Ibn al-Qayyim, Pope Francis, John Calvin, Ken Wilson

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We're gonna try this again. We already did this once. And according to Rich, we are struggling. And I don't know why. I don't understand these things, but Rich is blaming YouTube.

So what can I say? I don't know anything about YouTube. I mean, I know how to use YouTube. I have YouTube TV. But evidently, you know, it could just be that YouTube doesn't like us anymore. And so they're hitting us with stuff.

I don't know. I have no earthly idea, but at least, at least the chances are minimal that what happened yesterday happens today. Because yesterday we got hit with a power spike that took out the computer because the backup UPS, the allegedly UPS was IPS.

So the uninterruptible power source was interruptible power source. And it died. And so the computer went down and we couldn't recover the file. And that was it. There was an hour's worth of programming gone and couldn't recover it.

And that's all it was that. So the chances of another power spike taking out the new UPS. Yeah, then you start putting those little cameras in the office, you know, watching at three o 'clock in the morning to see who's coming in to mess with stuff.

So, yeah. So worst comes to worst, if this is herky-jerky bad live, I'll minimize my Twitter window so I don't see it. And we'll get it recorded and we'll get it up. And because it's almost like there's stuff piling up to get to, because I'm still doing my studies.

I'm sure Ken Wilson is very happy about that. I'm still doing my studies and stuff is still happening. And so we've got to work on stuff here. So we've got to get to it. So the first thing that we need to get to, and we did not test this, unfortunately, is we need to, like I said, we are redoing everything we did yesterday.

And so I'm going to respond to a Muslim video and then I'm going to add in something that I need to add in. And that is a comment from yesterday morning, probably about three o 'clock our time, but yesterday morning, maybe even earlier, from Pope Francis's morning mass devotional type thing that was pointed out to me and need to keep track of this particular situation.

I think it's very, very important. Then I've got some reading from the institutes to do with you. And then we get back into, I have had the opportunity to spend a number of hours over the past couple of days looking at Ken Wilson's dissertation and then following notes, following references.

I can't always do that on secondary sources because he wrote this at Oxford University and had a very large library. I've got a pretty good library, but it ain't Oxford's. But especially when we're quoting from Augustine or Athanasius, I've got all that.

So we're going to be doing some Ken Wilson says, and then Augustine actual, this is what he really said. And all of that's going to help us to really get focused in on the fundamental error, the fundamental flaw, this doesn't work.

It will never work. It will lose in debate. It will lose in debate badly, dupied. The attempt on Ken Wilson's part to create a concept that will allow him to let you listen to Calvin speaking and then go, that's manichaeism.

No, it's not. And the fundamental foundational differences are far too large to substantiate the assertions that he himself makes. And so we will be getting to that. It's going to be a trucker length dividing line.

Let's put it that way. The truckers who were upset that yesterday we didn't provide them with anything to listen to should be happy with this one. So maybe, obviously God works everything according to the counsel of his will.

I had looked at this video just briefly right before the program yesterday. So since the program didn't go off, I had opportunity to get the fuller video, which is five minutes long instead of two and a half minutes long, and also figure out who the author was and what their context was.

Ibn al-Khaim was the successor to a very, very, very, very, very well-known name that we've talked about more than once in the program, Ibn Taymiyyah. If you know anything about, well, the developing terminology as to which Muslim groups are which and the overriding views and purposes and so on and so forth, you know the name Ibn Taymiyyah, especially because of his emphasis upon Tawhid.

And if you have any strong emphasis upon Tawhid, you will end up with a strong emphasis as well upon the various forms of shirk. Tawhid is the oneness of Allah. Shirk is the association of anyone or anything with Allah.

This can be in regards to his names, his attributes, his worship, so on and so forth. There are different categories of shirk, different levels of shirk, but shirk is the unforgivable sin. So the Quran is very clear about that.

