Uber-Mega Dividing Line: Sola Scriptura, and Islamic Denials of the Deity of Christ

And greetings welcome to the dividing line nothing on the screen up there to tell me that we're live, but that's okay

I just got to learn to run with it one way or The other thanks for joining us today on the program there.

We go now. We can see what's going on and We have some important stuff to get to today.

I am NOT going to spend any time whatsoever talking about political debates or The insanity going on on Twitter Or elsewhere just not going to do it.

There are far more important things things that are going to be relevant One year ten years twenty years down the road when all of this all these shenanigans have gone away and I'm looking forward to that time personally

Anyway, what happened was last Friday? We had

We had a funeral For a faithful listener to the dividing line someone who had done baking and stuff and Sold stuff just to help support our trips to South Africa and things like that So we were at the funeral on Friday afterwards.

I went by and visited my grandkids And then on the way home Bad timing as far as when to drive home across Phoenix There's a there are two major freeways and they become parking lots between about 4 and 6 p .m.

basically so I'm stuck in in very very very slow moving traffic and And So I I frequently do

Tune in to Catholic answers live when it's on It's Catholic answers has changed over the years

They're they're not nearly so much into apologetics as they once were now, they're they've really broadened things out a lot and so sometimes the programs are

Not not relevant at all But you know just a few weeks ago remember I played the the section on the the priest and the talked about the priesthood and things like that and So we do listen

Once in a while. Well, they had some someone on that I had if I've heard him before I it didn't register with me

But a fellow by the name of Carlo Broussard. He's from Louisiana. He calls himself a

Cajun and The discussion

Technically was and I haven't seen any video clips appear. I've been watching the Catholic answers

YouTube feed so none of this somehow ended up on YouTube feed. I'm not sure why But we had

The topic was were the Apostles Bible only Christians Now That caught my attention immediately and So the discussion was specifically

An attack upon Sola Scriptura now historically speaking you need to need to recognize the very first moderated public debate

That I ever did was in a Roman Catholic Church in Long Beach in August of 1990 26 years ago sponsored by Catholic answers.

I Debated Mr. Jerry Matitix now Catholic answers would like to forget the

Jerry Matitix was ever their primary star convert and debater and stuff like that since he's gone on to an interesting career and in other perspectives shall we say but That was the first debate and it was on Sola Scriptura August 1990

January of 1991 we then did two debates in Phoenix One at Northwest Community Church on perseverance of the

Saints the second on the papacy At a Catholic location out in Tempe or a city of the

Lord. I think it was what it was called and Especially the second one the papacy went really really well and that sort of started things

And today it's it's it's a little bit difficult to to get debates I even extended to Carlo Broussard after listening to him.

I extend an invitation to come on the program. I hope he will listen to this I even said to him.

I found you to be an excellent speaker he's Got good control of his of his materials and he seems very passionate

I imagine I'd like to meet him and and and talk with him at some point and But he had to decline because it's it's like I said, it's it's not the 1980s anymore and things have changed from the

Catholic answers perspective a little bit But as I listened to the presentation

I was struck once again by the fact that It's been a while since we went over these things and in light of what we've been talking about recently with Andy Stanley and Frank Turek and William Lane Craig and Mike Licona and the

The fact that one's bibliology is Fundamental to one's apologetic

I Thought you know, it's it's been too long Since we took a serious.

Look at solo scriptura. We have so many more people Following the ministry now listening to the program watching the the the webcast

There are few things that I could do for our audience. That would be more helpful more

Foundationally helpful in so many areas not just not just the area of Roman Catholicism So I'll be honest with you when we when we tackle

Roman Catholic subjects We we get incredible response we really do

People are dealing with this issue regularly and So I Started thinking about I said, you know, it's gonna take some time

It's gonna take some effort might result in some long programs, but we're sort of getting used to long programs

I've been doing a lot of them recently I'm Building up my endurance

Normally the endurance is you know, five and a half hours on a bike But Not normally just sitting here.

That's that kind of endurance isn't quite the quite the kind of endurance we need. Yes I was gonna say

I don't think we've In 1998 when we went back on the air on kpxq was the last time you actually did an extensive

Series on solo scriptura. Well, if I'm remembering this the archives, right? Yeah a series maybe

We've reviewed some debates and stuff like that, but yeah, it's it's been a while and So I want to I want to prove my point here

And so I'd like to ask the audience to do Like I said if I could grab, you know, if Catholic answers would make available to me if they have it the video of Last Friday's first hour

I'd use it. I'm not trying to hide anything from you You can get the audio on the on the podcast feed on iTunes, that's where I got it

But I looked I would like to have I would rather be showing you this Than just playing it for you, though.

I will confess using Audio notetaker. It's easier for me to do it that way.

There's no question about that, but I want to Play for you

Just a few minutes From the beginning of the program where Patrick Hoffman the host and Carla Broussard Talk about 2nd

Timothy 3 16 because I would assume I Would assume that most people when challenged on the subject of solo scriptura would default to the citation of The Apostle Paul all scripture is the omnis toss it is

Profitable for doctrine and teaching repute reproof and correction that the man of God may be

Sufficient is actually an appropriate translation of the term. They're thoroughly equipped for every good work most people would at least people in this audience,

I think would default to the citation of that and We Have dealt with this this issue for a very very very long time

You will note I grab one of those. Yeah Extensive discussions of these texts in the

Roman Catholic controversy. I'm gonna look at some other books here in a few minutes But We don't spend a lot of time a

Lot a lot of people have spent a lot of time dealing with Roman Catholic apologists of those who've been influenced by those apologists and so I'd like you to listen to the conversation and Ask yourself the question

How would I respond now we're gonna be looking rather in depth at the subject of solo scriptura

There was nothing said on the Catholic answers webcast on Friday that trust me we haven't heard before these are debates we've had with Jerry Matitix and Patrick Madrid and Jimmy Akin on the

Bible answer that wasn't really debate but just discussion And I'm gonna play you a clip from my debate with Mitchell Pacwa on solo scriptura from 1999

I'm thinking right now. I think Carlo Broussard was about 17

When Mitch Pacwa and I had that debate actually So we've we've been through this many many times and and I'll admit one of the things that does concern me is

Their Roman Catholics Don't seem to take the time to listen to the other side and change their arguments

Maybe because they're sufficient knows that no. No, they're really not and we'll demonstrate that well,

I think we will provide a pretty full refutation of everything

Carlo Broussard said everything every text you brought up the Hawaiian Yards and It's not by coming up with new stuff

It's not like oh, we haven't thought about this before This is stuff that you know a couple of these books I've got over here hundreds of years old and they addressed all this stuff long long time ago long time ago so But how many

Protestants are reading these books? How many non Roman Catholics are you reading? Some of these books over there and some of the other church fathers that will be citing and things like that.

So lots to deal with today and Then I'm not sure how long ago on Sola Scriptura But I was sent a video

From a Muslim source on the deity of Christ and what we're gonna do is what we've done in the past sometimes

Cold cold watch I start I may have watched you may have about 45 seconds said yeah quality.

This is good enough Let's do it. Haven't watched the rest of it So we're going to I'm gonna try to find the time to just play it and respond to it straight up haven't haven't even

Haven't even looked at myself saw the first just enough to go Okay, this isn't just some guy sitting there with a single camera shoot.

It's good graphics and stuff like that high quality Let's respond to it where allegedly the

Bible doesn't teach you Jesus as God. Well, we know it does without any doubt so Pretty confident that just simply hearing it for the first time we'll be able to provide a rather full response

To that particular video. So let's listen to this presentation on Second Timothy 316 ask yourself the question.

How would you respond? Yes. I'm playing it at 1 .2 Rather than 1 .0

so we can get done just a little bit sooner Here is Patrick Coffin and Carlo Broussard discussing

Sola scriptura That's one the one you selected I think it's important because it seems on the face of it if you read it once through that maybe the

Catholic positions the shakier one second Timothy chapter 3 if you've got a Bible there if you're driving don't do this if you're home or if you're otherwise able to second

Timothy 3 15 through 17 What what are those two those three verses yeah, actually it's kind of starts in verse 16 all scriptures inspired by God and Profitable for teaching for reproof for correction and for training and righteousness that the man of God may be complete equipped for every good work

Now this text is parsed out in a couple of ways Some Protestants will look at this in verse 16 and say we see scripture says it's sufficient for teaching and and bringing us to Completion and perfection when in actuality it says it's profitable as the

Revised Standard Version here translates it the Greek word There is Ophelios and it doesn't mean scripture is sufficient in the sense that nothing else is needed

It simply means profitable if st. Paul wanted to teach that scripture was sufficient all

Encompassing of including everything that we need to be perfect Christians Then he could have used the

Greek word or kale Which is which he uses in 2nd Corinthians chapter 12 verse 9 when he talks about how

Jesus says my grace is Sufficient for you. So the scripture is profitable not sufficient

Now many Protestants will look to the second part of the text and argue that this passage supports the

Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura Because it says scripture is profitable for the man of God to be complete the

Greek word There being or Teos and then he goes on to say that men of God may be complete equipped for every good work

So the argument goes we don't need anything else to be complete and perfected as a man or woman of God therefore this passage teaches sola scriptura, but nothing could be further from the truth because Patrick if we follow that hermeneutical approach if we follow that logic well then we're also going to have to say that all we need is

Patience in order to be complete and perfected because James writes in James 1 4

Let steadfastness have its full effect or our patience that you may be perfect and complete

Lacking in nothing now the Greek word there for perfect and complete is not or Teos It's teleos from which we get the word teleology, but it means the same thing complete mature manhood

So if we're gonna use the logic that Protestants use from 2nd Timothy 3 16 through 17

Well, then we're gonna have to say all we need is patience because patience makes us complete and perfect lacking in nothing

But of course that would be an absurd Conclusion so just because scripture is profitable and helpful in leading us to complete

Completion perfection equipping us for merit for every good work doesn't mean that we don't need

The church the authoritative church an infallible teaching authority. It doesn't mean we don't need the sacred tradition, etc

And I like to put it like this Patrick, you know I like to go to the gym and throw some weights around I love lifting weights

But you know what lifting weights is useful for being healthy, but it's not sufficient

Amen, as you know, you also have to diet correctly. You also have to do that darn cardiovascular workout

Which I don't like very much. So just because something is profitable or useful doesn't mean it's all

Sufficient to the exclusion of other things that are also profitable for the in go that we're trying to achieve

Okay, so there's your presentation How would you? respond to Carlo Broussard, he's throwing

Greek around and of course that caught my attention immediately and How would you respond

I? believe that One of them certainly regards to the

Trinity soteriology and And Bibliology specifically the sufficiency

Due to the nature of Scripture. It's interesting later in the program. They'll admit there is an

Ontological difference between the nature of Scripture and sacred tradition. I think it completely Destroys The entirety of their argument and I don't think they realize just how important this is but It is the nature of Scripture as the sole

Example of Theanoustos revelation in the possession of the church today

That is the foundation of the doctrine of the soul of scripture But the great advantage that modern

Roman Catholic apologists have had in this area is that The vast majority of people are talking to don't know what the doctrine is and therefore when they define it

They get to in essence misdefine it For example asking if the

Apostles were were Bible only Christians the Apostles were receiving revelation

How could they be? You would think that would be obvious but the vast majority of people don't catch and go

No, the issue is today you and I agree. There's no more revelation. So the question is for the church today

What is the sole infallible rule of faith based ontologically on what it is and They have to agree.

