The Pope Goes Emergent, the Jack Chick of Catholic Apologetics, and Calls

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday morning. I have no video going on in here and the theme started three times. I'm not really sure whether we've really actually started. Ah, there we go.

There's something. Must be too early in the morning for the technical people. We won't mention anyone by name.

There's only one person. Not enough coffee yet, but what can I say? Yep, yep, yep, yep.

Great, 877 -753 -3341. Might take some phone calls today. I assume probably will at some point. Maybe. Either that or you could just sit on hold for an hour. It's possible, don't know. If you don't like that, just blame the queen.

Blame the queen. Yes, I will not attempt to do any John Sampson impersonations because that would be disastrous, disastrous indeed. So who do you think said this? I want to see if you can figure out who said this.

Pope Francis and the Meaning of “New Things”

God is not afraid of new things. God is not afraid of new things. Now, I just sort of sit back and go, what's a new thing to God? Now, I suppose that one of our open theist friends could say that because there are new things to open theists.

God encounters new things. He can write new songs, to quote one particular open theist that we spent probably too much time on this past July reviewing. Yeah, but what's new to God if you're actually Orthodox?

What's a new thing to God? Because if God has known it from eternity past, then it's not really new, is it? No, not really. So, and maybe this was just one of those skinny-jeaned emergent guys. Maybe that sounds like something Brian Zahn would say, right, you know, God's not afraid of new things.

And so it's sort of like, you know, God's our buddy and he's in it with us, you know, we're fist bumping and doing the thing, you know, and that kind of stuff, maybe, possibly, I suppose. Maybe that's what the new things, maybe it's Brian McLaren, you know, a new thing in the emergent camp, you know, God likes new things.

Rob Bell, I mean, wow, that would fit in whatever the next Wins book is, you know. God is not afraid of new things. And of course, liberals, liberals are real into that kind of language, too. God is not afraid of new thing.

I mean, what would God be afraid of in the first place, of course, and then the whole idea of new things. But for a Christian, it just doesn't make a lick of sense to say God is not afraid of new things.

Maybe you're talking about, well, there's developments in human history and God isn't afraid of developments in human history. Well, what do you mean by developments in human history? Nuclear weapons, medical imaging, Ebola.

I'm not sure how it would be relevant whether God is afraid of Ebola, I don't know. But I think most of you probably know that the person who recently said God is not afraid of new things was Pope Francis.

Yeah, during a beatification mass, somehow during the same period as this, a very interesting synod that produced that very interesting document that some people tried to do a little backpedaling on, but you can't really backpedal on that kind of stuff because all the document was telling you was these are the conversations were being had in the synod.

This is what the bishops are saying. This is what they're talking about. In the midst of all that, you have Pope Francis, not Pope Francis I, there has to be a Francis II. I learned that the hard way.

Pope Francis pointedly said during the beatification mass, God is not afraid of new things. Now, unfortunately, that kind of language can mean almost anything, but that's the whole point here, isn't it?

I mean, I don't think for a moment that any serious minded person could possibly disagree with a statement that the perspectives and beliefs of Pope Francis in regards to any number of vitally important and definitional issues is fundamentally different than that of, well, I would say any Pope before 1900, but shall we go for innocent the 10th or something like that?

Go for someone specific? I mean, it just seems obvious to me that you have to believe in sola ecclesia to be able to function as a Roman Catholic apologist today, because how else could you do it? I mean, this whole idea of, this whole concept of the infallibility of the church and unchangeability of the church, it has changed and is changing and could change in the future.

And the only way to maintain it then is to say, well, but we get to define what is and is not infallible. And we get to define what we meant back then and what we mean now. And you can't look at the history and you can't look at the context and you can't look at what people were writing outside of the councils and things like that.

That's normally how you determine historical stuff, but not in this case, not in this case. Only the church can define these things. And so I'm just sort of wondering, I'm really wondering what's gonna come out of this synod.

