The "All About Rome" Expanded Edition of the DL

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Opening Remarks and the New Phone System

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon and today is the day. Yes, indeed. Why is there someone outside of our office there brother? Yeah, that's interesting to be watching the security cameras and see people trespassing where they're not supposed to be.

Just looked up. I I you know, just so you know, I Sometimes use the studio here where my laptop is located as sort of a second part of my office. I have some books in here and sometimes I'm transferring files and doing things like that.

And so when I'm here at night, we put a mirror up on the wall so I can see the TV monitor. That's how I know for example when birds are attacking one of the TV cameras things like that is that I'm seeing all this and so I can see something parked behind Rich's car and we had a you know, I had to come down here Lords Day afternoon to watch video and record it for the police because Someone stole a car out of the parking lot during the church services of the church nearby and our cameras caught it.

It's wonderful to live in LA East and that's that's where we live these days. Just watch the news at night and it's LA East. Anyway, today is a day that we are testing our new phone system and so. Really almost anything is possible at this particular point in time.

You may recall what happened when we sang happy birthday to Julie a number of years ago and smokestars pouring out of the machines and things like that. It's possible. We had some folks call in earlier and help us to start getting things set up, but We will see eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

I have certainly. What's this button do? Yeah, that's I was saying in channel you didn't. You weren't looking overly confident in that last little countdown before the program started.

It was sort of like captain. She can't take my thought of this.

But the neat thing is I now have the phone system on my screen in front of me and I can click people on I can put them on hold and everything else right on the screen in front of me right now I see that and I have the channel and I have my sound clips and I have a word document and Bible works is not currently visible, but I can bring it up and All my various URLs and we are ready to go on the dividing line today.

Yes, it looks a little bit like CSI. Not it's not CSI CS you see us, but what's 24 again? Jack Bauer works for who again Counter CTU Counterterrorism unit. Okay. Thanks. I fell off the I fell off the 24 track about four weeks ago.

So there's a tomb story hit I gave up. I just you went into your own CTU. I went in my own CTU and and was was fighting a whole significantly more eternally significant terrorist group. Headed by Simca Yakubovich and James Cameron man.

They are they make anything Jack Bauer's ever taken on look real mild no two ways about as far as the eternal results of their of their tactics, but anyhow as. Anyone who has been following the blog knows there has been a a shift in topics.

Roman Catholic Apologetics and the Problem of Surface-Level Criticism

Isn't it interesting how it sort of Goes that way, you know yeah, you got a period of time where you're talking about Islam and then you know, Greg Stafford pops up and this that and the other thing and and since I was have gotten a little better at putting these video clips together and Getting them uploaded and things like that.

Most of my debates have been with Roman Catholics now, I've got I've already got clips recorded of debates in Salt Lake City with Mormons and I've got the Stafford DVD sitting there and I want to I want to get some clips out of that and and stuff like that but you know a lot of them have been with Roman Catholics and so all of a sudden, you know The people on in the various Catholic forums are talking about this explosion of anti-catholic ISM.

These are debates. We did sometimes, you know 14 years ago or something like that or 13 years ago or whatever and Oh, it is just incredible to to listen to Catholic apologists. Because they don't sound any different today than they did 15 years ago.

Now. There's a good part of that. There's a bad part of that. I remember when Rich and I did a Radio program up with up in Salt Lake City number of years ago with Van Hale. After the program was over Van Hale said to me and I took this as a compliment.

He says you're saying the same things now that you you said, you know 10 years ago. And what he was saying is you've been consistent you have been Saying the same things you've been making the same presentations.

You've been focused upon the same issues and that I consider to be a compliment however. There's a difference. I Certainly would hope that the last debate I did in the Sola Scriptura was better than the first debate that I did on Sola Scriptura and Rich can testify because he pays the bills around here how often I'm buying books to keep up with the the current reading and research and conclusions in various areas including Roman Catholicism, I Don't see any evidence of that.

