Russell Moore’s Statement, Steven Anderson on KJVOC Chapter 2

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. We have a lot to get to today. I'm going to try to hurry and take at least like two or three calls toward the end of the hour. We'll see. I have a Steven Anderson thing, but it's the shortest one so far.

Anyways, it was only 28 minutes or something like that. So it wasn't a whole lot in it, though we will get into the Greek Septuagint and a few things like that. I just realized I may not have one in here, but anyway, so we'll try to get through that and a few other things we need to get to and then try to get some phone calls and try to do it in an appropriately lengthed period of time.

Everybody by now has heard of the Houston Chronicle story on the crisis in the Southern Baps Convention, which I find interesting because as far as I can tell, all of this was pretty well known. This is just sort of a collection of stuff.

It's not done yet. I think, what, tomorrow? I think the next section is due out tomorrow and then the last one over the weekend or something. So it's one of those things you can't... It's being responded to, but it can't be responded to completely because it's not done yet.

It's strange. It's like, well, you have to respond to it, but you can't fully respond to it because it's not really done yet. And it's odd how this is being done. But there was, of course, an immediate response from Southern Baptist leaders and especially from Russell Moore of the ERLC.

And I was not the only one to notice how odd, how oddly, he began his response. I mean, literally, and this is February 10th, Southern Baptist and the Scandal of Church Sexual Abuse. It is the second paragraph.

So we're talking right at the beginning. This is how Russell Moore is framing his response. This isn't some addition down someplace else. This is right there. Here's what he says. The first is to see with clear eyes what is before us.

Some have ridiculed this concern as being some irrational sweep into a secular Me Too moment. Now, this was written very, very shortly after this came out. So I'm not sure how there could have been enough time.

This is referring to stuff before the report comes out. This is a preemptive political strike. Okay. Some have ridiculed this concern. What concern? I guess seeing with clear eyes what is before us. So I guess clear eyes is seeing the way that Russell Moore sees and the progressive ERLC sees.

ERLC sees, right? Anyway. Some have ridiculed this concern as being some irrational sweep into a secular Me Too moment, implying that the problem is political correctness over an issue that is no real problem within church life.

Well, I wonder who that is because, plainly, there are all sorts of problems that have been being pointed out in Southern Baptist ecclesiology for a long, long time. And when I mean Southern Baptist ecclesiology, I'm referring to the self-calling of the ministry, where someone gets a feeling at age 19 that they're called the ministry.

And you cannot even question that. That is just sacrosanct. Rather than what you see in Reformed Baptist circles, if a young man feels a call to the ministry, then the elders, plural, one of the issues, one of the key issues here is the single pastor making deacons into elders, wrong-headed, unbiblical ecclesiology.

No question about it. And some of us have been talking about that for a long time. I've got a book back there, yeah, Perspectives in Church Government, where I've argued that issue for a long, long time.

Plurality of elders is incredibly important. And a plurality of elders helps to dilute the temptation to spiritual power over others being transferred into other areas of life, which seemingly is a lot of what we're hearing about here.

But anyways, I am digressing and preaching too much. Over an issue that is no real problem within church life, there are lots of problems along those lines. So I'm not sure who's saying this. I'd like to know who's saying this.

By the way, I did contact through Twitter, but I know you saw it, Russell Moore, and I asked specific questions about something I'm about to get to here. I asked for clarification and I was given none.

So take that for what it is. Maybe he's just too busy to get around to answering questions like this. Others have suggested that the church should not concern itself with questions of justice and that preaching the gospel itself will resolve matters of injustice.

Who has suggested this? We know who he's talking about. This is a shot at the statement of social justice, which has absolutely, positively, nothing logical, logically, or rationally, it's not connected whatsoever to this particular subject.

This is just, I'm sorry, it's a cheap shot. It's just like, I'm going to take a shot here while ostensibly beginning to talk about something very important about sex abuse in Southern Baptist churches, but I'm going to take a shot at unnamed people who never make these presentations because the only people I'm talking to now are the people on my side anyways, and this is the kind of language and verbiage that gets them going, and so that's what I'm going to do.

