TurretinFan Guest Show

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Guest Host Introduction and the Day's Topic

Hello here is not James white. This is Turton fan. I'm guest hosting the dividing line this evening and my guest today is Pastor David King with whom you may all be familiar. He is the author of Holy Scripture the pillar and foundation of our faith.

And the topic that we're going to discuss today has to do with Roman Catholicism the There may be a surprise appearance later in the show by by another guest, but but the topic will be Roman Catholicism.

We're hoping that Roman Catholics will call in and ask questions Raise objections to what we're saying or simply a comment on what we're saying. We'd be happy to answer any comments questions or objections.

As far as I know, there's no callers yet though. So what we'd like to discuss. To begin with anyway is the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. As you may know this week there was the feast day of the Immaculate Conception and So there have been a number of blog articles that have been generated on this dogma and what I'll do.

Luke 1:28 and the Meaning of "Full of Grace"

To start with is I'll pose for Pastor King the the argument in ask Pastor King to give us. What his his response would be to the Roman Catholic argument here our argument number one. For the Immaculate Conception is Mary is full of grace.

Luke 128 refers to Mary. Using the verb kakar to many Pastor King, what would be your answer? So those who say that because Mary was described as being according to some translations full of grace or in King James Version highly favored.

That therefore she must have been entirely free from sin and and always free from sin from the moment of her conception. All right. Well until we hear from Pastor King I'll give my answer to this to this first argument.

The the answer I would give is that the the verb one here kakar to many Does mean highly favored. The the most obvious answer to the highly favored nature of Mary here is that she had been Selected to be Jesus mother to bear Jesus in her womb.

It doesn't have to do with whether or not she was a sinful woman whether she was a sinless woman. The the text doesn't mention sin it's not referring to sin and The point of the angels greeting is to announce this great blessing that's been bestowed upon her that she's going to be Jesus mother so The first the first aspect of the response is that the first has nothing to do with sin it doesn't mention sin and of course even if as Some people eventually seemed to think the verse did refer to a cleansing from sin or purifying from sin.

There's no reason that that would necessarily mean that she was purified from the moment of conception. But of course they like to say that the verb itself is so intense That the verb indicates that that she was purified From conception.

The problem with that argument is that the same verb is used in Ephesians of all believers. All believers are said to have been made accepted is the translation usually employed. But the verb is the same verb it has the same intensive qualities there in Ephesians as it does in Luke and consequently this argument must fail and so you know we have We have we must reject the argument on at least that ground, but the second argument is an argument From Mary as the new Eve this this is an argument that's Employed actually by the defining document the document that defines the Roman Catholic dogma and The defining the defining dogma there is that Mary has the new Eve Has enmity with Satan and that the translation that that's used To support this idea is Genesis 315.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman and thy seed and her seed she shall crush thy head. And thou shalt lie in wait for her heel now that may be an accurate translation of the old Clementine Vulgate or even some of the other vulgate translations that came before the Clementine version.

It should say versions of course. They're all Latin translations the That may be accurate translation of the Vulgate text there the problem is the Vulgate isn't an accurate translation of Hebrew. I've noticed that one of the called to communion.

This is one of the Roman Catholic blogs one of the called to communion Contributors tried to make an argument. This is mr. Taylor Marshall. He tried to make an argument on his his own personal blog on December 8th.

He said that Historically there's been a debate over how to translate this verse and render it from the Hebrew the debate centers on whether God says he shall Crush Satan's head or whether she shall crush Satan's head and with respect to mr. Marshall there's really not a debate about how to translate the verse and render it from Hebrew for in Hebrew.

It's Clearly it not he or she. The the appropriate translation would be it referring to the seed the seed is neuter. So the the noun should also be neuter and of course we would say he because we understand that the seed of the woman is Jesus, but the the noun the pronoun itself would be neuter.

