Leaked Roe, Cameron Bertuzzi and Isaiah 22

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We're back here in where we've been since 2006, actually. Yeah, right about 16 years now. We've been in here, didn't look like this at the start. We had a window back there and a prototype shelf in the corner that I'm really surprised did not just collapse during one of the programs at some point, just for the fun of it.

But yes, so now we return for three months, basically, before we head up to Colorado. Jason Lyle and I will be doing a seminar together up there in Colorado. We're really looking forward to that. Love Jason, smartest man I've ever met and just a wonderful brother.

And the most amazing combination of intelligence and humility that I've ever come across. And so it's great to spend time with Jason. And going up to our old haunts there in Colorado, a little bit of high altitude riding, just to hopefully clear the lungs out because I can certainly use it while we're up there.

Man, last year it was the Smoky Mountains, not the Rocky Mountains. It was bad. I mean, you could just cut the air with a knife last year. Hopefully it won't be happening this time around as we are up there in August.

And then in September, heading back to DC, Museum of the Bible, G3. Hope you've got your stuff ready to go. And I'm not sure if I can actually announce that. Let's just say that right now the plans are you'll be doing something fun on the way back.

And I forgot to ask if I could announce it, but I'll be the smart one and not do that right now. Something cool on the way back. It's going to be a long trip. It's looking at, it'll definitely be the longest we've ever done distance wise.

Probably close to 45, 4 ,600 miles, maybe close to 5 ,000. It'll probably be closer to 5 ,000 once I get done with it. But time wise, it's going to be really difficult to bring that one in under five weeks.

Five weeks on the road, that's a long time, long, long time. But that's how we're doing it. And that means hopefully we'll be able to be visiting a few churches along the way. When you've got a long distance to travel, sometimes you've got to push some of those days.

Don't like to, but there it goes. That's how things go today. I want to start off with a couple of book recommendations. I normally don't do that. But obviously, it always works this way. Like two days after I left, my box of Ruler of Kings by Joseph Boot came in.

That's a very nice picture, Joe. On the back, it's got my endorsement on the back as well as in the front, actually. And I was very glad that actually inside you've got two endorsements. Mine says history.

Now, I don't think anyone from the Nevada Highway Patrol is listening right now. So I'm probably okay with this. But I wrote this while driving. So I'm doing voice dictation. But you know how voice dictation is.

You've got to edit voice dictation. So I did this while driving. Now, I was in the middle of nowhere. If I had gone off the road, the only thing I would have killed would have been a stray lizard. Because there's a reason why they explode nuclear bombs out there.

Because there's nothing there. I didn't want to get too far off the road because I've seen some movies about the results of exploding nuclear bombs and things like that. So it's not good. Anyway, so I wrote this using voice dictation quite some time ago now.

History teaches us that enduring works of Christian insight flow forth from times of persecution and attack. As secularism rushes toward its inevitable totalitarian solutions, Christians need to think deeply concerning the issues that now confront us.

Ruler of Kings reminds us that Christ, scepter of power, rules over all of life. And that he will inevitably receive the inheritance of nations, a must-read in our day. James R. White, apologist, theologian, and author.

Director of Alpha Omega Ministries in Phoenix. And I suppose, for the issue of transparency, I'm also a fellow of the Ezra Institute, which is what Joe heads up. So there you go. But right above mine is an endorsement from a guy who only got to read this book because I snuck it to him.

I did get permission, but I thought he would want to read this. And he did, and he loved it. And he wrote, Astounding! Without a doubt, Ruler of Kings gets my vote for the most necessary book for the Church today.

Not only are there very few books written on the Lordship of Christ in the civil, ethical, and political realm, I can think of none that expound upon it so thoroughly and with such vision. Every few pages I couldn't help shouting to my wife, This is the book we've been waiting for!

Who's that? John Cooper, American musician, singer, songwriter, and co-founder, lead vocalist, and bassist of the Christian band Skillet. Yes, as soon as I got done listening, because that's how I did it while I was driving, listening to Ruler of Kings, and I listened to it more than once, I sent it to the Coop, to the Doggie, and he loved it.