So you have Ibn Taymiyyah's successor in essence, he was a student of Ibn Taymiyyah anyway, as many people saw him as his successor. This is a poem that this man wrote to Christians. So this gives you an idea.

This is not a hundred years after Muhammad utilizing Western terminology, Western numbers. This would be what, 700 years approximately? Because he's contemporaneous with Ibn Kathir. So centuries down the road.

You would think by this point in time that there would be an accurate understanding on the part of Islamic leadership of what Christianity teaches and believes. But that's not been my experience. That's not the case.

And of course, the same thing is true in reverse. Even to this day, even though I would say you can find many, many Christian writers and scholars that are fully aware of the fundamental and foundational assertions of Islam.

But when it comes to the man on the street, your average Christian is just as ignorant as your average Muslim of the other person. But this isn't your average street guy. This is a scholar. And the fact that he is so disconnected from the reality of what Christians believe says a lot about where the conversation between Muslims and Christians has been for a long, long time.

So here is the poem. I just turned the sound off on that. My understanding is the poem is being recited in Arabic behind this, but that's not gonna make it very easy for us to really be able to hear anything or really understand it.

So I'm just getting rid of the sound. What I'll do is I'll play it. It is translated at the bottom of the screen in English. I'll stop it, respond to each statement. A couple of the statements are similar, are just sort of poetically repeating what has been said before.

And we'll work through it that way. Oh, worshipers of Christ, we'd like your most wise to answer our questions. Okay. Anyway, all right. If our God was murdered by some people's actions, and you'll notice it, okay, then what sort of God is this?

Well, this would be a God who is totally sovereign over what's taking place in his world. And hence, from eternity past, had chosen this mechanism as his means of self-glorification. The Father, the Son, the Spirit in eternity past chose to reveal the attributes of the triune God, his power, his wrath, his justice, his might, as well as his love, his grace, his mercy, in the drama of redemption.

And the center point of that drama of redemption is the cross of Christ. And so it was the intention of the second person in the Trinity, the divine Son, in perfect harmony with the Father and with the Spirit to enter into flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, to live a perfect life.

He did not cease being God. He took on a perfect human nature. Since God can create a perfect human nature, he can take on a perfect human nature. Without ceasing to be God, he takes on that perfect human nature, lives a perfect life, and then gives his life voluntarily in the place of his people so that God's wrath justly falls upon him in our place, substitutionary atonement, so that his righteousness can be given to us so that we can have forgiveness and eternal life.

His wisdom is thereby demonstrated, and we are provided with eternal life. The triune God is glorified by this entire drama as it takes place. So that is what sort of God this is. Now, the Muslim struggles with this because of the emphasis upon Allah's transcendence, and Christians believe that God is transcendent in the sense that he is not of necessity connected to human things or to created things in that sense, but that he voluntarily, in grace, enters into relationship with us.

It's not something that he is forced to do by any necessity in and of himself or external necessity or anything else, but he does so because he loves and he desires to accomplish his purpose. So what sort of God is this?

The triune God of Scripture. That is the triune God of Scripture. And we wonder, was he pleased by what they did to him? I'm thinking that last, the reason is this worked better last time is I wasn't playing it off of the thing because it keeps covering the words.

I think we were playing it off of YouTube or something last time, and that's why it didn't show up, I don't know. So then, were they pleased, was he pleased with them? If so, then blessed are they, for they must have achieved his pleasure.

So this is not a valid objection from a Muslim perspective because you believe that Allah accomplishes his purposes without going to the conclusion that that means that Allah is pleased in sinners or in sin.

So the, I think, much clearer revelation in the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian scriptures is seen in passages such as Genesis chapter 50, Isaiah chapter 10, Acts chapter four, where God ordains what takes place, but his intention in it is good.

And the intention of mankind is evil. They are judged on the basis of the intention of their heart. He is glorified on the intention of his part. And I would think that for most Muslims, especially someone in the line of Ibn Taymiyyah, that that would be a sort of a given that you'd accept that, understand that.

