Reformation Day Special

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

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

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

Thank you. Morning. Good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on the day after Sandy. Thankful that our channel regulars from back east are back in channel and survived the Landfall and now People as far away as Chicago are getting snow and everything else quite quite the amazing thing.

Certainly the first time it's happened and let's all. Make sure that Al Gore is shackled up for a little while so that we don't have to put up with that. But anyways It is the 30th of October 2012. Which means tomorrow is the four hundred and ninety-fifth anniversary of an event that For convenience sake to be perfectly honest with you we identify as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

October 31st 1517 Martin Luther took a fairly lengthy little stroll. Because now I know exactly how long the stroll was interestingly enough since I had the opportunity of visiting Wittenberg just a matter of weeks ago and I woke walked from his home through the downtown center of Wittenberg which is not a large place.

To the castle church and the reason he went to the castle church rather than the city church is simple. The castle church was where you would post notifications and he posted there a a list of theses that he wished to debate and this was in Many ways a sporting event what I mean by that is in those days you did not have football teams whether you consider that American football or European football and So when universities wished to You know compete with one another they did so academically.

The students get together go on a road trip and go listen to a debate in Latin. Yes, yes and they would cheer in Latin and yeah, mm-hmm and then drink lots of German beer during the nighttime and That's that's how that worked and so what Luther was looking for and I'm not saying that Luther was not Very concerned about these issues, but he was not the only person any meaningful person with a Spiritual bone in their body is going to be repulsed by the practice of the selling of indulgences.

But that was the the the striking of the match. All All the things that God had prepared came together at that point in time. There had been people who had said it more clearly than him. People who had said it more in a more organized way than him.

There's all sorts of people that were before Luther we would think would have been better at than Luther, but God had his own purposes and As a result you have the beginning of the Protestant. The Protestant Reformation at that time now just a few weeks ago on the unbelievable radio broadcast.

And I don't think it had anything to do with Reformation this past Reformation Sunday I preached on Reformation themes this past Sunday. If you go to the blog, you'll see the links to sermon audio for that but just a few weeks ago on the unbelievable radio broadcast in London, Justin Brierley had a discussion on whether the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and many of us have listened to that and Yours truly is someone who has engaged that subject many many times over the years I was I was writing about the original ECT when it came out and I had already begun debating Roman Catholics at that point in time my first debate with a Roman Catholic apologist from Catholic answers by the name of Jerry, Matta ticks was in August of 1990 in Long Beach, California and so I have been doing this for 22 years and in fact our because of this particular program.

We are going to be arranging a debate in London with the Roman Catholic representative from this that we'll be listening to primarily today and Looking forward to arranging that for hopefully as early as spring of next year if not summer but I'd rather have spring and Hopefully you can pray that We'll work this out to where I can go to Dublin through the debate that I've wanted to do at Trinity College there in Dublin and then Fly down to London and we can do the debate with Peter Williams there.

That would be something that would be excellent. It'd be very very good. Anyway, I Have asked the redoubtable the the unknown the mysterious The I guess I should stop there Turretin fan to join me on the program today Right reverend doctor and Turretin person, sir.

Are you? Are we getting through the static of of whatever? You're nearby to get to you. I believe we are. Oh good. Thank you for for joining me today. I knew that when I heard this Particular program on unbelievable that if I directed you to to it that You would find it to be worth a discussion shall we say especially because in some ways it represents sort of a different way in which We look at things here on this side of the pond in many of our more conservative circles in comparison to what?

Takes place in the United Kingdom and I believe that the Protestant representative Pastor Robertson, I believe I've met him. I I know that I spoke at a reformed pastors Luncheon in Dundee, Scotland, and that's where he is.

And so I think That was a number of years ago and I didn't write down names. I think we may have met I'm not I'm not 100 certain but it was very interesting to listen to and I suppose we should start off by saying it was way too short and Clearly could not get into as many details as even the participants wanted to get into.

But having said that there was still a lot that was said that I think is important for us to address. And so I've asked Durden fan who often blogs on issues relevant to Roman Catholicism at the ailment blog as well as his own Web blog as well to join me today and he was kind enough to go through the entire presentation to make some notes I have then transported those into my wonderful program audio notetaker and we are ready to roll here I love this thing.