The only thing we have that is Ontologically Theanoustos God breathe is scripture

Hence, it has to have the highest authority. There cannot be anything That that is equal to it, but they'll say oh, well in reality

The written and the oral are actually equal. Well, no, no, they're not Because now you're going back to a period that you you don't exist in anymore and You're trying to well, basically, you know sort of put one over on us so you can insert your teachings

Which you cannot trace back to the Apostles But the teachings that have come forth from the authority of the

Magisterium and centuries later have nothing to the Apostle you want to make those binding upon us and this is the way you do it and You get away with it because the vast majority of folks on our side have never really thought through what these issues are

We need to do that now we are going to do that we're gonna we're gonna Define this stuff and we're gonna spend time on this and and everything else and one of the really tricky things is

I'm even going To present you with keynote slides Somehow if I can figure out how to do that That will assist us in this this particular task.

But first I want to talk a little bit about How am I gonna project that?

Hmm The DDD, let's see what happens if I hit play.

Oh That's gonna cause a cause a mess. We should have practiced this earlier. Sorry about that Trying to trying to tell the computer look over at this now and Keynote, yeah, but if I go like this something tells me it's gonna get all messed up.

Do you have You well, I don't know that's you. Yeah Cuz see until you until you hit and until you hit the the the thing you don't have a presenter view

That's what it's showing. It is a presenter view. It's not showing you the other other What it's supposed to be see if you were using a miss.

So I'm afraid desktop presenter I can't hear you. So I You're talking to yourself right now, so You're still talking to yourself.

I cannot hear you. So we will figure out something eventually And it's not gonna look as pretty as it could otherwise.

So anyways too late for that All right, but before I get to all that there are lots of resources on this subject and unfortunately

They're not at the top seller list and and they're they're not gonna be really easy necessarily to find this is not a new subject

This has been a subject been around for a long long time And so you go back to shortly after Reformation got

William Whitaker's book. This is still being published So I did glory publications

I'm not sure if Sully Dale took this back or if Ligonier has it or who has it right now, but disputations on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker rather major tome

Material here that will address the subject of Sola Scriptura in a very useful fashion

Goods GOOD's three volume. I don't have that in here with me right now. I only have it in photocopy format another

Demonstration that this has been a subject that has been addressed a rather in -depth for a lengthy period of time

At the time of the apostasy of Cardinal Newman. Well, he became Cardinal Newman George Salmon's book the infallibility of the church

Also a very very useful Volume mine is highly highly marked up great

Resources here again. These are books that it'd be Rather difficult for people to locate these days to be perfectly honest with you

We have William Whitaker available when we come to canon issues

A few that we have in the bookstore would include

William Webster's book the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha Real interesting discussions, especially in regards to the fact that you know

One of the one of the issues that will demonstrate Rome's errors here is the fact that You do not have a dogmatic definition of the canon of Scripture Until 1546 and Yet the argument will be well without the church's authority.

We can't know what Scripture is Well, then the church didn't know what Scripture was until 1546 Well, there were but they're lesser councils you you never let us hold you accountable for non -ecumenical councils

But then you want to use 382 or Hippo or Carthage or something and all sudden change that rule. You got to be consistent

You do not have a dogmatic statement. In fact, I can show you that the Popes of Rome the bishops of Rome Did not view the

Apocryphal books as inspired. So what are you gonna do after 382? So the

Apocrypha is a real problem for the Roman Catholic Church because the the idea that Rome can define canon comes back to bite her and To demonstrate the problems here speaking of that Roger Beckwith not

Frank Beckwith Roger Beckwith the Old Testament Canon New Testament Church. This is not easy reading. You saw me recommend this

During the Hebrew Israelite debate when we're talking about the Apocrypha What the

Jewish people accepted as Scripture the process that you know, this is this is heavy scholarly stuff but it's a tremendous resource on that particular subject also available at alman .org

and then in the modern Context Michael Kruger's books. This is just one of them.

I didn't grab the other one Sorry about that, but he has two actually this is the hardback version of Canon revisited

And then there's a second that's come out since then by Michael J Kruger Excellent theological works on the subject of the canon of Scripture because canon is an issue that we will be getting into Carlo did bring it up.

He didn't say a lot about it But he did say that it was a necessary sacred tradition outside of Scripture Which is going to raise all sorts of problems for him down the road.

I did not get any feeling in listening to his statements that he has

Listened to debates where this actually was fleshed out and the real problems that this presents to the

Roman Catholic were brought out but Anyway, I mentioned that I addressed sola scriptura in the

Roman Catholic controversy and of course in Scripture alone more fully the can issues in Scripture alone and things like that, but both books address the issue of Canonicity and then of course the three volumes set available through the ministry as well

David King William Webster Holy Scripture the ground and pillar of our faith So you have a biblical defense of sola scriptura.

You have a historical defense of sola scriptura volume 3 is nothing but patristic citations in regards to the subject of The scriptures the principle of sola scriptura you need to realize that that Roman Catholics that especially

Catholic answers sort of thought Church history is ours when they first started most of the people that they were debating

Calvary Chapel pastors and stuff like that really Didn't bring a historical perspective or or see themselves, you know, most most modern evangelicals don't see themselves

And obviously I've spoken against this many times, but don't see themselves in that That stream and hence rarely bring up Citations from patristic sources and things like that.

We sort of changed that especially in that that debate for the first time in January of 1991 on the papacy and The the landscape has never been the same to be perfectly honest with you, so Those are issues

These are resources that are available to you For much more in -depth reading and study on this particular subject.

It is a vitally important One as as well. Alright, so with that said

I guess You know what I wonder what happens if I do

That's probably Still just a mess My concern is that you may be still getting the presenter screen, it's the whole screen.

Yeah Technical difficulties here.

Yeah, that's that's a bit too big If you can find a way to tinker with that and get

I can't my no, it's not possible. Yeah, I'll take that down. So so all

I'll be able to show you is The production screen which

Isn't isn't ideal, but it's the it's the best we can do. Let me let me zoom in on that Well, you do what you need to do all right, so Let's let's take a look at the subject of solo scriptura first Because we need to define what the issue is and what it is not in the vast majority of instances

Where people get themselves into trouble it's because they are defending a Concept that they shouldn't be defending in the first place.

It's because they have been Forced into believing that well solo scriptura means that the scripture contains all truth and here's a truth

It's found outside of scripture. Therefore solo scriptura is wrong Or solo scriptura doesn't tell us what

Matthew what color Matthew's eyes were or what the apostolic meals were on the night of April the second in the second year of Jesus's ministry and therefore solo scriptura is wrong

So many misrepresentations that what is required is an accurate understanding of what's actually being said this is also vitally important because We have yet to get a

Roman Catholic apologist to defend the other side of this issue They only want to attack solo scriptura. I have not found any

Roman Catholic apologist and we've been debating now for 26 years Who will defend positively the

Roman Catholic side we've done the papacy but the idea of Defending the nature of tradition they realize this isn't going to work

This is a dangerous place to go because the reality is many of the arguments using in solo scriptura are equally effective

You know, you've heard Patrick Madrid's argument that solo scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy

It's led to all this disagreement and all this difficulty in understanding What what people believe but the reality is?

That those are an argument like that is just as effective against Rome. I mean look at the differences between Benedict and Francis How vastly different they are and they're allegedly the

Vicar's of Christ Look at look at look at how different The teaching found in Catholic Answers Live is from what you would get at Boston College and yet they're both

Roman Catholics You mean the the magisterium isn't Clear enough to provide clarity on these issues

So There's we have yet to get anyone the closest anyone's ever come.

You got to give him props. It's Bob St. Genes You know, he's closest anyone's come St. Genes was willing to defend the bodily assumption of Mary.

Nobody else will touch the Marian doctrines the 10 -foot pole They'll only do the ancient ones, you know,

Jerry Matatix and I did the Marian dog dogmas in 1996 or seven somewhere around there and Then he and I did the

Immaculate Conception years later at the University of Utah Which is really weird place to be debating that particular subject.

But anyway but getting any of the mainstream Catholic apologists today to actually step up and defend

The things that have been declared as dogma on the basis of sacred tradition by the

Roman Church papal infallibility The Immaculate Conception bodily assumption

Mary next to impossible Next to impossible because they they know That these things are really not defensible outside of already having accepted their fundamental

Claims of authority and if you don't well, there you go. So let's take a look at what it really does say

Let's let's think about some of the objections that People would have while the text will be looking at later on second

Thessalonians 2 15 So then brethren stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter from us

So clearly what you have here we are told by Roman Catholics is And in fact,

I could have pulled up Jerry Matatix on Long Island And I remember very clearly in the second debate that we did

He stood up in front of the people and he presented this particular Text and he said here is an explicit biblical command that you

Protestants are not obeying You are not obeying this command and You are only holding to half of it because it says

Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught whether by word of mouth, which you're not doing.

