Slick/Sungenis Discussion

The Dividing Line Intro and Program Setup

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 4602 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.

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. Just letting you know right now that I'm gonna be a little distracted today. I will be looking over frequently to my left Where I have a video feed I do not attempt to sneak up on our offices we have cameras every there and I am only looking at one right now.

However Does happen to include my car in it, which is always a good thing in this neighborhood, but I am watching for the FedEx van and When mr. FedEx arrives if he arrives During the program we are going to have programmicus interruptus Which is Which is Latin for what's coming?

I don't know, but I'm really excited about it. And so we're gonna bring it in here and we're going to very gently open well, actually, I know one of the two things that's coming, but one of the things I don't know what's coming and It could be extremely exciting and you will get to join with us in the excitement of Opening that package when it arrives if it arrives during the dividing line if it is not.

Then I just wasted the first 90 seconds of the program, but that will explain some of my distraction. Some people have asked that I Know I'm not alone the rookies out there. He's he's got things under control.

He'll be the one that has to go get it and bring it in here so I'm never alone like royalty. Yeah, right Brother. That that deserves that deserves this right here. There we go. Okay now. Some people have asked that I address the fascinating discussion that took place between the mayor of Dearborn and David Wood on Sunday afternoon, however, David has put up such a fine article on his blog.

That I don't see any reason to do so I would just direct you to David Woods Response to the dialogue they had it was quite honestly extremely disturbing. To hear an elected official lecturing people on the appropriate and proper ways of doing evangelism.

That was that was. It is long as there is justice as long as there's a judge that can see clearly Dearborn's in big trouble big big trouble. But you can't anymore assume that's gonna happen. You just you just can't.

One of the greatest evidences of judgment upon a people is unrighteous judges and So I just I don't know what's gonna happen. I I know what's right and what's wrong in the matter, but I don't know what's gonna happen in the in the long run on that.

So I'm not gonna I'm not gonna I didn't queue it up or anything like that. There would have been some very interesting quotes. But like I said, David did a fine job in the blog article he posted and so I would direct you to that instead.

The Matt Slick and Robert Sungenis Exchange on Scripture and Tradition

We're you get back to a Matt slick and Roberts a Janice. One of the main reasons I want to get through this particular section is I want to get to James chapter 2 and I want to get to some of the argumentation on justification.

We'll we'll try to make some progress along those lines. The only way to do that is to really press forward. So if we are ready to listen once again to this is still the first encounter I guess there's going to be a fourth or something in the future but the first encounter between Roberts and Janice and Matt slick you may recall that We're right around the point in time where Mistress and Janice is going to make that kind of argument the argument that I Struggle to keep my temper about because I consider it to be one of the most blasphemous arguments that Rome makes and that is that the biblical doctrine the Trinity the the divine revelation of the relationship of the Father Son Holy Spirit.

Which is the very matrix and essence of the New Testament writings? Can be seen with New Testament eyes in the Old Testament writings is somehow given to us that the scriptures are not sufficient to Reveal these things to us the church is what gives these things to us the Roman Catholic Church the very Roman Catholic Church that remember the alleged subject of the conversation at the moment is the bodily assumption of Mary has defined as part of the gospel this myth that developed long after the time of Christ and after the Apostles and So with that we continue with the dialogue, you know, that's not what it says.

You know, it doesn't say exactly those words, which you're redoing. What you're doing is rearranging the sentence to make it say what I never said. I'm not gonna play that game. You're better than that use the word final authority in contrast to my word only.

I'm asking it where the Bible uses the word finally. You don't have a verse for that. No, we don't have the word that you the Bible that uses the word Trinity either. We don't have the Bible to use in the word Trinity either.

Or hypostatic Union. Yeah, and who gave you the Trinity who was the first one to teach you the Trinity? Yeah, and who did God give it to it gives it to the kids regenerate people. Excuse me his regenerate people the elect.

