Dr. Licona Ignores Me; Alan Ruhl and the Roman Priesthood; Steve Tassi On the Non-Debate

Well, greetings welcome to the dividing line on a Beautiful Tuesday beautiful Tuesday here in Phoenix.

I mean it was in the upper 70s this morning when I went outside I got to have the door open for a few minutes

We've been getting some rain I hit I was out on Sonoran Desert Parkway yesterday morning on a ride and I saw 68 .7

or something on my on my computer for Not for speed that'd be nice for temperature and it's like yes

You know, you live in Phoenix when you're incredibly excited to see a six At the beginning of that that temperature at any point

You know right at sunrise who cares if that's the absolute low. It's still Awesome to to see that that means it's gonna it's gonna cool off again someday.

It actually hasn't been that bad Even though they say it was the hottest July, I don't think it I don't think it was

Somebody look as long as George Soros money's involved. I don't trust anything anyway

Lots to get to on the program today as I promised we will be responding to Alan rule and his

Comments on the Roman priesthood fairly in -depth depending on time

Steve Tassi has posted his thoughts on the non -debate and Let's just say this

You have a computer on it this really is very much being fulfilled today in your world

What happened What color is the sky in your world?

Did that work? Okay good Wow, I What that what that clip says says it all it's a different planet that the gentleman lives on I mean, it's not he's just not connected with the rest of us, you know

As far as facts logic reason history of what really happened. He only hears what he wants to hear

Anything that doesn't fit into his paradigm just gets twisted into another one. It's it's it's scary. I don't do

It's pretty wild, but we'll maybe talk about that toward the end of the program want to start off I Was directed to a

Statement by Dr. Mike like Hona Someone he yesterday posted an article on Was mark confused as to the feeding the 5 ,000 now,

I have a feeling That The pushback he received including the review that we did on the program last week had something to do with that I Think that's a fair assumption

Unfortunately, he did not interact with anything that I said and that doesn't surprise him because you need to understand the

William Lane Craig Mike like Hona Realm of apologetics does not believe that folks like myself have anything meaningful to actually say we are sort of the apologetic troglodytes and we're just not up on their level philosophically and and all the rest that stuff and You know,

I I may have Debated Shabir Ali at the very place where like Hona did his studies, but that and and doesn't matter 24 books doesn't matter all the years of teaching in all sorts of different seminaries

Doesn't matter that all that stuff is irrelevant. It's Whether you accept the mere

Christianity model whether you accept the synergistic model whether you accept the classical apologetics model the the minimal facts

Argument, you know, that's far more important than anything else and the irony here is here is

Here is a man who has done this with Norman Geisler. Well, so have

I Just as just as strongly as he did but on a completely different subject and so Basically Someone mentioned on one of his threads on Facebook.

They were downloading the dividing line and he made the comment. I don't pay attention to white and Carl Jung Responded at all and Few minutes later like Hona responded.

That's correct. So Now I I know exactly what this is.

I fully understand. I'm not I'm not naive. I get it This is a way of saying this man's irrelevant

You know, don't don't listen to what these people are saying. They have nothing meaningful to say just just listen to us

I get it and we don't do that we play what they have to say interact and point out where the problems are and where the arguments don't work and try to provide a biblical

Response there. It is one of the fundamental differences between us You know, we want to have

Interaction we have challenged these folks in interaction. We don't debate Christians. We will dismiss them

You know when it's convenient for us to do so, but we won't debate them Which is rather rather intriguing.

So, you know, my response was well, you know, I pray God will bless dr. Lycona and You know,

I think this is a shame But then this morning Someone On Twitter Sean by default said

Quote I don't pay attention to white except when I tweet endorsements of his critics and quote Mike Lycona And I started thinking about it for a second.

I went. Oh, yeah, that's It's ringing a faint bell. But what was it?

And yeah, I know my memory is going obviously, but I There I have a character trait and sometimes it's a character flaw.

I Try try it believe me life is doing its best to slap this silliness out of me

But I try to think the best of people and I try not to dwell upon Negativity from the past I Actually try to forgive folks when they have wronged me

Try anyway, it's not always easy to do and I actually had to tweet back

You're you're ringing a faint bell, could you remind me what you're talking about? Then when he told me

I was like, okay, I feel stupid, um Yeah, it wasn't only it was just a few months ago

It was what six eight months ago at the most but then less than a year That Lycona was the one who promoted the

Eric Lunsbury stuff You know the guy showed up to a polygia and Told Jeff Durbin that I had agreed to debate him and all the rest of stuff and he was actually talking about some

Phone call to a friend of mine named Randy Churchill back in what? 1999 or something like that and he's got this, you know, he he thinks he's come up with something new but it's actually something's been gone over 10 ,000 times before and and you know the

Lord tells him do this Lord tells him do that and It was Lycona That had posted the tweet basically saying that I'm running from a debate challenge and all the rest of stuff

So it was it is somewhat ironic that he would

Post that but then say I'm not gonna listen to what he has to say about what I said, you know, there really is a going on here

Dr. Lycona needs to be careful doesn't trip over low -flying objects when his nose is so high up in the air

But it I Think I've debated many more Muslims than he has and as far as I know

I have far more experience than he does in teaching both Greek and Hebrew. So whatever else there is

Whatever else there is if I had gone out there and said, you know what? The Apostle Paul blew it on this and someone came back

Who has at least as much experience as I do if not more than I do Published Teaching etc, etc and said here's where you missed it.

Here's some Fundamental epistemological issues and biblical issues and stuff like that. Look at I Cannot imagine

Responding the way that he did. I I can't I can't begin to understand that I would want to know what someone like that who has that kind of experience even if I disagreed with him

I'd want to know what what they had to say but That's not how how it works there.

So it's uh It's it's sad, but there there does seem to Again this is sort of what

I experienced the seminary to there there are some in in liberal

Institutions People do not listen To what?

Conservatives have to say because they don't believe that they have anything meaningful to add to the dialogue and discussion

In this case you have an apologetic group That Clearly does not believe that the

Reformed folks have anything meaningful to add to the discussion and So simply cannot be bothered with with anything we might have to say

I Leave it to the listening audience as to whether that is wise or not and as to what that actually says

It says a lot to me, but we'll we'll leave it at that Someone the audience

Asks, what is the mere Christianity model of I've mentioned it many many times before criticized it many many many times before the idea that Well just last week

William Lane Craig laid it out very clearly in The comments that we responded to from him

And that is a least common denominator simplified tiny target Christianity that is defined by the

Trinity the deity of Christ the crucifixion resurrection period end of discussion no gospel No ability to discuss what the gospel means what the gospel demands

All that all that stuff is secondary. It's outside With mere Christianity Trinity deity of Christ Death burial resurrection of Jesus.

It's pretty much it and everything else just Takes takes lower lower positions of priority and when you do that Functionally it makes it easier to do debates because then you don't have to you can just dismiss all sorts of questions that you find difficult or or whatever

But that's not apostolic Christianity, that's not the the Christianity of the New Testament. That's not the Christianity of the

Apostles It's not what we're called to proclaim It is minimalized beyond a biblical definition and that is that is a problem and it is unfortunately very very popular out there now

I Mentioned last week Whenever we

Uh So so it's been over a year It was only it was only in May when

I was in the United Kingdom, huh? That seemed like longer ago than that Wow, you know,

I still remember really arcane facts of church history, but Don't ask me what happened back in May It's that short -term memory thing that sort of goes first Uh No, and you got so many things going on.

You just can't keep track of them anymore. That's that's that's the problem. Anyway, all right

Alan rule remember Alan rule he Evidently, I am on his radar screen.

