Thoughts on the Papacy

Greetings, welcome to the dividing line on a whatever day it is. It's Wednesday. I guess it's Wednesday. My body if it were functioning properly and knew what time it was would think it's about what? It's 2 p .m.

Now nine hours. Getting getting toward 11 o 'clock at night somewhere around there. Yeah approximately. But it's really confused. So it really doesn't know what time it is. Anyways, so anyways, welcome to the dividing line I was told by someone who will remain nameless mainly because most of you couldn't pronounce his last name that he skips the first 10 minutes of The dividing line because it's just rich and I talking anyways, and I know that's not true.

So I'm gonna dive right into the program So if he skips the first 10 minutes gonna have to roll back and listen to all the cool stuff that he missed. The reason we're doing a program day other than the fact that I've been gone for Well as of today 19 days and I only have two weeks before I'm gone another 10 days this time to South Africa Is because some of you need a break you've been sitting there watching Fox News and You're tired of images of Pope Francis and Barack Obama and All the discussion of the odd strange people that the White House invited to be there sort of as a protest type thing and You just need you need a break from all the fawning and the terminology the people going his holiness ever thought about Anyone who would allow themselves to be called holiness.

I You've got vicar of Christ You you've got all that kind of stuff but His holiness really Wow. That's that's rough. That's that's very rough. Um You need a break from all that and so I thought you know what as part of my Service To you all we'll give you a break from that, but we'll still be talking about that.

That's the problem. I suppose. And I I actually had someone ask a channel. We'll be be taking calls I guess some of you feel the need to vent maybe Because you're just you're not hearing anybody pointing out the true history of the papacy or Stuff like that.

I mean I Caught as I was coming back. So yesterday was 33 hours long for me so it's sort of a weird day when it gets to be a third longer than normal or so and I Think it was sometime yesterday or maybe the day before I caught some of the discussion of Albert Moeller Seething about the Pope.

And that's the that was was that CNN I think it was CNN's way of describing his objections to the Granting to Francis this weird middle ground of being a political leader but a religious leader and you just sort of get to choose which one you want to treat him as at any one particular point and You know this addressing of the of the Congress of the United States, can you I I think back on the Kennedy election.

I wasn't around that was just before my time. Yeah, but you don't remember it either. Well, exactly so. What What people back then would have thought if they could look down the road and see the Pope addressing a joint session of Congress but then again If we're gonna treat this man as a political figure then he needs to be identified for what he is.

He's a socialist. He's a leftist so far on the left. If he was a plane, you'd have two left wings. I mean, it's just the staller is to it and he's gonna be talking to the Congress about Climate change now, I I'll gotta admit part of me just chuckles because If you want to know what controls the climate of the earth Look up just don't do without sunglasses during the day it's called the Sun and I Have never heard anyone who's ever come up with any Argumentation whatsoever that we have anything to do with what the Sun is doing.

We're that's beyond our Beyond our capacity, you know, I know in Star Trek you can fire missiles in the Sun's and blow them up and do stuff like that and Called fiction science fiction for a reason anyway.

You know, this guy is just way out there and I have to sit there and chuckle at times if what wasn't so serious and actually life and death matter in the sense of People Doing such silly things is that we can control the environment that will end up costing lives and and damaging human flourishing but Then again today who cares about that?

You know don't do anything about Planned Parenthood. Obviously. Nobody cares about human flourishing. But anyway, I Chuckle at the Roman Catholic apologists because most Roman Catholic apologists tend to be pretty conservative I mean liberal liberal anything if you're liberal anything you don't do apologetics because What do you have to defend?

There's no, you know, there's nothing there so they tend to be very conservative and so I Just it must have it it must be dark and difficult days for our Catholic apologetics friends Who just know in their heart of hearts that that this guy is Way out there and remember a few weeks ago.

We talked about the rumor about that. What's guys named Tony Parker? Document, you know basically saying the Reformation is over and then and will will Francis promulgate that in 2017. Will Francis still be around in 2017 it's a question believe me.