What's that? Yes, thank thank Larry once again. Yes, it's an excellent excellent program. So let's start off We we have much to cover. Let's start off and make sure if if you have any trouble hearing what we're playing Please make sure to let us know because that's gonna that would somewhat limit your participation if you could not hear that Turretin fan, but so let's let's listen.

This is four minutes and 30 seconds into The program and I think this is something that we need to address when I could spend a lot of time on it But something we need to address because it is a fundamental difference in the way that we approach this particular issue This is pastor Robertson speaking.

Which I find it intriguing. Sometimes atheists will attack me saying what are you doing appearing with Peter D Williams? Sometimes Christians other Christians will attack me for that as well. You know, it doesn't your church believe that the Pope is the Antichrist and so on and no, I don't believe.

Okay. It's the Antichrist and I regards Peter as a Christian brother. I would have to say though Justin if someone comes to me and said I'm Catholic to me It doesn't mean they're Christian just as much as if someone comes to me and says I'm Protestant.

It doesn't mean they're Christian. Okay.

How do you how do you understand that's a that particular distinction that was just just made there.

Well, of course the second part of his comment the comment about not automatically assuming that someone just because of their Denomination is a Christian in in a true sense and actually a believer in Christ Jesus.

Just being Presbyterian or form Baptist it be being in that church does not make you a believer in Christ. But and likewise actually, I would say being in the Roman Catholic Church doesn't automatically Continue to hell in itself, but it's an evidence of the fact that your heart doesn't hasn't been Regenerated yet.

It's not proof. It's just it's just one evidence and it's something that would prevent me from saying that someone's Profession of faith is credible at this time. I wouldn't want that person to take communion in the church that I'm in.

Because they haven't they haven't shown the evidence of their faith in Christ by turning away from the Antichrist someone who claims to be over Christ's Church who sits on a throne who Has a name given to him and and so forth that I tend to agree with the reformers.

You know identifying the Bishop of Rome the office of the Bishop of Rome as the Antichrist, but I know that's not Universal universally held view among even my reformed brethren today. Actually, I don't know your position.

Yeah well I I have a hard time identifying a single Antichrist because the the plural is used in first John many Antichrists have arisen, but what I have said is that outside of the eschatological speculations as to an office of a singular Antichrist.

For example, it's it's very interesting to me that Martin Luther Had an Antichrist that had a physical arm and a spiritual arm the spiritual arm of the Antichrist was the Roman Communion Headed by the Pope and the physical arm interestingly enough was that of the the Muslims the Turks so he had a had a dual view of of the Antichrist, but My assertion is that a man who allows himself to be called Holy Father a man That allows himself to be called the Vicar of Christ.

And of course Vicar of Christ the Holy Spirit biblically speaking That that's such a such an individual Is clearly standing against Christ and as such would fall into that category as would the prophet of the Mormon Church?

Or Any number of other individuals who either pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ deny the gospel of Jesus Christ, but my concern is that When people ask this question it. And an answer in this way. It strikes me that in in all probability The centrality of the gospel is not going to be the focus of what is being said.

In other words to me the issue and I brought this out in my debate with with Douglas Wilson is If you if you want to identify a Christian Church, then it must possess the Christian gospel. I'm not one of these CS Lewis and your Christianity guys who says as long as you've got the Trinity, right?

And you've got some vague general idea of the crucifixion, you know deity of Christ crucifixion resurrection. But you can't talk about what that means. You can't make application to what that means. You can't talk about atonement or anything like that as long as you just got those basic historical stuff.

Then you're talking about Christianity and then you can just start talking about areas of disagreement. I I do not put the gospel into a an area where it is not definitional. I think it is definitional and I cannot look at the book of Galatians and come to the conclusion that the many many many perversions of the gospel that are part and parcel the dogma of the Roman Church would not fall into the condemnations of the Apostle Paul so We would start at a at a different position there.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't see Peter Williams as someone who is arguing for many of the same social issues in regards to marriage or whatever else it is, but as I point out when ECT came out and when I could no longer be involved with Operation Rescue years ago it was due to the fact that I Could tell I was being put under pressure.

To put myself in a position where I would not be able to present the gospel of grace to someone that I would have to Be silent in the face of the Roman Catholic perspective. And not present the gospel of grace to someone for the sake of a external unity when we didn't have a unity the unity that we have Is is external but it is not found in the internal and and so just as when I was on the CRI Program with Tim Staples many years ago I pointed out that if someone walked up to us We're standing outside an abortion clinic together and they walked up to us and said what must I do to be saved?