And it rocked his world. So, Ruler of Kings, available from Ezra Institute and wherever you get your fine books online, etc. Highly, highly recommend it. Mission of God is very, very similar, but it's 500 pages longer.

And this was written, I think, you know, when we think about 2 Timothy, Paul has already been under persecution, he's expecting his life to end at any point in time, that sort of focuses your writing.

And Joe Boot wrote this during the severity of the lockdowns in Canada. They were arresting pastors right, left, and center. And he was expecting that, and I think that really gives you some clarity of thought.

You cut through some of the fog. And so, Joseph Boot, Ruler of Kings, need to get it. I told the story before, this is the second volume of an entire set. And if it has this J, R, big W in it. Yeah, May of 1985.

May of 1985. This was the B .B. Warfield set, the collective works, the works of Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. Most people don't know it's Breckenridge, but it is. Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. In hindsight, this was a spiritual for material trade on my part.

I traded a Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 Magnum for this set of books. Now, I'm glad I had them. But I'm not sure I got the good end of that deal monetarily speaking. But I did. And I got them from my dear friend Jeff Neal.

And that was, ooh, 16 years? Yeah, that'd be 16 years before he and I put out The Same Sex Controversy. My goodness, we've known each other forever. Wow. Yeah, I know, I know, I know, I know. Anyway, I cut my teeth on Warfield.

Today, apologetically, he was definitely not a presuppositionalist. Of course, he's before Van Til, but still contemporaneous with most of the great thinkers that influenced Van Til. There would be some areas where, but on the trinity and on inspiration, I will forever be indebted to B .B. Warfield.

And, of course, if you know anything of his life, his wife's health, he could have produced so much more. But he was absolutely faithful to his marriage vows and cared for an invalid wife his entire life.

And so there were many things he didn't get to do that other people did. And accepted that as part of God's providence. Anyway, Warfield on the trinity. I was reminded recently, I saw one of the new scholastics, the reformed Thomas, criticizing Warfield.

And it all of a sudden clicked for me. Well, no wonder they don't like me. If they don't like Warfield, they're not going to like me. Because I've been open in admitting my dependence upon Warfield. In fact, I think, if I'm not mistaken, Yeah, yeah, here's the section.

I quote this in the Forgotten Trinity. This is Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity in the Collected Works, page 144. We cannot speak of the doctrine of the trinity, therefore, if we study exactness of speech as revealed in the New Testament any more than we can speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament was written before its revelation, the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was made not in word, but in deed. It was made in the incarnation of God the Son, and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit.

The relation of the two testaments to this revelation is in the one case, that of preparation for it, and the other, that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied just in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

This is as much as to say that the revelation of the trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect of, the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the Son of God, and likeness of sinful flesh, to offer himself as sacrifice for sin, and the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, that the trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead was once for all revealed to men.

I remember I was in, I think I may have still been in Bible college, I got this the same month I graduated from Bible college, so before going to seminary, and I just remember where I was in the little apartment that we paid $275 a month for, as I recall, on Pasadena Drive in Phoenix, and I remember reading that section, and my markings are still there, and just having the lights turned on, and the doors opened, and the windows opened, and the light flooding in, and so if, one of the things that's beautiful about Warfield's explanation is it's so biblically grounded, and if you've read The Forgotten Trinity, how do I start?

I'm a biblical Trinitarian, and that's why. I'm telling you right now, that's, there's my source of influence, and if you're more orthodox than Warfield was in the Trinity, well congratulations to you, but you're not more biblically orthodox, that's a problem.

You may be more scholastic, but you're not, and biblical orthodoxy is the only thing I'm overly concerned about. It's rather important. So, Warfield on the Trinity. Get it, read it, and of course, Warfield's article on Theanostas, even though one guy, a couple years ago, tried to do an entire paper saying he was completely wrong about that, talk about face-planting, it was really bad, it's still one of the best things out there, and so I would highly recommend it to everybody.