What are the new things God is not afraid of? Pope Francis. I would be really interested in knowing that. I mean, already, I just started sitting back and if this guy is sending videos and sort of chumming around with people like Kenneth Copeland not real high on this guy's discernment in the first place, I would say.

Then again, who's really high on the Pope's discernment of pretty much anything, I suppose. But it's gonna be very interesting to see what comes out of this synod and how Rome manages to find some way of spinning it because they'll need to be spinning it.

But there you have today's papal quote. Not that we have a feature where we feature papal quotes, but sounded good. God is not afraid of new things. Pope Francis. And we will see what comes out. Speaking of Roman Catholicism and 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number for all of the legions of people who wish to call in and I don't know, have a discussion about anything other than eschatology, I suppose, and not something I really am interested in getting into.

But last night I was down here at the office and till after dark and I jumped to the car and I didn't wanna listen to Mark Levin screaming again. I can only take about two and a half minutes of that kind of berating.

He reminds me so much, what's that guy? What's that nasty anti-Calvinist guy? I think he's based out of Australia. He put out a video recently going after John MacArthur and he couldn't pronounce Sproul's name and he's just this really interesting dude who stands up there and just yells at people.

And his name is slipping my mind at the moment because he just yells at people and hence I don't really find him all that interesting. Oh, someone in channel just stole an Al Mohler quote and misused it.

I'm not sure if we can allow that. I might have to kick Piano Man out. In a Genesis 3 world, God is not afraid of new things. I gotta start using in a Genesis 3 world because it's fairly obvious to me that Dr. Mohler thinks that theology matters and dividing line are his.

And I'm just need to remind folks, including Dr. Mohler that not. So I might just have to start stepping on somebody else's territory and talking about Genesis 3 worlds. But anyway. What was that guy's name?

Anyways, he just yells and screams at people and I can't handle Mark Levin that way either. So I decide to pop on over to the local EWTN, Immaculate Heart station. See what was on, see what was. And the problem was, the sun's setting so much earlier, when they go to low power, wow, it really starts breaking up.

And what I discovered is as I'm driving toward my house, basically by the time I get to my house, it's gone. I can't, I can pick it up here at the office. So as I'm driving, I'm listening, but it's getting worse and worse and worse.

And by the time I got within about, I don't know, three quarters of a mile of the house, I just had to turn it off because it was just gone. I couldn't hear it anymore. Which was why I couldn't figure out.

I mean, I jumped online. I said, man, I want to review this talk. I want to talk about this. Because this was the best example that I knew of that I can show you of Jack Chick as a Roman Catholic. Now, some of you don't know who Jack Chick is.

Most of you do. Jack Chick is, looks like we're having all sorts of feed problems today. What's, come on, man. I mean, you know, I thought the earlier in the day, the better. And evidently that's not the case.

I'm peddling as fast as I can. Uh-huh, yeah, okay.

All right, when my daughter's complaining on Twitter that this ain't working, that's not a good thing. And we reset stuff, didn't we? Great. The net's working well today. I guess some folks will have to just drop over to the, well, we're not showing anything today.

I don't have any video to play. So you might as well jump over to the MP3.

It seems to be coming back. So that could last about another 10 seconds, but, or it could last the whole show.

Well, it's really distracting to see all the discussion and channel about, well, let's talk about something else because he's gone, you know, it's Well, the audio feed's working good. Yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

People might jump over to the audio feed and forget about the video today. Anyways, but some people are saying reloading the YouTube page actually helps. I'm not sure why that would be, but who knows?

Who knows? Anyway, what I heard on this program, on Immaculate Heart Radio, Jack Chick. I told you, I got that part. Was the Jack Chick or the Roman Catholics? I mean, Jack Chick is well-known for his really, really, really, really bad arguments against, well, he's King James only, and he had the Alberto stuff and all that kind of stuff.

And, you know, Roman Catholic apologists like to make fun of Jack Chick because it's easy to make fun of Jack Chick because when you use bad arguments and people can make fun of you. Well, Rome has its own Jack Chicks, believe me.