Hopes have been known to disappear for significantly less interesting reasons than than that but anyway It just it does strike me that you know, everyone who's upset about the political aspects. There's so many things could be said about what's what's going on.

And of course You've got all of the Protestants just fawning over Francis and you've got You know purpose-driven life dude Rick Warren out there speaking at Well last I knew Who knows maybe? Something happened, but last I knew he had been scheduled anyways to be speaking at some of the events in Philadelphia while the Pope is there and and a lot of us are just.

And then okay, let's let's be fair. Then you've got Some non Catholics Who are venting just blind bigotry, they they wouldn't they wouldn't know anything about the development of the papacy. They wouldn't know anything about Leo and the They wouldn't know anything about Innocent they wouldn't know anything about The Council of Chalcedon and and You know whether Ignatius is reference to Having the presidency had something to do with the Church of Rome or the Bishop of Rome and and how that relationship Changed over time initially.

It was the Church of Rome that that had authority then it became the Bishop of Rome. How when the Western Empire fell the the papacy was greatly enhanced by this because now you certainly once the the Emperor left when Constance noble, but then when that the Empire fell so much fell upon the Bishop of Rome that he was greatly exalted in his secular power and the development of time and the donation of Constantine over.

They would they don't know anything about any of that, but they still are absolutely certain That the the Pope's a bad guy and they'll make fun of his dress or whatever so you've got a lot of weird stuff going on out there, but I don't hear a lot of and What I want to start off with the observation on is Fair historical balanced biblical response to the claims the Roman papacy.

Um, obviously we've tried to provide that over the years here. What year was it That I debated Mitch Pacquiao on this mmm 90 98 or 99. Yeah, because we did this if that was 96. I think it was 1998. I think it was 1998.

That's a fairly good guess it was between 98 and 99 one of those two years. No, no, no, no, it was on Long Island is on Long Island that San Diego was the solo scriptura debate and that was a little later on um when when we debated that particular subject with With Mitch Pacquiao and is excellent debate, by the way.

Is that up good. Anyone who goes and watches it, please don't bother dropping us emails about the fact that I once had hair we know that. It's okay, you know. That's not news to us. But That kind of interaction dealing with Patristic interpretation of Matthew chapter 16 or Luke 21 or John 21 and All the related issues that's not the kind of things going on these days that's not what we're hearing from people.

We're either getting the the Rick Warren utter collapse. He's my Pope foolishness. The oh, isn't he a wonderfully nice guy. He's changing the Roman Church foolishness. Or on the other side the you know Trying to add Francis's name up to six six six or six one six or something along those lines depending on which very I've said for a long time that the vast majority of Protestants today are Protestants of convenience rather than Protestants of conviction.

There are very few today Who hold the positions that they do out of a passion that is related to the historical realities of What brought about the Reformation in The 16th century and we've we've reviewed books is the Reformation over and for the vast majority of people it is.

Well, it never happened for the vast majority of people the vast majority people even don't even see how they relate to the Reformation so for them How can you say it was over since it never began? But for those of us who self-consciously see ourselves in the stream of church history We cannot help but Recognize that not only is the Reformation not over but if anything it's time For a new Reformation but on the same issues.

But of course that's not gonna happen because one of the key things that exist want to keep cultural realities that existed that was so important for the Reformation to take place was there was still an understanding of Eternity and judgment and The reality of death and In the West today You know I've mentioned many times that John Murray said that the reason that the doctrine of justification by faith no longer rings the bells of the hearts of men is because we don't have any real concept of sin and I'm convinced that one of the primary purposes the promulgation of secularism and Darwinism is to utterly destroy in the thoughts and minds of men and women and boys and girls the reality of sin the reality of judgment now we're still made in the image of God and therefore that that reality is still there, but It's like applying a massive anesthetic to the Wound that Judgment would bring upon the conscious of man.