Others have suggested the church should not concern itself with questions of justice. Who? Who has ever suggested that? That is a gross misrepresentation, a facile misrepresentation, a misrepresentation that explains why people who make the misrepresentation of the rest of us will never face us with it because it would be so easily refuted by anyone with a modicum of intelligence, but who actually says that?

That's what I would like to know. And that preaching the gospel itself will resolve matters of injustice. Now, whoa Nelly, maybe if we started realizing that a lot of what is going on in Southern Baptist churches today, which is a bunch of decisionalism, isn't the same thing as preaching the gospel, then we would have a better stance, a better standpoint from which to look at that statement and go, well, the church has been given the gospel and the spirit and that's all we got.

And if that ain't enough, then you're going to start looking for other stuff like, oh, the state, which is sort of what progressives do. Let's get the state involved, I guess, to bring about final justice.

I thought Jesus was bringing about final justice, but that's the whole point. Justice has been so redefined in the cultural context that who knows what, and what in the world is it, how in the world is it to be defined in this context?

Justice for the victims, justice and punishment of others, the perpetrators, what? What is this justice? If you are not specific, you will always end up leading to confusion. And when you have a bunch of people that you yourself have been promoting to attune their ears, to hear the term justice, to be economic equality, not just economic equality of opportunity, but economic equality of results, socialism, progressivism, eventually, yeah, that word, communism down the road.

If they're attuned to hear that that's what justice is, then how does that even fit in here? It doesn't. It leads to all sorts of massive confusion. Anyway, others have implied, and this is where I went, excuse me?

What? What? Others have implied that the horrific scandals we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church are due to the theology of Catholicism, the nature of a celibate priesthood and so forth. Yeah. I can easily trace that back to the Lawlords.

You know who the Lawlords were? They were pre-Reformation lovers of God's word, followers of Wycliffe, John Wycliffe, the pre-Reformation reformer in England. And you can look up the things that were being said in the late 1300s, 1380-ish, and specifically, right then and there, Rome's doctrine of the priesthood, practice of the priesthood, leads to homosexuality.

They didn't call it homosexuality back then, they used other terms, sodomy, in the confines of the church. This goes all the way, but this is coming up on 700 years, this has been said. 700 years. 650, minimally.

The scriptures identify as false teachers those who prohibit marriage for a specific reason, even it is considered normative that the elders of the church would be husbands of one wife. There is absolutely, positively not a scintilla of evidence of a celibate, sacramental priesthood in the New Testament.

It did not exist. We've debated that. I don't think it was much of a close debate. You have to believe in evolution and development of doctrine and you have to believe that the apostles didn't have to teach it and Jesus didn't have to teach it, but it could be an acorn, you see, and it falls into the ground and it grows.

Newman's development hypothesis is the only way to come up with this belief. It is not apostolic, it is not New Testament, and anybody in any denominational position in the Southern Baptist Convention that thinks otherwise should be dismissed immediately for not being a Southern Baptist.

So, that has, and look, since the rest of this series of articles hasn't even come out yet, all this is somewhat premature, but what I have seen so far has troubled me, the report has troubled me in a number of ways.

Now, I'm not, I'm going to get back to this, I'm not leaving it, I just want to make a comparison here because obviously the question has come up, and I saw Matt Walsh doing something about this, um, to try to compare Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholics want to try, they'd love to have anybody else but themselves in the middle of all what's going on with Cardinal Whirl and all the rest of that kind of stuff. Um, and I've, all sorts of people have been saying, all this is due to the fact that there's no centralized organization, the Southern Baptist Convention, they need to have a presbytery, they need to have, yeah, it helped the Roman Catholics a lot, didn't it?

In fact, what it did in Roman Catholicism is allow this to go to the absolute highest levels of the Vatican itself, and then they could move people around to protect them. Yeah, that's, that's the way to do it.

Um, and yet I'm hearing a lot of people, you know, it's this reflexive response, we got to do something now, we got to do something now, maybe the dumbest thing we've ever done, but we've got to do it now.