It's not either masculine or feminine and Mr.. Marshall goes on to say it doesn't matter much since either reading is orthodox and true wasn't that marvelous. Not only are the two wrong readings he or she are both orthodox and true but But the the argument is that that both the two opposites can both be or orthodox and his argument is what Christ crushes the head of Satan absolutely and Mary crushes the head of Satan by virtue of her role as the mother of God and new eve.

Well, of course that just begs the question, but the argument was made From this verse that she's the new eve so to support that argument that she's the new eve you can't Take the verse in a faulty translation and then justify the faulty translation on the basis that she is the new eve so Yes, it is the traditional reading as he or as he asserts It is the traditional reading, but it's the wrong reading and in fact the new Vulgate acknowledges this error silently, but changes the pronoun to the appropriate neuter pronoun and the neuter pronoun of course refers the the person back to being the seed who crushed whose Heel is attacked by the serpent.

So the the idea of the new eve is one of these ideas that Occasionally one will find a reference to in the church fathers. In other words, sometimes you might find a church father who Draws a parallel between Eve and Mary after drawing a parallel between Adam and Jesus and it's an easy It's an easy parallel to make in the sense that Jesus is called the new Adam.

The scripture uses that typology that's a scripturally authorized to typology, but When we look at Adam we see Eve and so someone might look around and say well, who's the Eve to Jesus Adam? Looking at the the issue of new Eve and if if pastor King wishes to Find another way to to contribute here.

Perhaps we can work that out at the break but in any event the the issue of Mary as new Eve Isn't a scripturally warranted typology. In other words scripture does call Jesus the new Adam, but doesn't call Mary the new Eve.

Mary's Connection with the Eve is simply made by a number of commentators. So sometimes the commentator will draw a parallel and say well Christ is the new Adam and Mary is the new Eve and you know, this may sound nice.

It's not necessarily Heterodox simply to make some kind of connection between one and the other but it's not scripturally warranted and what's dangerous about it. Is that then they start with this? Typology and build on the typology and start drawing out further analogies.

So they say well Eve Was created without sin therefore Mary since she's the new Eve must have been created without sin well. That's an arbitrary selection of one of the many things that's true about Eve.

In other words Eve was created from in innocence, but Mary Perhaps was not there's no there's not necessarily a connection there. Let's take another parallel. Eve was taken from Adam's body was Mary taken from Jesus body.

No, in fact just the opposite so Jesus is taken from Mary's body, which is a mirror parallel. So why not for the set on the same kinds of grounds suggest that Eve was? Created sinless innocent and Eventually fell whereas Mary Came into the world sinful and eventually was healed by grace.

Doesn't that seem like a better? Mirror parallel to draw if you're going to draw a parallel. Of course, these parallels we're drawing are largely arbitrary. Scripture doesn't tell us we have to find a parallel here it doesn't say that Mary Eve is a type of Mary and the use of this particular topology is just unconstrained.

Use of the mechanism. Now, I don't know whether Pastor King is back on the line yet I'm here. Oh Great. I'm glad you're back on. I'm just getting to I'm just getting to the third argument here. I don't know how much you've heard as we were experiencing these technical difficulties.

I just covered Rome's first two arguments. Can I say Rome's this is I'm actually picking on an article from called communion by Taylor Marshall Published on December 7th according to their blog. The first argument was the argument that Mary is full of grace and I'd covered that this this isn't Very much of a killer argument because first of all Full of grace or highly favored doesn't have any reference to sin either in the context or or in the most reasonable explanation.

And as well the same verb is although it's an intense verb is used of all believers in Ephesians. Then I then I moved from there to the discussion of new the Mary as the new Eve and I pointed out that scripture doesn't warrant This topology doesn't call Mary the new Eve and even though people have tried to draw some analogies Sometimes the analogies actually are mirror analogies.

In other words, Jesus derives his flesh from there. It was Eve derived her flesh from Adam. So it's the opposite. So if we're going to draw a parallel we just as justified in our arbitrary parallels of pointing out that Eve Was sinless and became sinful and Mary was sinful and became through grace Upon entering into glory sinless.