He likes to take shots my direction before he talked about some of the silly things He said in the past but he

He decided to he heard the commentary That I offered last week

If you may recall I started off He put an article up called the double standards seem endless and Said that I'm at it again yesterday on the dividing line

He talked about the development of the Catholic priesthood. Most of you will recognize I talked about a whole lot more than that.

I Made reference to the priesthood I made reference to the

Issue of the perpetratory nature of the sacrifice of the mass and What was

I doing? I was responding to William Lane Craig and His comments in the subject of Roman Catholicism.

So what I addressed what everybody knows I addressed was William Lane Craig and his views in Roman Catholicism One of the many topics that I addressed was the development of the concept of their own

Catholic doctrine of the priesthood now what's interesting is Rules article makes it very clear that he he admits.

Yeah, the priesthood is something that developed over time but I want to focus in upon that because it's extremely important for us to understand this and It's very important for Christians to understand that Once you accept the modern

Roman Catholic doctrine of development that this is the funny thing is once you embrace this then really as George Salmon pointed out in Regards to Newman long ago once you embrace the concept of development you have abandoned the historical field of battle

Because once you embrace the idea of the acorn to the tree Then you actually don't even need to have an acorn any longer because The guide of the development of tradition becomes the magisterium and hence the magisterium can tell you what history was and was not

What an early church father meant or what they didn't mean remember how many times in the debates with Jerry Madetix Remember we first started debating

Roman Catholics. They were beating up Primarily on Calvary Chapel people Because Calvary Chapel people are not church history people

They just there's a disconnect there And they would be quoting this early church father and quoting that early church father and you remember how frustrating it was for Jerry and the others when we came back and started quoting early church fathers right back at them and Started challenging them on what they thought was their own ground well

Historically it hasn't been their own ground anybody who's read Salmon or Whittaker Any of those even if you're in the

Lutheran realm Cheminette so on so forth knows that's that that's not been the case There's always been a very lively life read

Calvin I've been a very lively interest in patristic sources and citations thereof and so on so forth so The fact is that Even when we start going into church history how many times do you hear

Jerry Madetix? Say well that was just that person's personal Interpretation when

I would quote something that would be against the Roman position well You know that that was just his personal view well

What's the difference between when an early church father says something that supports modern Roman theology?

Or when someone says something that opposes modern Roman theology? Well, it's whatever the church says

And I remember back when John Paul a second was Pope he had said something that was in direct contradiction to one of the

Ecumenical councils major ecumenical councils, and I pointed this out and Robertson Jennis who at that time was much more

Mainstream than than he is anymore Had basically said well well James the church

Gets to interpret its own history and so it's it's like today

Rome has developed the very same type of progressive Interpretation of its own history that quote -unquote progressives.

I call them regressives or more properly communists in our land today

Where the Constitution becomes a living document? What it was intended to say the grammar the words the context even the commentary of the

Founding Fathers themselves That's irrelevant. It's now a living document that we can change all of that into whatever we want it to be well

That's pretty much what Rome has said about her own history in her own writings We don't get to interpret him we can we can go back to what those councils said we can go back to Trent for example

All sorts of commentaries were written in the decades after Trent Catechisms so on so forth there really isn't much of a question as to what was meant in in so the vast majority of the documents and But that's irrelevant because you see it's a living church and so As it's a living church then it's interpreted by the living magisterium

And so if a Pope in the past says it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the

Roman Pontiff We know what he meant by that We know what that meant in his context

We know what that communicated the people around him But that is now irrelevant because we live in the modern age and I and no one

No one can look you and stare you honestly in the eye and say

I am absolutely certain that Innocent the third believed exactly

What Francis believes as the Bishop of Rome? Right. Uh -huh, and I've got some swampland out in Ajo, Arizona.

I'd like to sell you to just You you know, it's the case, you know, that's the way it is so I Now if Alan rule if it's actually

Bishop or Cardinal rule Um then okay that would give a little bit more weight to this but as far as I know it's layman rule

It's not father. It's not Bishop doesn't speak for the church is his own personal opinions and that's gonna become important because He gets to interpret things his way and the professors priests bishops at Boston College and other places they interpret things their way and How are we poor benighted

Protestants supposed to figure this stuff out, I mean man, I mean in my own lifetime John Paul the second

Ratzinger Francis They seem to have really different views on things really different takes different spins

How am I supposed to know the living voice and yeah, okay, so let's let's remember

Father Michael Mueller in the Holy Sacrifice of the

Mass page 131 he delivered his body and blood to his Apostles whom he then appointed the priests of the

New Testament and To them and their successors and the priesthood he gave a command to offer by these words do this for a commemoration of me

Luke 22 19 so the Catholic Church has always understood and taught and quote that is a lie

That is a documentable Recognized lie, it's a it's a lie of piety

But it's untrue But that's what's been taught within one realm of Roman Catholic piety and belief

I have a feeling that rule would accept that With maybe some caveats because it wouldn't want to have to defend that because he knows he can't

But there's the Holy Sacrifice the Mass Richard Hansen the

Christian priesthood examined Letterworth Press 1979 page 31 Does the New Testament recognize any individual minister as a

Christian priest in virtue as being a minister? The reader will not be surprised to find that this question must receive an answer as an answer an emphatic negative

Next page there is no mention of Christian priests. I'm sorry There is no mention of Christian officials as priests in the

New Testament Whatever. We have no ground for assuming that a large number of priests of the Jewish temple who we are told became

Christians Officiated as or were regarded as priests in a specifically Christian sense

Despairing attempts have been made to read the existence of Christian priests in the various parts of the New Testament There is no other part of the

New Testament where a mention of Christian official priests is even remotely likely But of official

Christian priests, we must honestly admit there is in the New Testament not the faintest whisper not the faintest whisper

Later on. He says no Christian priesthood is found in the New Testament There is in fact no solid evidence that anyone thinks of Christian ministers as priests until about the year 200

Attempts have been made to find evidence for a Christian priesthood in the second century if some passages can plausibly Be dressed up to appear like evidence for a

Christian priesthood in the second century Then it might be possible to interpret passages in the New Testament, which are not apparently favorable this interpretation as in reality favoring it

And so the blessed haven of an apostolic or dominical institution for the priesthood might be reached Likely candidates for the position of priests the second century should be presbyters or bishops

But nobody called these priests at that time page 36 Also in page 36 after discussing one appearance of priests in Ignatius There can be no basis for a

Christian priesthood in the second century Here after discussing Clement those of you following the church history series that I'm teaching right now

We've just done Clement and Ignatius Did the martyr of Polycarp this past Sunday morning? I'm discussing

Clement He only knows of two ministers in the Christian Church that of Episcopal Presbyter bishop and presbyter being regards identical as in Acts 20 28

Hermas the didache and the pastoral Pacwa on this very issue He admitted that from their perspective

Priest developed out of the term presbyter. The problem is presbyter

Presbyteros Episcopal Bishop their interchangeable terms in a New Testament Not not different offices.

Nothing about sacraments. Nothing about sacramental authority the Apostles of the

New Testament had no concept of what has become the absolutely central and essential office of the

Sacramental Roman Catholic Church had no concept of it This is why they cannot believe in sola scriptura because if the scriptures are sufficient for the man of God as they claim to be

Then so many of her dogmas must be abandoned because they have no

Defensible basis in the New Testament whatsoever. You can't have the miracle of transubstantiation without an ordained sacramental priest

Eventual development of the Roman Catholic Dogmatic teachings that are available today

Now this is really interesting this is really interesting again, this is still

Hansen The Christian priesthood examined.