And I found out this morning who this guy was. His name's Clayton Bauer. And I didn't have time to go through and do the normal editing stuff because I only got the, I bought the program this morning and got it down here via Dropbox.

But I found exactly where I turned on the radio. And so I'm gonna fire this up right where I came in. So you'll hear exactly what I heard. And I'm just gonna make some comments and then we'll start going to the calls because we've got a number of callers online already.

Austin and Roger in an interesting place I've never heard of before. Something tells me that that's probably Annapolis, not Kannapolis, but I know it's Kannapolis. Never heard of it. Anyways, we'll get to them.

But here's Clayton Bauer, Roman Catholic Apologist. He's introduced at the beginning as a scholar of scripture. And so here's what got my attention. And I'm gonna play it again, just one click faster than normal because otherwise we just sort of sit here and you all can handle it.

So here's Clayton Bauer. And this is a talk called where we got the Bible, where we got the Bible. Pick and choose.

Some you might like, some you might not like, but sorry, they're all authentic. They are all vouched for by the Catholic church. You can't pull out seven you don't like. It might surprise you, Martin Luther didn't want to stop at seven.

Martin Luther did not like the epistles of John and the epistles of James. He called them epistles of straw, throw them away. They're like, hey, we don't need them.

Now I've always wanted to ask these folks. So why does he keep quoting them as scripture? Why are there entire master's theses and doctoral dissertations on Luther's continued utilization of James in his later writings, et cetera, et cetera.

Why was there never an attempt to quote unquote call a council or anything? Why not mention those things? Well, it's because just as there are bad arguments that float around amongst Protestants in regards to Pope Joan and stuff like that, that just, well, that sounds really good.

I think I'll throw that one out the next time I talk to my Roman Catholic relatives. There are really bad arguments amongst Roman Catholics. And you can tell the Roman Catholics who just aren't up to really engaging meaningfully because they'll pull from that kind of pool of bad arguments, just like there are Protestants who aren't up to really engaging in Roman Catholicism that do the exact same thing.

And both of them are just, you know, both sides would be appropriately identified as either anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant because when you use bad argumentation, that's the way to go. That's, you know, just use bad arguments and it'll, like these arguments.

Well, other Protestants, wait a minute, we've gone far enough.

We're not doing that. Sadly, many liberal Protestant churches don't believe any of them anymore. They're all phony. They're all just literature. It's thanks to the Catholic church that the authority of scripture was maintained and the integrity of it maintained.

Now, to finish up, I said, I hope I don't offend people picking on King James, the King James Bible, but some things have to be said about this. As I said, you can ask a non-Catholic who's confronting you, where'd the book come from?

You can ask them, where are the originals? You can ask them also, who was King James? Who was King James? King James was a political head of state.

Now, I'm wondering, is this guy running into a lot of King James only guys or something?

Is that what this is about? He was the King of England, an hereditary politician, not elected, but born, or sometimes coming to the throne because of the death of the predecessor. His mother was Mary Queen of Scots, who had her head cut off by Elizabeth.

He was a political authority, not a religious authority. He wasn't a bishop. He wasn't a priest. He was a King. Now, you might say, well, doesn't a King have some authority over scripture? No, no. How many people here would buy a Bill Clinton Bible, okay?

How many would buy a Bill Clinton? That's absurd.

Must be an older talk, because now it'd be significantly more effective to say how many would buy a Barack Obama Bible. That would be a much, but this evidently comes from a while back. Or if Bill Clinton said to Congress, well, let's have a committee.

And have the committee write one for us. And you can picture Ted Kennedy heading the committee or something, so, boy.

That's really old, because now, wait a minute, wasn't he a, oh, nevermind. I thought Ted Kennedy was a good Catholic boy. At least that's what they say. Anyway, the problem here, obviously, is that you have popes who were clearly, deeply involved in politics, involved in the translation of the Bible for Roman Catholics as well.