That would seem to make sense to me, but maybe not, I don't know. But if he wasn't pleased with them, then this must mean they overpowered him. Well, if in the sense that you're saying that what happened overpowered God, well, no, of course not.

Acts chapter four, just mentioned it just a moment ago, verses 27, 28, the early church praise what Herod Pontius Pilate, the Jews and Romans did, God's hand and God's will had predestined to occur. So they did not overpower him.

He could have called 10 ,000 angels is a phrase that we frequently utilize to respond to something like this. So was the present entity left without a God and all hearing being who can hear prayers? And the answer of course is no.

So when I reviewed this yesterday, I was a little confused as to exactly how this connected with what came before, because I thought maybe because of the picture that they were talking about in the garden, but the scene before was more about the crucifixion.

So there doesn't seem to be as much knowledge on the part of the Muslim poem writer as you might've expected. But the idea is in death, did God cease to exist? Well, even Muslims do not believe that death is cessation of existence.

So I don't know why Islam continuously asserts to us that if Jesus died, he ceased to exist. We do not believe that death causes someone to cease to exist. And Jesus voluntarily gave his life. He said, father into your hands, I commit my spirit.

And so if you understand, and it's clear that Ibn al-Khayyam did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, even if you somehow have some idea of cessation of existence, the father didn't cease to exist.

The spirit did not cease to exist. And it's quite possible that as many Muslims do, it's quite possible that the idea here is you're responding to what's called modalism, the idea of the father, son, and the spirit of one person, which is a ancient heresy, but it's not one that we actually believe.

Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. And were the heavens vacated when he was placed under the earth and the dirt above him? Again, this is a poem, so you get some of that. No, the heavens were not vacated.

He did not cease to be God. The father did not cease to exist. The son did not cease to exist. The spirit did not cease to exist. This was the giving of the human life that had been taken on by the son himself.

Perfect human life, the God-man. But again, it's not cessation, no vacation, vacating. Vacation, not quite the same thing. But no, that would not be the case at all. And then the next assertion, and was the universe left without a God to manage it while his hands were being nailed down?

Same answer as before. No, that would not be the case. That's assuming that there is only one divine person. And why didn't the angels help him when they heard him cry out in pain? Because it was not his intention that they should do so.

It is amazing that they, I mean, I'm sure that they were utterly amazed at the condescension of their maker in allowing himself to be treated in the way he was. But this was the intention from eternity past.

And again, it would just strike me that most Muslims should be able to understand this. Most Muslims I've spoken with do believe in the Qadr. And if they've not given much thought to it, because I don't think the Quran really does address it very much.

But if they've not given much thought to it, still the idea that God has perfect knowledge of all future events should be rather natural to most Muslims. And that therefore he has a will that he is accomplishing.

We just believe that will is much more exhaustive, evidently, than many Muslims do and included the crucifixion itself. And how could any wooden beam hold up a true God while he is being fastened to it?

Well, it has been said more than once that one of the amazing things, one of the amazing truths, is that Jesus made the very wood, the very tree from which the wood was taken upon, the cross was made that he was nailed to.

And I did yesterday, and I suppose I should still do so again. I did read, I was reminded when I saw this, of a section from an early Christian writing around one, in the 60s, 170s. So very, very early, about 120 years after the time of the Apostle Paul or so, somewhere around in there, 110 years or so after Paul and about 140 years after the crucifixion.

This is Melito Sardis in his Passover sermon. He said, and so, I think I remember doing this too. And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it?

It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.

He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree. The sovereign is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand. This is the one who made the heavens and the earth and formed mankind in the beginning.

The one proclaimed by the law and the prophets, the one in flesh in a virgin, the one hanged on a tree, the one buried in the earth, the one raised from the dead and who went up into the heights of heaven, the one sitting at the right hand of the father and the one having all authority to judge and save, through whom the father made the things which exist from the beginning of time.