That's the oral tradition or By a letter from us. All you're doing is you're holding to that latter

Part of the command so you're only obeying half of it and we Roman Catholics we are holding to all of it

There's there's where you you have the argumentation and it is true that Carlo will go to this

I can play it for you, but we'll get that a little bit later on after we've sort of defined things, but the first time that I Was ever asked about a

Roman Catholic Position on this subject of authority Was at an outreach dinner on a

Monday night at the large Baptist Church I was a member of that time many many years ago and it was about 2nd

Thessalonians 2 15 If you want to be prepared To deal with this subject with Roman Catholics with someone who's been listening to Catholic answers live for a while These are texts you need to know have memorized know the context be ready to give a meaningful response to just no question about that whatsoever

How could the early church have functioned by? Sola Scriptura God's Word was often in oral form even during periods the history of the nation of Israel when we think back to Jeremiah There would be times when the

Word of God that came to Jeremiah Was in written form before it was in. I'm sorry.

It was in oral form for is in written form Doesn't that deny Sola Scriptura? This requires us to understand what

Sola Scriptura is this requires us to understand why we believe what we believe about it

We're also asked for example, how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? How do you know

Matthew belongs in the canon while Thomas does not? How can you have a fallible listing of infallible books and I'm putting a bunch of stuff here together just so you have a sense of Just how many attacks there are and how they touch upon a wide spectrum of things and Why therefore it's so valuable in so many different areas not just dealing with Roman Catholicism But dealing with Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses or Islam or atheists understanding

Sola Scriptura is vital to a balanced Christian life let alone a balanced

Christian apologetic and I think we're seeing what's happening in our day when you don't have that foundation

It's easy to go the wrong direction So I remember the the worst debate

I've ever heard in my life. I haven't heard it for years I don't know if I could even find it

I Think I think I have seen that Cheapy plastic cassette tape box somewhere in a box.

I think it's still around Um Yeah, yeah, but I would

I would love to find the tape well, I'm not sure that I would love to It might cause me to ride off the road in the dark screaming but Here's what happened in 1993 the

Pope came to Denver for World Youth Day and When we heard the Pope was coming we contacted

Catholic Answers and we said hey that the Pope's come to Denver. How about we We debate in In Denver on the papacy and the response from Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid was you know?

The Holy Father is coming and we don't consider this to be a time of debate And this is a time of rejoicing.

So why don't you contact Gerrymatitics? I'm not sure they'd even admit today that they said why don't you contact

Gerrymatitics, but They did and so we did and that resulted in the two -night debate in 1993

Between myself and Gerrymatitics the first night at Denver Seminary the second night at the Presbyterian Church there locally about Seven seven and a half hours worth of debate on the on the papacy well, very interestingly shortly after we announced

That Gerry and I were doing those debates all of a sudden Here comes an announcement that Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid are

Debating in Denver on the same night as the first night of our debate now.

How did that happen? and They debated Ron Jackson.

No Bill Jackson and Ron Nemec. Bill Jackson and Ron Nemec Now I've never met either one

You know, I knew something about Bill Jackson had been dealing with Roman Catholicism for a while, but I didn't know either one we get back from Colorado and I'm sent a

Tape of this debate. It was honestly it was as bad as listening to The debate between Achmed Ddot and Jimmy Swagger.

Oh Yeah, it was bad it was oh it was it was really really bad it was so bad that the

Catholics had a What we call a Catholic altar call in the parking lot

After the after the debate to call people to come back to Rome. It was just horrible Jackson and Nemec were completely unprepared

Completely not up to the task and But the arguments that were used against them were not good arguments at all

That's why that's what led to the debate between myself and Patrick Madrid a few months later in San Diego Though it's fascinating to compare the difference in Patrick Madrid's presentation against me as the one that was made against them

In other words, they were willing to change their their arguments based upon the level of the person they were debating

So you'd use The cheapy arguments against someone you knew wasn't gonna be a refute it But then you didn't do that against someone who you knew would

I won't do that. I don't I don't think that's right I would like to think maybe

That Patrick Madrid wouldn't do that today. That would be cool if that were the case, but that's what happened

You can go back and listen to him. I'll bet Patrick's got the tapes I know we do somewhere

Anyhow One of the questions that was asked by if I recall correctly It was Carl Keating of the other side was how do you know

Matthew wrote Matthew? And the response from the Protestants was because it says in my Bible the gospel according to Matthew Yeah, okay, all right now

That was still an invalid argument The papal biblical

Commission doesn't know that Matthew wrote Matthew The scholars that the

Pope puts on this this biblical Commission Most of them don't think that Matthew wrote Matthew So it really showed that the difference between the apologists on the one side and the scholars on the other side when it comes to Roman Catholicism, but the issue of canon

You know, what what about R .C. Sproul's statement that the the biblical canon is a fallible listing of infallible books

How can you have a fallible listing of infallible books? What's the relationship between the canon and the ontological nature of scripture and stuff like that?

Again, that's why you need Kruger and I address the same thing as scripture alone and things like that And then of course solo scriptura leads to anarchy look at the 39 ,000 dominations the world that number just keeps getting bigger and bigger

No one can agree on anything it's all just personal opinion each man is his own Pope and so Very common argument you'll find it in not by scripture alone

You'll find it, you know throughout the history of this rock magazine when it existed

Very very common argumentation that is used. Unfortunately. It is just as valid against Roman Catholicism and its magisterium nearly every person featured on such television programs as the coming home

Network as A convert to Rome from non Roman churches and in particular formerly evangelical converts

Mentioned their inability to defend solo scriptura as central to their acceptance of Roman authority and their conversion to Roman Catholicism And this is just a given

I'm not sure how many volumes ended up being in the Surprised by truth series

I know of at least three and In the first one when it came out if I recall correctly, I'm just going off top my head, but It's something something like 11 out of 15 or something like that Mentioned solo scriptura as one of the primary reasons for their conversion

To Roman Catholicism, so it is right there. So let's define after 42 minutes finally

Let's define solo scriptura since Rome rarely ever does so accurately and that just is my experience

Look at its biblical basis then put the shoe on the other foot and see where Roman Catholic apologists are loath to ever defend positively their own view of authority solo scriptura

Briefly stated is simply this Because the scriptures are the only example of God breathed revelation in the possession of the church

They form the only infallible rule of faith for the church Okay so at its

Base what we're gonna keep coming to and what we're gonna keep seeing as we interact with Carlo Broussard's comments and and with others

We get down to the the nitty -gritty when you if you go watch my debate with Mitch Packer.

I'm gonna play you a clip When you when you listen to the the dialogues and the debates and everything that has taken place

What you have to keep in mind is That there are two positions being presented.

As I said Rome is loath to put to show her hand She just wants to attack solo scriptura so that you by default have to accept her claims

She never wants to have to make a positive argument for her side because it's extremely complex and Once you hear it you realize wait a minute

You just borrowed a bunch of my beliefs that you were attacking earlier on. How'd that work?

There's tremendous inconsistency but at the at the bottom what you've got is one side saying

If it is God breathed it has ultimate authority by Definition when

God speaks there is nothing by which he can swear To demonstrate the truthfulness of what he's saying.

These are these are things you're going Oh, that sounds like what you're saying about Andy Stanley and the nature of Scripture.

Exactly exactly If it is the Anustos by its very nature it does not appeal for its authority to any higher authority because there is no higher authority than God speaking and The only thing possessed by the church today that is the

Anustos is the Scripture Now you'll find people who will

Try to argue the church is the Anustos That tradition is the

Anustos But In my debate with Mitch Pacwa, which is why

I brought this up a little bit earlier on I Asked him I asked him I said father

Pacwa has has Rome dogmatically defined a single word

That Jesus ever spoke That is not found in sacred scripture

No, no has it has the Roman Catholic Church defined as Dogma a single word that any of the

Apostles ever uttered or wrote That is not found in sacred scripture

No, no, no, no, no, there's nothing nothing like that So That which is divine revelation is

Limited to that which is found in scripture, right? Well, most most definitely there's nothing when you talk about the oral traditions

What's the substance of oral tradition? It's not more words It's not more revelation and it's not the

Anustos By definition therefore it has to be on a lower authority a lower plane of authority

Than that which is the Anustos now

Rome on the one hand will say Ontologically speaking

Scripture is different from tradition small t

Though it's part of sacred tradition capital T There's no consistency here.

And and those who know history know that for example the Council of Trent there was there's a lot of argument About what's called pardon pardon partly in scripture partly in oral tradition

Well, there's a the two -source theory And exactly how these two sources Relate to one another has been a lengthy amount even in modern

Roman Catholicism is a issue of disagreement and Yet while she'll say revelation has ceased

I Really think a number of honest Roman Catholics have to admit and they serve say this amongst themselves when you look at And especially the last two

Marian dogmas that were defined De Fide by faith you'd understand in Roman Catholicism.

You could teach something as a doctrine and disagree with it But if it's taught as a dogma de

Fide by faith that becomes definitional. I Realize that Pope Francis sort of bends all of this.

That's one of the problems. I think that a lot of Roman Catholic apologists have today's Yeah, we used to say that but we're not really sure anymore, that's that's the problem but de

Fide dogma is Supposed to define the faith and if you question it and all

I got to do is read These specific documents that announce the

Immaculate Conception the bodily assumption of Mary Munificentissimus Deus that was one of them read the final sections and And tell me that they were not intending to communicate with clarity

That you are cut off from the true and living Church if you reject If you knowingly reject these teachings now, they they want to call us separated brethren.