And that's what we're dealing with today. I mean how many people today Could understand why Luther would spend six hours in a confessional. They would psychoanalyze they would they would medicate. But they would not seek a an answer In the spiritual realm at all and so the issues of the gospel the end and the directly related issues of Authority the sufficiency of God's revelation and how the papacy fit into all of that.

Not too many what percentage of of evangelicals today Would have any idea how those things fit together. Very small amount so it doesn't surprise me. The kind of reaction that we're seeing it's it's still very bothersome.

But it doesn't surprise me because the only way you're gonna get a balanced fair historical biblical response to the visit of the Roman pontiff to the United States is from people who have some knowledge of what the history of the Christian faith is and and the Tremendous damage that has been done to the gospel by the Roman papacy down through the centuries.

What that really is all about and you can't even talk about that anymore in the media. They don't want to talk to somebody who's gonna raise those issues. That's that's just not what they want to do. So I'd like to remind some remind everybody of Why You are not a bigot if you are not joining in to the Ecumenical Celebrations and festival of joy Taking place in our in our country right now.

Let's let's remind ourselves of some words that to my knowledge Francis has not repudiated. Don't know that he could actually repudiate them and if he tried I'm not sure what would happen. But anyway, this is from 3045 145 years ago, and I did guess correctly about the Pacwa debate it was April of 1998.

I Was a thing about the tie I was wearing that night. I've got a really great picture of me and Mitch Pacwa that night. I was wearing this incredibly bright kuji tie. It was Blinding anyway. But I hadn't shaved yet or as Clementine She was standing next to me at Red Robin last night.

We had dinner and She was quite excited to see Her grandpa for the first time in a long long time. Now. She lives here. She'll be seeing me more often, but She gets a serious look on her face and she looks at me and she goes.

Your hair fell off. So that was before then that was while it was still hanging on by the last run the fingertips. Yeah, I still had some hair there 145 years ago. Vatican Council. Vatican one we therefore Watching live on the DL for the first time still don't know what in channel means.

Oh, well Just just for those who wonder we have an IRC chat channel, it's linked on our website and There are still a few IRC chat channels left. They have been almost completely banned from the Internet by Facebook activity.

But they're still there. There's still a few a few weird people that sit around in our chat channel. There's even an instructional video for how to get in and let many people in the channel would say you need to watch it.

Oh, it's talking about yeah, I know I know. Anyway Vatican one we therefore for the preservation safekeeping and increase the Catholic flock with the approval of Sacred Council to judge judge to be Necessary to propose the belief and acceptance of all the faithful in accordance With the ancient and constant faith of the Universal Church.

The doctrine touching the institution perpetuity and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy. Please know that language ancient and constant faith of the Universal Church. You know someone just says You're so wrong about Pope Francis not surprised.

You don't get the his holiness title. Well, please explain. Maybe I don't get the Vicar of Christ title or being called an alter Christus or Holy Father, which is title of God the Father, but the fact the matter is sir You don't have any holiness and neither does he.

I mean since Rome denies the imputed righteousness of Christ we could go there, too but Fact the matter is. That is just one of many titles kissing of rings and bowing down hello. This kind of stuff is thoroughly removed from anything that any of the Apostles of Jesus Christ would ever have been allowed to say to be said to any one of them or Done to any one of them.

No one can argue that no one can argue you have to embrace some type of Evolutionary process come up with that kind of stuff. Okay. So anyways, um, I go back to Vatican one we therefore teach and declare that according to the testimony of the gospel as If the gospel has anything to do with this the primacy of jurisdiction over the Universal Church of God was immediately and Directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.

For us to Simon alone to whom he had already said thou shalt be called Cephas. But the Lord after the confession made by him thou art the Christ the Son of living God. Address these solemn words thou blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah because flesh and blood not revealed to thee.

But my father who is in heaven I say that thou art Peter and upon this rock I'll build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now we'll give to thee the keys the kingdom of heaven and whatever thou shalt bind on earth.

