Bible Answer Man Discussion with Jimmy Akin

The Opening Broadcast and the 33,000 Denominations Claim

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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. Continuing with our examination of the Bible answer man discussion between myself and Jimmy Akin. I hope all of you took the time to listen To the Discussion about it.

How do you listen to a discussion to read the article? Let's put that way that I posted yesterday on the subject of the 33 ,000 denominations anyone who has ever listened to EWTN radio EWTN television has listened to almost any convert on Any of the various programs the journey home Catholic answers live whatever it might be has heard the 20 ,000 23 ,000 25 ,000 27 ,000 29 ,000 30 ,000 33 ,000.

I think I actually ran to someone who did 40 once 40 ,000 denominations and it's always in the context of this is the result of solo scriptura. It is Patrick Madrid's Outline, I believe that he came up with years ago about solo scriptura the blueprint for anarchy and Likewise, then his is assertion.

One of the points that he raises is that solo scriptura is Unworkable and within that context you have The Barrett citation that I examined yesterday. Put the information on the blog in regards to what it actually says.

You are truly left wondering if any of these individuals have ever even looked at the citation that they that they make available. Which likewise makes you wonder about a lot of the citations they give.

I know for me one of the most amazing things I've ever experienced was sitting in a Presbyterian Church. In I think it was Aurora as Aurora one of the suburbs of Denver. In the in the very Presbyterian Church where a few years later John Denver's funeral would be held.

Not sure what the connection is, but I just a small little point of trivia. But it was in that very church That I had the second part of the debate with Jerry Matic's on the subject of papacy during the papal visit in 1993 and I will never forget sitting there because I can still see you know in this aging mind of mine I can still see The the perspective on the church from where I was sitting.

And there was a pulpit a podium, and then there were two. Were those six or eight foot tables and they get probably about eight foot. They were they were the long six foot there were the long tables That you'd find in a you know cafeterias type type situation you've got them all over the place, and we have them at Phoenix Performed and and I was from the audience's perspective.

I was on the right-hand side of the podium from my perspective of course I was on the left-hand side of the podium and Jerry was on the on the other side of the podium and I've told part of this story before.

Part of the story I've told is in reference to Jerry's complete inability to be organized at all. The man is the single most disorganized human being I have ever encountered in my entire life and This was illustrated by the fact that Rich, and I were standing back behind it was a fairly decent-sized church, and there was a Choir loft behind where the podium was and At one point after the debate was all over Rich.

And I were staying back there, and we were looking past the podium toward where where the congregation be seated and on my side of the podium on my table was a book bag. And I had all my volumes the early church fathers and stuff in that book bag.

I still got it the the silver metal one from years and years ago, and It's under my desk in the other room right now, and that's all it was left. There's just I everything had been put into might have been two book bags.

And I think about maybe the the really really cheesy cheap brown one that I also still have someplace you know covered in dust, but Anyway, I had all my books put away, and they're in these two little bags.

That's it. You know that the chair is pushed in underneath the desk you look over at Jerry's side, and it is looks like a tornado has come through there and.

That.

You cannot see any wood on the top of the table and the amazing thing was underneath the table on the carpet the only place where you could see the carpet was where his feet had bent and He's still standing there.

He's still sitting there saying they've been talking to somebody or whatever and he happens to turn around. He sees rich, and I looking at this rather stark contrast and that was when he said okay, okay?

I concede I I you you win the organization part or something like that and. So that one that one's one. I have remembered for a long time. But what was more amazing was what I observed during the debate?

Was at one point that I realized that people in the audience probably don't know this and this wasn't videotaped unfortunately I wish they had been. But this was 1993 we hadn't gotten to the point of doing videotaping yet, and I I still remember this in my mind looking up toward Jerry as he is speaking now things weren't going well for Jerry in this debate and That's generally how it happens on the subject of papacy with Roman Catholic apologists.

You know they liked To talk it up, and oh, it's wonderful to have the papacy. But the fact matter is you get into a debate with someone who really knows they're doing and the facts aren't on your side.

I mean, it's real easy for them to spin things as long as you don't have to answer questions. You don't have counter documentation, but things were going well in fact during the break I went out and I'm mingling with the people the book tables and talking with people.