I mean, the history of the Latin Vulgate, the idea of putting out an infallible Vulgate under papal authority, long history in all of these things. And the papacy has been a political animal, been one of its great downfalls for a very, very, very long time.

And so to try to pretend, now, of course, how much involvement did the king have in the translation of the King James Bible? Some, he gave some guidelines, but it wasn't like he was overly involved with it.

I mean, he said, you'll translate church as church and not as assembly, and baptized, you'll transliterate rather than actually translate, and a few things like that. So he had some influence along those lines, but it was fairly minimal.

But there was political reasoning behind the translation of the King James, because the Geneva Bible just had too much clout because of its notes. And many of those notes restricted the authority of the throne.

And so there was a reason for, it was one of the reasons for the translation of the King James was to try to replace the Geneva and the influence that the Geneva's notes primarily had on lay people.

Well, that's what King James did. Called a committee and he says, produce one for me. Henry VIII had one, he wanted one. Sorry, no. The only authority over the Bible is the church. No king, no politician, no Congress, no parliament.

What authority does the King James Bible have? None. The only authority it has is so long as it's in conformity with what the Catholic Bible has. Otherwise, it has no authority. As I said, this shocks many, many non-Catholics, but it's true, it's true.

Another sad thing, King James wasn't Catholic. He was brought up Protestant deliberately. His mother was Catholic. That's one of the reasons she had her head cut off. James was taken from her as a baby and raised as a Protestant.

When Elizabeth died and James was gonna be King, they went shopping around Europe for a noble woman who was a Protestant. And they settled on the Lutheran Princess Anne of Denmark. But what had happened to Princess Anne after she became Queen?

Not too long after becoming Queen of King James, who ordered this, she became a Catholic. Many Protestants don't know that. King James' own wife, Anne the Protestant, became a Catholic. Another sad thing is King James became a degenerate.

Towards the end of his reign, he was scandalizing the court because he had a male lover, the Duke of Buckingham. Is that the kind of authority? To have control over scripture?

No, wait a minute. Does this guy really think that Protestants think that King James somehow had authority over the Bible? Sounds like it. Sounds like that's what he's saying. I don't even, I mean, even King James-onlius don't go there.

At least not any of them I've heard. I mean, some of them will defend King James to the end and defend him against the various accusations made against him and all that kind of stuff. But just the thinking here is just so disconnected from having, but then again, it just reminds me.

How long ago was it the Guardian was supposed to call in with his list of all of my errors? Let me see. Oh, it's at least four years. I think it's more than that. You look at the Catholic Answers Forums and sadly, this kind of thinking, this insulated, I don't ever have meaningful interaction with anything outside of Roman Catholicism, it's scary.

It's scary. And I know there are people on the other side that there are lots of Protestants that know nothing whatsoever about Roman Catholicism. Their opposition to Rome is thoroughly based upon traditional ignorance and nothing more.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose Rome. Unfortunately, Jack Chick missed most of them and that's the problem.

These are the facts that they just don't know. You have to go to the Catholic Church who protects and defends the Bible. So poor King James had quite a reputation and sadly, it's not known. Now, a couple of funny things to wind up with.

The Bible is inspired, the Catholic Bible. However, printers are not inspired. Printing presses are not inspired.

Now, I was wondering where he could be going here because of course, there have been printing errors in Catholic versions of the Bible too. That's hardly relevant. But I really started wondering, does he think that printing errors would have something to do with Sola Scriptura?

Because all of this is fundamentally an attack on Sola Scriptura. I mean, is he so ignorant of what the real issues are that that's where he's gonna go?

Well, let's find out. Printers' apprentices are not inspired.

Now, the signal is starting to break up here. So I was really having to start to struggle to catch all this.

Editors aren't inspired. What am I getting at? Well, keep in mind, non-Catholics say the Bible alone. That's all you go by. That's all you can go by. Forget the church.

I heard specifically that. Let's listen to that again. Here is another straw man, misrepresentation. And again, if these folks were being in any way trying to meaningfully study the other side, and this is one of the primary problems I have with the vast majority of Roman Catholic apologists.