This is really really interesting because this this this really resonates with me It is appropriate this point to pause and ask why the doctrine of a

Christian priesthood Which is absent from the beginnings of the Christian ministry should have emerged in the 3rd century

Perhaps it is significant. Listen to this. This is Really interesting. I had forgotten that I had read this years and years ago

Probably because I read this long before I preached through all of Hebrews Perhaps it is significant that the epistle to the

Hebrews after Tertullian who refers to it only once or twice and tends to think that it was written by Barnabas is totally unused in The Western Church until the middle of the 4th century

It does not seem to have been very influential in the Eastern Church during the 3rd century

Clement of Alexandria and origin in the references to it make it clear that it's Pauline authorship was not securely established

This must have tended to reduce its influence Now think about that one for a moment

Think about what that means What's the assumption going on here the assumption and it's a proper assumption is if you read

Hebrews If you believe Hebrews You're never gonna believe

Rome's teaching about her priests because the teaching of Hebrews is

Thoroughly 100 % unalterably opposed to any concept of A sacramental priesthood in the in the in the church some concept of a

Representation of the one sacrifice of the cross Hebrews 7 through 10 is death to all of this

So isn't it fascinating that in asking well, how did this arise? Well, the answer is given by this historian is well the period of time when it arises was a period where it doesn't seem like the book of Hebrews was exercising much in way of of Influence and I would add to this something that I've commented a number of times you cannot even begin to understand what

Hebrews is saying if you do not have a vital understanding of the Tanakh a

Familiarity that goes beyond having gone to Sunday school and seen some flannel board presentations about the tabernacle

It needs to be the familiarity of a person who is intimately and regularly reading

The text of of the Tanakh and especially of the books of Exodus Leviticus and Deuteronomy and So once you have the fatal schism fatal and final schism between synagogue and church

Necessary, but the way that it ended up happening in ordinate to where you have the development of anti -semitism and you then combine that with the rise of Allegorical interpretation as the primary mechanism for dealing with the text of the

Tanakh and falling into ignorance in regards to Jewish tradition and Hebrew language and hence the backgrounds of Hebrews and so on so forth you put all that together and that leaves the room

For the development of something that in light of Hebrews teaching would never ever develop otherwise

Would not be allowed to develop otherwise because if you believe Hebrews is apostolic then you cannot believe

That the Roman priesthood is Not a possibility. It's it's day and night X not

X law of non -contradiction whole nine yards. It is fully contradictory to the biblical teaching at this point

Now let me let me contrast that Just I'm only giving you some quotes here. So you've got some ideas of You know,

I've just found just a lot of people in this audience I know at church when I start talking about stuff, they just they want to hear more and more on this

And then I'll get to rules article The Apostles were clothed with the powers of Jesus Christ the priest as a successor of the

Apostles is closed with their power This fact reveals to us the eminent dignity of the priestly character

The exalted dignity of the priest is derived not from the personal merits for which he may be conspicuous

But from the sublime functions, which he is charged to perform to the carnal I the priest looks like other men, but the eye of faith

He is exalted above the angels because he exercises power is not given even to angels

That's James Cardinal Gibbons the faith of our fathers page 317 that's the voice of the 19th century

Certainly not the voice of the 21st any longer Not only are the priests continuing with him a couple pages later not only are our priests the ambassadors of God But they are also the dispensers of his graces and the almoners of his mercy

Let a man so regard us says the Apostle as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God applying to the priests

To sum up in a few brief sentences the titles of a Catholic priest

He is a king reigning over not over reigning not over Unwilling subjects, but over the hearts and affections of his people his spiritual children pay him no

Not only the tribute of their money, but also the tribute of their love which royalty can neither purchase nor exact He is a shepherd because he leads his flock and delicious pastors the sacraments and shelters them from the wolves that lie and wait for Their souls he is a father because he breaks the bread of life to the spiritual children who he has begotten in Christ Jesus through the gospel

He is a judge whose office it is to pass sentence of pardon on self -accusing criminals

He is a physician because he heals their souls from the loathsome distempers of sin page 320

Well, I Jump into the late 20th century to Patrick Dunn Priesthood a re -examination

Roman Catholic theology of the of the presbiterate presbuterate Bearing in mind the crisis which the priesthood is now facing the point is often made that there are no

New Testament references to any ministerial priesthood Hans Kung along with a number of other contemporary writers would argue from this that words such as priest or cleric should be dispensed with because New Testament says all believers are priests

Raymond Brown, however makes a point that the earliest Christians This is really weird now

Raymond Brown gets quoted a lot not by me But Raymond Brown gets quoted a lot now Raymond Brown is a liberal

Roman Catholic All right now Alan rule says you shouldn't quote him when

Rome starts cleaning up its own house You can start talking about that when this guy's writings are used as textbooks in Roman Catholic churches and Roman Catholic seminaries

By people who are in direct contact with the Pope then you when they stop doing that then you can talk but the fact the matter is

When these people sit on papal biblical commissions and everything else and their works are used as standard class classroom material in Roman Catholic institutions with the acceptance of Rome You got no ground for talking got no ground for talking and obviously obviously

If you look at Francis he is going to be far more in the Raymond Brown realm than in the 19th century

Bishop of Rome realm big time theologically speaking viewpoints Training the whole nine yards.

It's a fact. You know, it's a fact. You can't even argue That's what that's why the Roman Catholic apologists are just trying to endure

Francis's papacy Raymond Brown however makes the point that the earliest

Christians acknowledged the Jewish priesthood as valid and therefore never thought of needing a priesthood of Their own think that one through for a second

That would require that when those priests entered into the church. They continued functioning as priests. Well, what exactly were they doing?

What sacrifices were they offering? This is that's absurd But that's Raymond Brown for the emergence of a special Christian priesthood some major changes had to occur in the first place

Christians had to see themselves as constituting a new religion distinct from Judaism and secondly They had to have a sacrifice at which a priesthood could preside

By the way, that has that has the nihil obstate in the impromptu or not. That means anything anymore. But hey, what can

I say? However, as we come to the end of this brief glance at ministry during the New Testament period we find there is certainly no trace

Of the notion that some designated minister has the function to quote make Christ present end quote

Rather where two or more are gathered in his name He is already present in terms of priestly language the priesthood of Christ is very clearly presented especially in Hebrews and so too is the priesthood of the

Christian community as in first Peter 2 9 But the scriptural evidence does seem to be lacking for any idea of a ministerial priesthood page 61

Joseph Martos in doors the sacred again. This is a 1991 publication again used as textbook in many a

Roman Catholic institution The earliest

Christian community contained a variety of ministries, but priesthood was not one of them The only priesthood that Jesus and his immediate followers apparently recognized was the ministry of the

Jewish temple priests nevertheless before the end of the first century Christian writers likened Jesus death on the cross to a priestly sacrifice and by The middle of the third century those who presided over Eucharistic worship were beginning to be perceived as priestly ministers

So what do you have you have? development over Time this is not

Apostolic there are all sorts of further Avery Dulles The priestly office theological reflection again standard textbook nowhere in the

New Testament are the ministers a new covenant called priests There's just just so much as I've got pages and pages and pages here

But we only have so much time and I see that it's it's getting away from me. So Here's just some of the some of the background you the high exalted language

That you will find today on EWTN Most most everybody well, obviously if you're watching this you have access to EWTN on the net, but even

In radio format or television format most everybody can find EWTN something like that.

You will find people on EWTN today using the faith of millions language the

O 'Brien language of the priest as an altar Christus as the one making

Christ present as a king and and Judge and you'll you'll find people

Using that no question about it So What on I have no earthly idea but you know almost every day

I think the same moron comes up with a new Account on on Twitter just to post disgusting atheist

Pornography on Twitter. It's just amazing. What a life, huh? Yeah atheism really Leads you to do big things anyway, so with that as Our backdrop, let's let's go back to Alan rules article and I just found this to be so illustrative of The fundamental failure of Roman Catholicism to be able to provide a minute meaningful biblical defense of Its most basic and foundational claims because I I will defend

The statement and I just minimize that window and now someone's asking for Specific citation

Just look up the faith of millions by O 'Brien I Think it was a cardinal or something

But faith millions by O 'Brien, you'll you'll get it and then faith of our fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons the priesthood and the mass are

Fundamental Roman Catholic teachings If they are non -apostolic

Then I suggest to you that even using the term apostolic or Roman Catholicism is a ridiculously naive historical misnomer

When I have debated Roman Catholic apologists They have attempted to argue that Jesus's words at the institution of the supper are priestly

That they have a priestly function, but if the reality is that no one for hundreds of years

Had a belief in a priesthood the Apostles Appointed no priests.