So in other words the the new Eve Argument is simply one from an unwarranted topology and then the direction that the topology is taken is simply arbitrary. And of course Adam and Eve are married. There's no marriage between Mary and Jesus although some of the Some of the the worship that's given to Mary might almost seem to suggest their their equals.

But the third argument the third argument which we're getting to is Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. How would you respond if a Roman Catholic came to you and said? In the Old Covenant the Ark of the Covenant contained the Word of God on stone in the New Covenant.

The Word made flesh was also contained and that in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. The Catholic Church has therefore understood Mary as the mystical Ark of the New Covenant. This connection is made in the book of Revelation and then citing to Revelation 11 into 12 which is the part of Revelation that talks about the woman closed with the Sun with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of 12 stars and then and then the woman this woman contains the Messiah and therefore the argument is that this is a reference to Mary how would you respond?

Yes, it seems to be a rather Torturous straighten it when you go to the book of Hebrews. It seems that Christ is. I think that just by Reading back. I think it's just real.

What would you give is your specific answer? You know in term in terms of Revelation 11. Let me read you the the passage that they They like to quote in this is Taylor. The translation that Taylor Marshall provided.

The citation is Revelation 11 19 through chapter 12 to. The the passage states. Then God's temple in heaven was opened and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple and there were flashes of lightning voices peals of thunder and earthquake and heavy hail and A great portent appeared in heaven and a woman clothed with the Sun With the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of 12 stars.

She was with child.

Well, I think the woman in Revelation. One thing that had occurred to me in thinking about how to respond to this was when I read through the.

Discussion there in the flow of the chapter there's first. A reference to then God's temple in heaven was opened and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. And then after that there's flashes of lightning voices and so forth.

And then after that there's a portent in heaven specifically this woman clothed with the Sun. Which makes me think that we're talking about? Three different things as opposed to three of the same things.

Is that I mean. Is that does that seem like a reasonable answer as far as the the idea that somehow John is trying to tell us that the ark refers to Mary or even to the woman. Let's let's not say that the.

Let's not get into the question of whether or not woman. The woman is the church which which as you mentioned is one of the leading patristic views, but let's say instead that the woman just the woman.

Whether the woman is the ark of the Covenant there.

Well, you know it speak. It seems to me that if the if the woman had been look at the Covenant I think that John would been mortal. That was opened in. I just don't see the link that they're trying to draw there between.

Well.

The the the next I'm after. I certainly agree with you. I think there's. It's it's really a strain at best. There's so many. There's so many other arguments we could even bring out one at one example I don't know.

I welcome your thoughts on this another example is they like to say well the the Word of God meaning the law. With the law that was written on on the stone tablets was can was placed inside the ark of the Covenant but but if you think about that that situation the the ark was made then the Law was written down on stone.

It was placed into the ark of the Covenant, and it was there to stay. It wasn't it wasn't something that would later emerge. But rather it was it was there as an archive as a permanent abode for those Stone tablets and an exact contrast although Jesus was in Mary's womb once he came out He was never coming back, so that seems like there couldn't it almost couldn't be a worse parallel.

Oh, you couldn't you could have picked couldn't have picked something more opposite than the selection They've made by simply referring to that right. Well.

Again, it's interesting to me that when you when the writer of the Hebrews does Mentioned the ark of the Covenant was it Hebrews 9. I think the contents of the Covenant again. He doesn't need it. It isn't spoken.

There's no reference here. There's no comparison there to Mary whatsoever contents that was placed in the ark of the Covenant. You had the tablets of the Covenant you had Aaron's rod that budded as well as the golden manna and again fulfillment of the same time.

You're Typology beyond its limits and in order to read in once again a later Development. You know in fact I mean to pick up on what you're saying.

Hebrews 9 4 or well Hebrews 9 1 starts then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made the first. Wherein was the candlestick and the table and the showbread which is called the sanctuary and after the second veil the tack?

Bernickel which is called the holiest of all which had the gold censer and the ark of the Covenant. Overlaid round about with gold wherein was the golden pot. That had manna and Aaron's rod that budded and the tables of the Covenant and over it the cherubim of glory.