I've mentioned this before I see no evidence of that on the part of Roman Catholic apologists. They're making the same Surface level arguments that they were making when I first encountered them in the late 80s as far as seriously reading their stuff and they haven't even gotten the point of expressing their objections to the the non-catholic position with a You could just simply change your expressions add one or two phrases To show that you at least know what the other side is saying and why they're saying it but they don't do that they don't do that and I'm gonna play some sections from a very recent the 26th.

I think today's 29th. So just a couple days ago Catholic answers program to illustrate this because they had on with Jimmy Akin a man who's making a presentation against the twin pillars of Protestantism Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and It is it's amateur.

That's the only way to put it is it is not scholarly and it is not even it is not even what a person would do if if they were really doing some serious reading and It reflects along with everything. I've said on the blog of late it reflects upon the state of Roman Catholic apologetics.

And you know what? I don't know what there's much they can do about it because when you're defending a false system There's only so far you can go. There's only so much you can do. So maybe we're just observing the limitations of falsehood itself.

You have to just keep Repeating the the same falsehoods over and over again. Maybe that's what's going on here. Now. I do that's odd. Whatever you just did Quit quit it's working get your hands off the equipment.

Thank you very much. Don't touch it. You'll break it. That's right. Leave it alone. I Did receive an email and I wrote to this? Lady who wrote to us and let her know that I was going to be responding on the program today and so I want to do that right off the bat and then go right into the Audio and take your phone calls.

I've mentioned a number of times if people would like to call in and actually try to defend The the Hugh Barber hit piece on me in light of actually having read my article in the Council of Nicaea and what it was really about.

Be happy to to let you try to defend that kind of apologetics. I think just letting people I mean watching Jonathan preaching just just spinning in circles and and and and ending up in a lather trying to defend that kind of of abuse of the truth is You hardly even need to comment on it.

It's for any serious minded person. It's like you've got to be kidding me, but someone wants to try to. You know. Come up with a way of defending that that's great. But I want to I want to respond to an email that was sent to me.

Sometimes I do this in a blog. But since we had the dividing line today, I figured this is the easier way to do it and Here's here's what it's what the email said. I'm a former fundamentalist raised on solo scriptura sola fide theology.

Born again by asking Jesus in my heart the age of eight I believed most of what you do about Roman Catholicism as I grew into adulthood studying the Bible I came to realize that since the Holy Spirit is a spirit of truth.

He cannot contradict himself God is not the author of confusion. It is impossible for opposing views of Scripture to be simultaneously true. I converted Catholicism because I was seeking the truth. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the instrument by which the Holy Spirit transmits the truth of God through the infallible Interpretations of Scripture and also the sacred traditions handed down by the Apostles.

Then it says I am NOT a wide-eyed convert armed with a Scott Hahn book or a Stephen Ray video. I'm a born-again believer in Jesus Christ who cried out to him to show me where I could find the reliable Interpreter of his Holy Word.

God led me to mass the last place I'd ever have looked. I hope one day you will understand the necessity of yielding private interpretation of Scripture to its rightful Authority the church now. There's a pretty common presentation From a Roman Catholic convert, but let's let's take it apart and let me respond to it.

She writes. I'm a former fundamentalist raised in sola scriptura sola fide theology to which I would want to ask what does that mean? Does this mean the Bible alone faith alone, but no knowledge at all about the history of these issues, etc.

Do you what did you understand what the Reformation was what the issues were? Did you understand the difference between for example? imparted or infused grace versus the imputation of righteousness. Were you familiar with the claims of Rome regarding tradition the nature of her traditions the dogmas that she has has based her.

That she is based upon tradition all these types of issues. Or were you just simply a plain old Protestant that really didn't know much about Roman Catholicism and did not know why you believed what? You believed and hence would be very likely to be deceived as to what solo scriptura actually is.

In fact, we're going to see here that Roman Catholic apologists are not very good at accurately representing the positions that they are Criticizing and very frequently are very good at beating up straw men.