I Don't think the Pope's had defined those things really had that in mind certainly not back in the 1800s the papal syllabus of errors and things like That kind of Catholicism I can deal with because you know, they actually believed something

It's it's always tough for me to deal with liberals whether it's liberal Catholics liberal Protestants anything else because it's like nailing jello to a wall

It's a little bit easier to deal with folks who have a identifiable belief. But anyway, anyway It's all gonna come down to this issue and it just seems that a lot of Roman Catholics do understand

We sort of have to view these last Marian dogmas as as revelation Because I don't care what you do talking about formal and material sufficiency

Neither of those teachings are even implicit in Scripture anywhere

And if you want to cite 2nd Thessalonians 2 15 You really want to try to demonstrate that the

Apostles delivered as a tradition to the Thessalonians those beliefs Impossibly Not possible.

They didn't it There's there's as much historical evidence that the

Apostles delivered to the Thessalonians the modern

Roman Catholic teachings about the Immaculate Conception about the Assumption of Mary as There is for the

Nephite civilizations in the Book of Mormon Okay, it's on the same level. It's called fiction so you're sort of stuck with With some type of revelatory nature to the definition of these beliefs

So on the one side revelations cease, but on the other side well Sorta There's your problem.

There's your problem. In other words since the Bible is

Theopneustos and by the way People hear me said all the time and some of the sticklers like to say well

There's a pie in there. I realize that and some people say Theopneustos I just don't want to spit all over my microphone and so When I took

Greek my Greek professor taught us it was okay When you have the

Pi -Neu Conjugation to simply say Theopneustos there's sort of there is sort of a stop there, but if you want to say

Theopneustos and spit on people and Therefore impress them. Let's remember. This is ancient

Greek and Exactly how it's pronounced no one really knows so don't get too

Uppity about anyways in other words since the Bible is Theopneustos God breathes as Paul says in 2nd 316

It provides to us the very voice of God notice Matthew 22 31 one of my favorite texts in all of the

Bible Where the Lord Jesus in speaking to the Sadducees says have you not read?

What God spoke to you? saying Jesus held men accountable to the written

Word of God as if God had spoken the words to them directly if that's not what Theopneustos means

I don't know what it does mean but while the beauties of Scripture is this this tapestry of truth woven together in Consistency in beautiful in beautiful consistency there it is

God's voice can admit of no higher or equal Authority it is the ultimate authority in all things for God cannot refer to any higher authority than self to establish the truthfulness of what?

He says it is by definition an absolute authority

Sola Scriptura denies that there is another infallible Rule of faith for the church there may be other rules

But they are not infallible, and they are subject to the correction of the highest authority that is

Scripture now. Let me Point something out to you here if I can bring it up This was you probably want to drop that for a moment this was listen listen to Just a statement just in the introduction of the of that program from Catholic answers last

Friday listen listen to these words hermeneutical principle of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura by Scripture alone

So the Bible alone is thought to be the sole rule of faith for Christians catch that Would you have caught that I did

But I've been doing this for catch that let's listen listen to get a patch coffin says Scripture by Scripture alone

So the Bible alone is thought to be the sole rule of faith for Christians where the where the word infallible go

It's not there So it's it's real easy to demonstrate and they will do this that we have other rules of faith

We have statements of faith. They love to point out that especially Evangelicals who maybe don't have a statement of faith.

They're not confessional. They don't have a confession of faith, whatever You know Bible only Christians me and my

Bible under a tree someplace. They like to point out That they pretend on the one side not to have any other rules of faith

But the reality is they do they have their traditions. They have their liturgies. They may be ignorant of them

They may not use those words to describe them, but they've got them anyway, and they're right But that's not what solo scriptura is so it is a very common thing for Roman Catholics to not accurately define the doctrine of solo scriptura when they're explaining it to other people and You know with this next generation, you know,

I could fault Madrid Aiken Keating Syngenis Matitix which they wouldn't include as a

Roman Catholic and I wouldn't today either to be perfectly honest with you Or any of the other guys That I've debated

I can fault them because we've covered this but a lot of these guys, like I said a little bit a little bit on the younger side and so There you go,

I just noticed I tweeted this out I'm wearing my g3 conference shirt one of my g3 conference shirts

It is a perk of being a speaker Don't don't hate me but I thought it would be extremely appropriate today because G3 this year is going to be all about the soul as the

Reformation and We are working on a debate

For the day before the conference starts on Roman Catholicism. We're working on it Can't give you details right now, but if what we're hoping for happens, it'll be big.

It'll be big. So we will of course It'll be huge. It'll be huge.

We're gonna make Christianity great again. Yeah Stop I want to make this stuff useful and within Anyway, it's not could be useful anymore

Hey Okay, so we go back to go back to this screen here

Infallible rule of faith the church. It's the highest all other rules of faith are to be Under it and subject to its corruption its correction

There may be other rules But they're not infallible and they are subject to the correction of the highest authority

Scripture as Augustine put it and here's where the Roman Catholic hears nails being dragged across a chalkboard when you start quoting early church fathers

But we've got a lot of early church fathers to quote What more shall

I teach you than what we read in the Apostle for Holy Scripture? fixes the rule for our doctrine

Lest we dare to be wiser than we ought Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher so this idea of a secondary source this idea of partum partum which was

Present in the council fathers at the Council of Trent partly in Scripture partly in oral tradition the any idea of equality and and Carlos Broussard Contradicted himself.

I'm just gonna say Carlos. I'd like to hear how you think you didn't contradict yourself. But at one point he says Ontologically only scriptures is inspired sacred tradition is not but then he quotes 2nd

Thessalonians 2 15 equal How can they be equal when ontologically one is by definition a supreme authority?

Another one is not Leave that to you to explain but there's what

Augustine had to say about that and there's much much much much more along those lines I have a number of quotes that I will show you but as I said, if you really if You really want to get into this folks

There they are Oh, but it's not electronic. Yeah, and it looks greater on your shelf though It really really does look good on the shelf three volumes

Holy Scripture David King William Webster, especially that third volume. The first two volumes are books.

There's argumentation citations So third volume is just citations Just citations from early church fathers on this particular subject great resource for you to have and you know,

I Wonder this thought just crossed my mind. I wonder

Especially because I I'm hoping that Carlos is gonna listen to this. I really am He seems to be a really passionate guy,

I think it sounds like he really believes what he believes And I like I said, I didn't get the get the feeling that he's really interacted with a lot of The best on our side

So, I hope he does listen, but I wonder how many of them Have any of those books that I showed you that that set the ones

I put over there on the shelf in their library Well marked as I have an

I have a huge Roman Catholic segment In mind and in fact, I I heard an ad that I'm gonna be in I'm gonna be interested in getting this

Gary Machuda has a new book out and Gary Machuda It's a book basically about how

Those of us on our side hang ourselves We we prove the truth the Catholic Church and one of the people I said with quotes from John Calvin proving the truth of the

Catholic Church, I'm What I what I'll do is I'll get hold of it now. I I'd rather get hold of it in electronic format because it'll be easier for me to actually get around to reading the entirety of it

So, I don't know if this could come out in Kindle format or not Probably not for a while or if it ever does I don't know we'll see but you know, we read stuff like that I just wonder how many of them read carefully even fully

What has been written in response to them? I don't get the feeling that a lot of them do it and that's

That's troubling Troubling to me. All right, what sola scriptura is?

What it is the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the church

Since they are the honest us God breathed they are by definition Ultimate authority where there can be no higher authority than God himself all other rules of faith creeds

Councils or anything else produced by the church herself is subject to the ultimate correction of God's Word that is what solo scriptura means

It has there's nothing there about scripture being Exhaustive as a

Revelation of everything there is to know about the world around us There is nothing there that says that we cannot learn from preceding generation

There's nothing there that says That the church has no authority to teach

But the church's authority will always be derivative as the bride of Christ. She will always be subject to the voice of Christ Solo scriptura is about the nature of scripture as the ultimate authority

Must be understood Um must be understood, all right now let's go ahead and take that down and Let's take it completely out because I'm going to switch what

I'm feeding you And I'm going to give you accordance

Because we'll probably spend the rest of our time my goal my thinking right now is To probably go for another half hour, so it'll be an hour and a half and Then switch over to the video that sounds about right

You can only take so much of me I Have been very appreciative of the

Many people said we were like the longer programs, but you got to understand there's just only so much of me that anyone can actually take and I'm sure that my daughter granddaughter

Clementine's probably falling asleep by now and So on so forth so we don't we don't want to don't want to push it too far, but you're getting accordance now

You're getting things set up there, okay? Carlos Broussard Gave what sounded like a pretty thorough refutation of Our use of this text and he talked about Greek and everything else why

I like talking about Greek, too I've liked I've liked taught. I've liked teaching

Greek as well and This has come up in our debates in the past But what

I understand is especially since I debated a High ranking representative of Catholic answers on this very subject now.

I realize Carlos Broussard was only Uh Well, I think he said he was baptized in 1982 so he was only 11

When this debate took place, but hey, it's all on tape Have the issues really changed that much?

and I raised the issues of Arteos and The meanings of these words way back then and for some reason he didn't respond to what

I said Um So we wonder why well probably because we haven't actually

Listened to it, but let's let's let's back up a little bit farther than Carlos Broussard did let's go back to 2nd

Timothy 3 10 now you followed my teaching my my conduct

My purpose my faith my patience My love and my perseverance

The persecutions the path a mess in the the sufferings

Such as those that happened to me at Antioch and Iconium at Lystra What?

persecutions I underwent or endured and out of all of these the

Lord delivered me or or rescued me and Verse 12 indeed all of those desiring to live a godly or in a godly fashion in Christ Jesus will be persecuted by there's a

There's a verse that doesn't exactly get preached upon a whole lot and maybe memorized a lot or really anyone wants to think about it too much, but Paneroi evil men and And Imposters not about that got a tis got a tis.

I'm sorry got a tis interesting word Imposters will proceed from bad to worse deceiving and being deceived deceiving and themselves being deceived imposters

They're gonna be imposters in the church people claiming to one thing and they're not

Man these days you can't call anybody an imposter They get to sue you But so so so what's the context here?

Bad times are coming Timothy I'm not gonna I'm not gonna Paint a rosy picture that the church is going to float along on flowery beds of ease

There are difficult times Coming Timothy and and you're gonna have to defend the faith and you're gonna have to deal with evil men and even imposters

Trying to get into the church Now isn't this the very time?

