge of or interest in the early church.

And so they never raised the issues. But let's not pretend that for the Lutherans, Martin Chemnitz never existed. Let's not pretend that for the Anglicans, George Salmon never existed. Let's not ignore the great Reformed works like William Whitaker, that these multi-volume works of history didn't exist.

They may have been forgotten by pretty much everybody that the early forms of Catholic answers ran into. It doesn't mean they didn't exist. And I will say, I see no evidence that that early form of Catholic answers even knew that those sources were around.

And so when I hit Jerry Matitix with materials from the early church in December of 1990, yeah, that was a new experience for them. That was a new experience for them. But that wasn't where Protestants started getting serious about church history.

We had been serious about church history for a long, long time. It was just the people that you were choosing to engage. At that particular point in time. So anyway, all right, with all of that having been said, let's get to this.

And let's pick up pretty much, I think, pretty much where we left off last time in what was being said. What I'm going to offer you today in my presentation are four rules for reading the Fathers. These aren't the only rules that you should use, of course.

But these are rules that I think are helpful when dealing with Protestant claims that the church fathers weren't really Catholic. And you can really break these four rules down. Now, let me just comment.

Again, I know that my Catholic friends will disagree with me, but I want, I'm going to make the argument that we approach the study of church history very differently. We approach study of church history very, very differently.

None of us are blank slates. Okay, I get that. But I am thankful that my first exposure, it's interesting, I actually signed up for church history class in college. And I dropped it because I did not like the text that was being used.

It was way to my left, and I just wasn't ready for that yet. So when I had to take church history in seminary, thankfully, I had a tremendous church history professor that made it come alive. He had been to Europe.

I can't wait to get to the next time I have the opportunity of doing Reformation church history. I've got so many cool pictures and stories now, having been over to Germany so many times and seeing all these sites and things like that.

He's been over there and just brought it alive. And he taught us how to do history and to do it fairly and to see our own place in it. I've always been saddened that I've talked to many Christians who tried to study church history, took church history classes, and they were turned off to it.

They were bored by it. I've told you many times the first class I taught after I graduated from seminary at Grand Canyon College was church history. And in that very first semester that I taught, I remember I had a number of students at the end who said, you know, we took this because it's required.

We're just getting our requirements out of the way. I figured it was going to be a snoozer. And I remember we, toward the end of the semester, I played it. It had just come out. The Radicals, the video The Radicals.

My dear friend Jeff Neal and I went and saw The Radicals together in a theater. And if you've not seen The Radicals, I highly recommend it to you. And there were tears in the eyes of these students at the end of watching this film.

And what many of them said to me was, I really expected this class to be boring and just a get-it-out-of-the-way thing. And you've made it to come alive. That's what I wanted to do from the start in teaching church history.

And I am so thankful that that was concurrent with my first encounters with Catholic Answers. And so I'm not an apologist who has had to go get some stuff out of church history to try to do stuff. Remember, and this is an advantage that I'm thankful to the Lord now, as the old geezer that I am, we don't just deal with Roman Catholicism.

We've had to deal with church history issues with Jehovah's Witnesses, with Mormons. I mean, the Mormons have a whole apologetic about theosis and exaltation to godhood and all sorts of stuff like this.

And so if you don't approach church history in a fair, meaningful fashion, you're going to get your head handed to you on a platter. That's just all there is to it. And so I have argued, and I've not heard a meaningful refutation, I have argued that the Roman Catholic, because of documents like status cognitum, has to find Roman Catholicism in the early church fathers.

And as a result, cannot handle them fairly and accurately. I can do so because I recognize that I can look at Ignatius of Antioch and I can revel in his deep Christological formulations found long before the Council of Nicaea.

But I can also analyze his view of the bishop in light of New Testament scripture and can find it to be imbalanced. And I can still be so thankful for that Christian martyr. And a lot of people, a lot of Protestants, really struggle with that.

Dave Hunt could not do that. Dave Hunt was not taught how to do church history. And so as a result, as soon as Dave Hunt would see something in someone, he had it. This comes from fundamentalism. When fundamentalists see an errant belief, and it could be an eschatological belief for crying out loud, in someone, anywhere in church history, dismiss them.

No, you can't do that. You can't do that. So when we look at these rules that Trent, notice how he's placing it in dealing with Protestants. When I teach church history, I'm just simply saying this is how you do church history, and then we'll make application as needed when you're dealing with the claims of whoever.

Whether it's atheists or Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or Eastern Orthodox or whatever. Just deal with it as it needs to be dealt with. Into two subsets. The first two deal with the idea that the Fathers didn't believe this Catholic doctrine.

So there'll be arguments saying that the early Church Fathers, the Apostolic Fathers, did not believe Catholic doctrine. There's no evidence they believed then what the Catholic Church believes now. Now, before that fades out completely, as far as, we have the ghost of Trent up there on the screen now.

There's the ghost of Trent. So here's rules one, rules two. Let me just comment briefly. Check your sources. You better believe it. And I have a decent church history section. There's new stuff coming out all the time.

New stuff being published. Most people don't even realize that a large portion of what we still have in other languages has not been translated into English. Origen had a scribe following him around 24 -7 writing down everything he said, which I think was a complete waste of their time and his as well.

But so much of Origen doesn't even appear in English as yet. And that is true for other Fathers as well. So, yes, check your sources. And that's one of the criticisms that I have had of Catholic answers in the past.

For years, maybe they don't anymore. I haven't looked at their online stuff for a while. But for years, when we would have debates, and they would have a book table. They would have, I think it's called The Faith of the Early Fathers by Juergens.