I'll be looking at these other books when we get into another subject. Before we dive into a couple quotations, audio quotations, I just happened to notice that Carmen just texted me on Twitter. Whatever happened to the invite to come on your channel?

I guess the big thing is channel. Your channel, my channel, go on that channel, have a few pints with Aquinas, and all the rest of that kind of fun stuff, that's the big thing. Well, I'll tell you what.

Why don't you... Let me see what I've got here. Why don't you listen to what I have to say today, and if you want to talk about it, well, glad to do that. I just haven't gotten the feeling from everything that I've heard you saying that you had any interest in that, and you've been rather dismissive of any of us who have tried to warn you about the direction you were going, so I just really didn't think that was much of an issue.

These are vitally important topics, and anyway, we'll be talking about that in just a moment. But first, scrolling back here just a little bit, just see what I'm missing. Hard not to make reference to what happened last night.

My first tweet on it was, I think they broke the internet. Once the Politico story came out, it was just like, Ukraine's gone, inflation's gone, everything's gone, because of what happened last evening.

There are so many questions that are going to have to be answered. So many questions that we don't yet have the answers to. Who? Why? There are lots of theories running around. It's an unprecedented violation of the sanctity of the court's inner workings.

I do not believe a preliminary finding like this, a majority opinion, has ever been leaked. And of course, in our day, once something is leaked like that, it's out there in a second. And of course, it has been confirmed.

Roberts came out today and said, yep, that's what's going around, but they're going to be launching an investigation. Obviously, fingers have been pointed at one particular law clerk page for Sotomayor, who, of course, we know is a radical leftist.

Probably not as radical as the new radical leftists that will be on the court coming up. And we have to remember that what we're seeing from the left right now, just the vile things you're seeing from the left, the insanity, the screaming, the hair-on-fire craziness, their worldview does not provide them with any restraint.

Abortion is the sacrament of their religion. Unrestrained sexual activity is the central theme. Utter rejection of any divine restraint upon human beings is just a given. You can't get past any of these things.

Everybody who knows anything about what's happening knows that this does not result in the abolition of abortion in the United States. Wish it did. Now it goes to the states. Here in Arizona, I'm really angry with the pro-life lobby here in Arizona because a year and a half ago, they got rid of the law that was on the books in Arizona that made abortion illegal.

Now since then, I think the governor has signed a sort of heartbeat level bill or something, if I recall correctly. So there would be something. But abortion as a whole was against the law until the pro-life lobby traded that out for an incremental idea, which will have to be addressed.

But the point is, this doesn't mean that abortion is abolished in the United States. I wish it did, but it doesn't. And it means that it will go to the states and you will have more and more of a division in the United States of America.

And it's inevitable. It's absolutely inevitable. The coasts versus the inland states, there will be a tremendous division. And places like Amazon have already started paying. They will give money to employees to travel to a state where they can murder their children.

And every time I buy something from Amazon, I wish I didn't have to. But to be honest, these days, they've become a monopoly. There are certain things that if you want to get it, if you want to make something work, that's where you're going to get it.

Sometimes you can go directly to manufacturers, but especially with the supply chain issues, you sort of wonder how that all is working out. Yeah, it was pretty purposeful. Anyway, so that's the division that's coming.

But the behavior that you're seeing from people, the vile hatred, and if you've noticed, Libs of TikTok posted a video. It's hard to watch. Foul language. Astonishing the filth of the tongues of those who wallow in the culture of death.

Just, it's astonishing. They can't, many of these people cannot get through two sentences without dropping all sorts of F-bombs and everything else in the process. It's just, it expresses their soul, their heart.

But these people expressing their hatred of unborn children. There was a Libs of TikTok video about, should we burn aborted babies to create electricity? And they're all just going, why not? Yeah, let's do more of it.