If you listen to the vast majority of the most popular Roman Catholic apologists to this day, they do not invest their time in listening to what their critics are saying. They do not invest their time in advancing their apologetic.

As long as their apologetic is keeping the income level where it needs to be, that's good enough. That's good enough. Here's an individual who clearly has no meaningful experience in interacting with any strong non-Catholic criticisms of his faith because he couldn't say this stuff.

Listen to what he says again.

What am I getting at? Well, keep in mind, non-Catholics say the Bible alone. That's all you go by. That's all you can go by. Forget the church.

Forget the church, really? Who says that? I mean, I know in your mind, Mr. Bauer, that to say, to remember the church means just the Roman church, ultimate authority, infallible, above scripture, all the rest of that kind of stuff.

I get that. But for those of us who actually read the New Testament and look at the church that is found there, it doesn't have popes and it doesn't have cardinals and it doesn't have this massive magisterium.

It has two offices, elder and deacon, and it doesn't have seven sacraments. When we look at that church, the actual church that Christ founded, we find that church to be subservient to scripture and to view scripture as being theanoustos, it's God breathed, it's Christ speaking.

And so scripture is the means by which God speaks to the church. And so the church is always reformed by the scriptures, which are divine and which are entrusted to church, but remain the authority over the church.

That's what we see. And so we never say it's just you alone under a tree and there's no church. Now there are some weird, wacky people that are non-Catholics, but I would also say they're non-Protestants.

They certainly don't have anything to do with the reformers who go off and do their weird thing. But you see, it seems that Clayton Bauer has the idea that either you're a Catholic or you're the guy sitting under the tree and that's it.

And the funny thing is, we can see how cartoonish this caricature is with someone like Clayton Bauer. But you gotta understand, the real argument of the call to confusion, guys, is the same thing. It's just much more fancy.

It takes you a lot more digging to get down to it. That's fundamentally what they're saying. Paint the target on the wall and around the arrow type thing. That's pretty much the same argument. It's just, you have to go all over the place to get around to it.

But it's pretty much the same argument. But that's as a straw man. No one says, forget the church. That's not what Sola Scriptura is. And the vast majority of attacks on Sola Scriptura launched by both Catholics and Orthodox are aimed at straw men.

I mean, there are flaming straw men everywhere.

Well, if you do that, you've got problems. Lots of problems. For instance, there are sections in the King James that might make you chuckle. One of them, one of my favorites, the Wicked Bible. It was the King James Version of 1795.

Called the Wicked Bible because something was misprinted. In Exodus, it had a list of the commandments. And there's one commandment where the word not was left out. Instead of saying, thou shalt not commit adultery, the King James of 1795 said, thou shalt commit adultery.

Well, if you go by the Bible alone,.

There's gonna be a lot of trouble. If you go by the Bible alone, there's gonna be a lot of trouble. Really? Seriously? That's right. I was almost uncertain last evening on the radio as to whether I was hearing that.

Because it was so silly. This is an English translation. It's a typographical error of an English translation. It's not the Bible. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek long before the English language came into existence.

Any typographical error, any mistranslation, New World Translation, Joseph Smith-inspired version, I don't care what, are irrelevant to the Bible or to Sola Scriptura. I mean, whoa, just bad, bad, bad, bad, bad stuff.

But that's what you've got coming out of Rome. And so once I have the time, I'm gonna go through this. It's only an hour and nine minutes long. And I'll do the mark stuff up so we can get to the important stuff thing.

But that's what I heard last night as I was driving home. And I said to myself, man, I've gotta get that. And so I couldn't get it last night because the online schedule stuff was completely different than what I was hearing.

The online schedule said I was listening to a rosary program. Don't think so. And I tried calling the station last night. They weren't open. So I finally called this morning. A really nice young lady answered.