It says that born again by asking Jesus in my heart the age of eight I believe most of what you do about Roman Catholicism. Well that would require her to have actually taken the time to read and listen to what I believe about Roman Catholicism because I don't think that the vast majority of Protestants believe about Roman Catholicism what I do because the vast majority of Protestants and the vast majority of Roman Catholics Don't know almost anything about Roman Catholicism its history.

How many Roman Catholics honestly have Read the Cairns and decrees the Council of Trent. How many have honestly and and and properly? Studied anything about the early church councils anything along those lines at all.

You know not that many so I Don't know, you know, I I do get tired to be honest with you of having people Assume things about me without actually listening to what I have to say. I see it on the web boards all the time.

How many people have called in here? Well, I heard that you said X Y or Z. I heard that you believe X Y or Z and and I've never said anything even close that in fact of very clearly Differentiate myself in those views and yet people are so willing to go solely upon second Second-hand sources as I grew into adulthood studying the Bible.

I came to realize since the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth He cannot contradict himself. God is not the author of confusion. It is impossible for opposing views of Scripture to be simultaneously true.

I converted Catholicism because I was seeking the truth. Now. This one to me is is truly amazing. While I completely agree that God is not the author of confusion that alone should be enough to keep one out of Rome to be sure.

How can anyone look at the massive spectrum of belief that parades under the banner of Rome today and say that there is some sort of? unity there. Go visit the campus of Boston College. Talk to some of the professors there that that'll make my point for me.

You know go talk to some conservative Roman Catholics go to Boston College and and tell me these are these people are believing the same thing. They're not there. They're as far apart from each other as the two farthest removed Protestants are from one another.

But beyond this does our writer. Then see that her position if she were to apply it in a meaningful fashion would have precluded her. From following the Apostle Paul in the early days the faith look at how many conflicts the Apostle Paul to deal with.

Because there was confusion that is division and difficulty in Galatia. Does that mean Paul wasn't true that she should have run off to Rome to find Peter's successor? What about John when John writes first John there is so much dissension the church there is so much difficulty going on the church that particular point in time these these people have gone out from the from the church and They used to be leaders.

They used to be people who Who were leaders in the church and now they're denying the incarnation of Christ and would that not have precluded her from following John because John's? Involved in conflict and there were differences there this goes back to the old hey It's God's will that there only be one church and that sure everyone always know exactly that one church is and I'm sorry.

But show me that in New Testament show me where that took place in history show me that an axe. Where there's no conflict. There's no apologetic. There's no there's no opposition. There's no false teachers nothing like that.

You show me where that is and then I'll go okay. Obviously the the text God is not the author of confusion is being abused here. That is not a text that says there is going to be one church and one authority.

That's going to tell you what to believe and you just walk lockstep with that church. With that particular leader that particular interpreter or whatever else it might be yes, there is one Church of Jesus Christ.

But that church is always Going to be having to fight for the faith once for all delivered the Saints and there are going to be divisions as there were. When Apostles walked the earth when someone comes along it says hey sign over your responsibility to me.

And I'll make infallible decisions for you your decision to follow that group is The limits of your infallibility. You can't look at me and say well I infallibly know that the Apocrypha is inspired scripture.

Why cuz Rome told me so and you made a fallible decision to follow that that that infallible authority, right? Well, that's the limit of your infallibility right there is no you can get no more infallibility Than your own infallibility and choosing to go that direction other people choose Mormonism other people choose Jehovah's Witnesses.

And as you'll see sometime next week the week after that when I post the rest of the cross-examination period from the 1997 debate between myself and Jerry Maddox. Jerry Maddox made a huge mistake. It's right after the section that for pervas Nick has has put up there and which means he's watched it.

Which means he knows that that's there but he didn't post that part of course or talk about it like that. Just part of what it means to be a Roman Catholic apologist, I guess but anyway After he he plays the game of did the Apostles practice solo scriptura.

They're writing the scriptura. Hello. I mean, it's it's a total for anybody with a serious bone in their body. You're going Jerry. Would you get on with the subject here? And of course provides going?