We would give fundamentally different answers and that division is not a matter of mere opinion. It is it is a division that touches on on much more than that. So the flip side of that was what Peter Williams then said at the 1215 mark.

Let's listen to that.

This is a rah-rah-rah. I'm the fill-in-the-blank Catholic Protestant, whatever and I have nothing to learn from anyone else and I won't engage in discussion. It's just you know, the other person is totally outside the kingdom.

Well, that's not very helpful. That doesn't build relationship and I don't think it's true either and certainly as a Catholic I'm theologically committed to the idea that my present brothers and sisters in Christ are indeed my present brothers and sisters in Christ separated.

And wrong about certain things, but nonetheless there is a fraternal relationship there. The other extreme however, I think is more common. It's known as indifferent ISM. It's the idea of well, you know, we disagree on on all sorts of different subject.

But none of them really matter and they're the twain shall meet and yeah. Well, I'm sorry I think anyone who has thought about these subjects seriously for more than five minutes really or even five seconds can say these are really Important subjects, you know either just to take one example very quickly.

The Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or it's not and if it is then all my present brothers Sisters should be with me worshiping the host in Eucharistic adoration. If it's not I'm an idolater.

That's pretty serious one way or the other it's pretty important. So I think we can reject both those approaches and say that a true Ecumenism is saying that we disagree the differences do matter, but the answers of that is genuine dialogue.

So to so there you go.

I in some ways again, I can I can agree with what is being said there in the sense of We cannot engage in indifferent ISM but at the same time it does seem that it's really a matter of where we're where we're placing the the emphasis as To what is a true difference and a divide between what is Christianity and what is not Christianity.

And it seems to me Wouldn't you agree that in the past Rome has has drawn that line in a different place than they do today.

Yes, it does seem that but his point is Vatican to in the Vatican to position but it doesn't seem to mesh very well that the historic view that Generally speaking. There's no salvation outside the church and that the that heretics and schismatics may have once been in the church but aren't in the church anymore and Therefore are excluded from salvation that seems to have been the traditional view and Vatican to seems to be a significant departure from it, but and also, you know just We although I agree that we shouldn't be indifferent about important theological topics and and we're not the gospel is is Not just a theological point.

It's not just a theological discussion. It's very important and very central and when you start calling someone your brother in Christ You're making a statement about the gospel and you're in essence being indifferent to those differences at that level.

Right, right and it does cause I think a lot of confusion, but I just have to wonder personally as I was listening to this how much of These particular issues are very much culturally relevant over there.

In other words I've sensed a lot of pressure being placed on people like you and I to Pipe down about things like this as we become more and more of a cultural minority. In other words the smaller and smaller our individual communities become doesn't that emphasize the points of agreement that we have over against the points of disagreement and I just I think this is something we need to be thinking about.

Almost no one wants to talk about things like this but the reality is what is the message that we have for the world and where are the dividing lines and and and certainly Someone's attempting I think to get no actually someone's trying to get.

Is that coming for me. I Have no earthly is that is that coming for me? Yes, it's coming from my okay I have no earthly idea how that's working to be perfectly honest with you. It's still there, huh? Well, I'm going to quit Chrome and and maybe Yeah, I think someone's trying to call me on Chrome or I don't even I didn't even know it could do that.

That's a Very that's all someone says Google. Talk. Yeah, someone someone on Google. Talk. Okay, whoever's on Google. Talk. It's your fault. You just did that. All right I had gmail up to copy some stuff out from what turds and fans sent me and evidently someone Decided to interrupt the oh, I didn't think it was your fault.

I had no idea where that was coming. So we apologize it is a live program. Anyways, what I was trying to say before that and maybe I wonder if he'll tell me that was so I can get mad at Them after the program.

But anyways, what we were trying to address is It just seems to me. This is something we're gonna have to be thinking about in the future I think we are. I think what this dialogue gives us is an example of what's going to be more normative on This side of the pond in a very short period of time and Maybe I sense that more because I go over there so much.

I don't know but That's that does that that did strike me we really want to get to the issue of Sola Scriptura. So there's one other here unless you want to make a further comment on that. No, I think let's let's get to Sola Scriptura.