Shadowing the mercy seat of which we cannot now speak particularly now. When these things were thus ordained the priests went always into the first tabernacle accomplished in the service of God. But into the second with the high priest alone once every year not without blood which he offered for himself and for the errors People the Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest.

While as the first tabernacle was yet standing which was a figure for the time then present in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices. They could not make him that did the services perfect has changed the conscience, but actually let me stop the sentence there.

It's a very long sentence and point out he the Holy Spirit is inspiring the author of Hebrews to write this and what he says is that the Holy Ghost was signifying. But that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest.

And he's pointing us to the fact that although there's other other priests could go into the first part of the tabernacle. The second part was reserved for a single Person not not Jesus and Mary, but only Jesus.

So then when when it when he completes the sentence which stood only in meats and drinks and diverse washings and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of Reformation but Christ being come and high priest of good things to come by greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands that is to say not of this building.

And so when we say not made it not made with hands speaking of the whole tabernacle. What is that is it is it Jesus whole family? It's Christ himself so exactly so the whole tabernacle pictures Jesus it's not it's not the the just the tables of stone inside the Inside the ark or the manna inside the gold pot inside the ark the whole thing represents Jesus.

He is the one who goes into the into the ark it says neither by the blood of goats and calves. But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us and and so on and the whole message of hubris is the perfection of Jesus the fact that he's unique.

There's no mention. There's no mention of Mary in there, and then it says even In verse 24 for Christ is not entered into the holy place Made with hands which are figures of the true so the holy place.

Which is where this ark is located is a picture of the true holy place. And it but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us. Not yet that he should offer himself often as the high priest entered into the holy place.

Every year with blood of others for then he must have suffered since the foundation of the world. But now once in the end of the world have appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. I don't know if it couldn't it almost couldn't be said more strongly.

This is all about Christ.

It's not about Mary and this one. I don't know how the writer to the Hebrews could have been more explicit in identifying Christ as Fulfillment of what this is. This will bring us this this discussion of the Ark of the Covenant.

From what I know there are no Roman Catholics who have been brave enough to call in or Were you were wise enough to call in and actually challenge what we're saying. The lines are open as far as I can tell and the technical problems have been resolved so we should be able to receive Additional calls and We're coming up on a break shortly, but once we come back from the break what we'll be discussing is the the the issue of do the fathers teach the Immaculate Conception and Roman Catholic answers.

Yes. Pastor King who has read more of the fathers although I think he would still consider himself a student of the fathers as opposed to an expert over them. He he will discuss with me this question of whether or not the church fathers taught the Immaculate Conception.

Commercial Break: Trinity, Roman Catholic Controversy, and Justification by Faith

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book The Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.

The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a o min Org. More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many Evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself. They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a o min.

Org. The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omin org.

The Early Fathers and Allegorical Interpretation

And we are back after the break. Hopefully there was not too much of a lag there between the and the end of the commercials and Our rejoinder, but in any event what we're discussing is the question of Do the Church Fathers teach the Immaculate Conception and the Roman Catholic?

Argument is that they do and we'll look today at a few quotations that are brought up. To try to prove this theory the first.

Go ahead and fan. I was wondering if before we actually go into some of those if maybe we could just Pause for just a moment to speak a word about The use of allegory by the early Church Fathers and some of the comments that would that be?

Okay, that would be great. Well, I I couldn't help but think when when we started discussing this and when it was being discussed the other day on another blog The use of allegory. Although Jerome was not consistent really with his own principle nonetheless He he made this comment in his commentary on the gospel of Matthew.

Believe he has come commenting on Matthew 13 and verse 33 and he's talking about how people use certain typology to come to a description of the Trinity and This is what he said. He said they interpret the three measures of wheat in this way While there is not a different nature in each person that is each person of the Trinity They tend toward a unity of substance and then in other words after he speaks of this interpretation No, Jerome's going to comment upon this interpretation.