Let's call the Council of Ephesus in the count. No, no, no, no. No, it wasn't that's where the doctrine came from. No, no, no it does that's wrong. Oh, really? Yes, the doctrine can you prove that. I can prove it because I can go to the document and show you.

Really? Yeah, I can go the documents called the New Testament and Demonstrate that this doctrine was revealed to. Well anyone with ears to hear long before there was a Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon and it you know.

What is so? Reprehensible about Rome's defenders is that when you if you take that kind of argumentation seriously and then you learn something about those councils and. You learn about the politics and you learn about all the behavior.

Attending those councils it becomes so surface level. To glom on to the excuse that well, you know all that stuff that happened and and roving bands of monks beating each other up in the streets from different sides of arguments and and.

All the rest of stuff that took place at these councils. All of that's just secondary because you see that the church was being guided. Anyway, and blah blah, you know, it's the same thing that we get these arguments that well, you know.

The the exegetical arguments that were used to come up with some of these these beliefs can be fallible, but the results aren't the results are infallible, but the arguments used to get there are fallible and it's it's just it is.

It's so easy to understand why if someone really thinks That the only reason we believe in the Doctrine of Trinity is this kind of argumentation. I understand why they leave the faith. I understand why liberalism is is the the Modus operandi of the day in the Roman Catholic Magisterium.

I understand that makes perfect sense to me. Because if that's what you got then There's there's no really no reason to believe these things at all. I remember years and years ago I sent Robertson Jenison email.

It was during the pontificate of Pope John Paul the second which well for most people there's only been two popes these days he reigned for so long and it was one of those situations where The if you look at John Paul the second's reign you will see that about every year He would put out something conservative that would keep the conservatives happy and the next year He'd put out something liberal that would keep the liberals happy than the next year something conservative and then something liberal.

It's how you keep a a very disparate non-unified group unified at least on a surface level and He had just made some statement that was was nigh unto universalistic at least inclusive istik similar to what we have in the universal Catholic catechism and stuff like that and I sent it to St. Janice along with the contrast from you know The 15th century the Council of Constance things like that that made such clear statements about Extraclesium nullis alis outside of the church.

There is no salvation and things like that and his response was His his response was well, who are you to interpret? What the church meant back then? Now just because everybody at that time interpreted the same way.

Just because all the commentators interpret that way that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the church says. The modern church the church today now the church 30 years from now could say something different and you just have to believe what the church says then too even if it's contradicting what it said now and this kind of abject abandonment of objective truth.

Well, I I just can't help but believe it's one of the reasons that when I was in Italy in 2005 that as I would drive from city to city I would see boarded up church after boarded up church after boarded up church.

So many churches just sitting there abandoned in Italy. I was struck with how sickly Roman Catholicism is in its home country now I was admittedly Rome and North and South of Rome southern Italy would probably not be in quite as bad a shape but the fact remains this kind of view of truth is just simply untenable and Yet, it's really forced upon the Roman Catholic God gave it to us.

The church recognizes the voice of the church. That's what the church says to the God. Gave it to the church the God the the church isn't the Roman Catholic Church. Through.

God gave it to the church through the scriptures. That which is the anus toss the church believes. The believing Church hears The voice of her Lord in the scripture and is obedient thereto. You see Rome changes the order To where Rome gets to determine what is the voice of Christ and what the voice of Christ is saying whether it's a scripture or tradition and.

Once you have an infallible church, you have a group in monologue with itself. There can be no corrective. There can be no. There's no external standard that can correct Error when it enters in. There can be no.

Semper reform anda always reforming. Not possible. When you make the church infallible, okay.

It's not some organizational structure. The Mormons say that the Jehovah's Witnesses say that. What's the the true church? It's the church that I belong to with its authoritative system. We have the true tradition and they have all variations of the same kind of claim.

You have the church that you've made up in your own mind. I made it up. Yeah, what do I make up. Because you have no pedigree. You have no six. My pedigree comes from Jesus. And I you woke up one morning and you say why.

I think God talked to me and now I'm gonna stop right there because this Is getting sort of silly.