If you're talking about, you know, Timothy is in position of Christian leadership pride in the church in Ephesus and Wouldn't this be the time for Paul to say now

Worry not Timothy Simply follow Peter simply

Look to the successors of Peter in Rome. I would think this would be the time to do it just like that really important text in Acts 20 calls the

Ephesian elders to himself and he says I Know men are gonna rise even from your own ranks

Stealing sheep drawing disciples off after themselves perverting the truth In a situation like that man, this is this is the this is when you'd exactly expect

The scriptures to positively teach but you hold to that oral tradition

You hold to the magisterium you hold the successors of Peter This would be where where we'd find it

Wow Verse 14, but you however

Continue abide remain in The things you have learned from Martha a taste a disciple

Things you have learned and the things you have and it's piste.

Oh, which would refer to you know pistis is the faith just you always to believe and so it's

It's you become convinced of something it's something you believe To the point of conviction knowing from whom you learned these things and That from childhood the

Hierogrammata oedos you have known The sacred writings

The sacred writings now, I was a little surprised when

Carlo first addressed this that he didn't bring up one of the most common arguments It came up from a caller later on.

We'll look at this later on We're gonna lay a solid foundation first because that's the best way to handle something like this.

I Was a little surprised though. He didn't bring this up right at the bat off the bat because Well the most common arguments,

I mean you can take this all the way back I'm fairly sure I didn't double -check this and I am

NOT an infallible man by any stretch of the imagination and my memory is not what it once was My short -term memory is pretty much gone, but my long -term memory is doing okay

And my recollection is that at one point I traced this argument all the way back to To DeSales Who was the great?

anti -calvinist counter -reformation writer so That takes us all the way back.

I'm pretty certain Well at least at least 400 years So this argument isn't new and the arguments this if you cite this text in Presenting the sufficiency of scripture you're proving too much because when it proves the sufficiency of the

Tanakh and Therefore you don't need the New Testament because what did

Timothy know? Well Apobrefus for Timothy means

Before there was any written New Testament pride probably before there was anything written in the

New Testament at all Depending on how old Timothy is That from childhood clearly

Hierogramata is the Tanakh it is the scriptures of What we would call the

Old Testament the Torah and the Nevi 'im and the Ketuvim. So is this only

About that Well, you got to understand this would be all that this would be this this is the scripture of the

New Testament Church That's why Beckwith's book over there the Old Testament canon of the New Testament Church That was the scriptures we we

I Responded in shock when Andy Stanley said that the New Testament writers were not people the scriptures most

Certainly were and the early church very much people the scriptures Central to their experience their worship their teaching everything

But it was the Tanakh there was no New Testament is yet and so Historically speaking.

There is no question that this is the referent Will that change our

Understanding of what this text is teaching. Well, let's continue walking through it carefully and Find out if that is the case

Notice it goes on to say ta do nomina say Which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus, so As soon as you have the have the mention the scriptures ta do nomina

They they are able the ability of the scriptures to Suffice I and this is another place where you know

Greek has verbs where we don't So to give wisdom it's literally to make well even make wise doesn't it's to wise somebody we do it again

We just don't have the words to express it To wise you unto salvation

But through faith, which is in Christ Jesus So the scriptures have a capacity they have an ability in and of themselves

To Enlighten and to make you wise

Unto salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus the early church had no concept of the

Tanakh being anything other than the very Prophetic word that announced the coming of the

Messiah Jesus when he meets the disciples, what does he do?

Explains how from Moses through all of the prophets speaking of me speaking of me

This obviously had been passed on to Timothy by Paul So the context then

What we have for verse 16 is about the ability of Scripture to accomplish something it is a positive

Presentation of the capacity and ability of Scripture to do something.

Well, what is it's sufficient to Make you wise for salvation if it's able to accomplish something

Then it must be sufficient for that task Okay So it's it's in that context that we have

Pass a graph a they are new stars. Kai. Oh Philemon. Oh Philemon. There's there's there's profitable

Philemon sprawls to Tosca Leon now the Ophelia moss profitable has four

Phrases following it prostitutes Galeon cross elegmon and those two sort of go together when you think about it because it's teaching and Well, actually

Take this back what people have seen is If you look at it the first Let's bring it up.

The first the Tosca Leon is teaching and the last cross by Dion in righteousness

Tain and the Kaiasune so people have seen the first and the last as Referring to the positive proclamation of doctrine teaching training and righteousness, but then cross elegmon is reproof and upon north

Orthosin Ortho you see the ortho there Correction but it's so in other words, you know, like an orthotic in your shoe is supposed to straighten something out

So that's what you have here is a straightening out so what people have seen is a chiastic a chiasm here chiastic structure

Where the first and the fourth go together and then the two in the center go together okay, well maybe you know,

I I Understand that that's especially the case and in you know

Old Testament writings and poetry and stuff like that Maybe it was a sermon illustration of Paul had come up with and so he put it in a poetic form or something

I don't know It just seems when you're writing to Timothy that I'm not sure you necessarily do something like that, but it's possible.

It's a possibility The point is what do all these things have in common? there what the man of God of Necessity must do in the church

The man of God must teach And all you gotta do is look at first and second

Timothy And Titus and you will see over and over again the importance of teaching and doctrine and sound doctrine and all that kind of stuff over and over and over again and Training up in righteousness

This is what the man this is something the man of God has to be constantly doing in the church

This is what he's called to do. This is his this is his usefulness in the church But there also needs to be reproving

Reproof there's going to be error. And so where do you go to to to find the basis for reproving?

those who become imbalanced or or those who've gone out of the way so for correction

Not walking straight you need to be corrected remember what remember what Paul said to To Peter The alleged first Pope he was not ortho poe de owing.

He was not walking straight in accordance to the truth of the gospel well here you have the same concept the same root being used of Speaking of not being straight there's there's a variation and so there needs to be a correction of that error.

And So our is is what Paul saying is hey Timothy don't forget

That one of the most profitable let's let's use it in its softest sense Well, the most profitable things you can do is go to scripture, but Timothy you can go to a lot of other things, too

Now if there is a constant reference of sending Timothy to something other than that which is the

Anustos Then you might have a basis for coming up with that idea

But the fact matter is you don't find anything like that We'll look at the tradition texts

The the traditions just very very quickly right now and then we will prove this as we exegete it

But the tradition in second second Thessalonians 2 15 is one body of truth transmitted in two ways

It's one gospel that has been preached and the very same message written out in the first letter to the

Thessalonians it's not some unknown body of Traditions like the

Immaculate Conception of the body assumption of Mary papal infallibility or purgatory or or sacramental priests or all the rest that kind of stuff

That is not what had been delivered to the Thessalonians They had been given one gospel and had been delivered to them in two ways

Orally by preaching and in the written word and they were to hold to both of those The point is that that one gospel is given to us in its completeness in scripture

There's nothing in the gospel that's not found in what is the Anustos So does it abuse the second

Thessalonians to use that to substantiate? all the

Devolved concepts that have become defined as dogma within Roman Catholicism, so The point is that for the man of God What he goes to is that which is the

Anustos and pasa grafe Anustos all scripture is

God breathe so Timothy go to what is God breathed Go to the ultimate authority when you stand before the people of God, it's not your opinions

That you're gonna be sharing It's that which is the Anustos. It's gonna be God speaking in his church by his word it's not just gonna be the opinions of men and How can we know this because there's a

Hinnah clause at the end verse 17 in order that ha to say you anthropos the man of God Might be and that's might be you know again remember the subjunctive does not indicate hesitancy in a

Hinnah clause it can be purpose result fulfillment We here might be it's like well, but sometimes won't be or something.

That's not that's not what's being the the reason That Timothy is to go to that which is the

Anustos is so that the man of God might be

Arteos Now the New American Standard has I think a really me translation at that point adequate

You know today that does not communicate You know maybe a while back that communicated something but the

ESV Gets really small Equipped Equipped I'm sorry complete complete.

This is so small. I had to blow up the font to be able to see it So the that the man of God may be complete equipped for every good work that the important point is

Right here ex artidso ex artidso Now again hoping that Carlo Broussard's listening to this

I hope you'll I wonder I wonder how hard it might be for you to track down The recordings

Shouldn't be I I haven't looked I'm assuming Catholic answers still make some available the recordings of our debate between Patrick Madrid and I'm on Solo scripture of 1993 in San Diego is a very hot night.

The church did not have air conditioning I did not know that and we had the What they call the

Santa Ana winds is that what they call them blowing in from the desert? No It was it was it was it was ugly.

We were we were sweating Not because the arguments because it's just so hot It's my recollection of that particular evening

But I asked Patrick Madrid a question and I'm going to ask it of you

And I would love like I said, I I don't understand Why Catholic answers has a problem their speakers

Having interactions with those who have read so many Catholic answers books and yet say no,

I I think you're wrong That's sort of how Catholic answers got a start. There was a day when

Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid were jumping at every opportunity To have a conversation like this, but doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Anyway, I asked a question Because When you when you look let me pop up a dictionary here and let me blow up the

Text a little bit so you can see this X Artidzo, this is the low and need him to make someone got to make it bigger than that to make someone completely adequate or What's the word right there?

Sufficient for something Hmm to cause to be fully qualified adequacy

Completely qualified for every good deed. That's that's low and need it About XR.

So here's the it seems rather obvious to me that if Let's go ahead and take it up there we go that if The man of God is

Is sufficient completely adequate made thoroughly equipped for every good work

By that which is they honest us That this teaches the sufficiency of Scripture to function as what the soul

Infallible rule of faith the church. I think that's what the doctrine of sola scriptura is, isn't it?

And here's the question that I asked And I'll ask it of you Carlo is teaching is teaching the

Infallibility of the Pope a Good work in the church. Let's take the last three dogmas just for the fun of it is teaching the immaculate conception a good work is

Teaching the bodily assumption of Mary a good work How then can it be said?