Very shortly after that I Raised the issue of Jerry you made a fallible decision to follow Rome and Jerry made a big mistake because his response was Well, you made a fall fallible decision to follow the Bible.

And thankfully I just sort of let that one sink in for a second because the applause just starts. I mean all of a sudden everyone sees exactly what the issue really is and That's in the same cross-examination period that for some reason Phil provising Forgot to put that part up.

But anyway and Phil you can call too, you know, if you'd like if you'd like to defend your Your comments eight seven seven seven five three, three, three, four one. Be happy to have you on the program today Phil.

Anyway, so that's a misuse of that text in regards to God is not the God the author of confusion. Then we continue on. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the instrument by which the Holy Spirit transmits the truth of God through infallible Interpretations of Scripture.

Notice I stopped just for a moment. I don't want to necessarily parse an email. But but notice the Roman Catholic Church is the instrument by which the Holy Spirit transmits the truth of God through the infallible interpretations of Scripture the Scripture Isn't the truth of God that's transmitted though the official Roman Catholic position would be but here you have this Infallible interpretation of Scripture and also the sacred traditions handed down by the Apostles and now once again here we get into that situation.

Where and I've documented this over and over again. We'll hear it in the clips that I'm about to play. Where you have the the Roman Catholic apologist or here someone who's been influenced by Roman Catholic apologists and What they want to do is they want to have their cake and eat it too.

They want to argue. For the partum partum view, what's the partum partum view? Well, you just heard it you've got you've got scripture and you've got the oral traditions and What's in the oral traditions is not what's in the scripture and vice versa.

There's two streams modes of revelation and they differ from one another and that functionally clearly is what Rome is trying to defend but but. When they can't defend it because you can't defend it. I mean, it's not possible.

They slip into oh what. No, no, I'm I'm affirming, you know. Material and formal sufficiency. Now, I'm not confusing these things, you know, you know, it's implicitly there in scripture. They'll argue both directions and if they'll get as far as they can.

With the partum partum stuff and then when you stop them in their tracks with pointing out how that doesn't work. Oh, that's not what I was saying and how silly for you to think that I was. I'm over here you know and then 10 minutes later you find them again quoting 2nd Thessalonians 2 15 as if somehow there's a difference between the written in the oral it's it's the.

The number of times they do this kind of thing. It's just constant. I think they're stuck in it. They can't get out of it and it's sort of the template that they use. So we have this infallible interpretation of scripture from our email writer.

Can can can she provide us with this list of infallible interpretations? Can she trace these sacred traditions back to the Apostles. Look at the dogmas that have been defined on the basis of tradition.

What are they? Well, they're the Marian dogmas and they are the papal dogmas like infallibility and. Can you trace these back the primitive church? Of course, you can't. It's impossible. In fact, it was very interesting.

I was looking at the the envoy forum. Just a few moments ago and there is a someone posting under the name of Pope Saint Peter. And I'm assuming they're Catholic. I mean, I suppose they might not be. I don't know.

But today just a few hours ago. They posted the the following. The dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary is an excellent example of why authority is the real issue. I'm currently reading Stephen Jay Schumacher's groundbreaking work ancient traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption Oxford 2002.

And he makes clear from the historical evidence that the first investigation of the Blessed Mother's death was done by st. Epiphanius. Who could not find an authoritative tradition on this issue? After this the issue is not brought up again until the end of the 5th century in an explosion of apocryphal and heterodox literature.

Shoemaker translates for the first time in English the earliest of this literature and is very interesting to say the least in one document st Joseph scolds the Blessed Mother on their way to Egypt for getting him into this mess.

Afterwards the infant Jesus speaks to st. Joseph and commands a nearby palm tree to bend down and feed them. This is the nature of the origins of the dogma. But does it matter if you believe the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium into all truth?

Then the evidence or lack thereof doesn't matter. That is why I said the more fundamental issue is the Holy Spirit in Scripture versus the Holy Spirit and the magisterium. That's why I sort of wonder is this guy really a Roman Catholic because that's a pretty effective argument for most people.