This one is the Alpha and the Omega. This one is the beginning of the end, the beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible. This one is the Christ. This one is the King. This one is Jesus. This one is the leader.

This one is the Lord. This one is the one who rose from the dead. This one is the one sitting on the right hand of the father. He bears the father and is born by the father. To him be glory and power forever.

Amen. So again, from Melito of Sardis in the mid to late second century from a sermon on the Passover, affirming that yes, Jesus made the tree upon which he was crucified. That is exactly part of the great condescension and love that was shown in his self-giving.

And how could any iron be brought to him so that it could be driven inside him and cause him pain? He made it. He made it. It was his purpose. It was his intention to do so. The Muslim is thinking, this is not something God wanted to do.

And how could his enemy's hands ever reach him so that they could whip him from behind? It was his intention that he do so. This was the prophecy that was given in scripture long beforehand. And did this Christ revive himself or was there another God that brought him to life?

So again, it does seem that Ibn al-Khayyam is assuming a heresy known as modalism as the idea of one, it's a Unitarian idea, which is understandable. So it's understandable if you are a Unitarian as he would have been to push your ideas into the Christian experience.

But that is not the case. We are not, we are monotheists, but you're not Unitarians. And so the Bible actually describes the father as raising the son, the spirit is raising his son, and the son as raising himself.

He said he has the authority to take his life back again. And so the resurrection is a triune action in the New Testament scriptures. Again, all the earliest Christian writings confirm this. I could give you a fantastic quotation from Ignatius, for example, where he associates the three together in the one work of the gospel.

And that's 106, 107 AD. So very, very, very early. And there is nothing from that time period that says otherwise, as you would expect, if in fact the standard understanding of Muslims is the case and that is Paul sort of messed everything up and the original apostles wouldn't have believed all this.

Well, that's just, this is not the case. And so father, son, and spirit were involved in the resurrection. There aren't any other gods. There's only one God, Yahweh, creator of all things. So no. Okay, that one's staying on the screen for, there we go.

And how strange is it that a grave could be enclosed on a God and even stranger is the womb that enclosed it. So again, this is the assumption on the part of Muslims to this very day that the incarnation cannot happen.

This is really, this is why the debate we had in 2011 and wish we could have more debates like it remains central to this subject. And that's where we debated, can God become man? Because this is the real issue, the real issue between Islam and Christianity.

This is where Muslims just simply can't go to this point because of the assumption that God cannot take on that which he himself created. He has the ability to create the perfect human nature. He does not have the ability to take on a perfect human nature without ceasing to be God or without turning a human nature into a God or all these other things.

And of course, Christians had thought through all of this stuff long before Muhammad came along. He just was not aware of those answers. He was not aware of that. He may not have ever met a Christian who understood those things though.

Yeah, I know he met with the delegation of Najran but he was already well into his established beliefs by that point in time. And we don't know who those people were or what level of knowledge they had or things like that.

And it does seem that he had real confusion as to the sources from which Christians derive their beliefs. That's reflected in the Quran and the fact that the Quran quotes from Gnostic sources or at least sources that have been influenced by Gnosticism.

Non-canonical works, the making of the clay birds causing them to come alive and fly away. That's from the infancy gospel of Thomas. That's not canonical scripture but the author of the Quran didn't know that.

And it is interesting, if any of you are falling asleep right now, I think Rich is. He's actually says that he's not falling asleep. He is looking very carefully at the monitors and watching every little thing that's going on.

Just the horizontal and the vertical. He is tuned in. He's gonna keep it going. See, I was on a roll there. I was on a roll there. But in case you were, in case you were tuning out with all the Muslim stuff all of a sudden, it is interesting that a number of writers have theorized because how do you prove it?