That that which is they honest us Thoroughly equips makes sufficient the man of God To perform those good deeds and teach those things.

I suggest you that no one can seriously argue That the scripture does that Nobody for 500 years in the

Christian Church thought it could ever thought about that Try to avoid your anachronism try to avoid looking back backwards anachronistically and simply recognize the reality that The early church didn't have this view on these doctrines.

It's it's just it just Men lived and died Great men of God without ever once mentioning any one of those beliefs that are now defined dogmatically by Rome and So You're either gonna have to extend the concept of the

Anustos to your tradition and Deny and go ahead and dump the there's been no revelation since the last

Apostle thing and just just embrace the idea of continuing revelation Or you're gonna have to admit that your system just simply doesn't work because that which is the

Anustos is able to sufficiently equip the man of God for every good work

That's where the concept of sufficiency comes from It's not from Ophelimos It's from Exartizo and Arteas put together

Is there something you want to add? You mentioned looking that recording up and we have it on our sermon audio

So if he's not able to find the cassette, it's right there in the Roman Catholicism section of our sermon audio page

The debate with Madrid does the Bible teach sola scriptura? 1993 93

September 1st 1993. Oh, it's September 1st Well, I might have fudged on the date exact date, you know

My my long -term memory isn't that accurate but it was September of 1993 for sure

Yes, I do. I do know that I don't remember what the day was. All I know is it was hot

Really really hot for San Diego recording is there for him to listen to good just why to be helpful, you know

Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much Well, they may make it available to Did anybody look it up?

I didn't look in the And look in the chat channel and the only thing they're talking about in Twitter is politics, so Well, either way we make it available for free just saying oh, yes.

Yes. Well, okay, whatever all right, so I think we've responded to everything that he said and Regards second to the 316 by looking at it.

Not only contextually, but it's original language And so I would be interested in what his response would be and You know

If Catholic answers can be convinced to allow their speakers to actually interact with people who Criticize their views which if you're giving answers

Would seem to be required of you then maybe Maybe we can we can go there

I'm going to switch. I'll show you the the Pacwa thing that I did

Later on because We're this is good. This is good. This series is gonna take a while To take us coming to a couple more programs

To get to it, but we've we've done a good solid 90 minutes and hopefully that can be useful to folks

And then we will continue on with that because there's more text to examine More issues to get into the issues canon and tradition and you know all that stuff

This is foundational Christian training It's foundational Christian training I didn't get in seminary well,

I I Did but I did only because I was already involved in apologetics and therefore

I asked To be able to do more work or read things or I would ask questions that otherwise

No one understood why in the world I was asking these questions sometimes got upset with me because I was slowing things down by asking these questions

Ah But unfortunately, I think a lot of people get through seminary without a thorough discussion of this particular subject

Especially a discussion of the subject that has been informed by Decades of encounter first with Roman Catholics, so it's got a historical bent to it along those lines and then

With others. I think that is helpful and Hopefully gonna be helpful to you guys

September 28th 1993 is that we're seeing here Yeah Yeah, Vinta.

Yeah there. There we go. Yeah, the there's actually a transcript Santran all in capitals

Santran that HTML. I forgot that someone had actually transcribed the entire debate So, yeah, it's it's out there did you know that sermon audio allows me to put stuff like that and attach it to yeah

Yeah, I do know that so I've got to grab that. I totally forgot about that. Yeah Well good. Excellent.

Okay Shifting gears put the clutch in Shifting gears as I said

Someone who's a troublemaker who will remain unnamed because he's a troublemaker and he knows he's a troublemaker

Linked me to this video that Paul Belal Williams was promoting as being really good and So let's take a look at it together shall we

We believe firmly in the deity of Christ. We have defended the deity of Christ in many instances against many different perspectives so Let's take a look at this video it is 10 minutes and 46 seconds long which means if I take two seconds for every one second notes, yeah, we may not get through it, but let's

Let's take a look at it. What? Alright, here we here we go

Despite the fact that Jesus peace be upon him is one of the most significant personalities to have ever walked the earth he's also perhaps the most misunderstood and Misrepresented person in history

Just who is Jesus? What is his nature? God man both

This video will examine some reasons from the Bible why Jesus cannot be

God The doctrine of the Trinity defines God as one being who exists

Eternally as three distinct persons the father the son the Holy Spirit Each person is said to be fully

God yet Trinitarians believe they are not three gods but one God a

Key element of the Trinity is the incarnation this teaches that the second person of the

Trinity God the Son Took on human flesh in the bodily form of Jesus Thus when

Mary gave birth to Jesus God entered into the creation as a human being

However such beliefs contradict what the Bible teaches about God's nature

Your throne is established from of old you are from everlasting Okay, first of all

So far nice graphics Accurate representation

Not sufficient representation because in the definition the Trinity it would have been nice to have emphasized

We believe there is one being of God That is shared completely by three divine persons if you do not

Recognize the difference between being and person you're not going to be able to understand the incarnation because I have a feeling you know when you say well the attributes of God are these and A human being aren't can't be these things and therefore you've got this the same

Fundamental misunderstanding that we have documented over and over again. Remember what was about a year ago simply

Syrah And I'm really bummed about something simply Syrah and I had had some nice conversations and then

We had a less than nice conversation one day the very day that Twitter became unhinged because of that video

I put up and we haven't talked ever since then I've sort of felt like That was that was bad.

So simply Syrah if you see this I'd still like to talk to you because That what happened that day.

But anyways simply Syrah's video that we viewed But I don't even think it was a full year ago very similar and What was the primary issue?

Primary issue was that the fundamental Islamic misunderstanding of what the nature of the incarnation is that God's being is

Not being changed in the incarnation it is that the

Creator who made all of creation and the human himself is

Able to take on a perfect human nature Jesus is not a mixture

The second person doesn't cease being eternal or any of these things That's why we believe what's called the hypostatic union the relationship or the divine the human in Christ one person with two natures

Those natures do not become intermixed. So there is a Voluntary self -limiting but there is not a changing of the nature if you say that God cannot possibly do this then you are putting limitations upon God That have some major ramifications.

In fact, it has been argued by some That fundamentally you you preclude

Allah from acting in time because this would Could in some forms be argued to be a change in his nature if he acts in time

He's different than before he acted in such in such a way You have to be careful

But your throne is established from old you are from everlasting Psalm 93 or Psalm 92 verse 2 even before the mountains were further ever

Thou's form the earth and world even from everlasting everlasting thou art God we believe that any trinitarian believes that there is no contradiction

Between the incarnation and the eternality of God Because it is that eternal person who's entering into time

He's not ceasing being eternal, but if he creates time he can enter into time if you say can't then upon what basis

That will be one of the questions Every good and perfect gift is from above Coming down from the father of the heavenly lights who does not change like shifting shadows

Well, that would be about the father a and B. The incarnation does not involve an ontological change in the being of God You're if you're trying to say well, it doesn't change.

This is a major change to being of God it's not changed the being of God's change in the actions of God and Since you believe

Allah has acted there was a time before creation. There's time after creation Wouldn't that be an argument against your own position

Some of the questions The Bible defines God's nature as eternal and unchanging

Indeed God cannot change because he transcends time So the claim that God became flesh is a contradiction

Such no, it's not a contradiction you you have unfortunately, just simply repeated the same

Oft refuted answered for 1 ,400 years Misunderstanding of the founder of Islam and and maybe there's no way of escaping this maybe as long as you assign ultimate authority to an erroneous source then we just simply have to keep correcting the error and praying that God will open your eyes to see what that error is and Praise be to God.

He does that We we know many who have come to understand and it's interesting those who leave us and and go to you when we ask them

About these things for some reason they never understood this They can never accurately Explain it.

Isn't that interesting? It's fascinating You're the the video is an error because it does not understand that we're not saying that the being of God has changed

We are specifically protecting against that John 1 14 says that the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory is the only begotten father

That's written by a person who fully believes what Psalm 93 says or what James 1 says or Psalm 90 verse 2 or all the other texts about the unchanging nature of God We believe that God's nature does not evolve change become greater lesser or anything else

But that doesn't mean that God cannot act in time It does not mean that God cannot join to himself as the second person of the

Trinity did a Perfect human nature that does not change the divine nature.

It is an act Of God, it's also called into question God's perfection

Since God is the pinnacle of perfection. There is no need for him to become anything if Something needs to be added to his nature such as humanity or anything else for that matter

Didn't notice added to his nature. It's it's not a matter of adding anything to his nature.

It's a matter of the demonstration of his condescension his mercy his grace his love and his self -glorifying power in Redeeming a particular people in a particular way a way that was pleasing to him and you're saying no

God can't do that. And I'm saying the Bible doesn't teach that God can't do that This is an artificial restriction that you've placed upon God partially based upon an erroneous idea of what the

Trinity is and partly based upon Philosophical philosophical presuppositions

The only person I know of that's tried to come up with an argument that would substantiate position was Abdullah Kunda in our debate on whether God can become man and his argument was that anything that is created is by nature imperfect and Therefore to take on a human nature is to join some it's imperfect to God and of course my response that is no when

God Made a perfect human being it was perfect in the sense that God intended it to be perfect You're you're making perfection and divinity equal things and Therefore anything is not divinity is imperfect

But that means God cannot God cannot create anything it's imperfect and if God creates anything he creates imperfection

Don't think you want to go there, but that was the the direction that Abdullah went

Which state is considered more godly the pre incarnation

God or post incarnation God Neither again, this is just simply an argument that would require remember first time

I've seen this so we're just low of consciousness here, but It seems that the argument here is that God cannot act in time and I'm Which which state is more godly the pre creation

Allah or the post creation Allah? the pre hijra

Allah or the post hijra Allah You know I We can we can point to a bunch of things and and say if Allah acted in these instances

Then is he more godly before or after it's and we can Even strengthen the argument by saying these are things that Allah did to glorify himself

Can I can we not find? the hijra the The night vision the night flight wasn't a vision the night flight of of Muhammad to heaven

Is not a lot glorified by his prophet revealing these things

So is he more godly before or after see this is an argument against any type of meaningful action in time

Not just an argument against the Trinity at least seems seems that way for me You can see that the doctrine of the incarnation puts

Trinitarians in a blasphemous predicament Trinitarians tried to get around this problem by arguing that when

God became a man a Human nature was merely added to God's existing divine nature

Well, I am thankful to hear hear something like this. I really am I mean believe me given that almost

Always what we hear The thing that is the most encouraging to me as a person who truly longs to see a tremendous elevation in The level of conversation between Muslims and Christians on both sides is

When I encounter a Muslim who has taken the time to actually accurately

Understand and try to bring that accurate understanding to bear in the comments they make about Christianity That's the most encouraging thing

I can see And it's not something I see very often I'll just be perfectly honest with you and A lot of times it's just struck me that it's it's definitional because of the nature of the conversation

It's it's absolutely definitional, but I'm encouraged by this Since the two natures did not mix that no, don't worry.