It shall be bound also in heaven whatsoever. Thou shalt loose on earth. It shall be loosed in heaven. It was upon Simon alone a G is after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler Over all his fold in the words feed my lambs feed my sheep.

Just just think for a second. I stopped for a moment feed my lambs feed my sheep that makes him the universal ruler. Exegesis has not always Worked real well for Rome at open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture.

Oh, it's it's very clear as it has been ever Understood by the Catholic Church. Now that is just let me read it again as It has been ever understood by the Catholic Church. That's pure fiction. Anyone who knows anything about church history knows that's pure fiction.

Because you may want to give emphasis to this particular patristic right patristic writer of that one over there. But anyone who's honest with patristic sources knows that is pure fiction. That that is not how any of these passages have been universally understood you have to.

Well, you have to do with what the judiciary does with the words of the Constitution today with the words of the Bible to come up with some way of Defending this kind of stuff. It is pure fiction. Anyway, are the perverse opinions of those who while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his church Deny that Peter in his single person Preferably to all the other Apostles whether taken separately or together was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of Jurisdiction or Of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself But upon the church and through the church on Peter as her minister if anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the prince of all the Apostles and the Visible head of the whole church militant or the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor Only and not of true improper jurisdiction.

Let him be Anathema now did Vatican to change all of that? No. In order that the Episcopate itself might be one and undivided he placed blessed Peter over the other Apostles and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and fellowship and all this teaching.

About the institution the perpetuity the force and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman pontiff and his infallible teaching authority this sacred synod again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful now.

It's obvious to me that there are many people in high positions in Rome that Aren't really described as being faithful by this particular text. I realize that there's a tremendous amount of liberalism in the Roman Catholic Church but that again just points us to the the oddity.

That is the papacy. And what I mean by that is Historically just a few facts. Every biblical text that Rome has ever depended upon including Matthew 16 has been Understood by patristic sources in numerous ways and in fact the primitive understanding of the vast majority this text has nothing to do with Rome Roman primacy or anything related thereto.

You look at someone like Cyprian who certainly rebuked the imperious Stephen Bishop of Rome and spoke often in such a way that He is a tremendous witness against the idea of Roman primacy and yet he talked about The Bishop of Rome sitting in the Cathedral Petri, but then again, so did he.

In fact, he said all bishops Sit in the Cathedral Petri the seat of Peter because that is what every bishop experiences. Not just the Bishop of Rome you you look at the historical development over time.

The reality that Rome did not function as. She would have to have functioned in the primitive church if these Statements were true. If it had always been the history of the church always been the belief of the church.

There would have been no need for Nicaea. There would have been no need for athanasius contramundum. They wouldn't have been any need for all the great Christological controversies. You just ask the Roman bishop people.

It's not that difficult. But of course that's not what happened because that's not how anybody believed. But that would take place. There was nobody at the Council of Nicaea to believe the infallibility of the Roman bishop and so.

Then you follow that through you see what happens historically with the fall of the western half the Roman Empire. But then you see the tremendous degradation of the papacy during what's called the pornocracy in the eight and nine hundreds ninth and tenth centuries the buying and selling And selling of the position went all the way through to the time of Reformation.

Maybe even after that but in a gross and open way. But during the pornocracy it was on a level that is never been seen since. And it's difficult for a lot of us to listen to Roman Catholic apologists talking about the the 2 ,000 year unbroken history of the Roman papacy when you When you can look at that Period and go.

Well, yeah, that's those are still valid quote-unquote successors to Peter. No, they weren't. No, they weren't. Then you move from the pornocracy to the Babylonian captivity a few hundred years later and You have the division of the papacy into two and finally three.

You have the Avignon papacy then the re-establishment of the Roman papacy and and then you have a third Pope and then of course eventually You know Pisa tries to fix this and that only makes things worse and then you've got the Council of Constance and and you've got a brief rise of conciliarism, but that gets squashed pretty quickly by the Roman bishop and but Can anyone really look you in the eye and say oh we we know.