These guys are just sort of insulting each other here and playing games. The reality is of course that what you're seeing here again is the standard Roman Catholic Argumentation that does not allow for the fact That we have a a high view of the church see that if you have a high view of the church Then the church must be infallible.

That's what they want to try to present and The idea of holding to a high ecclesiology and I would hold to a high ecclesiology. I am a churchman the idea that the church has authority as the body of Christ and yet is not infallible and is subject to the Word of Christ and yet I can look back and I can learn from the early church writers.

I Can learn good and bad from the early church writers. There's there are people in the early church. You're just we're really disconnected from Scripture. Just like there are today, I mean you can go into a Christian bookstore today.

You'll find pretty much the same wide range of really goofy stuff. Theologically speaking you're not gonna find much word-faith stuff. I Didn't live in a world that you can get away with making yourself rich off this stuff, but anyway I Can learn from all those things.

I can appreciate men of the past and yet I do not have to invest in them infallibility or religious authority beyond that which the Scriptures give to them we are to Recognize that God has worked in his people down through the ages and There is a modern hubris.

On the part of evangelicals that we don't care about what God has done in preceding generations in general. Not all obviously we've produced some very good work on church history. But mother is I really enjoyed teaching church history back in the early 90s on the undergraduate level was I could.

You know a lot of people walked into that class thinking home and another history class just gotta get out of the way blah blah blah and I Enjoyed exciting them about church history and making them feel like they were a part of this.

Really enjoyed you and I've missed doing that for a long time now. But I can do all of that and some Genesis in life. He has made up in your mind got no pedigree. I can find all sorts of folks in your early church who believe like I believe.

You're the one they cannot find people near a church to believe like you believe. Remember, this is about the bodily assumption of Mary. Show me some of the Council of Nicaea show me one Single person at the Council of Nicaea that believe what Robert Cesaris believes about the bodily assumption of Mary.

Nobody zip zero nada. No one not possible can't be done and he knows it. He knows it that's where the challenge needs to be made. Don't talk to me about your pedigree when you're defending a belief. That has no pedigree that Demonstrates you don't believe in scripture and tradition.

That's where you go on something like this.

At least that's where he should have gone and Jesus is doing this and he's giving me the authority because I'm a Christian. That's what you have. That's not what I said. You don't have an authority like why.

There's there's 10 ,000 different denominations out there.

And lots of different there there you get the 10 ,000 at least he only said 10 ,000 later on. He does go to a higher number, but He obviously knows that the those numbers are extremely inflated and but this is what you get from Rome's apologists.

They don't have anything else. We keep faulting them for not coming up with new stuff. And I said at least a little bit later on Bob's gonna throw something out that it's. You know, he does try to find some things.

But I think he primarily does so because he's still very much a Protestant at heart and that's what he is Criticized for by fellow Roman Catholics is that he is very very much still A Protestant at heart at least in his methodology section side of Roman Catholicism.

Oral Tradition, Ecclesial Authority, and the Sufficiency of Scripture

Why do you keep adding to the words of what I'm saying adding to the world? I'm not adding to the you are you keep doing I wanted to. I'm the one who told you that the Holy Spirit taught Our revelation by inspiring the people he taught.

Lots of you weren't even sure that that was the case.

And we went through that last time if you're just now catching up You need to go realize we've been working on this for I don't know how many programs. Now you need to go back and listen to the discussion we had on that, but.

We addressed first Thessalonians 213 and other issues regarding Alleged oral revelation and once again what has to be done here is you have to challenge the assumption being made that this alleged or revelation during the apostolic period is the same thing as modern Rome's use of that term and That's where they they just have to admit they cannot establish that kind of argumentation.

No, I wanted to understand what it is. You're saying I understand the Roman Catholic position on Roman on that tradition and the oral aspect the way you're saying that it's inspired. I've done this enough to know I need to make sure of what you're saying, which is why I'm asking you to define your terms.

Repeatedly, you know any scriptures to show the assumption of Mary. I don't need any scriptures. You don't need the Word of God to make your position valid.