They did not view themselves as priests. They did the the the biblical teaching is that there is one priest one priest

One high priest whose one sacrifice is once for all ephah pox temporal adverb not

Continuous That is the biblical teaching There are only two offices in the

New Testament there is the Apostles left us nothing as to the qualifications of a priest

That is again is why Rome cannot believe in Sola Scriptura Because she believes so many things that the

Bible would be utterly insufficient to have ever actually taught or to give us guidance on and That's why she does not blush

But to affirm its incapacity the man of God will not find in that which is the

Anustos a Sufficient grounds for doing everything that God calls to do for doing all good works won't find it that Rome does not believe that and Cannot believe that Cannot believe that So This subject then is central

Because you know when Pope John Paul died or was in the process of you know, right after he died You had all these

Catholic apologists right around talk about the the Church of 2 ,000 years the church Where are the Church of 2 ,000 years?

No, you are not You have deceived yourselves into thinking that That's why

I brought up the Council of Nicaea and I brought up so many dogmatic teachings that Rome now propounds

That would have been utterly unknown To the bishops that met the Council of Nicaea.

You can't call yourself the Church of 2 ,000 years When you teach as dogma de fide dogma things that they had never even conceived of Never even thought about and certainly did not believe

You can't do it. It's it's it's It's it's it's fantasy. It's historical and theological fantasy and nothing more and nothing more

So with that in mind and I do

I am thankful for one thing Alan Rule linked to the dividing line

The whole thing I think that's wonderful It's unusual, but it's wonderful Because I think anyone else who watches it'll go.

Well, you know, you only focused on just one little thing here He actually was that was illustrative of a whole wider argument.

You seem to be missing but that's good The important part of the above video is about 19 minutes He mentions in the 300s during the

Donatist controversy the question of ex opera operato Versus the question was ex opera operato versus ex opera operantis.

Actually, I just mentioned in passing in light of William Lane Craig's statement

Actually, it wasn't him. It was his his co -host that I believe mentioned something along these lines and I just basically pointed out that the the issue in the

Donatist controversy was the Ordination of a bishop it was not the priesthood issue in regards to Ability to consecrate elements and stuff like that again

Church history is never two -dimensional. It's always three -dimensional

There are lines that twists together and Come together in the most amazing ways

To end up creating certain beliefs and understandings and I've used the illustration of purgatory but when it comes to priesthood the same thing there were a number of of things there were a number of biblical truths that had to become lost or de -emphasized and unbiblical

Traditions that had to become exalted To bring together the strands of belief that allow the eventual development

Of the Roman Catholic concept, but what's really gonna be useful here if I ever get around to it,

I apologize one of the things that I think is most illustrative of the most dangerous and anti -christian nature of Roman Catholicism is the fact that Roman Catholic apologists will parallel divine truths with their human traditions and Use this to deceive people

Most of you know, well actually most of you wouldn't know People who have been following this program for a lengthy period of time would know that I find it extremely offensive extremely offensive when the deep divine truth of the

Doctrines of Trinity is paralleled to the absurd Dogmatic pronouncements of Roman Catholicism Most people gasp as they should

Even Roman Catholics gasp, but they shouldn't When we play that clip and I should

I should have that clip queued up. I'm gonna have to track it down It's certainly on YouTube But the clip of Gerry Matitix in one of our early debates

Saying that you have the same epistemological warrant For believing in the bodily assumption of Mary as you have for believing the resurrection of Jesus Christ the exact same epistemological warrant and then he went on to explain you believe in the resurrection because the church tells you so and You believe in the bodily assumption of Mary because the church tells you so now that to me is one of the greatest illustrations of the horrific danger of Romanism that I could ever give to you

Because the bodily assumption of Mary is a man -made ridiculous non -apostolic myth

It was not believed by any of the Apostles. It was not believed by anybody that came after the Apostles It was one of my favorite

Examples of debate was when I went through with Jerry in that very same debate, Gerry Matitix Can you show me anyone in the second century that believed in the bodily assumption of Mary?

Can you believe show me anybody in the third century? Finally Mr. White, Mr. White I don't have to prove to you that everyone back then believed these things and my response was

Jerry. I'll take just one and And the place went up in applause because everybody saw the same thing everybody saw the double standards he was operating on and You need to understand that what

Alan Rule is saying here I'm the one with double standards because I believe in doctrinal development What they use that for is to come to conclusion of what

Jerry Matitix said because unless Alan Rule is a Non -Orthodox

Roman Catholic then he believes De Fide in The bodily assumption of Mary He just pointed out

I never mentioned the Trinity once in the post I mentioned the two natures of Christ the Hypostatic Union and the two wills haven't gotten to it yet Alan I'm talking about my own history here but thank you for pointing it out and thank you for pointing out that I'm right on right on the the the beam with what your arguments are and what they result in and they result in the utter overthrow of even the necessity of having

Scripture the need for Scripture let alone the sufficiency of Scripture and Lead to the point where you have dogmas such as the bodily assumption unknown to anyone as a

Christian belief in the first centuries of the church a pure myth without the slightest bit of biblical evidence to it and Yet it is elevated to the point of the resurrection of Jesus Christ because of the authority claims the

Roman Catholic Church That is not only an overthrow of the apostolic gospel But it is in reality the acceptance of continuing revelation

That's what it is You have to accept that Even though it's painfully obvious the early church did not teach it

There is you can misquote Paul writing to the Thessalonians all you want about An epistle from us as if that has something to do with tradition

There is no way That you could ever even begin to substantiate the idea that what was passed on to the

Thessalonians had anything to do With the immaculate conception the bodily assumption papal infallibility or anything like it

These are dogmas that cannot by any honest person be called apostolic by any stretch of the imagination

Anyone who actually believes in apostolic succession Would have to reject these things for the made -up

Falsities that they are that's just the reality so With that in mind then

What I was talking about In regards to the Donatist controversy was the fact that it had come up in the

William Lane Craig thing This issue of priesthood and and I raised the issue of the the mark

Remember, I played the segment from Catholic answers where the marks placed upon the soul the priest. Where do you get that from?

If those quotations I gave were accurate you didn't get from the Apostles. You didn't get from their immediate successors

You get from a period of time where there had to be an ignorance of inspired scripture Yeah, because see priesthood is a common thing in the religions of man

It is it is the way of man to have priests who stand between God and man

That's why Christianity isn't one of the religions of men We have one high priest who took on human flesh and appears for us in the presence of the

Father Every other claim to priesthood whether it's Rome's or Mormonism's is a blasphemy

Blasphemy against Jesus Christ. That's the only way it can be described. It is an utter complete total

Blasphemy some of the nicest Roman Catholic guys I know are priests

But when they call themselves an altar Christus I have to look him in the eye with all love my heart and say that's blasphemous.

You have been deceived You are not an altar Christus. I will never bow to you as an altar Christus Never and I will warn anyone else that their soul is in peril if they bow to you as an altar

Christus back to the Article He said that no one believed at that time that priestly ordination left an eternal mark on the soul that there is a late and That this is a later development.