Okay, there's there's one thing I did want to look at here and that was this statement by Pastor Robertson regarding.

The the Bishop of Rome where I. Why I don't join the Catholic Church for these reasons. The mass as Peter mentioned I do actually think it is idolatrous and blasphemous and I know lots of Catholics who don't really believe it.

As such and by the way, I can sort of hear Peter in the background. I Can guess what Peter would say if they don't believe that's what it is. They're not really Catholics. And of course from my perspective, you don't really believe the gospel defines the gospel.

You're not really Protestant, you know, I mean.

Again, it's one of those dividing line things. So that would be a thing then that would be a big issue for me. The Pope. Not because I believe is the Antichrist, but because I don't believe there is this thing as a Pope.

Joseph Ratzinger's Book on Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best books I've ever read. I happily give it to non-christians. I I'd stock it in my church library. I think it's a superb book. But I don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope.

The Pope papal office all that kind of stuff. I would. I Welcomed. I got in trouble in Scotland for welcoming the Pope as a Christian brother to Scotland and I would welcome him as that. I wouldn't welcome him as my church leader or as the head of the church.

I don't believe the Queen is the head of the church. I don't believe the Pope is so now at that point I have a real problem.

Again, I just think the claims made in For the the Bishop of Rome And in fact just simply for a priest to call someone an altar Christus another Christ to to view them as having The kind of sacramental authority to render Christ present upon the altar in a perpetuatory sacrifice.

Let alone then the exalted titles and positions of the the Bishop of Rome and the the fact that here you have a man who by? his authority Presents a false gospel that cannot give peace. How do you overlook those things and say yeah, but he's a Christian brother.

How do you do that?

Well, it's it is a little bit shocking to hear that he would first of all that he would recommend this book to other people. Not. Not because the contents of that book are particularly heinous, but because it's associated with and tied into this whole system of theology which Fundamentally denies the gospel and fundamentally oppose it opposes the true gospel, so.

His stance on that is is quite confusing. Yeah, it did leave me just wondering a little bit at times. Oh, by the way Peter Williams is not listening live right now. I invited him to but on. Responded on Twitter.

It says ah, thanks for letting me know I'm just out in the evening for a pint, but we'll catch the mp3 looking forward to it. To which I said a pint of what? And he said ha ha in my case a pint of cider what you colonial chaps call hard cider.

I understand a pint equals colloquially a drink so Peter Williams is not listening right now because he's not having a drink which I just find somewhat. I told him I was gonna tell everybody that so just just proves that this is a live program and it is nighttime over there.

Not sure what he's doing up that late. Anyways, okay now we get into the arguments for the Roman Catholic Church at 2945 in. Peter talks about the first argument that one needs to consider in Evaluating the Roman Catholic Church.

I'll leave it to you. But do what you do. Just go for the ones that you particularly want to. Well I'll start just by saying I agree with David on the on the first point that he made I think for any system.

Well, certainly for the Christian belief system. If you like there are what the Catholic Church calls the motives of credibility motiva credibilitatis. And I think for me one of the great motives of credibility for becoming a Catholic in the first place was it's absolutely uncompromising consistent stance on moral and social issues.

There was no other church that I had ever seen which had kept the gospel message on Ethics so consistently including on on areas where such for example contraception divorce where a lot of evangelical Protestants Not all but I certainly I think most have simply decided to abandon that long-standing Teaching which even Martin Luther John Calvin or exceedingly would have really you know not not pro-catholic people.

But would have affirmed a very very strongly now as has Rome. Actually, I mean as we look at the Roman Catholic Communion today and look at how it exists and look at the the fact That here in the United States in the last election Was it 57 of Roman Catholics voted for Barack Obama?

A man who has supported partial birth abortion and Etc, etc. Is that really an indicator of the one true Church?

Well, and You you're right that that's not an indicator of that and you look at it and some people say well You know, maybe Biden is not a true But you know the Archbishop of New York recently said he was right.

We've got Catholics on both side Biden and Ryan so, you know, I guess it's fine if someone wants to just say well We're defining Catholics to mean people who are only convenient for our cause and not the other ones and then of course Five minutes later.

We'll hear that that and not necessarily in this presentation, but in general while there's a billion Catholics So therefore with the biggest Christian denomination and that that should have some weight but that billion of course counts all the ones who contracept to divorce who Who have abortions who do things that are contrary to these particular moral issues and as well?