Now again that that kind of approach a Lot of the Roman Catholic apologists that have made some progress over the past number of decades is because they they finally gave up on that kind of Presentation like like Bob just made I don't need any scriptures.

Now the arguments they come up with are bogus. But at least they recognize that if they actually want to to make any progress the Protestant. You don't just simply go I don't need any scriptures. The church tells me it's all it's all I need.

That kind of argumentation just is so grating and Is is so arrogant on the part of Rome that it's really repulsive it it drives people away it repels. People thinking people who go wait a minute. You're telling me this is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ and yet the Apostles never said a word about it except through Your alleged traditions that you can't even begin to trace back to the Apostles at all.

That's your position. That's what you're presenting to me. But the reality is that he's at least being honest. Because fundamentally the only reason a Roman Catholic believes in bodily assumption Mary's because Rome tells himself.

That's the only reason. No meaningful examination of either scripture or tradition is gonna lead you to the bodily assumption Mary. It's just not. It's just not possible so at least he's being honest and It should it should repel a person who believes that When Jesus said sanctify them in the truth thy word is truth.

That that would mean that it might be a good idea. That you find in the word Those things which define the Christian faith, but not for Rome. Nah and here. What have I said so many times sola ecclesia the church as the final rule of authority there?

You have it. Where does the Bible say that I have to have a verse of scripture for every doctrine that's believed in the in The Christian. There you go there you go. Where does it say that doesn't say those exact words, right?

I say at this point. I just go Matt quick play in the Socratic game. It doesn't use those exact words. Answer the question. Give a positive defense of the fact that you need to root Christian belief in that which is they honest us to the law under the testimony if they speak not according to these things there is no light in them.

Go to 2nd Timothy chapter 3 and say look. The scriptures say that Timothy would be equipped for every good work. By going that which is they honest us is teaching the bodily assumption of Mary a good work yes or no.

If it's not a good work Then it can't be part of the gospel. If it is a good work Then the Bible has to equip you to do it. But the Bible can't equip you to do it, and he just admitted the Bible will not equip him to do that.

There you go. That's how you do it. Take it back to the important element and that is what Roberts and Genesis is saying about the nature of Scripture and its capacities and abilities. That's what you got to do.

I know it doesn't so you can make up anything.

I think maybe God might be a god another planet. Oh, we go by the tradition as I told you at the beginning of the show. No you don't.

There is no tradition of the bodily assumption of Mary having any apostolic origination at all. You can't find anybody in the 2nd century. You can't find anybody in the 3rd century. Can't find anybody in the 4th century.

It's not there. There's no sermon. Think of all of the sermons especially after the end of the 3rd century you the the Marian devotion connected to the rise of a celibate priesthood concept and Celibacy amongst the the anchorites they got.

There is so much emphasis upon Mary that time and yet in all of that literature Not a whisper of this as dogma. How can that be? It's impossible. There is no tradition. I Mean you have to completely Redefine the word to come up with this idea that that there's anything in tradition whatsoever on this subject.

And yet that's what the Roman Catholic is is left with. We go by scripture.

And we have a magisterium to decide if there's any discrepancies or ambiguities or whatever. We have a final authority to decide and.

Of course, the final authority is just simply sola ecclesia magisterium because scripture and traditions say nothing about this. So the magisterium defines this as a dogma. There's sola ecclesia.

Proven right there. What traditional you have. A Roman Catholic tradition. Roman Catholic ministerial. That's what started. 2 ,000 years.

That's what started 2 ,000 years ago. We will admit that we have nothing for the first 500 years and even then when it appears it's it's in literature. It's considered heretical and condemned by by Pope Galatius in Rome itself, but it's been around for 2 ,000 years.

I'm this kind of absolute abject. Manhandling of history is so common. I mean, it's not just Bob's and Jenna's turn on any EWTN broadcast. They've got a radio station here in Phoenix now and every once in a while my hand just involuntarily, you know I have a muscle spasm and it's 1310 and and I start listening and It just unless it's one of the constant programs on abortion, which is just which 24 -7 wall-to-wall, but unless it's one of those you're just always going to hear and this is the way it's been for 2 ,000 years and this is how we've believed for 2 ,000 years and so often they're talking about stuff.