But have theorized that Muhammad had interaction with, you ready? Manichaeans. That's not possible. Well, yes, it is possible. At least, let's put it this way. That he had interaction with people who at least could speak of what Manichaeans believed.

Maybe not, I mean, he could have met them. And would he have been able to differentiate between them and Christians? Because many middle of the third century, he dies in the middle of the third century.

So he's only a couple of hundred years beforehand. Manichaeism does spread into those areas. So it's possible. We can't prove it one way or the other. I mean, there's so much about Muhammad's life. We can't answer questions about it.

We can only speculate about it. But it is interesting. Why? This will plug into the Ken Wilson stuff later on. Mani had two visions of Al-Tawm. Now, Al-Tawm is the twin. The first one, I think it was like 12 and then about 10 years later.

And that was based upon this idea of there being a divine twin. Each person has a divine twin in the divine realm. That's not really relevant. But he is informed that he is the Paracletos. Mani claimed to be the Paraclete.

What do Muslims say about Muhammad? That he's the one prophesied in John 14 and 16. And, and Mani claimed to be the seal of prophecy or the seal of all the prophets, which is exactly the language that is used of Muhammad as well.

So it is interesting. You do wonder at that point, but the whole point being, I honestly see no evidence in the Quran or the Hadith that Muhammad possessed the ability to be able to differentiate between Christians, Christian heretics, Gnostics and Manichaeans.

So given that Manichaeism, Mani was told that he was going to bring all of the religious, all the great religions together into one in his message. So when Manichaeism went West into Rome, then it emphasized Jesus.

When it went East, it emphasized Buddha. And it was almost like interchangeable, you know, like, oh, these people are more into the Jesus stuff. So we'll use Jesus here rather than Buddha, so on and so forth.

So how would Muhammad have been able to know since he did not understand Orthodox Christianity? How would he have been able to tell the difference? He did not differentiate about sources. So how could he differentiate about specific theologies?

That is a question. So this takes us back to the question here. And how strange is it that a grave could be enclosed on a God and even stranger is the womb that enclosed him? The whole idea from the Islamic perspective is how strange that the creator would condescend to enter into his creation.

And that is the issue that separates Christians and Muslims, especially as regards to Jesus. No two ways about it. So the next statement is, which he remained inside for nine whole months and under darkness being fed by blood.

Yes, he did. He was truly a man. And so he was not, as some people theorize, beamed out of Mary. The prophecy, and I believe Muslims believe that Isaiah was a prophet. The prophecy in Isaiah chapter nine says, a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us.

And the root for child and born in Isaiah nine six, Yalad, Yalad and Yalad goes straight into Arabic. That's the same tri-literal root in Arabic as it is in Hebrew, they're both Semitic languages. And so, yes, a child was born to us.

There was blood on the straw. He was truly human. So the life that he gave could truly take the place of that which we owed and provide for our salvation in the process. Then he emerged from the womb as a small child completely helpless, reaching out to be breastfed.

Yes, indeed. That does not mean for a moment that the universe was without direction or that the son himself had ceased to be God. None of these things are true, but the assumption, if you buy into a Unitarian idea, that would be necessary, but we're Trinitarians, not Unitarians, so that's not a objection to us.

Thus he ate, drank, and after he answered the call, which comes naturally, so is this really your God? And so the objection there, of course, is that, well, if Jesus ate and drank, then he had to do everything else that mankind does, and therefore he can't possibly be God.

Again, the underlying assumption being Allah could create all this, and here's one of the interesting things. Was Adam created good? Well, Adam ate, so how can that be bad? And so the assumption is, looking from the fallen state, and of course the fall is not seen the same way within Islam.

There is a fall, it's just not seen as having the same impact as it is in Christianity. There's much less clarity as to the result of that. There are differing things that are said in the Hadith and other sources.

Anyway, but the idea is this would be beneath Allah, and at least that does have a chronic foundation in Surah 5, you have the same argument being made there. Highly exalted is Allah, flash, flash, flash.