We know exactly which Popes during the Avignon papacy of Babylonian captivity. We know exactly which Popes were the right Pope. It is such a wild-eyed act of faith In something that is so completely absent from Scripture that again on any Meaningful level we just you just have to go.

No. There's no basis for this stuff then you look another fascinating historical element is the use of fake documents forged documents in the specific period of time where the Ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome was being developed and defended claimed by the Bishop of Rome.

I mean all the way back there are lots of arrogant bishops of Rome, but The the serious theological development of this idea. You know after the turn of the Millennium You look at the sources being used you've got the famous donation of Constantine and then you have the most people never heard about these things, but the pseudo is a Dorian decretals and the theologians Who laid the very foundation? of the modern supremacy of the papacy, which is expressed in its fullest form in Vatican one those men believed That those forged documents were real there were hundreds if not thousands of Forged statements created in documents like that and others Promoting the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and and these things are quoted over and over again.

It's so bad that that Rome has such a long history of using forged documents that I Experienced the use of forged documents against me. I'm not. I think that's the last Roman Catholic debate it did was was that with the For Farrar was that his name a Chris Christopher for our the attorney in Long Island.

Even in that debate my opponent decided to produce Forged statements now. He may think they're real But then change anything they were they were forged and I recognized it immediately. But it takes time to demonstrate that something is forged.

I questioned its validity during the debate and then afterwards we provided documentation that in fact the statement was forged. The point is Roman historians now recognize that the donation of Constantine the pseudo is a Dorian decretals all this stuff pure fabrication and So you have this huge edifice of the Roman papacy that is built off of pure falsehood and Time has washed away The false statements and There stands the edifice Hanging in midair the foundation completely gone.

But there it is it's it's amazing. Instead of what should happen there there being a a Revaluation a Abandonment of that which was based upon what is clearly and plainly false. Instead The papacy just goes on Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain just Keep doing what you're told authoritarian system, it's it's an amazing thing and Yet today.

Is there any discussion of this going on? I said, no, he represents the 2 ,000 year old papacy in the Christian Church and la la la la la la la la and it's it's just all fiction it's just not true and yet people today are being told well, you know, I I Gave a challenge To Mitch Pacwa back in 1998.

It's not the only debate. We've done the papacy. There's the the two-part debate with Jerry Matta ticks one of the earlier ones that I did from 1993 When when John Paul came to Denver and that's six and a half seven hours long.

But here's here's the challenge and you might want to there's five points here hey five points. Anyway, only a few of you will get that actually most of you so you'd like to have five points to share with your friends as The subject of the papacy comes up over the next week or so.

And then we will forget that and move on just like we've forgotten Planned Parenthood stuff. Here are the things that the Roman Catholic apologists must be able to do to substantiate Their claims regarding the Roman papacy number one.

Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew 16 and In so doing identifying him as the rock upon which the church is built. So When Jesus says you're a Peter and on this rock Why did Jesus go from direct address? to Third person.

Why'd he do that? If he's saying you're a Peter and on you I'm going to build my church. There have been an easy way to do that, but he didn't he said on this. Why what. Why change the focus? Well, of course.

My answer to that is because he's not talking about Peter. I'm not Peter's the content of Peter's profession. That Jesus is the Christ this is this is the foundation of the church this is what unifies all Christians around the world is that is a Non-negotiable element of the profession of the Christian faith.

But people say oh, but but it says it says the Key is the kingdom given to Peter alone. Yeah, but when does he get him? I mean is it is The singular is used there I will give to you that's singular in Greek.

But when did Peter get them there's only one fulfillment passage. In the Gospel of Matthew is Matthew chapter 18, and that's when all the disciples Receive the power of binding and loosing which is what keys are he is to open close bind loose.