You really, it's to the point where you're going, yeah, so somebody kicked open the door of hell and all the demons are running around because you couldn't, the self-destructive, I mean, I've always said that I don't think God has to expend any energy whatsoever to punish anyone in hell.

When you take a creature made in his image and you remove all restraints from that creature, then that hatred, which is currently restrained by God and currently that hand of restraint is being lessened a great deal.

And you're not going to know of anybody else in hell. You're going to be alone. People think you have a big old party in hell. No, you're going to be alone. Not going to see anybody else. You may hear their screams, but you're not going to hear anybody else.

Meet anybody else. You want to lash out with your entire being at God as these people are right now, but there's nothing left to lash out against. The only thing left that is made in the image of God is yourself.

And I can't conceive of the depths of that suffering, but it's self-inflicted. God doesn't have to be, there doesn't have to be, you know, devils running around with pitchforks or any of that kind of medieval foolishness.

I think that's really what we're talking about when we talk about hell. Anyway, so we're seeing this taking place all around us and we don't exactly know how to deal with it because first of all, it's Romans 1 right in front of us.

It's a fulfillment of everything scripture says. And yet we also know that unless God had been merciful to us, that's where we would be. But we know these people hate children and which means they really hate themselves because they were children.

I mean, it's just, it's a difficult time to know exactly how to respond to all these things. If in fact this is an attempt to bring tremendous pressure to bear against the five justices who have voted for this, you know, I would like to think because Roberts isn't listed, I would like to think that what might happen here, I'd love to see his boomerang.

I'd love to see him so angry that someone tried to fundamentally destroy the court in this way that he will actually go with the majority and make it 6 -3. Just simply say, no, you're not doing that. That'd be wonderful.

But the concerns are pressures against the justices and then the other thing is to create massive pressure against what have turned out to be the two Democrats that have kept the Democrats from just simply running our nation into the ground already.

Joe Manchin, West Virginia, West Virginia is not, West Virginia is not exactly the most liberal state on the planet. So if he wants to continue his political career, he's got to, and it seems like he actually has some kind of worldview backbone in some areas anyways.

And then, I'm from Arizona, folks. And every time I look at one of our, she's not the senior senator, is she? Oh my goodness. She is. Oh my gosh. The senior senator from the great state of Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, the first openly bisexual senator of the United States.

Yeah. So if the idea is to put pressure on those two, that may work, I don't know. I don't know. To get rid of the filibuster so they can then ram through not only the Equality Act, but ram through a Roe v. Wade replacement, turn it into law, turn it into national law.

That's what they want to do. And it's never been possible in the past because of the Senate and its rules. You actually have to get people on the other side to agree with you so you can't have just one-party rule.

Well, that's what they want to get rid of. They want one-party rule. They have it in California. They're getting it out of the States. They've got it in New York, pretty much. They want it in the United States as well so they can absolutely completely undo the Constitution.

That's their goal. So we'll see. Because, man, the people that I see, the absolute lack of mature thought, self-control, and simple sanity, morals and ethics,.

Going on right now is amazing. Yes, sir? What was interesting to me is that what I read last night shows that it wasn't just the document that was leaked. There's actually a discussion of the temperament of where each of the justices are at and why.

And Roberts specifically was referred to as they didn't know which way he was going to go and that he's trying to bring both sides together, which I don't know how he does that. But he's trying to make this middle ground position and not take a position.

Don't do that here. My understanding was that's why he was on the minority side is because the position enunciated in the actual opinion written by Alito is the end of Roe and Casey and Toto. I mean, not just a modification.

Flush that sucker down the toilet.

It just flat-out calls it bad law. But the depiction on Politico that I read last night, I got the impression that he wasn't really wanting to vote with the liberals, but he doesn't want to vote with Alito either.

So he's in no-man's land.

Well, like I said, this could give him the reason to go ahead and vote with the majority and he'll write his own opinion and try to rescue the precedent idea. But yeah, we'll see. We will see. We pray, and we pray that we will be able to respond to the demonic explosion in our country with gospel-centered grace and no compromise.