Jerry retreated back into the choir loft to write notes the second half of the debate during the break. Okay, it just gives you an idea of course he might say. It's just because you know he had just driven there while drinking a diet coke and only had all his books were packed away and blah blah blah blah.

Which we've heard many many times before and would hear again in 1996 when when he showed up, you know ten minutes for the debate started on Long Island, but You know I was trying to write my notes. Well as a stop sign the stoplights and all I've had the day drinks diet coke and it's just the same old same old all the time.

Well, he didn't do that the next year because I faxed him a note. And I told him Jerry show up prepared stop with the whining about David and Goliath and how unprepared you are and how all your books are packed away and blah blah blah and just just do the Debate and he did and that made it one of our better debates so anyway.

Point of all this was I remember looking up at the man during that second half of debate and there he's standing at the podium. And he has it was the first volume of the Jurgen set. How do I know which volume was because if you have that set as it existed back, then there were there's three colors.

There's a red one. There's a green one. There's blue one, and it was the red one and He has it open to the index in the back the subject index. And he is reading from the subject index and what he's doing is he's telling people here are the early church fathers who supported the papacy and He's reading from the index of the Jurgens work now.

Again, if you've never seen this work, it's a Roman Catholic quote book okay, and you know it has its uses, but it's it's not unbiased and Just reading from an index Obviously from the scholarly perspective means absolutely positively nothing, but that's what he was doing that was the level of presentation was being made was reading from the index of Jurgens as if somehow this is an argument and.

So I think that's directly relevant to what we saw with Steve Ray and Tim Staples who have been repeating this 33 ,000 denominations thing and claiming that's how many Protestant dominant and this source says it you know a source says nothing of the Kind in any way shape or form and it just is amazing to hear These folks repeating the same Exploded miss and it really the question is will they stop now?

I mean, I checked the Catholic answers forums today, and it just so happens that someone had just asked a question. He had made the claim to a non-catholic about the 20 ,000 denominations at least is only 20 rather than 33 and The guy had challenged him and said that's not what that source says that source says this and this person had posted Hey, what about this and?

It just so happens someone said wow how ironic that's exactly what James White addressed it addressed. And at least when he put the link in the Catholic answers forums the Catholic answers forums Do not actually delete the link unlike certain other people.

Whose whose forums do automatically delete the link because they don't want you going over to a omen org and.

So.

Anyway, I hope you'll read that because that 33 ,000 number includes Roman Catholics Eastern Orthodox Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses and When you actually start reading the list it is absolutely laughable that anyone has ever cited it at all.

I mean even if you just go to Protestant denominations. It's just under 9 ,000 that are listed there, and when you start looking at them you start going. Oh, wait a minute. This is such a huge wide category that this is this is an irrelevant number and it is it's it's and it is totally irrelevant, but that's.

That's what people do and so anyway. That's that's. That's there, and we're gonna need to take that and make it a an article that can link to. From the side. I there are so many things I would like to link to from the side.

But I don't really have any reason to do that right now because I'm hoping the side will disappear someday. Someday over there anyway. When did we start on that project again. Rich when when when did the 2003.

For that no that would have been two years ago to July July two years ago last July, okay, yeah, so you know if my My website team is listening mm-hmm. It would be two years ago two years ago two years ago, okay?

All right appreciate that so we're really kind of hoping to maybe have a new website up there by by Christmas of 2010 and.

Maybe.

Uh-huh yeah, I see that yes, I better go okay. Bye. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know we really really really really really really really need what we really really really really really need is A search engine on the blog that provides a context for the quote I Can't find anything on my own blog Because all it gives you is the URL and that means it gives you the archive and the article But no context to know whether that's actually relevant to what you're doing or not.

We've got to have that because the blog is what I do now.

I mean as far as information goes that's that that's got to be there. I'll go ahead and give that to my team. Yeah.

Okay, so anyway, I hope you'll go read the 33 ,000 denominations article and Did we get any really nasty notes about the Dave hunt Steve Ray?

Picture not a one in that. Amazing. I was really shocked by that now who knows you know Burian call. Maybe it's just a little bit behind the curve here, but I I would think that once those folks kind of pick up you know.

You know get a little pick up on the uptake there. They will they will be rather upset. I just take September somewhere in there, I just really expected.

Just some some real loud howls at that point. Only for people who didn't read what I said because I'm starting to get that idea that I can post a graphic and People only see visual things. They don't read words and make an association between what the words say and what the graphic says.