Said, well, actually, here locally, we've got some other stuff on in the evenings than EWTN. And this was the program. And boom, I was able to get it. Had to pay for it, but I was able to get the presentation.

And it's called Fair Use, guys. Because it's St. Joseph's. So we've had our experiences of St. Joseph's Catholic Communications or whatever it is they call themselves. But just really bad stuff. Really, really poor argumentation.

But it's out there. And so you have to deal with the bad stuff as well as the good stuff. And so, what? What? Oh, it's a joke that I would have to have read back. Oh, okay, great, thanks. Yeah, sometimes a channel is definitely very, very distracting when it comes to.

Church, Sola Scriptura, and the Authority of Scripture

877 -753 -3341, for the few of you who are actually able to hear us. I guess it's going pretty well at the moment. So, okay. I mean, if your Molinism senses go off. So I guess we have a Molinist moving to Phoenix.

Took an engineering job in Phoenix, moving from New York. If your Molinism senses go off, that's me arriving. Okay, well, I'm not even gonna go there. Not right now. Let's take some phone calls and talk to Austin.

Hi, Austin.

Hey, Dr. White. Hey, Chapel Hill, everybody at Chapel Hill.

Is a good, solid Bible-believing Christian. There's no unbelievers in Chapel Hill.

Well, there's one former believer in Chapel Hill. Yes, I know. I took his class last semester. You did? Well, congratulations. Yes, yes, it was very good. You mean there might be some circularity.

Because you come up with a theory of church history that you don't derive from the New Testament documents and then you try to make the New Testament documents fit your theory and as a result, the pastoral epistles have to be later because in your theory, that's a later form of the church and therefore, you mean that problem?

Yeah, something like that. Yeah, yeah. Mind if I lay it out for you real quick? Sure.

You mean I didn't just lay it out for you? So, well, sort of. His arguments, you know, First Corinthians is written mid -50s, pastoral's around 90, group, no monarchical, no structure, anything like that, and then deacons and all that, thought that Jesus was coming back immediately and so he didn't think that there was any need for some kind of long-term stable structure, free-roaming charismatic group, whereas after he died, the Christian community starts freaking out because Jesus, it's been too long, Jesus hasn't come back, so they decided we need a more stable deacons and all that stuff, written in 90, deacons in the mid -60s.

That means in just a few short years, the whole Christian community starts freaking out that it's been too long and Jesus hasn't come back and they decide they need some, not enough time given his dating.

Yeah, well, there's a couple things there. Again, the theory determines your conclusions because you end up having to dismiss Ephesians and Colossians as Pauline as well. I'm assuming he does, he probably has the seven.

Yes, same thing as Herman. Okay, yeah.

So you have to get rid of Ephesians and Colossians because you clearly do have a very settled church structure in those places. And the much more obvious explanation for the more fluid situation in Corinth in comparison to Colossae or Ephesus or Philippi or what you have in the pastorals is, I mean, historically, if you don't begin with the assumption of the evolutionary Bauer-type stuff, which I imagine you sound like you've probably already read the heresy of orthodoxy.

I sure have, yes. Okay, well, then you're familiar with how many holes there are in Bauer's thesis on so many different levels. And yet this is the whole, all of this is still based upon demanding that kind of Bauerian evolution that there can't be an actual apostolic ministry, an apostolic revelation of truth, et cetera, et cetera.

It would seem that the more obvious answer for why there is something different, and there is in Corinth, is the nature of the Corinthian church, which if you look at church history, let's just leave the New Testament authorship stuff off to the side for a moment.

What's one of the earliest extant writings that we have outside of the New Testament? Okay, you've got Clement, you've got the Didache, and you've got Ignatius, right? Ignatius, yep. And what does Clement show us?

That Corinth kept having problems. I mean, it just seems to be endemic in the Corinthian church that there is, and what is the problem that they have in Clement's letter? And of course, we all know Clement's name is not attached, it's tradition, the idea that he was bishop and all the rest of that stuff, he was probably actually just the secretary for the plurality of elders that they had at Rome at that point in time.