That's how people think now. It's not, we really need to think this through, and we need to make sure that what we do will actually have positive long-term benefits for everyone involved. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that's, that's the old way of thinking.

Now it's just do something. You know, I just heard today that, um, the governor of California, who himself, um, would fit in very well in, um, communist China and, and Venezuela and, um, South Korea and places like that, um, has, uh, scrapped the high-speed rail that they've already spent over $5 billion on.

How'd that thing get started? Same thing. We got to do something. We got to do something. And everybody at the time said, this is stupid. This is dumb. Don't you see how dumb this is? But we've got to do something.

We've got to save the trees. And so now you're going to have the railway that goes to nowhere, um, really nicely done for $5 billion, um, of your great-grandchildren's money. Um, it's this kind of, we've got to do something, we've got to do something type stuff that we see all around us these days.

And it's a lack of thought. It is completely a lack of thought. So anyway, the point is that when we look at the kinds of abuse in Roman Catholicism, what is the common element that everybody's like, oh, I can't, I can't talk about it.

It's called homosexuality. It's called homosexuality. The vast, well, it's, it's child abuse. It's sex with young men by other men. It's homosexuality. And there are a huge number of homosexuals in the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The Roman Catholics know that there are thankfully honest Roman Catholics who will not hide that reality who've written books about the subject, the absolute infiltration and control and protection of these homo, homosexuals at the highest levels by homosexuals at the highest levels of Vatican.

There's no question about this, that this isn't even debatable. So the kinds of abuse and the extent of the abuse reaching to the hundreds of thousands worldwide, hundreds of thousands, factors of, of 10 and a hundred more than what we're talking about here in the United States, all over the world.

And this is just in this century. And like I said, we can trace these accusations all the way back to the days of Wycliffe and maybe even before, I don't know. That's just as far back as I know. That there is a fundamental theological reason when you deny the God-ordained institution of marriage, you are fundamentally contradicting the goodness of that relationship and the way that we've been created.

And the result has been disastrous down through the centuries. I'll stand by that. I'll debate Russell Moore on that. He's not going to do it, obviously, because he knows better. So others have implied that the horrific scandals we have seen in the Roman Catholic church are due to the theology of Catholicism, the nature of the silver priesthood and so forth.

Yes, sir. That is exactly correct. Are you saying that's wrong? Yes, because he says all of these are not only wrong-headed responses, but are deadly dangerous both to the lives of present and future survivors of these horrors and to the witness of the church itself.

Now, friends, I've had people saying, well, you're just focusing on one. He started his article with this. These are his words, not mine. He's the one who says that these are wrong-headed responses. That means the theology of Catholicism has nothing to do with the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic church.

That's what Russell Moore is telling Southern Baptists. Why? Well, no arguments can be tried here. I would love to challenge Russell Moore. Do you mind explaining that? Do you want to lay that out for us?

How is that? How is it a wrong-headed thing that from the days of Wycliffe till now, those of us outside of Rome have said, you know, this isn't healthy. This isn't right. This is wrong. How is that a wrong-headed response?

And more so, how is it deadly dangerous both the lives of present and future survivors? What? I mean, that's very emotionally evoking language, but would you care to explain how you come to this conclusion?

You know, provide some argumentation, something that's more than just simply emotion. Could you explain that? And then, this is deadly dangerous to the witness of the church itself, to believe that the theology of the Roman Catholic church in regards to celibate priesthood has been relevant to the horrific sex scandals is deadly dangerous to the witness of the church.

I even said, could you, you know, was this just poorly written, maybe written too quickly, confusing words? Would you like to take a second shot at it? Of course, didn't get any response to it. And so, you have a mishmash of unfounded, you know, ridicule, disconcern, irrational, secular me too moment, whatever that is, shot at social justice, Roman Catholic priesthood, no connection between any of these, but they are all together wrong-handed and deadly dangerous to the lives of present and future survivors and the witness of the church itself.