That is just so clearly not a part of the faith of the early church. But they just say it so often they convince themselves of it I guess. They just become convinced. Yes. Well, this is you know, this is what everybody else is saying.

So it must be broken. No, that's that's what the Roman Catholic Church says. Give me scripture. Give me the inspired Word of God I don't have to give. You don't have any your inspired Word of God for the assumption of Mary unless you can prove from your Scripture what you hold is your final authority that that's what I have to do.

The Bible says don't exceed what's written. Let me see you some happen. Scripture. The Bible also says a second Timothy 316 that the scriptures worthy of reproof and correction and teaching. So the Bible points to itself as being the thing of what you are to trust in inspiration and teaching.

I'm asking you and it says in 1st Peter you 15 now quite true. I'm glad we finally got to a good text on the subject but the emphasis needs to be made upon the equipping of the man of God and the nature of scripture to contrast that with the sources Roberts and Genesis using.

And if we have a article on the website, I wrote it for a journal a number of years ago and when the journal folded up I went ahead and posted it on our site and it's a dialogue on solo scriptura and I really think it is would be extremely helpful if you are engaging these individuals you need To read through it's in the Roman Catholic section a dialogue on solo scriptura.

You need to read through it to see. You've got to be dealing with foundational issues or this is just gonna spin around in circles all the time and The foundational issue has to do with that which is they honest us that which is God breathed over against that which is not.

When we're talking about issues of epistemology here of knowledge, this is extremely important. It's not stuff. Unfortunately that we think about a lot in our churches, but we need to we we have to. And you need to think these things through before engaging these these apologetic encounters not afterwards.

That's that's for everybody everybody. This this should be part and parcel of our preparation.

For being believing Christians in our day first Peter 315 to give an answer to everyone who would ask you I'm asking you to do it. From scripture. I'm not gonna believe Roman Catholic theology. I'm just gonna be Roman Catholic tradition when it gives me the stuff that does about Mary.

Let's deal with the verses that you pointed out Matt first Timothy 316 doesn't say that scripture is the final authority doesn't fit scripture. It's self-sufficient. It says scripture is profitable for truth.

Okay, that's all it says. Okay, that's all it says.

What an amazing statement I? Think I I let let that stand on its own. That's all it says. I mean just because the Apostle knows that he's about to leave this world and he has great love in his heart for Timothy and for all who would walk in Timothy's shoes in ministry and Just because this is the last communication.

He's gonna have with him. That doesn't mean that it's overly important and all all Paul really says there is. It scriptures profitable. That's all he says. If you can actually read that text come up with that conclusion.

Well. That that is that is the most amazing denial of fundamental Christian truth you're gonna hear today. That's not all it says. It says that all scripture is the honest us nothing else is the honest us mr. Dr. St. Janice.

Can you show us? Where your tradition is they are new stuff. No you can't. All scripture is the honest us and then there is the discussion of what it is profitable for and it's Instruction and teaching discipline.

Correction. In other words everything the man of God not a priest by the way. The man of God needs to be doing amongst the people of God. The man of God doesn't have to look anyplace else. He can look that which is the honest us and if teaching the bodily assumption of Mary is a good work and it is something the man of God should be doing then according to Paul it should be something you should be able to do on the basis of Scripture.

But Robertson Janice can't do that and he knows it. Because it's unknown to Scripture. It's unknown to those early generations of believers as well. It doesn't say it's just profitable. It says so the man of God may be thoroughly equipped.

Prepared for every good work. That's not what Rome believes and that's why Romans apologists cannot handle this text. We're gonna take a break and Continue on with the dividing line and we'll continue listening this encounter between Matt slick and Robertson Janice.

We'll be getting out of this and into some other elements of the discussion here in just a few minutes. Be right back.