Not easy to do. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know exactly how to do it or that I will do it exactly right, because I won't. But that's what we need to pray for. All right. My daughter keeps responding to people on Twitter today.

Abortion is murder. Don't argue with my daughter right now about that subject. I would highly recommend to you. We were very, very, yesterday, very, very, very thankful. She posted pictures of my soon-to-be grandson, who is due to be born September 2nd, and he's doing great.

She appreciates prayers for that pregnancy. She's had two miscarriages in a row, and so we've been praying very hard that the Lord would grant this little booger a healthy pregnancy and a healthy delivery.

And she's still got some time to go. Little bun's got to stay in the oven. But we had just gotten that word yesterday, so now's not a good time to be telling a mama who's got a little baby boy in there kicking her ribs apart that that's just a blob of cells.

No, I don't think so. I'm sorry? No, no, don't mess with summer right now. Actually, you should never mess with summer, but especially right now. That would be very, very highly unwise, as people on Twitter are probably discovering right about now.

The Leaked Roe Decision and the Culture of Death

All right, so I was directed to a conversation that took place... Actually, I think I pulled this down from Facebook, if I'm recalling correctly. Braxton Hunter at Trinity Bible College and Seminary. Yeah, I'm just looking at this.

Yeah, because I was looking around for the YouTube link and there was one. It might be on YouTube someplace. I don't know. I don't know, but this was... Oh, wait a minute. No, no, it is on YouTube. Never mind.

So this was posted. So it's Trinity Radio, and it was... It's got less than 2 ,000 views, so it can't be all that old. I don't know why, recently, I've had more and more trouble... There it is. You really have to pull YouTube way out.

It, for some reason, thinks that the date of the posting is not relevant, and it was today. I just don't know why. Maybe... Yeah, see, right there, I just pushed it back in and the date disappeared. Why does it do that?

That is very bothersome. Anyway, so it is on the... If you just want people to be able to watch the whole thing, it's on Trinity Radio. So you just put in Trinity Radio. It'll come up May 3rd, so it's today.

What will Catholicism cost Cameron? Cameron Bertuzzi, of Capturing Christianity, was on with Braxton Hunter on the Trinity channel. And so I listened to it, and obviously, for quite some time, I've forgotten how many times now we have addressed some of the...

Cameron had this Australian Roman Catholic fellow on his program a couple of times, and we played some segments of that, some sections of that, and we've talked about solo scriptura and about providing various answers to these things.

And there is a... Obviously, I believe there's a place for meaningful interaction. We've done... I've lost track. Over 30 moderated public debates since August of 1990 with Jimmy Akin. Well, actually, Jimmy Akin in person, no.

We did a radio debate once. But Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid, individuals like that. Jerry Matitix, of course, 13 different times. And we did the Great Debate series on Long Island for a full decade, as I recall.

So Gary Machuta and, of course, Mitch Pacwa and I have done, I think, five, maybe six debates, and those are the ones I'd recommend to people. They're the best because Mitch doesn't play games. He's not trying to just prove himself to be a little smart because everybody knows he already is.

Stuff like that. So we've just done a lot of debates over the years. Robertson-Genis, we've done, I think, five debates with Bob over the years. And so we've addressed the issue of the papacy, sola scriptura, the Marian dogmas, all sorts of things down through the years.

And so as I heard these conversations going, there's all this... YouTube has created all this space for conversation. Well, obviously, I'm not against conversation, but I think that it has to have a particular purpose.

And I think it has to have particular goals. And I don't think that people should be engaging in these conversations when they themselves are not actually rooted and grounded in what they believe. And it was just painfully obvious.

I remember, I think we talked about John Six, and there was this, going back, Matt Fradd, I think was the guy's name. And it was just... I was very clear in saying to Cameron, it just doesn't sound like you really know what you believe.

You're not theologically formed. I'm not sure what you're doing apologetics. And that's one of the issues. One of the things here is, he's approaching this as a philosophical question, doing Bayesian statistical analysis of arguments.