That is a tremendous amount of assertion being made without the slightest effort to substantiate any bit of it. Why? Why start a response on something as important as this with this kind of unfounded, disconnected assertion?

Thinking people would like to know, it's truly troubling. I would like to give you, Dr. Moore's response, because I asked him, you know, what do you believe? Do you believe that the identification of the Roman Catholic priest is an altruistic?

Would you not agree that this is a fundamental denial of New Testament truth? I would like to be able to tell you what he would have to say about these things, but there was no response to the inquiries as I made them.

So, the fact of the matter is that if you dive into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the priest, you find a doctrine and a practice, both, they'll say, well, the celibacy part isn't doctrine, it's just a discipline.

Yeah, well, good luck, just go ahead and let's just see all the Roman Catholic priests in the United States go, ah, so much for the discipline, we're all going to marry. We'll see what Rome does then.

Now, with Francis in charge, who knows? Nobody knows anymore with Francis. He's just out there in non-island. But the fact is that every Roman Catholic priest is still identified as an alter Christus, another Christ, in his ordination.

Every single one of them. And I'm not sitting here saying this as someone who has never interacted with folks on this. I already, a couple times, linked to the debate with Mitchell Pacwa on this very subject, on the subject of the priesthood.

It's available on YouTube still. Check it out for yourself. Check it out for yourself. I realize the vast majority of Protestants today don't have a clue what Rome teaches about the priesthood. They just figure that, well, they just call their ministers priests.

No! No, no, no. If you don't understand the sacerdotal concept of the priesthood, the very marking of the soul of the priest with an indelible mark that cannot be removed, then you don't understand Roman Catholic concept of priesthood at all.

And it is grossly unbiblical, completely contradictory to the message of the New Testament, especially the singular role of Jesus Christ as our one high priest. It's just, that's the way it is. And evidently, for some people today, it's just wrongheaded to point out that that has something to do with the very different nature of the systemic, protected, homosexually-based sex abuse within Roman Catholic Church, which cannot happen in that form within the Southern Baptist Convention.

It can't. It's a very simple reason. Again, the doctrine of the Church, the ecclesiology. In fact, as Dr. Mohler was talking about this morning on the briefing, there have been a lot of people saying, why isn't there some central governing authority that can control all of these things?

Well, even if there was, we've seen how central governing, controlling authorities act in their own self-interest and can be used to perpetuate such things. That's not a panacea, but obviously, the real issue is, are we willing to abandon biblical parameters of ecclesiology to look good in the eyes of society, which hates us to begin with?

And I'm seeing people, look, folks, it is amazing how deft the left is at using language that sounds like they're just broken about something, but they're using each one of these things as a means of promoting their agenda.

And you are, right now, I see all across our culture and all across denominational lines, Presbyterians, Lutherans, all through the Reformed world, a full-scale retreat and collapse on biblical categories of male and female relationships, roles, and functions in the church and the family.

Full-scale collapse. See, it's happening everywhere. And there is no denomination that is not in danger of experiencing these things. None. If you think you are, that makes you all the more in danger.

Because I look at the younger people coming out and they have no foundation in the idea of a created order, of a creation mandate, and seeing that within the realm of male and female roles in the church, it's obvious to me.

You see it all around you. If you have eyes to see, anyways. And so I'm hearing people saying, well, then those Baptists just need to change ecclesiology. Well, okay. You want to, yeah. Hey, thank you.

That's one of my favorite quotes. Yeah. Bingo. I'm going to, okay, go over here and save image to downloads. So I'm going to put that on my desktop so I can pull this up again. So I just look over at this and my thing has already scrolled.

Roll down here. Reformed Christian 1986. Does that mean you were born in 1986? That's when my son was born. I feel so old when people do that to me. Reformed Christian 1986 posted my favorite quote on the subject of the Roman Catholic priest from John A. O 'Brien's Faith of Millions.

I've quoted this in numerous debates. It's in the Roman Catholic controversy, the fatal flaw, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Here's what it reads. Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth?

By the way, almost every OS that I know wants to change that from vice-gerent to vice-regent. It's an old word. I've run into it over and over and over again. I've seen it miscited. It's vice-gerent.