I realized that I'm not gonna remain totally Encouraged here in a second, but I'm not

I'm not naive I'm just just thankful to you know, we have something about something related to the hypostatic

Union here That's that's that's pretty cool. My nature did not change at all. And so God remained the same

Can this be considered valid reasoning? Well, if God added a new nature to himself, then that is a change in state

Was God always a man he was not did he become a man According to Trinitarians.

He did now. Do you see where the problem is here? there is a Even though the

Distinction has been acknowledged in what was said before it's now being ignored when

I said God became a man This is a change of states change the state of what well the being of God. It's not a change of state.

It's an action So this is the same Problem that we identified earlier.

This is this is an argument that would say a law cannot act in time Because this involves a change in the being of a lot.

No, I would I would never make that argument But that seems to be the argument is being made here no

God had not the the incarnation took place in time Because it was

God's purpose to bring about redemption at a point in time in history so as to fulfill his purposes and So no not eternally man but that's not a change of state as if there is a change in the eternal being of God all of this argumentation seems to be based upon The Philosophical assumption the eternal

God cannot act in time, which is obviously contradictory to the entire Islamic perspective in of itself

So to claim that God did not change is nothing more than philosophical wordplay

No, it is recognizing the fundamental difference between Action and the ontological statement that you recognized you accurately recognized you didn't use the term, but you were trying to describe the concept of hypostatic

Union and The divine and the human in Christ are not intermingled if they're intermingled then you have a change in the state of God But because we live in a hypostatic

Union That's not philosophical wordplay that is a

Historically recognized understanding of what is necessary to understand the word became flesh while still remaining the word

So You can dismiss it for that if you want to but it's not gonna communicate communicate anything to us

That's for sure because you're you're missing the point. The New Testament mentions an incident with Jesus and a fig tree

Jesus was hungry Seeing in the distance a fig tree and leaf. He went to find out if it had any fruit

When he reached it he found nothing but leaves because it was not the season for figs

Then he said to the tree may no one ever eat fruit from you again Okay, so I'm a little disappointed now and you all know why

I have frequently identified the fig tree argument as as one of the worst of Of the

Muslim arguments it it does not show any desire to you know Do a little reading and thinking about what's going on in this story and mark and how the fig tree represents

Israel and and The idea that Jesus didn't know At 30 some odd years of age living in Israel when figs came is just so absurd that it's really hard for me

To think that anyone would come to these conclusions. But again There are certain arguments.

They're just repeated so often and I realize many Muslims have never encountered What I don't understand is is how

Paul Williams who should know better Could recommend a video that that repeats this type of argument because he does know better if Paul Williams Repeats something like this.

It's pure dishonesty. There's no excuse for it none But it and again, it's just so common

It's amazing and You know my Muslim friends. You've got understand why this says something to us

Because There are bad arguments against Islam that are repeated often amongst

Christians and when you see them it does not help you to Listen to other arguments from Christians. Does it?

Well, this is a really bad one The idea that this is really what Mark's talking about. Well, I'll die.

I didn't know when things were by It's so obvious what's going on And yet to use this as evidence that Jesus is ignorant of something and therefore can't truly be

God I mean even let's just leave the incarnational issues aside. I can almost guarantee you but Texas could come up next not even looking

That's just such an obviously bad reading that I really really call upon y 'all stop it just Stop it.

It's it's an instant destructive mechanism of your credibility as far as a person handling the

Bible We are told that Jesus approached a fig tree because he was hungry and when he realized it had no fruit

He became angry and cursed it Now such an incident makes no sense in light of the

Trinitarian claim that Jesus is fully God God is all -knowing So if Jesus really is

God then that would make him the creator of fig trees in which case How could he have been ignorant of the fact that it was not the season for figs?

If Trinitarians want to argue that it was the limited human nature that made this mistake

Then why did the divine nature act on the mistake of the human nature? Is this a case of the human nature overriding the divine nature is such a thing possible?

Moreover, why would God curse the fig tree for producing fruit in certain seasons?

Something he himself willed it to do if Jesus is God. This is definitely one of the longest

Elucidations of a really really bad argument that I've ever seen The big tree represented is real that's what's going on in the text

Then wouldn't it have been more befitting of him to command the tree to bear fruit

Why ruin a perfectly good tree come fixes in this tree would have had fruit and others could have eaten from it

We can see that when it comes to the knowledge of Jesus It seems that either the divine nature is lacking or completely absent

How then can the claim be made that Jesus is fully God? From what we've seen it seems that Jesus is human but not divine because he lacks essential attributes of God such as possessing all knowledge

Moreover such divine shortcomings aren't just restricted to Jesus The Bible tells us that the

Holy Spirit also lacks God's perfect knowledge But about that day or hour no one knows not even the angels in heaven nor the

Son but only the Father Now this that's a pretty interesting normally mark 1332 is used

In the you know, I figured this would be the next verse I was right about that I didn't expect it to be used in in this sense

Because the Spirit's not mentioned here the ontological Categories here are humans above that the angels in heaven above that the

Son and Then the Father the Spirit's not mentioned So to make application the Spirit in this way is is again misreading the text and of course the

Muslim doesn't believe Jesus ever said anything Like this anyways Because they don't believe that he would use the title son of himself

But to use this of the Spirit where elsewhere see here's one of the problems and I'm hoping by the way,

I'm hoping if The fellows from simply Sarah or some of the others, you know,

I don't know who produced it Well, I do have I saw at the beginning. I'll try to find From the beginning

I'll see if there's a some contact information I can find and see if I can remember to drop a note To let them know that we reviewed this and hopefully in a fair and full fashion

But I Hope y 'all will recognize When when we have explicit statements in Scripture the

Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God And you ignore those?

Now, of course you could bring it up in the next section, but I sort of doubt it You all object rightly when people

Attempt to deal with the text of the Quran without dealing With the entirety of the text.

I still need to pull up the someday and make it a sound file available right on my desktop the

Statements made by Shabir Ali in his debate with Robert Maury years ago where Maury brought up what he considered to be a

Contradiction in the text and Shabir's response was but just a few verses later It says this and that you've got to allow the text of the

Quran to stand You can't just simply take parts and pieces like this and put in contradiction to itself and he was exactly right, of course

And yet that's exactly what Islamic apologetics does the Bible all the time And I think this is a particularly weak

Attempt if what you're trying to say here. It's the Holy Spirit is here. Jesus Categorically states that no one which includes himself and the

Holy Spirit knows the hour but only the Father There is absolutely no reference to spirit there whatsoever and given the fundamental belief that the spirit is the very spirit of Yahweh It would not follow that anyone listening to him would have thought that that was the case either

Since they both lack the Father's knowledge the trinitarian claim that the

Father Son and Holy Spirit are equal is false the co -equality of the persons is a central pillar co -equality in Possession of the divine nature not in the functions and so when for example the

Sun purposefully lays aside certain aspects of his prerogatives

He doesn't he doesn't glow with the bright Shekinah glory except upon the Mount of Transfiguration Things like this that's to accomplish the purpose that he has in the incarnation.

So you're confusing equality in the possession of the divine Being with Equality in the sense of all doing the exact same things in the exact same way, which you know

The father is not sent by anyone but the spirit is The Sun's the one who becomes incarnate.

It's not the spirit of the father Does it these are things that distinguish the divine persons in the economic

Trinity? But this idea of co -equality the persons is a central pillar is in regards the ontological participation the one divine

Being of God since that distinction of being in person has not really been even brought up.

I Had a feeling that was gonna end up causing a problem Without which the foundation of the

Trinity comes crashing down Graphics are cool

There's an interesting incident according to the New Testament where a Jewish teacher of the law

Approaches Jesus and asks him which of the commandments is the most important The most important one answer

Jesus is this Hear O Israel the Lord our God the

Lord is one Well said teacher the man replied you are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him

When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely. He said to him you are not far from the kingdom of God This incident was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to correct

Jewish misconceptions about God's nature What what misconceptions about God's nature?

because you see that the doctrine the Trinity is revealed in the incarnation the outpouring the Holy Spirit, which is the incarnation has now happened and Jesus is going to describe himself as the

I am and Jesus is going to accept worship from people and In the

Gospel of Mark, he's gonna identify himself as the son of man who approaches the

Ancient of Days and Daniel 7 and has servants who worship him and all this stuff so that You know, none of these videos ever deal with the positive stuff

They they they only go this direction. And again, if we did this with the Quran you would rightly complain I just simply point out you're using a double standard use a double standard.