So if it's not Matthew 8 if it is Matthew 18 and Peter does not get them in any distinction from the other Apostles. If it's not Matthew 18 that it's not recorded. Matthew evidently didn't think it was important enough to record in all of his gospel.

Well, anyway. So you have to deal with the realities? The reality. That the Roman reading of Matthew 18 fundamentally changes the focus of the text. The focus of the text stays on Jesus the whole time.

It never changes to Peter you read the whole thing. There is never a focus upon Peter and it would be absolutely idiotic to then include the discussion of Peter being identified as Satan immediately thereafter if there is any Change of the focus from the identity of Jesus to the identity of Peter in some future position.

He's supposed to hold. That's number one number two. That the words Lord Jesus speaks established Peter as the prince of the Apostles the very first Pope the head of the Christian Church. I mean, there's a huge leap from.

Even the interpretation of Matthew 16 as being a Peter to mean to mean that means He's the prince of the Apostles the very first Pope the head of the Christian Church number three at these words of Jesus necessarily Indicate the creation of an office of Pope.

Replete with successors and the associated powers. Isn't it interesting we have entire sections of Scripture talking about. Well the qualifications of a deacon. Qualifications of the elders. Formation of the church.

The worship of the church organization discipline and not a whisper not a syllable. About the papacy. About the process of a continuation of this office. I mean historically up until I Think it was 1075 or 1079.

I could look it up here, but right around that time period up till that period of time the Bishop of Rome was chosen by the people of Rome and then you had the slow development of the Office of Cardinal and the count with the College of the Cardinals and all the rest that kind of stuff coming afterwards.

But the first thousand years the Pope was chosen a very different way than he is today. There was no white smoke black smoke chimney stuff going on nothing at all. So Not a word it's no wonder of course, you know Rome's responses.

Well, why do you think we don't believe in sola scriptura? If we we can't believe in sola scriptura and believe all the other stuff we believe because. Let's face it. What what Tim Staples and Patrick Madrid and Jimmy Akin?

You know their jobs. Are to piece together widely separated Texts of Scripture. Into a loose Defense of a doctrine that would never be enough for anybody who believes in sola scriptura. But part of their defense will always be to attack sola scriptura.

So that then you have to lean upon their traditions which they get to define which will then give you the rest of your argument as to believe what you're supposed to believe, but. Don't miss the fact all of this goes down to whether you believe scripture is sufficient.

You look at that man in Washington DC today as having special spiritual authority and you do not believe in sola scriptura and a lot of people don't. A lot of people don't. I don't think Rick Warren believes in sola scriptura.

No way. No, I know there's two. Is he may say he does. I know I know he'll say he does but when your actions consistently betray your statements. What can I say, what can I say? I. Number four so number three was that these words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an awesome office of Pope replete with successors and the associated powers.

Which of course develop over centuries? Centuries of time. Number four that these successors are only the bishops of Rome not the bishops of any other city ever thought about that. I mean Rome hadn't even been evangelized.

I mean it was inevitable that Rome would be evangelized because of the position Rome had and From a historical perspective. It's easy to see why the Roman Church developed the authority that it did. I mean all roads led to Rome as they say and for a long time.

That meant that if you were in that church, you would have more contact with all other churches in the world because it was the cultural and communications hub of their own Empire. So it's perfectly explainable.

But it's not explainable from a New Testament perspective. You have to deny the sufficiency of scripture. You have to say well, it was just a you know. Well, we'll take Newman's development hypothesis.

It's evolution over time, etc, etc but Why only the bishops of Rome? I guarantee you there were a couple. There are bishops elsewhere that disputed that still do I mean East North oxy, of course but well known power conflicts in the later centuries between Constantinople and Rome for example.

Well-known. But primarily political in nature by that point in time, but why not other what other bishops I mean During the Aryan resurgence after the Council of Nicaea. Even when Liberia's the Bishop of Rome signed the Aryan eyes Sermium Creed why couldn't Athanasius be seen as the Pope at that point.