And this is what he says. Interestingly enough he says this is a godly interpretation to be sure but a doubtful understanding of a parable and then Ignomatic saying can never advance the authority of dogmas.

In other words, he's laying down the principle that it's very clear to steer away from allegory and Trying to pin something as important as a dogma day-to-day upon some kind of allegory. Allegorical interpretation.

Justin himself said in one of his letters to what else is it than the superlative? Impudence for one to interpret in his own favor any allegorical statements unless He has also Playing test by the light of which the obscure meaning of the former in other words What the gusts in the same.

It's fine to some extent to use an allegorical interpretation of scripture in order to illustrate a Doctrine, but it is not something on which we are to pin or hang.

Well, that's that is. That sounds a little bit like what the Reformed churches teach. Which is that we should interpret the more obscure portions of scripture In light of the more clear portions of scripture and not vice versa.

Is this is this view that you just Explained from Augustine. Is it unique to Augustine in that time period or have you seen it in other?

Ancient Christian writers as well. Well, I have seen I have the same seen the same thing Epiphanius Said he said that none of the sacred words need an allegorical interpretation of their meaning. He says they need Examination and the perception to understand each Propositions force and then of course, I like what Chris Austin says.

He's he's looking at a passage of scripture and he's looking particularly at Isaiah chapter 5 and He comes to a particular passage and he says there's something we can learn here and he says what sort of thing is it?

He says it is when it is necessary to allegorize scripture. And then he talks about how were the why were why were to allegorize at certain times? We ourselves are not the Lord's over the rules of interpretation, but must pursue scriptures Understanding of itself and in that way make use of the allegorical method.

He says what I mean is this the scripture has just now spoken of a vineyard. He's referring to the prophecy of Isaiah chapter 5 wall When wine that the reader he says is not permitted to become Lord of the passage and Apply the words to whatever events or people he chooses and then he says the scripture Interprets and the house of is to give another example.

He says Ezekiel describes a great large great winged eagle who enters Lebanon and takes off the top of a cedar the Interpretation of the allegory does not lie in the whim of the readers. But Ezekiel himself speaks and tells us first what the eagle is and then what the cedar is.

And then he says to take another example from Isaiah himself when he raises a mighty river against Judah. He does not leave it to the imagination of the reader to apply it to whatever Person he chooses.

But he names the king when whom he has referred to as a river and then Christopher makes this point. He says this is interpretation of the allegory so that the passage will not be interpreted superficially or be met by the undisciplined desire of those who enjoy Allegorization to wander about and to be carried into every direction.

So although there was some use of this and perhaps there was some misuse of allegory among the early church fathers. There was this warning against it to be very careful the way one handles.

Holy Scripture when I was when I've been reading through what the church fathers wrote when it comes to topology I'm aware that there are. There's more than one Let's say school of topology. There's there's sort of a Western approach which Augusta might be a Representative of a sort of a Western approach and there may be more than one Western approach.

But in the East I have noticed that there seem to be those who? closely follow the style of Origin in terms of not just apology, but figurative interpretation in general. And then There seem to be those who I would say are in the Antiochian school.

Which have which seemed to me to have a different approach? Would you?

Have you noticed a similar? Yeah, I would just I would just comment on that because very often what? You read sometimes and sometimes if you hear a lecture you will hear that the or the tendency to allegorize in the school of Alexandria is often pitted over in the gang Antioch and though there's a sense in which those principles do hold true between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools of interpretation.

Nonetheless you see exceptions even though Athanasius Alexandria when you when you see him Interacting with Aryan exegesis. He's very careful of Not to out over allegorize in his exegesis in fact It's often been remarked that he's not very Representative of the Alexandrian school of allegory in his dispute with the Aryans because very often He is so clear and he's coming from a literal and turn against some of the wild Interpretations that take an example The Arking school some so if you read you look at some of the typology that he draws upon.

And he bring the imputation of the sins of Israel to this is the type of crime. And so you find even that concept of the imputation of our sins Being brawled out by Theodore here in his gloss upon that particular and so although It's helpful.