Learn the vocabulary. He continues the essential ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary.

No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus, for the priest is and should be another Christ. I've never heard that before. Listen to my debate with Father Packway.

He defended it. He defended it. He said, yes, yes. In my ordination, that's the language that is used. Yes. There you go. Anyway, um, if you cannot see how that is a blasphemous doctrine, if you think that we can just look past that and hold hands in cooperation with someone who claims to be an alter Christus, then you don't understand the exclusivity of the office of Christ or what it means to follow him as Lord without anyone to distract you and to detract from your worship of him in his unique offices.

This is what is so heinous about Rome's doctrines of Mary, because very plainly, the development over the centuries has been to try to parallel in Mary the unique offices of Jesus Christ. Plainly. I have defended that and will defend that in public-moderated debate.

So, I don't believe that Russell Moore is an expert in Roman Catholicism. He does not have one-one-thousandth my experience in interaction with Roman Catholics in evangelizing them. He has a lot more experience in cooperating with them, no question about that, but in evangelizing them, not so much, and as a result, I simply have to say that to identify that statement as wrong-headed, the statement that the horrific scandals we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church are due to the theology of Catholicism, the nature of the celibate priesthood, and so forth.

It's not just that, as in excluding just plain old sin, but it is sin taking advantage of error and false teaching that has led to the specific nature of the kind of abuse you see in Roman Catholicism, which so often has that homosexual focus to it.

That's not wrong-headed, that's right-headed, and it's Russell Moore who is wrong-headed to say otherwise. I think that's important to cover. All right. Oh, there's so many things. Did you see the Ellen Page stuff?

Man, this woman is...hmm. Did you see her saying that the gay marriage thing should never have been a debate at all? It should not even be allowed to be debated. It's done. It should have always been done.

You need to...we've tried to warn people. I remember 2015. My memory's not going quite that fast. It wasn't that long ago. I remember 2015. I remember 2014. I remember going way back before then, folks, warning people, if you allow the redefinition of marriage, it will not stop there.

It's going to keep going. These folks don't want equal rights. They want Uber rights. How long have I been saying that now? I wonder if we could find somebody who's just got a ton of time on their hands to go back through the archives of the dividing line and find out that the first time I used the phrase Uber rights in regards to what homosexuals were demanding, that would be a long ways back.

Algo should know, though. We should task Algo with that, because he just listens to them all over again anyway. This is what they want. They want Uber rights. They are totalitarians. They do not believe in liberty.

They do not believe in debate. They do not believe in objective truth. And they want to silence anyone that would offend their extremely shallow and immature little worldview. They truly, on certain levels, have the maturity of a three-year-old.

Mommy, tell him to stop it. I don't like when he says that. Is that not what we have in our culture today? Is that not what we have in Colorado? Canada? That's offensive. Can't say that. The lady in England, I don't know the whole thing there, but misgendered somebody and ends up in prison with the laptop taken away for misgendering someone on Twitter.

It's the end of any meaningful cultural exchange. It's absolute totalitarianism. It's the Stasi prison on steroids. That's what is coming. And you see that in Ellen Page's radical, wild-eyed craziness.

But speaking of... Okay, two more, and then I'll get to Anderson. I'm not doing too well, am I? Sorry. Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, when asked about Anglican vicars becoming Roman Catholics, who cares?

I don't mind about all that, particularly if people go to Rome, which is such a source of inspiration. I had an email from a very old friend, an Anglican priest who had decided to go to Rome. I wrote back saying, how wonderful.

As long as you are following your vocation, you are following Christ. I don't really care whether it's Church of England or Rome or the Orthodox or Pentecostals or Lutherans or Baptists. They are faithful disciples of Christ.

He's met with the Pope on a number of occasions, considers him very helpful. His spiritual advisor is a Roman Catholic priest named Nicholas Boutet. Yeah, okay. Anyway, I feel sorry for believing Anglican brothers.