I'd like to point out, you know Calvin's view which I would would not fully agree with but Calvin was critical of Rome's stance on marriages and particularly on their stance of Forbidding marriage to people and that's a moral issue relating to marriage and Rome hasn't been good on it.

They've they've taught a number of things like the idea that parents could commit their Daughters to nunneries on a permanent basis now, of course after Vatican to People in in orders can escape that that type of life.

But before then it was once you're in according to the church you're in you're stuck you can't get out of it and you know that The idea that they've been consistent on moral issues when they're behind the Crusades including the Crusades not only against Islam but even against What they viewed as heretics in Europe, right?

You know the idea that they've somehow had this strong moral stance. It also ignores all of the wicked folks. Well, we may hear about this a little bit later. Yes, but at one point he says that that all the evil Popes Actually strengthen his his view of Rome.

Well, how does that mesh with them having an uncompromising stance on moral issues when they have? You know, there's various folks you could point to but at least one had a you know His homosexual lover who he made a cardinal who was at you know When he when he originally picked him up was basically a boy on the street, you know, it's not this is not uncompromising moral Uprightness and if that's really his reason for adopting Roman Catholicism Then he ought to rethink that not to you know, probably change his mind.

That isn't I'm not saying that this proves that Roman Catholicism is wrong. But if that's really his motive for it for adopting it the fact that Rome currently only permits the Calendar method of preventing you're preventing children from being born Doesn't mean that they haven't compromised and that even that approach is not something that Calvin or many of the more aesthetic Roman theologians in the past would have approved.

Yeah, they you know, so You know, we could I don't necessarily want to spend a lot of time on that particular aspect. But no, no, this doesn't seem like a very persuasive it's not at all persuasive to me knowing the history of Rome and and it's not very persuasive when you look at the.

Demographics of the Roman Communion, well, and I would include such things as Rome's use of Malleus Maleficarum the the hammer against witches and the just just the the entire range of by by denying the clear scriptural teaching regards to marriage and The clear scriptural teaching regards the the order of the church the fact that you have elders and deacons you don't have Cardinals and you don't have all the rest of stuff and it's all added to The revelation that the Spirit of God gave to the people of God in Scripture.

The the many abuses, you know, the fact that Erasmus for example was the illegitimate child of a priest. And all of the the things that have come about from that it's really easy to say Oh, we've been uncompromising on these things, but if those things are not biblical things Then to be uncompromising on unbiblical things is not exactly a sign of the true church by any ways but that didn't last very long and pretty soon the the meaningful arguments came up and The primary argument that was presented what had to do with the papacy and we certainly have heard of late we I've talked to Protestants who are becoming Roman Catholic and Are have swum the the Tiber River.

Basically one has said, you know what it all comes down to whether the Pope's the Pope or not because whether I can defend anything else. He says if the Pope is the successor of Peter then he has his authority and that's it.

So the history becomes irrelevant the pornography the Babylonian captivity the anti Popes the number of times Popes were chosen by emperors rather than initially by the people of Rome and Whether there is any Connection between the apostolic proclamation of Peter and the proclamation of the Pope at all.

Which to me is just so obviously the only meaningful connection that one could have today given the historical situation all that stuff is is laid aside and If if Peter is who we say Peter is then that's it.

That's that's all that's all we need. That's the argumentation is being used and it all goes back to a fairly small cadre of arguments that Peter Williams presents here. So it there's a number of them I it would if I played all of them, it'd be too long to go back.

So I'm gonna stop and start and we'll we'll address this section starting at 31 minutes and four seconds into the presentation.

So I believe that the Pope as we call him the Bishop of Rome the success of st Peter is exactly that the success of st Peter and has inherited his prerogatives and those prerogatives given by Christ are that he is and we'll just go into Matthew 16 18.

You are Peter and upon this rock. I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I give you the keys of the kingdom. What have you bound on earth should be bound in heaven.

What now. I need to stop right there because I need to need to roll this back. There's a miscitation. Let's let's listen to it again. This rock.

I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I give you the keys of says I give you the keys. It's not what says The Greek is do so I will give its future. Peter was not given the keys in Matthew 16 18. It is a future tense and I believe they did get into a discussion of this later on in the program.