Rome did not have a monarchical episcopate until the middle of the second century, but what's the problem they have? They've kicked out their elders. There is rebelliousness. And so if you were just to, it's interesting, if these folks were just to allow the New Testament documents to really be the source, the best source they have for the New Testament church, they wouldn't come to these conclusions because those documents would give them a very plausible understanding of why Corinth seems to be in a different category than Ephesus, where Paul doesn't have a whole lot of time in Corinth, but he stays for years in Ephesus, and wow, there's, hmm, there's a difference between the two, yeah.

When you can actually raise up elders and raise up people who are gifted by God to function that way, man, has a big impact upon the results in that church. And if you would understand that, they're assuming some kind of uniformity, as if all churches have to be the same.

Well, just read, I mean, I don't know when they, when your author, your professor, dates Revelation, but look at what is said to the seven churches. Those seven churches are not identical with one another.

If you just allow the New Testament to actually be the basis, you would recognize, you know what, there were differences between churches, there are differences between churches today. I mean, even amongst churches that would be, I think Reformed Baptist churches have massive consistency all across the globe.

But that doesn't change the fact, and I traveled to lots of Reformed Baptist churches, I see differences. We have the same hymnal, we have the same confession of faith, and yet I see differences between those churches.

And that's what I see in the New Testament too. But they can't allow that because there is, let's be honest, there is an external authority here, there's something functioning in their analysis of that information that requires them to come up with a different understanding.

And so, yeah, it's a

So you're saying that Uniform Church is their evolutionary character?

That's one of their assumptions that needs to be analyzed. The other assumption is that we don't really have to use the New Testament. We can allege the New Testament to be an error until it's proven innocent.

They go the opposite direction. Rather than allowing the New Testament to be the default source that would then lead us to understand these things, the New Testament is subject to naturalistic revision and changes and Ehrman's silent years stuff and all the rest of this stuff.

Even though there's no evidence of that kind of wholesale editing or changing before the first manuscripts, all the rest of that stuff, we still throw it out there. And that way you can basically throw Ephesians, Colossians, the pastorals out.

It's very, very effective, as I'm sure you probably saw, to convince people that a number of the books in the New Testament are actually forgeries. That's very effective because fundamentally the desire is to undercut the faith of believing Christians.

That's what he's up to. And I think the final day is going to illustrate that very clearly. What would you recommend on Pauline authorship? Well, pretty much any, if you're talking about the pastorals, there's a, I've always found the Kistemacher, what was, who's the other guy?

Anyway, that set, it wasn't Kistemacher, it was the other guy. And the name's escaping me and 30 seconds from now it'll pop up in the channel. I don't have my commentaries in here. That set on the introduction to the pastorals had an excellent analysis of things like the word usage studies and all that kind of stuff.

Really good introduction. That's where you find most of it, I think, is in good commentaries, sometimes the older commentaries, because a lot of this stuff's been around for a long, long time. And the introductory sections will provide a good amount of information.

All right, thank you very much, Dr. White. All right, thanks, Austin, and congratulations on surviving Barterman. Thank you very much. We'll talk to you later, bye-bye. See ya. All right, so let's press on and talk to Roger in, is this right, Kannapolis?

That's right, Dr. White, Kannapolis, North Carolina. How are you?

I'm, well, Rich is feeling vindicated in the other world. Other world, other world.

Well, Kannapolis is actually only about 30 miles.

Okay, all right. Well, that means that in January of 2016, I'll be doing something around there because I know I'm teaching for RTS in the JAN term in January of 2016. And obviously what I'll try to do is arrange some debates and some other speaking stuff around that area.

So mark it on your calendar. And by the way, as I just said, it took 30 seconds, but Turgeon fan, William Hendrickson is what I was, that was the name I was trying to find there for The Last Caller and for those watching on video.

Anyways, Roger, what can we do for you?

More of a reform thought around here in our community. I'm actually a youth pastor of an FBC church, and I'm serving