Commercial Break and Ministry Announcements

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt Scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith in a readable and responsible style author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a Omin 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 omen org. Hello everyone. This is Rich Pierce.

In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program. The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet.

They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses. Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior.

And Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well.

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace. Thank you. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 6026 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org. Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Which which now means That you can go to PR BC org and find a link to sermon audio where the archives will will exist. Well, eventually we will it'll be there it'll be there soon but Yes, we have moved moved our streaming to to sermon audio now from PR BC.

So Yes, yes well Let's let's let's wait till it's all ready to rock and roll and people become very confused about all the Latin if we went there anyways, we listening to Roberts Janice and Matt slick.

Let's continue on.

Luke 1:28, Mary, and the Immaculate Conception

Yeah, sure it is. That's why I use it. That's good you use it. I want you to use it to demonstrate your position from those scriptures. I don't have to because that's not what the Bible demands of me.

The Bible says scripture is profitable.

It doesn't say it is self-sufficient. It doesn't say it's a final authority. So then you can believe whatever you want. No. Yes. Let's see. I I That's not the way to respond to that. Yeah, obviously once you knock down the walls of Sola Scriptura then Rome has defined things that are you know Getting farther and farther and farther away from anything.

It's even remotely Christian. There's no question about that. But you challenge this on the basis of his manhandling of of the text. He's not handling that correctly. You you you had. You know, maybe it's just an approach Difference, but when I listen to someone manhandling the text, I'm going to correct their misapprehension of it.

I'm not gonna just sort of Socratically say well, let's illustrate the the contradiction that comes that if you go No, I I just don't think that people listening to that are going to be catching that part they they need to hear a Correction of the misuse of the text because so many people can't handle a text.

Well today as you believe in tradition.

Scripture and the Magisterium. You'll believe whatever the Catholic Church tells you. Well because that's the authority that God put in place there now.

There was the correct argument. You will believe whatever the Roman Catholic Church that Sola Ecclesia draw out the antithesis draw out the contrast. You believe in Sola Ecclesia. I believe in Sola Scriptura, which one gives us a basis for having a true knowledge of what the Apostles of Jesus Christ taught.

Challenge this belief. Challenge them to provide the evidence that this is some tradition that was passed down from the Apostles. That's the claim that's being made. And if he's gonna go ahead and admit well, I can't give you any claim.

I can't give you any Evidence of this then that illustrates even more clearly for the audience.

Where the problem really lies. That's what the Roman Catholic Church told you. No, that's. Give me a break. Petras. And Petros, you know this stuff I read. Why would you do that. What?

Petras and Petros even it even some Janice didn't get that one. I have no earthly idea what Petras and Petros is. I know what Petras is. I know what Petra is. I know it's not really a good argument about Matthew 16.

But there's no such difference as Petras and Petros. There's Petras and Petra. Maybe that's what he's referring to. I don't know but that's not the direction to go in Matthew 16 anyway. So Lost me at that point in lost in Janice as well as you will hear right here.

I don't know what you're talking about there I'm just telling you what the scripture says. It says that the church is the authority. And the church which church. 2 ,000 years ago.

The scripture does not say that the church is the authority. Where does it say that. Where does it say that. Well? Matthew 18. Well actually Matthew 18 doesn't say the church is the authority. Says when there is personal sin.

Then the church has authority to deal with matters of personal sin. But that's not the same thing as defining something like the bodily assumption of Mary. Well the church. The pillar foundation of truth.

Yes, the local church. And it's the church that holds up the truth. That doesn't mean that it's not subject to the truth. So where is this at? There's got to be challenges made at these points. Have to deal with these things.

You know, you know, I'm gonna use term presupposition Lee here, and I'm not just meaning that in the sense of just constantly repeating the transcendental argument of the existence of God. What I mean is you have to see what the foundations of arguments are and expose them.

Otherwise you just simply go around and around in circles and to do that you must be making positive biblical presentation in Contrast to the errors that the other side's making. Which church.