They just see the graphic come up with their own conclusions and start writing and I'm that's what they did with the Roman Catholic pictures the. They didn't read what was actually commented on. Next to it, and if they would actually read What I said yesterday They would see the parallel I was drawing between Steve Ray and Dave hunt because they do Behave in a very similar fashion to criticism, and they're both fundamentalists.

They're both in the bad sense of that term. They are non-historical fundamentalists in that sense they both are and Amazingly defending two completely different systems, so anyway, that's that's interesting except in one area what they're both synergists.

Well, that's well of course. No, and and Ray always was obviously, so.

Isn't that so. Who's really gone to the roots?

You never know all. Right, let's continue on with Jimmy Akin. We are listening to the Bible answer man broadcast from 1995 this is the very broadcast that is presented by Catholic answers as a debate.

It is not a debate and Is presented as this great wonderful awesome opportunity? Where Jimmy Akin did so. Well, and we have been listening very carefully have documented some problems already, and we will continue that.

Material Sufficiency, Tradition, and the Limits of Rome's Authority

Right now material the position of material sufficiency claims that all Theology all the material you need to do for the you need to use for theology is either contained or implied in scripture and. The difference between that and the soul of scripture a position is that it says that even though scripture is materially sufficient It has all the material you need it contains or implies at all.

It's not formally sufficient. The material isn't in the form you need to do theology in all cases. And so you need to use tradition as an interpretive grid to help you understand like which passages gain primacy.

Does does Jesus saying before Abraham was I am gain primacy or does Jesus saying why call us down me good? There's none good, but God game game primacy.

Which you know and that sound that sounds really good until you actually put it into practice and recognize that Rome has defined on the basis of tradition certain dogmas that could not be. Could not be derived by any Meaningful fair process of exegesis no matter what you say about primacy of texts.

That you know these discussions may sound really interesting. But the fact the matter is you have to look at Rome, and you have to go okay? What has Rome defined on the basis of tradition? What is her teaching?

How does she use this and? You will find very few Roman Catholic apologists who actually want to defend the fully developed concept of Tradition as it has function not as a theoretically exist But as it has functioned in Roman Catholicism to give rise to entire dogmas unknown to the early church.

It sounds real good to throw this type of thing out because let's face it most most Protestants Especially who have converted from Roman Catholicism, but didn't know anything about it. I hear a Jimmy Akin.

They go wow my priest never talked like that and. So they they automatically go anybody who could listen to listen to Jerry Maddox listen that man rip off all those Bible verses. I didn't know there were any Catholics who knew the Bible and so you automatically have three strikes or two strikes against you because the very idea that that that Catholic is staying there, and he's not acting like most priests.

Who don't know the Bible all they know is philosophy and They can't discuss these things. Just the very fact that they're not drooling is a big argument in their favor in the minds of many people.

That's that's something people don't really think. Passage. Do you use as the foundation of your interpretation? Which do you then harmonize with it? That's the role tradition plays for you in the material sufficiency view.

So when mr. White says that Catholics have to come up with some extra biblical revelation in order to validate their view of tradition. He's simply wrong because some Catholics say there are no extra biblical traditions.

In that sense there are no extra biblical Revelations that have been passed down and everything's either contained or implied in the Bible. Now I wanted to touch just for a minute on the passage you read from the count now.

I would love at that point to be able to break in and go well, okay. Let's isn't as fascinating. Basically Rome's telling you that you can have multiple views of its own tradition. And they can't even tell you which one's right because obviously the part and part of you.

That it is that the God's revelation is found partly in these scriptures and partly in the in the written traditions and the oral traditions. Or whether it's material sufficiency. It's all found in one at least implicitly.

It's gonna have a major impact as to how you do exegesis if Rome can't tell you it's this or not that what good is. Her infallibility. I mean it sort of takes us back to the eight verses that he says Rome is infallibly interpreted.

Well, if that's all your tradition has managed to come up with. Then put these two statements together. Put this put this statement that he made earlier. Well, there's only eight verses that have been infallibly defined and now well tradition tells you which ones to give primacy to anything.

How does that function? Where does that where does that come up in? How do you determine that who determines that it's been eight verses there are other Roman Catholics say it's none. There's other room Catholics say it's dozens and dozens.