And that's where he ended. I think that's where he ended before, but we see what the rest of it says here. Highly exalted is Allah above the lies of the Christians. I wonder if the shorter version was so that you did not include the Quranic-style condemnations, each of whom will be asked about their fabrications.

And so if you believe what the original followers of Jesus wrote, and you have nothing earlier than them, then these are called fabrications and the lies of the Christians. Asserting things that are not true of Allah is the concept of the writer.

Oh, cross-worshippers. Now, this is important for you to see. We didn't get into this last time. This is new stuff now. But cross-worshippers, oh, cross-worshippers, for what reason is someone exalted for accepting this and blameworthy for rejecting it, the cross?

Now, again, you would think, there is that one example of a meaningful Muslim-Christian dialogue in the early years that we've gone over in the past. I'm not going to go into it right now, but it doesn't seem like that continued for very long.

And so it's understandable that people would view us as cross-worshippers because they don't understand what the cross means. There is a, when I would wear a cross, and I'm wearing a cross more often these days because to be perfectly honest with you, I see a day coming when we're not going to be able to wear it at all, where it would be dangerous to do so.

And I happen to know of many brothers and sisters in the world who can't wear one for sake of possibly losing their life or being arrested. So as long as I've got the freedom to do it, I'm going to remember what the Apostle Paul said to the Galatians.

He said, but God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ by whom the world is crucified in me and I into the world. Now, I understand that Muslims do not understand the centrality of the cross.

They do not understand the centrality of the person who died upon the cross. And they do not understand that the cross itself is not the point. It is the act that took place upon the cross. We rejoice and we glory in the cross, not because the cross as a wooden, you know, God did not preserve that.

Christians in the medieval period thought that he did and there were fragments of the true cross all over Europe. In fact, as Desirius Erasmus said, if you gathered up all the fragments of the true cross, you could build a ship with fragments of the true cross.

And so there was a time there has been an inordinate materialization of the cross, but the biblical glorying in the cross is glorying in the fact that it was God's intention, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, from the beginning for that to happen.

That his will predestined it, his hand brought it about. That the Son, not my will, but yours be done. Father, into your hand and commitment of spirit. It is finished. It is the center point of history.

From the Christian perspective, everything before it, look forward to it. Everything afterwards looks back to it. We live now in the light of the cross that shines from the empty tomb. And so it is the center point of history.

So we don't worship the cross. We are not cross worshipers, but we do glory in it because of what it says about the condescension, the mercy, the grace, and the love of our God that has been demonstrated in what took place upon it.

It was not an accident. He voluntarily gave his life. That is always something I emphasize to our Muslim friends because a lot of you need to hear that. So, and is it not logical that we should break and burn what humiliated Christ and the one that made it?

Because part of the discussion that takes place is a portion of, I'm not sure we'll call it prophecy, but in regards to the end times, it is said that when Christ returns, he will kill the pig and break the cross.

And this idea of breaking the cross, that's what's here. Is it not logical that we should break and burn what humiliated Christ and the one that made it? See, Ibn al-Kaim did not know what Philippians chapter two says.

The cross did not humiliate Christ. The cross was a means that Christ used to bring about his own humiliation, which then led to his exaltation. He humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross.

Christ was in charge. The father, the son, the spirit, but Christ voluntarily gave himself. He humbled himself. And because he did so, God the father highly exalted him, gave him the name, which is above every name, including the name of Muhammad.

At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess. That was written long before Muhammad came along. And I have no reason to believe Muhammad ever heard those words, ever understood those words.

And so, no, it is not logical because there is no understanding here as to what the cross was all about. I'll probably do one or two more. I think we've covered most of the things here. Since you claim that God was forcibly crucified upon it with his hands nailed to it, for truly what a cursed cross to carry, which one should discard instead of kissing when glanced upon?