I will admit that the theology of the priesthood developed over time Appreciate that I have no problem believing that Christians in later centuries knew more about the priesthood than they did in the fourth century timeout

Knew more about it Where'd they get this information? Where'd they get this information,

Mr. Rule? Evidently not from divine revelation Unless you're admitting you have new revelations since the fourth century

Which functionally is what you have? I mean, that's really the only honest way to substantiate immaculate conception bodily assumption.

This is new revelation This is revelation that comes after the Apostles But you know, you don't want to admit that even though you're functioning on the basis of that model

III are you being honest and saying you know what the reason soul scripture is not true is because the Bible is just not enough

We've gotten more we have more revelation and this stuff is they honest us That's what you're saying.

Come straight out and say it man Dr. White likes to take shots at Catholic doctrines that have developed

Well, I like to take shots at Catholic doctrines that have developed on something other than the basis of what the

Apostles taught because I actually believe that apostolic succession is important and that the way you practice apostolic succession is you actually

Walk in the footsteps of the Apostles and what they taught Not what someone 400 600 or a thousand or eighteen hundred years later

Thought they should have taught There's a big difference between the two big difference.

The priesthood is one example. I have to ask dr. White What is so bad about development? Dr. White believes in the two natures of Christ a hypostatic union the two wills of Christ Were they talking about these things in the fourth century?

Absolutely not. They developed over time. Dr. White has acknowledged in the past his firm belief in the hypostatic union two wills of Christ Even though there is no biblical evidence for either.

Bah lo knee, sir There is no biblical evidence for either

Now, I don't know much about you. I I I Think I could be wrong, but I think you're a convert.

I think I seem to recall looking at something. Maybe somebody could look it up I think you're a convert

I could be wrong But that is absurd I Have defended

The two wills of Christ the hypostatic union From scripture with Muslims around the world you obviously clearly have not and I would like to suggest

Please don't try it for the good of for the good of the Muslim people Don't try to put them under the authority of some man -made system like you would be trying to put them under Scripture doesn't have it.

They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Lord of Glory not my will but thine be done in The beginning was the logos.

I'm a cradle Catholic good. Okay in The beginning was the logos Logos became flesh

Wow, we got all that stuff in Hebrews about the high priest You know, we got a lot of stuff in the

Bible about these subjects that we don't have a definition if that's what you're saying Where do you find?

anything a an iota subscript sir About the bodily assumption of Mary about a sacramental priesthood

It's not there It doesn't exist

Someone Oh Skinny the um, even the Trinity has developed doctrine by the Catholic Church, but low knee untrue lie falsehood

No one who knows history or the Bible can say that sir proof documentation read respond refute can't try

This is called monosyllabic argumentation James T.

Kirk Sorry He never did that.

I have been completely distracted from my point by someone over there. Can you hear the voice? Like I said, it's that peanuts thing that are more

On the other side. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Stop it.

All right now Clearly what we have here and where Alan rule just again gave us a wonderful example of the the complete

Abandonment of any meaningful Christian defense of scripture. I Mean I can sit here and start going through So many patristic citations that fly directly in the face of this

And so many other church fathers. We look that go. Whoa. Whoa. What are you talking about? Especially if they would have known all the stuff that this man believes that they had hadn't even hadn't even thought of yet Let alone confess to be part of the gospel but you need to hear what's being said here because what it fundamentally does and the necessary direction of this is

To enslave the Christian conscience to the ultimate authority only of the papacy not not even of church history or tradition because all that stuff gets to be interpreted by the the current

Pope or In this case by his understanding of what the current Pope says, whatever that may be

But you need to understand the the battery acid effect this has upon the

Bible itself Because we no longer get to look at those incredible Christological pastors the

Carmen Christi Speaks directly it is the found these are foundational texts

Where you have the Eternal Son? Who humbles himself voluntarily takes on human form.

This is the means of his humiliation and Yet that is is the very mechanism by by which he becomes exalted

This is the foundation upon which real Christians develop their concept of the hypostatic

Union Nothing like that about Rome's myths, but when you parallel them, you're blaspheming

Christian truth You're denying the gospel and you're enslaving the Christian people And that's what you're doing.

Mr. Rule. That's what you're doing. And I will link to your article. Don't you dare remove it? Don't you dare remove it?

I want everybody to be able to see it. I've already downloaded So if you remove it, I was from posted anyways, but I want people to see this

I want people to see the danger here because there's so much ecumenical stuff going on now and the naive

Person who is you know for whatever reasons I don't like smells and bells. I don't like the way that the bishop dresses or whatever

The the people paddling around the middle of the Tiber playing footsie with Rome Don't seem to recognize what this article shows us.

It is a fundamental Destruction of the very basis upon which we defend the

Christian faith And how many times when I've been debating

Muslims around the world if I had to say Don't hold me accountable for what Rome says. I'm not a

Roman Catholic. I don't consider Roman Catholicism Christianity have to go over it over and over and over again how many

Muslims Have been blinded to the message of the gospel because of the false gospel of Rome Okay the council in hypostatic

Union was to find the Council of Calcine on 451 ad with the reading of the tome of the Leo the bishops cried out Peter has spoken thus through Leo Oh, by the way read

Read a little bit more This is so naive. I mean come on You've got to know a little bit more of the background of the situation with Leo.

Don't you? Read read some at least at least pretend to read some Eastern Orthodox guys that give you a little more balance

The two wills of Christ was to find the third Council Constantinople in 680 by Pope Agatho and the response was

Peter spoke through Agatha Please I hope there isn't anything in here about Rome has spoken the case is closed.

I Now feel like doing a search of everything. He's written for for that old canard James I believes in the highly developed

Christology that he speaks of not because of soul scripture because the papacy the Catholic Church Absolutely a lie

You want to debate me on that sir? Want to debate me on that Contact us.

Let's find the time. Let's find the time. I think this would be an awesome opportunity Here's the debate challenge

Alan rule right now right now Let's debate Let's make it three hours

Public debate live -streamed the doctrine the Trinity is believed because the papacy of the bishop because the bishop of Rome Will you accept or not?

I know you're watching. I know you're watching. I'm gonna sit here and watch yes or no answer the question

Did he did he did he do without Pope Leo or Pope Agatho? He wouldn't believe in either these doctrines L.

I e slash falsehood These doctrines developed over time, but it's a development

James White allows for histology and not for the Catholic priesthood Why the double standard it's not a double standard one of them biblical foundation the other not a shred of biblical foundation

This this is money fellow who's watching you obviously have not listened to any of the debates. We've done in sola scriptura

We have refuted everything you're saying Hundreds of times over hundreds of times over Here sir.

I'll tell you what whoever was money. Oh skinny. The arm is Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Call in give us your address. We will send you this book for free Sound good good all right now

Why the double standard my theory of dr. White doesn't like development because the doctrines he believes in didn't develop over simply fabricated whole cloth

Doctrines like perseverance of the Saints was invented by Calvin in the 16th century really No Development at all justification by faith alone was a novelty invented by Luther in the 16th century that is so naive that is so Ridiculously naive

I I don't have it in here Because it's out in my car

But I've read it before I just covered it recently I would love to read to you right now

I'm actually memorizing some really cool quotations in some of the patristic sources but I would love to read you from the epistle to Dionysius Where he teaches on imputed righteousness and justification by faith,

I'll get to it But that was approximately 15 centuries for Luther. This is this is just this is your standard

Catholic answers We won't deal with church history. We won't read the stuff that contradicts us foolishness

I haven't seen Alan rules response Alan are you gonna do the debate or not?

I'm waiting for an answer. I Think this would be a great debate. You put it on your website.

I Say I could absolutely positively decimate that argument Here's the evidence you ready

How many how many people in the audience say? That would be an awesome awesomely important conversation

We want to hear Alan rule defend in public debate against James White his assertion that James White believes in a

Trinity because the Popes Because I know what happened to Chalcedon.