As to when this took place the only place in Matthew's gospel. Where this could be fulfilled would be in Matthew 18, but Peter is indistinguishable from the other Apostles in the receiving the power to bind and loose the keys and the power binders are obviously the same thing Rome has over the years again.

This is a later development this is not a primitive early church development and only starts in Rome itself and only when Rome is arguing with other C's as to authority but clearly biblically there is no foundation for this division of the authority of binding and loosing from that of the keys and yet Rome has made that type of distinction and Here says that Peter's receiving it and and Peter even miscites it.

It does not say I give as in right now. It is do so its future I will give that's Matthew 18 or Matthew never records it. Because if you say it was only given to Peter then you're gonna have to say that he either received it with the other Apostles on equality in Matthew 18 18 or Matthew doesn't bother to record and nobody Bothers to record this for us in any way shape or form.

So I want to I need to challenge that immediately, even if you take Peter as the rock, which I do not and many in the early church did not it is not a position of Uniformity in the early exegesis of the church in any way shape or form.

It was viewed very differently by major Individuals that is that is not even a questionable thing. Even though I've heard Roman Catholic apologists claim I've heard Tim Staples specifically state not recently.

But when he first started I think he's learned his lesson. But I've heard him specifically state. Every single early church father believed that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16, and that is just simply False in on on every level and and easily refuted, but when you only have monologues, that's what can happen.

Did you want to comment on that?

No, no, I I fully agree in fact. When he's going to say when when he gets to the discussion of Matthew 18 He says that it was given to the other Apostles in a lesser degree. Well, it's just First of all, that's the first time it's mentioned that it's given and second of all Where does it say to Leslie lesser degree?

It used all of the Apostles as the same. Exactly and that is that is that is historically anachronistic. Eisegesis. To to the max there, but we press on. I give you the keys of the kingdom.

What have you bound on earth should be bound in heaven? Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven now that encompasses two elements. Those two prerogatives he's been given. One is a prerogative jurisdiction.

The other is a prerogative of teaching authority, which is unique to Peter. But is then given in a wider but lesser sense to the rest of the Apostles. Later in Matthew 18 He gives them the ability to bind and loose as well.

Now there's there's the exact statement and again nothing in Matthew 18 that in any way shape or form I mean, how do you bind and loose you bind and loose the use of keys? There's just This is a this is an anachronistic Insertion from later centuries, it's not derived from the examination of Matthew's text at all now with regards to the first one.

We know that it is a a prerogative jurisdiction because what Jesus quoting when he talks about the keys of the kingdom he's referring back to Isaiah 20 verses 22 to 20 to 22 and what he's. Exciting is the case of Elijah him like him is given by God the keys of the kingdom of Israel.

Now it's funny to me that.

When I when I first heard this argument being used by Jerry Matta ticks and Scott Hahn and they were using this back in the late 1980s and unfortunately, they were debating Calvary Chapel pastors who had no idea what in the world they were talking about.

I'd never heard anything like this before and No one ever challenged them on it. And I remember the first time I did challenge Jerry on this and of course the the first way I challenged him was to say well if.

Well, first of all, not everyone is agreed that this is just a a blatant Quotation I did he's used term citation there. I'm not sure if he was saying citing or quoting but at best you can say allusion to Isaiah 22 but if if even if.

If that's the case Wouldn't it be good to look at the actual citation of Isaiah 22 in the New Testament? Because it is cited. It's cited in Revelation 3 7. It's cited by Jesus of himself this would have been after the days of Peter and Jesus makes application to himself.

He's he has the key of David not the keys. They they very and some of you may. Not sure if you remember Turgeon fan, but when I debated Scott Butler and Robert St. Genes at Boston College in 1993 I believe it was I remember Challenging St. Genesis interpretation of this text and asking him to please explain why it's Singular when it speaks of the key of David.

And it's the keys the kingdom of heaven. Why is there a difference and I was saying one is messianic and that's why it it's Is fitting for the Messiah to have this key because he fulfills the messianic office but why why is it go from key to keys and You may recall.

I don't know. I remember his response was key keys. It doesn't matter. It's just who cares if it's a singular or plural. Hey, you know We ain't getting this stuff in the Bible. Anyways, we're getting this tradition.

Anyhow, you know, it was it was it was somewhat humorous. And.