Just a question finally number five that the Christian Church has always held this to be her constant and Unchanging faith because that's what Vatican one said now I realize we'd like live in a day now where Is it quarter to three.

I've been talking for five minutes. Honestly, if you if I had not had a clock in front of me and you had asked me what time it was I would have said it was about 223 and some of you are sitting there going we know you talk a lot.

You're just proved it. Yeah, sorry. Anyway. Well, I just made a point there Christian Church has always held this to be a constant and unchanging faith in fact the matter is that statement is grossly untrue.

Can be demonstrated to be grossly untrue and yet it is the very oh, that's what I was gonna say. We live in a day where Words are Malleable little thing that we can make to say what we want to say and so a Law can say X and it comes before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court says we think they meant why?

That happened in the last in the last session. So For a lot of folks there's no basis any longer for reading what Vatican one said and Taking seriously what it says constant and unchanging faith. First of all large majority of Roman Catholic scholarship doesn't believe this.

Large majority doesn't it doesn't believe this in there in there his their history departments. They don't believe it maybe in the theology department, but man when you have when you end up developing a Fundamental schism between your history department and your theology department.

You got a problem. You got a problem that's happened in liberal Protestantism it's out in Roman Catholicism has to Because what Vatican one said when Vatican one said it in the way Vatican one meant it to be understood.

It was a lie. Now if you want to start doing the postmodern reinterpretation thing. And Saying well Constant and unchanging it's What's what's that that the Armenian guy that we reviewed a few weeks ago?

And Having trouble my earpiece today. That Armenian guy that Decided all what Paul said in Romans 3 was Jewish hyperbole. Well, this is Roman hyperbole this is No, no, no, no, this is this was no this is not the Jewish guy this guy this was the Armenian guy from Canada.

And he was saying that everything in Romans 1 was in Romans 3 is Jewish hyperbole. Well This is Roman hyperbole constant unchanging. Well, okay. We don't really mean that you can punch a lot of holes through that with a few patristic citations which is what happened in the debate with Jerry Maddix and Mitch Pacwa, but You know, it sounds good and it's it's a general majority yeah, words words just don't have meaning anymore as you watch this man and Listen, listen to what he's saying.

The guy is like I said if he was a plane you'd have two left wings. You'd have two left wings. I'm just gonna take this thing out I worry about I'm not listen unless I take phone calls. It doesn't I can make much of a difference.

I do want to bring this back to the scriptures. Because You may want to have a place to land. If you're talking with friends and family and you're one of the weird ones going no, I'm not excited about all this.

This isn't this isn't Isn't floating my boat here, you know, and they're like why I mean, this is the most positive coverage Christianity is getting. No, he's not representing Christianity the message that he gives to people is not a gospel that will bring them peace and if I care about people that I care about the message that is being delivered and Francis doesn't have a message of peace.

Oh, we'll talk about peace all the time but if he affirms historic Roman theology Which given that he's given indulgences for people coming to the family thing a plenary indulgence. Evidently he still does.

Then That means that the whole Roman system which denies the finished sacrifice of Christ and everything else. That's still there. And if he's so liberal that he's talking about All this other stuff about almost universalism or inclusivism and all the rest that kind of stuff that's not gonna bring people true peace either.

No matter which direction you go. He's not presenting a biblical gospel. It is compromised. And so I think when I think about well, I think about a lot of things anything about the papacy, but I Spoke to I had the and I really do believe in privilege and honor.

To speak in the opening chapel at EBT see in Zurich weekend before last right before the all the classes started and Great folks there and by the way Incredibly encouraging. There is one fella came up to me introduced himself studying there at He's he's in seminary he was taking the class there on Hebrews that I was teaching him he had made the selection to be one of the Swiss Guards now if you don't know the Swiss Guards are the Swiss Guards are the Protectors of the papacy if you've ever seen video of the Vatican you see these guys in these Swiss army.