How do you know? Well Rome. Rome should speak clearly shouldn't she shouldn't she be able to give us a very very clear answer here. But that's the one place. She can't answer very clearly at all of Trent.

This is often misunderstood in Protestant circles. The teaching of that passage is not that we can't interpret the Bible for ourselves. We can and we must. That's why God gave us intellects. You know this was something that Thomas Aquinas with his big emphasis on natural law and the divine gift of the human intellect that separates us from animals and so forth the rational soul that separates us from the sensitive souls that animals have.

Is is is something that requires us to read and study God's Word? What Trent is saying is that when the father's? Unanimously interpret a passage one way that's when you can't go against it. So unless if you haven't a case where every church father has said this is this is what this passage means.

That's when you can't go against them. But if there's disagreement among the father's if there's not a unanimous consent Then you can go against it. Just to give an example of the passage where there is unanimous agreement among the fathers I would point to John 3 5.

Every single early church father, okay now here it comes here here comes remember. I didn't like cue that up. I knew there was something I was supposed to queue up, and I apologize I forgot. Remember a couple weeks ago, I played on the air a discussion from the Catholic answers live program from just a couple weeks ago, and it was Tim Staples and Jerry Usher talking about a new offer they have his debate was with Steve Gregg and the Bible answer man discussion came up and of course are calling it a debate, and it's not.

And Specifically you have in that context Tim Staples talking about how Wonderfully well Jimmy Akin did and he raises as the example what you're about to hear that Jimmy Akin. Just you know he talks about baptism, and and there's nothing that white could say and.

This is the thing I've heard over and over again was well. You know he just he just blew you away on this here. It is listen to it for yourself folks.

Here's.

Jimmy Akin and my utter failure.

In responding to Jimmy Akin there is from the second century on Said that when Jesus said you must be born of water and spirit. He was talking about baptism. Water baptism a unitary Baptism involving both water and the spirit.

Every single church father from the second century on said that it that Is something that I have searched? Diligently trying to find references to early church fathers who didn't say that. And I can't there aren't any.

Every single one I've checked says that and that is a tradition that was accepted by all Christians up until the time of the Reformation at least all mainstream ones. You had Augustine saying that you had Aquinas saying that you had John Wycliffe saying that you had Martin Luther himself.

Saying that the first person to really deny that as far as mainstream theologians would go would be John Calvin. Everyone before him said that that is talking about baptism. And so that would be a passage where a Catholic would say well know the father's unanimous on this.

I can't go against this a couple things just really quickly, and it's going to be 30 seconds.

I'm going to wrap up, and then we're going to come back. The last segment of this broadcast. We're going to take calls, but I want to give both of you an opportunity just to summarize The importance of the issue that we're dealing with.

Go ahead. Just 30 seconds. Well the issue that he brought up in regards to the open question in Roman Catholic theology right now. I would just invite anyone to read the Council of Trent in the fourth session.

Read the background of what they were talking about the it's an issue called partly partly some some in tradition some scripture. And just be warned of one thing the many of the modern Roman Catholic theologians who are who are affirming material sufficiency their view of scripture is Far removed from what a conservative Protestants and view of scripture would be and in fact they are farther away from us in many of their Views of what revelation is then the conservative Roman Catholic would be.

And we're coming up to a station break. We're going to be back in just a few moments with more of the Bible instrument broadcast. Don't touch that dial. Okay. 30 seconds.

We go into a commercial. Let me see if I can.

Is this the whole commercial here. Perspective. No. And James Aiken of cap okay?

We cut it out so okay, so here's we come back from the commercial representing the Protestant perspective and.

James Aiken of Catholic answers Representing the Roman Catholic perspective, and I do before we go on want to commend both you guys now immediately I.

Can't tell Hank what to do. I can't say all right. Look. Here's all these things were brought up. You only gave me 30 seconds to respond to how many different issues were brought up entire discussions of formal material sufficiency the meaning of Pardon pardon and the Council of Trent, and then he wants to bring up this issue of baptism and make the assertion here is unanimous consent now I immediately.

Unanimous consent has been used of Rome to defend what? Well all sorts of things, but especially the issue of the papacy and It is an invalid argument. Let's let's grant the argument for a moment. That's even though you know well you know I'm not even granted because the fact the matter is you notice he's had to say well after the second century because the doctrine of baptism in the early church is a vast subject and it is Facile from my perspective.