I've read deeper than you have So let's do it. I'm waiting

Come on Where was I? Oh, yes

No develop in the slightest just a pure invention of doctrine of thin air In fact, this doctrine goes against scripture word for word in the book of James.

I have you uh Mr. Rule have have you read where'd it go? Oh, there it is got buried

Have you read the chapter on James 2 in here You you just said justification by faith alone

Doctrine out of thin air That's funny how have I been able to do numerous debates and justification by faith

Roman Catholic apologists when the doctors solely out of thin air and How'd I managed to do 24 pages

Primarily focused on the Greek text of James chapter 2 on the subject in here hmm word for word the book of James Don't you think you overstretched just a little bit mr.

Rule Just a little bit. I never said that you believe in the

Trinity because the Pope's please cite a source Okay, now we're now we're backpedaling fast.

Aren't we? Let's try this again. All right All right, you want to be more specific

James White believes in the highly developed Christology that he speaks of not because of soul scriptura But because the papacy in the

Catholic Church You want to be that specific you only want to make it high Christology rather than the

Trinity Okay, we can do that too. Will you defend what you said or will you not?

Everybody knows you said it. It's right there on your website. Are you gonna defend it or not?

I've got people saying I would definitely like to see that debate So, how about it? Okay.

I have a final question for Dr. White There are four apostolic churches today that claim their succession back to Christ They are the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the

Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. All these churches believe in the priesthood Dr. White, you've claimed in the past that several of your church fathers taught soul scriptura.

Yes, I have You normally mentioned St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Cyrus of Jerusalem, and St. Gregory of Nyssa if that's true.

By the way How many of them? Believed what you believe as a Roman Catholic is necessary to believe.

In other words, all the same de fide dogmas Immaculate conception, bodily assumption, fallibility of the

Pope How many of them? None If that's true, why didn't they denounce the priesthood like you do?

Let me rephrase the question Why didn't these priests denounce the priesthood like you do? Okay, timeout. A couple things. First of all, the concept of priesthood at this point in time while unbiblical certainly had not developed to the level that it exists today within the

Roman Catholic Church. As always with Roman Catholic apologists, you read history anachronistically.

You put these lenses on because Rome tells you what you're supposed to see in history, then you look backwards and read into people.

Their view of it unbiblical. Their view of it not nearly as unbiblical as yours. Because for example, they do not have the concept of a sacramental priesthood that works the miracle of transubstantiation, a term that does not develop for another, what, 500 years after time period, give or take a couple centuries?

And because they didn't have the Aristotelian categories of accents and precedents that required for the whole concept that comes along later on in history.

There is no anti -priesthood movement within the church in the first millennium of the church. There are anti -Trinitarian movements, anti -Chalcedonian movements, anti -grace movements, and many other esoteric radical movements but none of them saw fit to develop an anti -priesthood movement.

The priesthood developed in every region of the Christian world whether it be Rangal, Hippo, Alexandria, Constantinople, Armenia, or Syria.

Notice he says developed. Wasn't delivered by the Apostles, but developed. I should also point out this development happened very early and not a single soul protested his development.

How early do you think it was? All these people read the same scriptures that James White does. They all read the book of Hebrews.

Really? They did? You sure about that? I read a source that says many of them didn't.

And in fact, that was where the primary development took place. Anyways, in fact, all of these Christian areas had monastic movements where cloistered monks would dedicate their whole life to the study of scripture or their traditions of scripture.

There is no repudiation of the priesthood. Why was there no anti -priesthood movement until the Reformation? That is the question Dr. White needs to answer.

Very, very simple. Well, very, very simple. Oh, wait a minute. Hold on.

Let me look here. Well, a

Turretin fan, I like Turretin fan's statement. He forgot to mention the fifth church that claims apostolic succession, namely the

Mormons. But I, let's see, the last thing

I got was I never said that you believe in the Trinity because the Popes, please cite a source. And I then cited your statement, high

Christology because the Popes, which is of course what the Trinity is. Hmm.

Yeah, White believes in the highly developed Christology, speaks of not because of soil scripture, but because the papacy and the

Catholic Church. So far, I'm not hearing anything back from Alan Rule as to whether he'll defend that.

Remember, who was it? Guardian. Remember Guardian? I was going to call it. It was good.

How long do we give Guardian? Like six months? That was what, about six years ago? I think now? Something like that? With all the errors and stuff like that?

It hasn't been seen or heard from. Yeah, we could get a reputation.

Yeah, that's right. Exactly right. We better be careful about this. All right, why was there no anti -priesthood movement?

Something tells me that if I mention the people that rejected the priesthood, your response is going to be, well, they weren't

Christians anyways. They were heretics, which sort of ends up begging the question, doesn't it?

Because it does seem very obvious to me that there were numerous groups that when they rejected

Roman pretensions, one of the common elements of the charges of that, oh,

Inquisition, against them was anti -clericalism. Specifically a rejection of the idea of the clergy -laity split and the idea of a sacramental priesthood.

Seems to be. But once again, it seems that what you're arguing is, well, if something becomes a general tradition during the

Dark Ages, then that must mean that it was true because they were all studying the scriptures as closely as you, right?

No, they weren't. Literacy plummeted, even amongst the clergy.

And, oh, they're all reading the book of Hebrews. Really? Could you, could you show me,

Mr. Ruhl? Because I'm sure you read these commonly. In -depth, original language -based, meaningful interpretation, not using allegorical interpretation, commentaries on the book of Hebrews from what we would call the medieval period.

Now, there is all sorts of writing based upon scholasticism and the concept of citing those who came before us.

But we all know how stultifying that was. Your argument is that the same level of meaningful exegesis based upon the original languages was taking place at that time period and therefore were the novel ones.

You've admitted that this is not apostolic, but what you would need to find to make you, to make a charge of, of, of double standards stick would be meaningful exegesis of the text during this time period, specifically dealing with this issue, especially dealing with the book of Hebrews.

You say they're reading the same book. How do you know? Give us, give us some evidence. I'd like to see it. Because when people did leave

Rome, this was part of one of the reasons they left Rome, and then you just simply dismiss them as heretics at that point.

So, what is inconsistent in my saying that the medieval period was a very dark period where tradition trumped scriptural teaching?

Isn't, who, who was saying that there needed to be, you know, ad fontes to this?

Oh, that was Reformation. Yeah, what? What?

You're pointing at me. I don't see anything. In, in, uh, in Twitter?

I don't, I don't, don't have that either. Last I have is

Francis Turreton saying, Jerome, for example, accused Helvetius of being the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman.

Well, uh, it's, uh, TweetBot, and I don't know how to get

TweetBot to refresh, if there is a refresh command. Uh, did it, did it, did it, did it, wait a minute, refresh, and somebody quote it to me.

If, if it's out there, I want to see it. Somebody quote it to me, because I'd, it's not coming across. I don't know why, but I've got

Kofi, 2Francis, Travis Berry. What? Catholic liberal

Gary Wills actually blames development. Oh, there it is. Now, it just came across. Who cares?

I'm sorry. Who cares? Mr. Rule. Last time, okay?

Here we go. You wrote on your website. Thank you. It finally came across.

I don't know why, folks, but ask Twitter. You wrote on your website, and I quote,

James White believes in a highly developed Christology that he speaks of, not because of sola scriptura, but because the papacy and the

Catholic Church. I am challenging you, Alan Rule, to a public moderated debate.

I will come to where you are. I will find a church in your area, if you can't get the

Catholic Church to do it, and we will do the debate. Thesis.

The thesis statement would be an accurate rephrasing of that line.

We probably want to make it Protestants believe in highly developed, in orthodox

Christology, not because of scripture, but because of the papacy and the

Catholic Church. That, I think, is a fair restatement, a little shorter, of what you claimed.