And then on February 8th, I saw this article and I put it in the file and Miles will just... This is from BP News, Baptist Press News, bpnews .net, Trauma Healing Conciliation Focus of Racism Forum by Diana Chandler, February 8th, Philadelphia.

Pastor K. Marshall Williams has experienced what researchers, I love, this is the new term to substantiate what could never be substantiated in the real world in the online world. Researchers say who, when, where, how they argue, what were their conclusions, have their conclusions been examined?

This is how people used to think, but now it's, oh, researchers. Pastor K. Marshall Williams has experienced what researchers term, you ready for this? I'm reading straight, folks. Post-Traumatic Slave Syndrome.

Post-Traumatic Slave Syndrome, the trauma and pain African Americans suffer from societal and institutional racism and marginalization. This is in 2019. This is in 2019. I cannot help but think that there would have been a large number of freed slaves in 1865 who, if you had told them that 40, 155 some odd years later, their great, great, great, great, great grandchildren would be claiming a form of Post-Traumatic Slave Syndrome, even though they've lived a life that, in comparison to what the slaves lived, was one of absolute pampered royalty.

Food-wise, care-wise, work-wise, environment-wise, everything-wise, that they would have wept that their descendants could be so talked into a victim mentality that instead of rejoicing, they actually would say, I experienced Post-Traumatic Slave Syndrome, though I was never a slave.

I hope some others will address it, because I'm not allowed to. It doesn't matter if I had slaves in my ancestry. That doesn't matter. No, no, can't talk about that. Can't talk about that. Let's go to something less frustrating.

Let's go to Steven Anderson. Oh, when going through your social media feed results in you wanting to listen to Steven Anderson to get away from the craziness, you know the end is near. Right now, I'm ready to adopt any eelism, post-millennialism, amillennialism, premillennialism.

I don't care if it just gets us out of this mess. Just something, please. It's just... Okay, anyways, what... Oh, I better slow this down, because 1 .6 is a little fast. I am going to pick it up to 1 .2.

I always tell people that. All right. What is this? What are we doing? Steven Lee Anderson, faithful word, Baptist church, King James only guy. Yeah, the guy got tased in the car, and yeah, the guy stands on his pulpit, kicks his pulpit, and kicks people out of the church, and yells, and screams, and does stuff like that.

He is doing a 10-part series. I'm not even sure if he's done all of them yet. I only have six. That's going to take me... I figure that's going to take me long enough to get through the six. We'll get to the other ones when we can.

10-part series, respond to the King James only controversy. And so, he did the introduction in chapter one. We've responded to that. Here's chapter two. Why are we doing this? Hopefully, with the last response, that was made obvious.

We do this because we are touching upon many really important topics, really important issues, and a lot of background issues. Today, we're talking about the Greek Septuagint. I think people need to know about the Greek Septuagint, and they'll hear King James only people questioning the reality of the Septuagint, saying that it wasn't in existence in the days of Jesus, things like that.

Since we almost never talk about that kind of thing, except on this program, but certainly not regularly in church, that can cause confusion for people. There might be people trapped in these systems that haven't heard a response from the other side.

So, they figure, well, that's a good argument. I guess I've got to stay here until that argument is dealt with and I don't hear anybody talking about it. So, that's why we do these things. We address these less than popular topics, and it does prove to be helpful to a lot of folks.

So, let's get to this. I'll be honest with you, with the preaching that I was doing beforehand and this, it doesn't look like we're going to get to phones today. I'm sorry. I should have known that ahead of time.

I just didn't know how long I was going to feel like talking about this stuff earlier, but I probably talked about it too long and got myself in trouble. All right, let's get to Stephen Anderson. Now, his review of Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 in the book is basically a historical review where I point out that it has been a standard human response for a particular text to become popularized and accepted, to become the tradition, and when there is any challenge to that text, any going earlier, and he's saying, you know, our commitment to just this one kind of a text might not actually represent what the apostles want for us or something like that, that there's a big pushback.

It's like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We can't do that. And that this has happened a couple times down through history. But what's interesting is that he starts off agreeing with me about all sorts of stuff.