To say well here is this biblical text now. How you would first have to identify how many people actually used the biblical text how many people did not use the biblical text? What did those individuals believe?

About baptism. Infant baptism. Adult baptism. Is there only one baptism, and that's what cleanses you from your sins and then? You don't have recourse that after that. There's all sorts of differences because the fact that the transition between adult and infant baptism is taking place for hundreds of years.

It's fascinating that the baptistry is found for example the baptistry in which Augustine himself is baptized in the fourth century is Large enough to stand in in other words. It was done by immersion.

It wasn't wasn't done by sprinkling or fusion or anything like that. So there's all sorts of issues of mode and all these things are taking place at this time. So just throw it out there and say well.

Here's something. It's unanimous. Assumes everybody addressed it which they didn't so you've got people that you can't address at that point because there's nothing in our excellent writings that even addresses the Interpretation they had of John chapter 3 verse 5.

But you throw that out there and and even at that. The the what I had pointed out was the claims of Rome in regards to unanimous consent of fathers. About Rome's own authority claims. This is a completely different subject.

And so what you've done is you've thrown one out there you go. Well, I think I can get really close on this. Does that mean that on the actual subject that I raised Matthew 16 the papacy and things like that that that's somehow relevant?

I mean I could say well You know what? I think actually the better thing that you could find you might be able to get close on on unanimous consent of the fathers at least as a doctrine is monotheism, but I'm not a hundred percent certain even there that you could actually Assert that all the early church fathers were on the exact same page at that point, too.

And so but but again the point is how can you throw that one out and say it's somehow relevant to these other things? Where Rome has made these massive claims about her own authority and interpretation authority in the papacy and everything else on the basis Unanimous consent of fathers when there isn't any such thing as unanimous consent of fathers on those issues.

I mean, it's it's really smoke and mirrors this bait-and-switch to go. Well, okay I can't give you an answer consent on what we actually claim, but I'll give it to you on something else. How good an argument is that?

So anyway he's throwing all these things out and when Hank comes back from Breaks and I've been on the Bible Answer Man program. I don't know what 12 14 times I've forgotten forgotten how many hours I've done Over the years when he comes back from a break.

He doesn't just want to allow the conversation to keep going. He wants to himself Interject something to move the conversation along because if it stays in the same subjects, you know, he's steering and that's just doing good radio.

That's that's the way it should be done. And so that's exactly what takes place here. You can hear him doing that. Knowing he knows that we want to continue that but he also knows that there's only so many.

Minutes in a particular hour for the fact that you are able to communicate with one another In a respectful manner you are modeling what ought to be happening in this very essential debate. The differences between you we can't minimize they are profound and yet you are Great examples of how we ought to treat one another in this kind of debate.

I am kind of interested James Aiken in your perspective now. What did he do? I He's saying is we are moving on. I am NOT even given an opportunity To continue on and to respond to the claim about John 3 5 on this program.

So how anybody can do what Tim Staples did? In light of the fact that I was given actually less than 30 seconds because Hank then made another statement. So and by the way in the studio and Jimmy Aiken would have to be able to confirm this.

In the studio you can see you can see the the clock you can see the the countdown clock. You can see when the next break was coming up. I don't know if Jimmy Aiken noticed that or not. I don't know, but I grew up doing radio, so I'm trying to be a good guest so I'm watching this.

So I know how much time I have and I know that in less than 30 seconds. I mean how much can you say about all these topics in 30 seconds? You can't hardly say anything at all, and you certainly could not it's sort of like how Catholic answers.

How it has for years decide to throw out the can of scripture in Question and answer periods rather than during actual formal debate the actual formal presentation part. Just simply because they know that it's absolutely impossible to give a meaningful answer to the issue of the can of scripture in a question in a Q &A.

So they use that and it's just cheap debating tricks is what it is. It's it's smoke and mirrors, but You just can't do that in 30 seconds so for anyone to be going on there. You've just hurt yourself get the tapes for yourself listen for yourself he had right up to 30 seconds for a break.

Hank says you got 30 seconds and That's all the time that I'm given and when we come back as you're listening. You'd go another direction, and you don't. I suppose if you're. In some situations if for example I was on a secular talk show.