Okay? We've done this at least 35 other times.

35 other times. With priests and scholars, laymen, published apologists, all sorts of Roman Catholics, of varying levels of skill.

You have chosen to go after me on your blog, in your written comments.

I believe that that statement illustrates one of the fundamental issues that is being lost today in the ecumenical gushiness of what so many people call evangelicalism.

That people who are paddling around in the middle of the Tiber don't realize the true depth of the authority claims that the

Roman Catholic papacy truly makes. You, sir, do. You are flat wrong.

If I were you, I wouldn't want to defend that statement either, because I will decimate it but you made the statement and it would be incredibly helpful to other people to see this.

All right? So now we have people coming to Mr.

Rule's defense. Maybe he's just not a good debater or not quick on his feet. That's a special skill to have.

I wouldn't debate you. So what you're saying is, brave behind a keyboard, not so much in person?

Well, then maybe you should be a little bit more careful about what you say. But he hasn't said that.

So don't speak for him yet. Jesse, why are you bothered by a priesthood that developed over time?

Have you been listening to the program? Do I need to reread the blasphemous statements concerning this alleged sacerdotal priesthood?

Rendering Jesus present upon the altar? Do I really need to go back over all that?

I mean, to any Bible -believing Christian, shouldn't an abject denial of the sufficiency of Christ as our one high priest be bothersome,

Jesse? Then we have other people just going off into other topics that it's like, really?

Okay, all right. So, I'll tell you what, I will make some comments here on the

Steve Tassi video. And that should give, you know, maybe

Mr. Rule's a very slow typist, and he's just putting it together.

It's only 140 characters, but I'll keep an eye on it.

And if anyone else sees something, because evidently there's some type of a network lag or something, I don't know.

But if anyone else sees something, let me know. Put it in channel, you know, whatever. And we'll find out.

We'll find out. All right. I guess,

I guess a lot of folks, if I start tweeting anything, just figure I'm sitting at the computer, and they can start asking all their wild -eyed questions, and they're not listening to the program.

Because what's your opinion about likening the Holy Spirit to a mother -like spirit?

Silly? Maybe? Okay. Real quickly here, while waiting for Alan Rule's response,

I go from, at least this is something that we can, you know,

I think it's vitally important that the gospel is at stake when we talk about Rome, when we talk about these issues.

And I've been saying this for years as the the realm in which we have freedom to speak becomes more and more constricted by a secularizing society.

We're going to be pushed closer and closer and closer together with Roman Catholics. And in my opinion, the vast majority of evangelicals are non -Catholics out of ignorance, not out of conviction, out of taste, not out of conviction.

And they don't know anything about these things. They've never read anything in Roman Catholic sources.

And so they're gonna be making decisions in a complete realm of ignorance.

Complete realm of ignorance. So it's vitally important stuff.

Not nearly as important, though still illustrative, was the non -debate a week ago

Friday with Steve Tassi in California.

And this morning I was directed to comments that he made.

Now again, I'm really, I'll admit, I'm really, really, really tired. Okay, Mr.

Rule, where do you live? Where do you live? I do a lot of overseas travel.

Tell me where you live and who knows? Maybe something can be worked out. I go to London all the time.

I'm gonna be in Australia, New Zealand. Where do you live? Tell me.

Evidently, not in the United States, according to what he says. Where do you live? I was directed, by the way,

I do not have the videotape of the debate. Non -debate.

I don't have it. Don't have access to it. I can't post it. Please stop asking me what's gonna be posted because it's not under my control.

Okay? Just a word of note, Steve, before the debate happened, had mentioned that the videographer would need at least two weeks to process it.

So people need to settle down. Just relax. Yeah. You know, I think they've seen some of the stuff that's been put out there from cell phones and stuff like that.

And it's like, ah, we gotta watch this. No, you don't. You're not gonna be missing anything.

You're really not. I mean, we may note it,

I may blog it, but we're not even gonna link to it as one of my debates. There's no reason to. There just isn't. It was that bad.

So I've wondered what would Pastor Tassie say about the encounter afterwards.

And so evidently he put up some comments here. I haven't had a chance to listen to all of it. But I'm accused of all sorts of things.

In this video. One of the sections was

I was gyrating wildly and what was the other term?

During his opening statement. Actually, what I was doing was going, I did shake my head.

But the idea that I was gyrating, I mean, that's why I queued this up and I'm gonna just have to play it over and over.

I just, I don't know how to reason with someone who only hears what they want to hear and twists everything that they hear.

But I did want to play a couple sections here really quickly and comment on while we find out from Mr.

Rule where he lives. Maybe he lives someplace in dial -up with only dial -up internet.

That's why it's taking so long to get responses. Though it'd be pretty hard for him to be watching video. So you have you have the video?

Okay, here we go. Okay, he continues to complain about the fact that four or five years ago he posts a video attacking me.

I did not know about the video until I think the day before. I responded to it for the simple reason, let's put this stuff aside.

Your statements about me. I should start a ministry going to parents of murdered girls who got raped to tell them that God was glorified in this.

It was an absurd video. It was filled with absurd misrepresentation, straw men, and I responded to it to get it out of the way so we could debate

Romans 9. That's why I did it. You chose to change the topic of the debate, show disrespect to all the people in the audience and to me, to respond to that.

That's the fact. These things are posted. Anybody with integrity can go look.

That's the fact. He's still very upset about that. He has rules. He told me

I broke the rules because what I did when I started the debate is I addressed the video from the day before.

Now, don't we all know what the rules are? There was an agreed to topic, Romans chapter 9.

You stick to the topic. Is that really that difficult?

Well, for a non -cessationist, evidently it is. I'm very glad that Michael doesn't do this.

Michael Brown doesn't do this, but consistently, if you're a non -cessationist and God tells you to break the rules, were you going to comment?

I was going to say, I had a conversation with Lane regarding this issue very, back in May when the whole thing was starting to line up for May, and Lane assured me that he had talked to Steve about this issue and that Steve told him that he had been watching my series on the original

Romans 9 debate and learned things and knew what he needed to do and understood how debate works because I went through all the step -by -step of the rules and why the rules matter.

So this ignorance is silly. Yeah, there wasn't any ignorance. That wasn't in the rules or that wasn't in the plans.

But when I had watched the video, within 10 minutes of watching that video,

I had jotted down notes and response, about 10 pages worth of notes just that could be answered back to the things he was saying about me.

And God put it on my heart, I believe, to start the debate that way.

Rules... What, what, what? I'm sorry. Rules. God put that on my heart.

Rules or no rules? God told me to do it. God told me to break the rules.

God told me to disrespect the audience. God told me to respond to the comments that were made.

You know, why, Gail, why did you call it the LASV? Well, because that's what

God calls it. And, you know, that is the Trump card, isn't it? That term Trump card has now come to mean something differently than it used to as well.

But that, that's Trump card. I, I defend what I did in breaking the rules and disrespecting the audience and totally changing the topic of debate and everything because God told me to.

Divine revelation gives us the immaculate conception, the bodily assumption, and Steve Tassi's wandering, meandering, yeah,

I attacked you and said all these silly things, but now I'm angry that you responded opening statement is supposed to be on Romans 9.

There, there you go. You know, the Lord, the Lord told me to. To deal with that argument, he was poisoning the well.

It's as if to say I'm gonna, before anybody even gets here, I'm gonna make sure everybody knows he doesn't know what he's talking about and all these things.

So he can post videos and leave them up there for four, five years.

That's not poisoning the well. If I respond, oh, you're being mean to me.

So there was the first thing. I haven't even seen this one. I was given a time index right as the show was starting.

So this is dangerous. So, but I'm gonna run with it anyways.