And that's not why I do apologetics. I'm a biblical Trinitarian. I believe in a biblical gospel. I do apologetics because I believe the Bible is the word of God. And that's not just one of my beliefs.

That's the belief that allows me to do all the other of my beliefs. Because God has spoken. If God hasn't spoken, it's your opinion versus my opinion. If the Bible isn't enough, then it's that interpreter versus that interpreter.

There's really no sense in doing all this stuff. And that's why I don't think... I don't happen to enjoy sitting around pretending I'm having a scotch with somebody else that's from some other perspective and having a bunch of people watch it.

I don't find that to be anything overly exciting. Anyway, so I listened to the whole discussion. And there was a lot that I wanted to respond to. But again, I had to think about the fact that since I've been back from my trip, I'm doing some coughing.

That's why I'm drinking a little bit more, trying to keep the voice from going too crazy. And what would be most useful to people? What would be most helpful? And so we're going to listen to some of the comments here.

Provide some responses. And go from there. And hopefully this will be helpful to everybody. So this is about... Yeah, it's not quite the halfway mark of the conversation. This is actually just under 21 minutes into the conversation.

So let's listen.

But there was another... So the Eucharist is something that I have had a sort of metaphorical view of the Eucharist. But what I realized recently is that even if... You take a metaphorical reading of John 6.

And John 6 is the verse where Jesus says, you have got to eat my flesh, you've got to drink my blood. Yeah, and so like... But I still, to this day, I have a metaphorical view of that reading, of that text.

But what I realized is that that's actually compatible with the real presence view, or the Catholic view. Because that's not even about the Last Supper in John 6. It's not a Last Supper narrative. So you could take a metaphorical reading of that, but then still hold that when it actually comes to the Last Supper, Jesus was talking about his body and his blood.

And so that's something that I've sort of changed my mind on recently. Where I lean toward that view still, this metaphorical reading of John 6. But nevertheless, I could still have that view. And then if I were to accept the papacy, then it's not really an objection to Catholicism per se.

So I thought it was. For the longest time, I thought that a metaphorical reading of John 6 meant that Catholicism is probably not true. But then I came to realize, no, that's not the case. And I came to that actually on my own.

I just thought about it one day and I was like, wait a second, that doesn't actually follow. There is a possible way, a possible out here for Catholicism. In that you could take a metaphorical reading of John 6 and then take a sort of literal reading of the Last Supper narratives.

I think it's in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. So those actually are a couple of examples of doctrinal positions where you actually have already, if not become convinced, at least can see, okay, that's not as big of a problem as I thought it was.

Those are my big issues. That, divine simplicity, the Eucharist, and there was one other one that I can't think of off the top of my head.

I'm not sure how you have three issues and can't remember what the third one is, but because you're not old enough, I can do that all the time. I'm old enough. I'm not sure, I'm not sure, just playing with Rich over there, I'm not sure, I'm completely lost, honestly, on the divine simplicity thing, because that's not a Roman Catholic Protestant issue.

We're debating how far you take simplicity and what it means and application amongst ourselves, actually, but the concept that God's not made up of parts, that's just a given. So I'm sort of guessing that being heavily influenced by William Lane Craig, that he's thinking divine simplicity primarily in the context of the extended application from Thomas, maybe, whatever, but I would, first person I've ever encountered that thought simplicity was a dividing issue between Protestants and Catholics, but anyway, and then odd that it would be, well, there's this one guy that came up with a way of defining it that I'm okay with.

I'm not sure if you're going to say that there is a certain doctrine of simplicity that is dogmatically demanded by Rome, that's going to be Thomas's view specifically. But hey, philosophically, you can come up with anything you want in that area, as long as you work hard enough at it.

But notice the discussion of the Eucharist. It's not about John 6. Obviously, John 6 defines itself. Start where Jesus starts, and he says, the one coming to me will never hunger, the one believing me will never thirst.