And very clearly was being mistreated by the host who wasn't allowing me to get anything said you could Take this whatever question. He's gonna ask me the direction. He wants to go and ignore him and just start giving the continue with your answer.

And now all that's gonna Do is probably make him cut you off even all the more so you're probably get it even less time down the road and the audience Certainly recognizes that and can see when that's happening.

But you're certain I could do that in the situation I was in rhyme attempting to work with Hank and make this whole thing go as best.

Dave Hunt, Scholarship, and Protestant Publishing

I'm some of the literature that comes out from Protestant Publishers. Like like even a book that just came out. Ah and here we go and.

At this point I wasn't behind this I don't really know what brought this out, but here comes a little Dave Hunt Discussion here, and and I didn't feel especially given how foundational the authority issues are that this was overly helpful.

But again your role with the punches punches you do it you do what you gotta do.

How do you react to that kind of literature. Well concerning Dave Hunt's book I have to say it's a joke. I mean the man's the man's. Scholarship is appalling. In fact I learned an interesting term from William F Buckley that I think aptly describes the kind of writing Dave Hunt does.

The term is silenced as CIO LIST and a silenced is a person who has the affectations of scholarship without the substance and People have the idea that if you just have a lot of footnotes to your book it makes you a scholar.

But the problem is if you're footnoting idiots, then then it doesn't improve it doesn't make your book scholarly. That that didn't sound Uncharitable to me and Dave Hunt's Dave Hunt's book. I thought was just a joke in terms of scholarship.

There was one just to name one example in it. I He made the claim at one point that Pope John the 22nd back in the 1300s had had dogmatically defined That Jesus and the Apostles were wealthy men and thus you had the Pope Teaching the health and wealth gospel and so forth and I said that's nuts and so I reached across my bed and grabbed my book.

You know official papal statements, and I've looked up My bed for something cyclical he referenced and what John the 22nd actually said Was that Jesus and the Apostles possessed some property at least in common?

So he was dealing with a controversy in his day where there was a group of radical spiritualists who were going around saying that that the Epitome of spirituality was not owning any property at all. Not even communal property.

No private property. No communal property. No property and therefore since that's the epitome of spirituality Jesus and the Apostles must have not had any property even in common. Well miss scripture says they did.

I mean Peter had a boat. He had nets. They had houses, you know. You know, they had a common money purse that Judas stole from, you know. They clearly had property at least communally. And so the Pope what he actually said was that that Jesus and the Apostles did have some property at least in common scripture repeatedly says so and Mr. Hunt either didn't read the source very closely or more likely just read an account of it in a secondary source.

Didn't check the original source.

Now who in the world would ever say that Dave? Like maybe Talking about Charles Hatton Spurgeon maybe and how he denied limited atonement in a sermon where he was actually preaching it maybe Throwing out stuff about the Hebrew original of Hebrew of Acts 1 through 15 something like that.

Then trying to defend that by quoting a website. It was actually a Yahwist cult. I Have a long history of really really really Messing things up along those lines, but you know what? So does Tim Staples and Steve Ray and I wonder if Jimmy Akin would hold them the same standard.

Or is it possible that as long as it's in defense of mama Rome then all is well. I wonder I wonder if that's why the really bad Roman Catholic apologists don't get called out by the Roman Catholic apologists who seek to be more serious and Scholarly in their own efforts.

Is it because as long as it serves Rome, it's okay I mean I get attacked all the time For demanding that someone like Dave Hunt be serious When they when they say that they're representing Christ and his truth.

I Tyber or not I'm consistent. Why aren't why aren't Roman Catholics consistent on that? I there does seem to be something to this as long as it's in service of mother Rome. Then then we'll we'll let it pass.

Does seem to be something to that and he garbled it into the idea that the Pope was teaching that they were wealthy and that.

He was teaching the health and wealth gospel. Your perspective James White on on some of the literature that has been written By Protestants, which which which may be less than helpful. Well, first of all, it's on both sides.

I would look at a book like the Catholic controversies as being similar from the other direction that it's sometimes utterly irresponsible in its in its representation of Protestant beliefs, but my concern is.

And I this is going to reiterate something that I said when we were on the King James only issue. My concern is that a lot of really bad argumentation. People who are not careful about citations are not careful about accuracy or not careful about backgrounds and I care about logic.