Here we go. He is so, so invested in the predeterminism of Calvinism that God controls everything that comes to pass.

Maybe that that is some kind of God complex within him that he has to control everything that comes to pass.

So I have a God complex because I believe that you show respect for the people by keeping your word and that means

I have a God complex. Can I point something out? He seems to feel that I'm really imbalanced.

This is all I ever talk about, so on and so forth. Go look at his YouTube page. What's the name of it?

NBF Norwalk. I forgot what the three letters before it. Look it up for me. Go look at his

YouTube page. And when I looked at it, I thought every single video on it had the word

Calvinism in it. There certainly were a lot of them. Oh, he's from Canada?

I live in Canada? Well, where in Canada? I'm gonna be in Vancouver in a few weeks.

Canada is not a... Okay, I almost got in a lot of trouble with my

Canadian friends. All right.

I can guarantee you that there are a number of folks in Canada that would like to put this together.

Okay, I really really wherever you live.

Now, I wouldn't want to be in Canada in January. Okay, might not even be able to get to Canada in January. But Canada is just not far away.

Okay, that's not... Okay, England, Australia, that's different.

This is no excuse. Hey, we have Canadians come down here all the time. If they can drive down, we can drive up, you know.

Yeah, we can do. They may not let me across the border, but I'm gonna be in Vancouver in just a couple of weeks.

So that's not an excuse. All right, so let us know where you are.

But Alan, rule one last time. Will you or will you not?

You say, I go to the States often. I will contact AOMN when I go next. No, no, no. We need to find a location.

We're happy to go where you are. It doesn't have to be anything that costs you anything. Are you telling me that you live so far out in the outback that there are no truly conservative

Christian churches that would be interested in something like this nearby you? Where do you live?

I'm not gonna let this drop. You made the challenge. This is a vitally important subject.

You made a false statement that illustrates one of the key issues of the eras of Roman Catholicism, and I am absolutely confident that the debating of that subject would illustrate for people who would not see it in any other way what the danger of paddling around the middle of the

Tiber River is. And there are a bunch of people out there doing that because they don't see what you're actually demanding.

They think this is like the difference between being a Lutheran and Methodist. It's not. It's not by any stretch of the imagination.

So will you do it? If we come to you, will you defend what you wrote in that statement?

I understand. I understand that you know you can't defend it. I get it. But I also think you understand you know that you have to try to be able to substantiate your position because you realize what you what you stated is exactly what

Gerry Matitick said in our debate on Long Island. Exact same epistemological warrant for believing the resurrection as the bodily assumption.

What you just said, my belief in the high Christology is based upon the papacy. It's the exact same thing. You know it.

I know it. Debating it would help everybody else to know it and see from my perspective it helps every

Christian to recognize how non -christian Romanism is. That's why

I'm willing to do it. I got plenty of other stuff to be doing, but this is important. This is really important, and I'm not the one that wrote the words.

You came after me. No one forced you to do it. You did it of your own free will.

Let's do it. Let's talk about it. Okay, one last thing here on the

Steve Tassi thing. I have the time index and here we go.

Maybe he's just mad at me. Maybe he's the greatest person in the world, but he's going on about how just how totally unkind and mean and grumpy

I am because I said it was hot. It was. And I said we were late getting started.

We were 15 minutes. And I'm just this totally unkind person.

Okay, fine. I was, see this type of thing never crosses my mind, but he was incredibly distant.

He did not welcome me. He didn't even look like he wanted to shake my hand. I mean,

I could turn all this around and fire it back at him, and it would be just as valid. I just don't do that kind of thing.

It's not about me. It's not about him. It's not about personalities and stuff like that. It's about the issues.

You know, I mean, I went down and during the break,

I went down, talked to folks. You know, there are people that were trying to come up beforehand when we were prepping, wanting me to sign books.

I said I can't because if I sign yours, the next person to come up, the next person is going to can't do this.

Could I just mention to folks when, right at the start of a debate, unless someone comes down and stands there alone in front of the audience, they might be doing other things.

They might be preparing. You know, they're gonna be speaking. I was looking over Romans 9 one last time, just going over stuff, and people kept coming up.

I'm sorry, I can't do that right now. But then once the debate started, I'd made my opening presentation.

What'd I do during the break? Went down, met with people, talked with people, was there till I don't know what time at night, very, very late, talking with folks.

So he's just doing the, he's just the nasty, he's just a nasty, nasty guy. But then he's gonna get to what

I did say to him right now when we, when I shook his hand at the end. Certainly from the time he got here to the time he left, he sat here and rebuked me when he left, when

I went over to shake his hand afterwards, that you know, I'm the worst debater in the world that he's ever seen, and again, compared me to a

Muslim. That's, that's a breaking the rules of debate. It's an attack on my character.

Okay, all right, so he says he came over to me. We met in the middle. We walked toward each other.

He didn't come over to me. We, we mutually met. Actually, we were closer to his side than mine.

And again, one of two things, either he doesn't experience reality in the same realm that the rest of us do, or he's incredibly dishonest, one of the two.

Because he first, his first words to me were about how much

I have hurt people in the Calvary Chapel movement. I ignored that.

Okay, we're not getting an answer from Alan. He won't tell us where. He says, I will contact AOMN after the DL. So I guess we're not gonna, not gonna be able to give you a definitive answer on that.

But Canada is well within our flying range. Okay, and if it's Western Canada, it's even closer than a lot of places

I go on the East Coast. So the challenge stands. Three -hour, moderated debate, public, live -streamed, based on the thesis that I gave you.

There you go. Take it or leave it. Yeah, we do have passports.

Yes, I actually, I actually have one. I'm not sure. It may end up getting filled up.

I may have to, because I do a lot of traveling these days. Anyways, what

I said to him when we shook hands was, I said, sir, I have never encountered anyone who so willfully, purposefully, unrepentantly broke the rules of debate as you did this evening.

You disrespected me. You disrespected the audience. And I said, not even in my debates with the worst

Muslims have they been willing to break the rules of debate like you did.

That's what I told him. And you then, so how do you turn a personal comment directed to him after the debate into a charge of breaking the rules of the debate?

The debate was over. Well, I guess it's the same way that you can pretend that by doing this program the day before I was trying to start the debate early on a different topic.

Again, it's just I Tell me What color is the sky in your world?

I don't know. But it ain't blue or gray or anything else like that because it's a different world.

It's a different world. Obviously when I get word that that encounter has been posted.

I will tweet it. I will Facebook it. We will blog it. We will get it out there in all the ways that you can get it out there.

But like I said, please stop asking me when it's gonna be out there because I don't know and I don't have any control over it whatsoever.

Okay? Appreciate it. All right. Well, there you go. You know, someone someone said in Twitter a very angry dividing line today.

Ooh, saw. I'm not sure what that means. How come anymore if you're passionate about the gospel and if you are

What is wrong with being angered about blasphemy? Especially deceptive blasphemy.

Can you not tell the difference? Is it not possible a difference between Jacob Prosh's constant angry, rah, rah, rah, about everything?

And the result of years and years and years of interaction with Roman Catholic apologetics and study of Roman Catholic materials and understanding what the position is and then having someone say things like this and realizing what it means.

Am I supposed to just be cool and calm when people are denying the gospel and trying to put people under the the yoke of a false system of religion?

Am I just I mean if that's all I did and there wasn't any substance to it, but I spent like an hour and 15 minutes on the subject.

I spent nearly 30 minutes just on the background before reading the article. I think

I purchased the passion by giving the background. That wasn't what you saw here today was not emotion first, thought second.

It was foundation first and then the emotion follows from that. The passion follows from that.

There is an order that makes it work. There really is. There really is. Don't have any idea what we're going to talk about next time around, but something tells me between now and Thursday that plenty will come along and if not, we have a toll -free number.