It's just, it's still, again, I have to make mention of it. Watching him and his NIFB buddies only two months ago, cranking out all these videos, attacking me and Jeff Durbin and accusing us of all sorts of just vile, disgusting stuff and just yelling and screaming, acting and such.

And then, of course, they all blew up. They just, within like five days, seven days of the last video they put out attacking us, boom, they're all on each other. You know, there is a big split in Florida and Texas and, you know, they're all just eating each other alive and now they're all false prophets and blah, blah, blah.

So the Lord took care of that. Anyway, to have him doing that stuff and to see him kicking people out of his church and you idiot get out of here and yelling and screaming and the camera pans back and you see people sitting there and they're just like, oh, man, what's going on here?

And then to have this, well, you know, he's right about this. It's just, it is just really freaky weird to see the shifting going on. But I digress.

Let's jump into this. He then says, KJV-only individuals generally are not interested in church history as a subject. Now, he's right about that, too. In general, KJV-onlyists are not really interested in church history as a subject.

But let me explain why that is. Now, I personally love history and I've studied a lot of history, including church history, although I must admit that church history...

Remember, we've played some of his church history stuff. And to call it a unique perspective.

Is very, very kind. History is not my favorite history. I've studied a lot of it, but I prefer pretty much every other kind of history to church history. And the reason why that we feel that way is that church history, more often than not, just ends up being a study in false religion.

Why? Because it's going to emphasize the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, here, this is what's fascinating to me. These folks are anti-Roman Catholic. We just heard what you were just saying. Do you see a difference? I hope you see a difference. If you can look at the five debates—well, you can't look at all of them because Scott Butler is still sitting on two of them, but you can listen to all of them—if you can look at, listen to, the five debates that I've done with Mitch Pacwar, and you can't see the difference between them and the kind of anti-Catholic rhetoric that someone like a Steven Anderson or the NAFBs put out, then you're not listening.

There is a serious historical case to be made against Roman Catholicism. These guys don't make it. They can't. That's why Rome does not fear them. That's why Rome uses them. That's why Karl Keating, in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, could use their lack of knowledge of historical realities as a weapon to convert people to Roman Catholicism.

In fact, that's how Catholic Answers started. You need to understand. Keating was responding to this kind of shallow, ahistorical fundamentalism, and he's a sharp guy, and you can use history and tear this stuff apart.

It's easily done. And that's what was so shocking to them when we started debating them back in 1990, especially the two debates, especially the second debate of the two that we did in December. Was it 90?

December of 90, because we had done—August was the first debate in Long Beach. That was the first debate I'd ever done at a church in Long Beach. And then at Northwest Community Church in December, and then the next night at City of the Lord in Tempe.

I don't even know where that is. I'm not even sure if it exists anymore. I'd have to look it up. It's on Mill Avenue? Okay. And that second debate was where everything started changing for the Roman Catholics in the debate scene, at least in the U .S.

Because up to this point in time, they had been running around, they had been debating Calvary Chapel pastors, and Calvary Chapel folks are not church historians either. That's not their thing. And they had owned that field.

The second debate that we did—see, the first debate we did was on solo scriptura in Long Beach. The second debate was on eternal security or perseverance of the saints. The third debate was on the papacy, and I made a historical presentation pointing to the fact that there is plenty of patristic information that contradicts the claims of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to this subject.

That was the first time this group, in that period, had been hit with a historical argument on the subject—historical and biblical, I combined them both. And we did that again with Mitch Pacwa on the papacy, we did it again with Jerry Matitix, nearly seven hours on the papacy from 93.

But that changed everything. That changed the whole landscape of the debates with Roman Catholics. And certainly, I'm not the only one who's done that, and many people have gone far. I mean, look, we've got— there had always been tremendous works on this subject, it's just history had pretty much forgotten them.

I mean, they were still stuck in people's libraries someplace. But, you know, Whittaker and Good and—what was the Lutheran guy? Anyway, think of it later. But there are just all sorts of collections. Infallible Church, first real one of those classic works that I read in response to Cardinal Newman.