You're not being truthful So I would call it upon you to stop doing that but there wasn't a misconception to to correct at this particular point

We are monotheists. There is only one God That being of God isn't there's only only one

God Jesus said the shema, but you need to understand that Jesus is one of Jesus's disciples

And you can't point us to any other disciples. It didn't believe this you can try to Read something into Ebionites or something like that at another stage in history, but the the people that we know who were the closest

Specifically took that very very prayer the shema shema Israel Yahweh Elohim Yahweh God and they expanded it out to include the father and the son in first Corinthians chapter 8 and that's rather important give a trinitarian understanding as You can see the exact opposite is the case

By quoting the Old Testament commandment about God being one and agreeing with the

Jewish teachers interpretation Jesus is affirming a Jewish understanding of God that is purely monotheistic and rejects all notion of God being a

Trinity That's an assumption. That is an improper assumption, of course Because you are just simply by definition saying that if you're a trinitarian, you're not a monotheist

The Trinity is monotheistic there is only one true God and one being of God that is shared completely and eternally by three divine persons the

Father Son the Holy Spirit, so That's an assumption, but it's false assumption and false assumptions are not themselves arguments

Not only is the Jewish teachers wisdom about God acknowledged But Jesus goes so far as to compliment him saying that he is close to the kingdom of God in another incident

Jesus prays to God and says Father the hour has come

Now this is eternal life that they know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent

Notice that Jesus identifies the father as the only true God to the exclusion of himself the son now no, actually he didn't do that and You know,

I I know this is Very common argumentation.

I'm sure that it's probably I don't know if you have Received responses from people.

I just don't know but Let me point something out What you're missing is first of all, what do you expect

Jesus to say? Do you expect him to be a polytheist? Do you expect him to say you're one of many gods? in addressing

God The father he refers to him as the one true God now you being a

Unitarian just assume that God can't The being of God can't be shared by three persons. So you just go up see if the father's one true

God, that's it but you You don't even finish listening about Jesus said he says this is eternal life that they may know you the only true

God and one might think of the

Wow conjunctive in Arabic he wasn't speaking Arabic, of course, but but And Jesus Christ whom you have sent

So to have eternal life, it's not enough to know the father, but wait a minute It would have to be from a

Unitarian perspective But now the only true God in Jesus Christ whom you sent I glorified you on earth having accomplished the work you gave him to do

And now father glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed now that's only one sentence later and My Muslim friends

I Wrote an entire book on the Quran and it's been out for a couple years now and I think any of you who actually have read it.

No, I Never treated the text of the Quran the way you treat the text of the Bible when you make arguments like this

Now I have to admit I have a rather sinking feeling that probably everybody

Associated with this video the productionist video I Doubt anyone even knew what John 17 5 said or even took the time to look at it

Now I I could I would actually be overjoyed If I'm proven wrong here in a second, we actually try to respond.

That'd be great that'd be wonderful, but my Skeptical side is saying y 'all might not have even thought about it.

I never approached the Quran that way Why do you approach the Bible that way? Why it?

Verse 5 can you you can't believe Jesus ever said this now again, Paul Williams recommended this video.

He should know better And some you go why are you so hard on him because he's an apostate and I Fundamentally respond differently to someone who's never known than someone who has and who's now perverting that knowledge.

I have to It's not only biblically demanded of me but Don't you as a

Muslim if you're a Muslim respond differently to a former Muslim than to someone who's never been a Muslim. Why?

What's what's the historic Islamic perspective? concerning apostasy Let's you answer that I'll let you answer that Jesus really is part of a

Trinity that he would have said the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are the only true

God From these examples, it's clear that Jesus followed in the footsteps of the prophets of the

Old Testament such as Abraham and Moses Does it make sense that God would send countless prophets over a span of thousands of years with a consistent message of pure?

Monotheism only to all of a sudden, okay I just stop it for a second and point to right there

There's Isaiah. Yeah Isaiah 714

Emmanuel Emmanuel found again in chapter 8

Emmanuel chapter 11 chapter 9 We have the

Son who's given Who's called? The Everlasting Father Mighty God, well, he's not the father

Those distinctions are New Testament. This is one who creates time itself, which is description of Jesus in Colossians chapter 1 he created all things description in John 2

You've got Isaiah his testimony to the deity of the coming one. Oh Micah 5 2 there's

Micah right there and Yeah, mm -hmm. Then we got a bunch of people here who aren't actually

Prophets but anyway point being You have those testimonies right there not to Unitarian monotheism at all

Feel that he is a Trinity a radically different message which contradicts his previous prophets teachings

No, it does not contradict his previous prophets teachings unless you assume Unitarian Monotheism you can't simply assume things you need to prove things

Muslims respect and love Jesus as a great prophet of God In fact

Islam holds a unique position among world religions as it is The only religion other than Christianity that acknowledges

Jesus as the Messiah This is a very common statement, but I always have to point out

Whenever I ask Muslims what Messiah means they just go Well Because there's nothing in the

Quran that even begins to give an understanding of what the

Messiah was supposed to do or how he functioned and You really wouldn't be able to tell

Too much about the Messiah without the New Testament fulfillments, but still it's the it's the the Muslims themselves that Not by demand from the

Quran, but by their theology Deny that Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 which is fundamental to defining what the

Messiah is and then you combine that with surah 4 1 2 7 and the denial the crucifixion of the suffering servant the

Messiah and What does it mean to say is Islam acknowledges

Jesus as a Messiah not as the biblical Messiah Messiah just doesn't mean anything in this context

So you can say that you can say you love Jesus, but let's just be honest The Jesus of the

Quran is an argument not a person How can you love someone who just shows up to mention something about Monotheism and then just disappears and only once speaks from a historical identify identifiable historical place and that's his crib

Based upon a Secondary source. It was never inspired by the way You may be surprised to know that Jesus is mentioned more times by name in the

Quran than Muhammad Peace be upon them both Yeah by name, but not

That's that's not But by name, but Jesus is not nearly as central

To the message of the Quran is Muhammad. You've got to be just because the name is only used You know that the

Prophet himself is addressed over and over and over and over again say this say that say this say that I'm not sure if that's a real valid argument at all

Mary the mother of Jesus even has a chapter of the Quran named after her

God out of his mercy for mankind Resolved all of the confusion surrounding

Jesus by revealing the Quran The Quran puts forward a clear picture of both

God and Jesus that is easy to understand I Disagree that there's a clear picture of Jesus and in the

Quran. I think there's confusion. I really do think there's confusion I mean, I do not believe that the

Quranic Jesus is Mubinun Surah 4 1 2 7 isn't Mubinun What it means that Jesus is the

Word of God. I know what that's Classically interpreted as as but doesn't look like that was the original meaning but I Disagree people of the book

Jews and Christians Do not go to excess in your religion and do not say anything about God except the truth the

Messiah Jesus Son of Mary was nothing more than a messenger of God.

It's interesting I've been a criticized a few times for using translations of the Quran that Emphasize that specific statement nothing more than but that's that's accurate to the

Arabic That is the assertion and when you say well we love Jesus, but if you're saying he's nothing more than message

That's not Jesus as a New Testament Not by a long shot That's not the

Jesus in whose name the early church suffered martyrdom. No his word Directed to Mary a spirit from him.

Yeah, what does that mean? How is that Mubinun? I? Mean you can say his word directed to Mary you can say be and he was but there seems to be more than that a spirit from him, what does that mean a

Spirit from him. Did he pre -exist as a spirit? What what what does that mean? Why isn't there an explanation of these things?

And and why does the Quran say to those of us who are? the Allah Linjil the people of the gospel to judge by The gospel when the gospel would tell us to interpret these things in completely different context

Questions we ask so believe in God and his messengers and do not speak of a

Trinity That's not what it means, you know, it's a lot of cells. It does not say do not speak of a

Trinity, you know that Felatha is not Trinity. That's three Because the very next words if you can if this is going to continue the right

Citation is going to show that the author thinks that the Trinity is three gods Stop this

That is better for you. God is only one God. Yeah right there. God is only one.

That's only one God That's polytheism. It's not polytheism. And the interesting thing is guys again

Well done presentation Well done presentation technically speaking, but did you notice you just contradicted yourselves?

Why is it Why is it guys and I Please I just want you to think about this whether you respond to me or not.

I just want you to think about this Why do you know more about the Doctrine of the Trinity than the author of the

Quran? Because the author of the Quran every time look it up every time that it says three in the

Quran The next statement is about monotheism that means They're arguing against polytheism.

The author of the Quran is arguing against polytheism. You recognize that's not what we're saying We're saying there's one being of God shared by three divine persons

Why do you know more about the Trinity than the author of the Quran himself? I?

Know why that is But you can't answer that question the way

I do He is far above having a son

Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to him and he is the best one to trust

Jesus is not God or even the literal Son of God rather. He is a man

Messenger and Messiah He is a creation of God just like the messengers that God sent before him such.

It would be really nice if somewhere in the Quran There was a meaningful interaction with what's actually contained in the

Injil Because you say Jesus is a creation of God But long before Muhammad came along Not only did

Jesus in the gospel speak of his coming forth from the father But in the gospel of John he's describes the one through whom all things are made and Even before John was written

Maybe even before Mark was written The words were recorded and sent to a group of Christians in the city of Colossae for by him were all things made in the heavens and the earth visible invisible

Principalities powers dominions of authorities all things created by him and for him and he is before all things and him all things

Hold together. That's the description of the Creator and that was said of Jesus long before these other sources That was the earliest view of Jesus There's no question about that watch my debate with Shabir Ali on the earliest sources regarding who

Jesus is University of Pretoria just a few years ago There's no question about it Think about it

Abraham and Moses God by contrast is unique and separate from his creation

Islam is a religion of clear guidance There is no confusion about who

God is and who Jesus is the Quran provides the simplest easiest and most accessible description about the nature of God It's interesting

As I view it the Quran's a u -turn it goes back away

From the greatest Revelation that the triune

God made of himself by stepping away from the incarnation the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit and In the process goes backwards But is simple easy and accessible the standard of truth

For example, do you really find it simple easy and accessible to explain how the Quran is uncreated and Yet is not a law but is as eternal as a law but is uncreated you find that easy

The questions we ask a healthy relationship with our Creator is

Only possible when we understand who he is Okay, so there you go.

Very very well made same Issues that we have addressed over and over again, but We responded to it.

I think fairly you got to listen to the entirety of it and We provide a response there we go.

So an hour and a half on Sola Scriptura just getting started in response to Catholic answers 45 minutes pretty much smack on in Response to many prophets one message calm and very well made video

Wanted to respond to it as soon as it was sent to us and that's what we did So thank you for listening to the dividing line today.

We will continue on with our Sola Scriptura examination on Thursday Lord willing.