He defines the hungering and the thirsting as coming and believing in him. That's his own definition from the start. And yeah, it's not a Last Supper narrative, as you have in the Gospels or in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, but it certainly has been used by the bishops of Rome as foundational to the entire concept of the Mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice.

But here's the problem. I never hear Cameron showing that a biblical theology is his foundation for analyzing anything. The whole concept of the Eucharist has direct impact upon what you believe about the issue of the atonement.

What is the atonement? What did it accomplish? For whom was it made? Who is the high priest in the book of Hebrews? Why is there no sacerdotal priesthood anywhere in the New Testament? Because there isn't.

And why is it that the one high priest offers Ephipox one time a sacrifice that perfects all those for whom it's made? And how does that therefore impact the whole concept of the Mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice?

The idea that you... The YouTube video is What Would Catholicism Cost Cameron Bertuzzi? This is the issue. It costs you peace with God. It costs you peace with God. Because there is no finished work. You have the Mass as a representation in an unbloody fashion of the sacrifice of Calvary.

But it does not perfect those for whom it is made. And you can come to the Mass 10 ,000 times in your life still to die impure and end up in purgatory undergoing the suffering of satisfaccio. And you can go to the cross 10 ,000 times in your life and commit a mortal sin before you die and go to hell.

Now, do I think the current Pope believes any of that? No, I don't. But that's the point. Because I can guarantee you all the Popes before him did. Or at least 4 or 5 back did, without any question. And so, so much for the infallible papacy and the continuity of the teaching offices of church and blah blah blah blah blah.

That's the whole thing. Why would anybody be looking at Roman Catholicism right now? And even talking about... We're going to listen to him here saying that his Bayesian analysis has the papacy at 85 -90%.

In the days of Francis. I mean, you know, when I first started studying Roman Catholicism, John Paul II, hey, he had been on the throne for a long time, right? And at least you could make some type of argumentation for continuity of teaching content.

But you can't do that with Francis. You know, if you're honest, you know what this guy actually believes. And it's just such a ruse to sit back and go, yeah, but you know, the Spirit won't let him teach that to the church.

What do you mean? He has filled the College of Cardinals with his own acolytes. Is that not teaching the church? Will that not have more fundamental impact upon the direction of the church than anything he would have to say?

Of course it will. It's just amazing these days. You know, I know how it was back in the 90s. Well, we have the Pope and we have the continuity of the teaching office and blah, blah, blah. You don't have that anymore.

And there's a lot of people recognizing it. But I guess that doesn't fit into the calculations or something. But there's no recognition of the theological content of the teaching of the Eucharist in the sense of what it really means.

That there is no finished work. And that's why there is no peace. Any sin that you commit will be imputed to you. And here's the question. I'll come back to this text in a second. But here's the question that I've been asking Roman Catholics for a very, very long time.

And Cameron texted me, so hopefully he's listening or will listen. What is the cost? The cost is being the blessed man. The cost is being the blessed man. Romans chapter 4, verse 4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor but as what is due.

But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Now, there is a whole discussion, I've done entire presentations on this, you can go back and look at it, in regards to how these two are parallel to one another.

You notice, today ergads a meno to the one working. Today may ergads a meno to the one not working. So they're in parallel to one another. And so, the idea of working so as to receive, that is lagidzatai.

It is imputed not according to karin, grace, but according to ofailema, what is owed, what is due. But then the opposite of that, to the one not working but believing, there's the issue. Sola fide. Not kicking the door open to the entire sacramental system by saying, well faith working through love.

The contrast here is between working and believing. That's different context, faith working through love. There, believes in the one justifying the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him as righteousness.

That faith, that empty hand of faith. And then when David also speaks, verse 6, of the blessing of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works. So notice, Paul's assertion is lagidzatai dekayasune, kores ergo.

God imputes righteousness apart from works. This is what God does. But it's fascinating, the text he quotes from Psalm 32, Psalm 33, when he quotes this material, look at what it's about. It's not about the imputation of righteousness.