I suppose in one way to speak of certain tendencies of the Alexandrian school to allegorize and the more literal view of interpretation by Those in the area of Antioch to some example, but one needs to be careful because their rules and they do not hold I.

Appreciate that in fact. I think another kind of exception in the other direction you had mentioned Athanasius is sort of an exception in the Alexandrian school and and one might suggest did a miss the blind As an exception in the other direction seeming to take More of origin than we'd like Yet really come being associated with the Antiochian school.

But you are you may be pleased to not to hear that despite our technical difficulties in terms of the phone connections Which I suppose are probably called caused by the vast volume of calls coming in.

But actually one that one listener has kindly emailed me and told me he had some trouble connecting. But we have brought on board into this discussion Mr. James Swan, who is.

I'm glad to hear James is with us. Good evening, gentlemen. Can you hear me? Yes loud and clear James. Good to hear from you. Yes, likewise pastor King. I just realized none of us are Baptists. We will tell the Owner of this program he he's out running a very godly errand this afternoon.

So we We will we will give him some due respect and he's a and our.

Aids in the studio are Baptists and I have their finger on the button in case we start baptizing babies here on the. So so that said we have a. We have a list that I've found in Taylor Marshall's article on the Immaculate Conception and It's a list of fathers that supposedly That supposedly teach that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant now having Having heard of the Roman Catholic teaching on this before Can you take a guess?

Mr. Swan? Where where this list may have been derived. Who who's famous for putting out of this a list on Mary the the Ark of the New Covenant? Well, I I saw the first couple of items on the list the first one was one from Hippolytus allegedly from Hippolytus.

The next one was from origin and the next one from Ephraim the Syrian and I started to recognize, you know, all of these alleged Quotations seem to have a familiar ring to them. And of course it then it taught me.

This is Steve Ray's list.

Because it's interesting the double standard that When a Protestant quotes from origin. If you ever quote from origin, then it's pointed out to you that he was declared a heretic some two centuries after his death.

But if they cite from origin, it's just fine. Forgive me, but I had to point out the double standard.

No, no, no, this is not a patristic list this is this. The the. There's a large quotation the largest. I think the largest quotation in terms of number of words. I may be wrong. It may be one that's slightly longer.

That's listed here and it appears to be Steve Ray's list in some modified form, but perhaps it's not perhaps it's just you know, it's drawn from similar sources. Here's a is a quotation from allegedly from Athanasius from his homily of the papyrus of Turin which is a Very fanciful title for a sermon Ascribed to Athanasius, but which is like practically all sermons as got Athanasius not actually his work.

But but as you pointed out on the double standards, the first selection is from Hippolytus. Now he is considered a Roman Catholic Saint. This much is true. So perhaps it's fair to quote from him.

But he's also listed as the first answer, but he really had to overcome his opposition to the pope at that time in order Him to the rank of a saint, please proceed.

Yes, yes, exactly. He's he. He was in opposition to the bishop of Rome at that time and. And he's listed as an official anti Pope and in the typical lists of Antiquities, so it's remarkable. So he is a He's his.

Comments are he was the Ark formed of incorruptible wood for by this is signified that his tabernacle was exempt from putridity and Corruption. Now what would be a problem with using this? He was the Ark formed of incorruptible wood to Refer to Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

Well, it seems like he's. There's a confusion. The person's there. Indeed indeed.

The leading problem right there is it says not that Mary was the Ark was that Jesus was the Ark. So exactly You know not a great proof. The next the next quotation the one taken from origin who's You know quickly accused of heresy and so forth.

Whenever he says something against a room says here Here's what he says. The quotation they take from him. Allegedly from homily one this virgin mother of the only begotten of God is called Mary worthy of God Immaculate of the Immaculate one of the one I'm not making this up.

This is actually on the list of.

Teachings. Oh, yes, it's somewhat taking my breath away. Can I ask can I ask you a question for both you guys similarly? I have an ambrose and not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate free of every stain of sin and these quotes are just thrown out there without any Context at all and I think what you're raising even with those other quotes.