And so, again, this primarily developed, I'm sure, out of the response of, once the borders of the Islamic empire firmed up after that century of expansion, then eventually there has to be, the Muslims have to deal with the fact they have Christians in their lands, and so they're observing what people are doing.

And just like the Romans misunderstood what Christians were doing, and by this point in time, Christians were doing things they shouldn't have been doing as far as excesses of veneration and things like that.

Mariolatry and hagiolatry had developed by that point in time, things that were not soundly biblical. That's where this is coming from in the mind of the Muslim. So we've covered the main part there. I'm gonna, since we've not only got that, but also have the Pope saying, I'm gonna go ahead and call that at that particular point and hope that that is useful to you in responding to what has been said about that.

I was sent, shifting gears now, and thank you for having sent that to me. I apologize if my initial response was too brusque. It just seemed, I'm just thankful that I know of Muslims who have taken the time to find out what we believe.

But the reality is they are the minority. They are the minority. And I'm talking about who actually then address Christianity. I would expect that any Christian who's gonna address Islam should, is under obligation to accurately represent the other side.

I realize that does not always take place. But in my experience, there is significantly more desire on the Christian side to understand Islam and to read Islamic sources than vice versa. I just don't find many Muslims doing that the other way around.

Okay, so with that said, yesterday morning, which would have been early, maybe even the night before our time here in the United States Pope Francis had a, what would they call this? Not now, there was a specific name.

Private Daily Mass at his residence, Casa Santa Marta, on May 4th, so yesterday morning, Italy time. And he said something during this. This is reported by Zenit .org, which is there in Rome. It's a Roman Catholic source that wants to get the Pope's words out to everybody.

So this is not one of these, somebody heard somebody say that they had talked with the Pope and he had said such and so. No, that's not what this is. Here's the section from the brief papal homily. In the gospel, the Lord says to us, I have other sheep that are not of this fold.

I must bring them also and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd, John 10, 16. The Lord says, I have sheep everywhere and I am shepherd of all. This all in Jesus is very important.

We think of the parable of the marriage feast when the guests would not come, one because he had bought a field, another because he got married. Each one gave his reason for not attending and the king got angry and said, go now to the thoroughfares and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.

All great and little, rich and poor, good and evil, all. This all is the vision of the Lord who came for all and died for all. But did he die also for that wretch who has made my life impossible? He died also for him.

And for that brigand, he died for him, for all. And also for the people that don't believe in him or are of other religions. He died for all. This doesn't mean that one must engage in proselytism. No, but he died for all.

He has justified all. The rest of the paragraph isn't overly relevant, but I want you to catch the terminology. Obviously, for example, the universal catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes universal atonement.

Because of the theology of Rome and the doctrine of the sacraments, well, what you have is provisionalism. What you have is the death of Christ provides grace that is then channeled through the sacraments.

So Rome has the sacramental system, provisionalism has autonomous faith. But in both cases, the death of Christ does not actually save anyone. And so it is absolutely universal. But once you get into South American, Roman Catholic theology, the impact of liberation theology really started flourishing there, what, in the 50s?

And just really blew up in the 60s and hence is extremely important in the education of Pope Francis before he became Pope. When you look, especially at the South American context, where there is a tremendous amount of Marxism, you're seeing here what happens when politics grabs hold of a bad imbalance in a theological system and creates this situation.

Now, the historic Roman Catholic position is not universalism. That's obvious. It should be obvious from anyone who reads almost anything from the history of the Roman Catholic Church, from Unum Sanctum being just one of many examples of the fact that Rome has not been universalistic.

I have said for quite some time that I believe that the Pope minimally, minimally it's unquestionable that the Pope is an inclusivist. But he has said many things that seem to indicate he is a universalist.

Remember the young boy who came up to the Pope and asked the Pope if his father had gone to hell because his father had died and his father was an atheist. And the Pope's response, once he was told the story, was that his atheist father had gone to heaven because he had had his kids baptized.