To against these things and by the way I just note in passing that that kind of literature did exist and that kind of literature was vital in the Beginning of the Marian dogmas and that's the very same literature, by the way.

That obviously Muhammad accepted as accurate so that Jesus speaks from the cradle in the Quran. Just as he does in the Gnostic literature and so I found that to be quite quite interesting that particular quote there and It is illustrative of what I have pointed out in my debates.

For example, Jerry Mattis except in Salt Lake City on the subject of the Immaculate Conception and I'm sorry perpetual virginity. That's the origins of those doctrines are not Scripture. They are not even tradition.

They are from heterodox and and simply cultic and and false sources Gnostic sources and things like that now Raymond Brown in his book the critical meaning of the Bible 1981 page 40 said to the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has Never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.

That's one of their own leading scholars. So if this lady has converted to the Roman Catholic Church I hate to tell you did did the folks who got you to convert tell you that they're leading scholars indicate that.

The church doesn't really do that infallible interpretation thing very often. And Joseph Fitzmyer in one of his footnotes Points out that a pious the 12th finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact That there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the church.

Nor are those more numerous about which the teachings the Holy Fathers is unanimous. That's a scripture the soul theology in 1994 now. Think about for just a moment if there's no unanimous consent of the fathers on almost anything I thought the only thing I can come up with is monotheism.

And the church doesn't do this infallible interpretation thing exactly. What did you gain by converting to Roman Catholicism? I? Mean your particular priest right now might be a nice conservative guy, but wait till he leaves the people coming out of seminaries that they're most of them are not conservatives and all of a sudden the face of Rome that you see is it's gonna change and if you do some traveling around You will discover that Rome morphs to fit the culture in which it's in.

Is that really what you were looking for when you converted to the Roman Catholic Church? She says I am NOT a wide-eyed convert armed with a Scott Hahn book or a Stephen Ray video. Well, I'm glad to hear that I'm a born-again believer in Jesus Christ who cried out to him to show me where I could find the reliable Interpreter of his Holy Word.

Well, there is a problem. Because what you should be looking to is his Holy Word and his Holy Spirit. Because the problem is once you start looking for an infallible interpreter as soon as the interpreter speaks you must interpret the interpreter.

See a lot of people. Oh, I've got it. I can go to Rome again infallible interpretation. Well, good luck getting to the Pope to get one in the first place. But secondly that really doesn't work. Because once it's written, I mean sit sit a group of Catholics down some from the Midwest and some from San Francisco and maybe Boston and Have them read the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent and see how many Interpretations you can come up with of that written Document.

Well, that's that's the infallible interpreter speaking. Yes, but the problem is even Roman Catholic theologians disagree over the interpretation of the interpreter. That was the point that I make and I'll be posting this soon the the concluding Statements that I made against Mitch Pacquiao in our debates and soul scripture in 1999 San Diego is I dragged out the stack of books all these big books from Rome the documents of Vatican to and the canons and decrees and all that stuff and I put it on the table and said now are You telling me?

That this Huge stack of writing clarifies Romans 5 1 therefore haven't been justified by faith. We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. No, it doesn't clarify it. It muddles it. It muddles it says God led me to Mass the last place I'd ever have looked.

Well, it's the last place you should have looked. Because as I was just saying to a Roman Catholic in our chat channel right now he was saying that he thinks it's a little silly that I am offended by the phrase alter Christus and my response was given that Rome stitches up the the veil of the temple.

Puts a priest back in front of the people who has an offering that can perfect no one. And that I believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ and the perfection of atonement. I will always be offended by Rome and I will always be offended by those who pretend to have authorities and positions that the Bible does not give to them.

I will always be offended by that and So why you would look to the mass and how you think God led you there? He didn't lead you there. I can tell you that with with 100 certainty The Holy Spirit of God does not lead people to places like that unless of course given, you know the fact that you know maybe a person once they Deny the the sufficiency of Scripture then, you know as the Scriptures say if you refuse to love the truth then you'll be caused to to love a lie and That's we are talking about very very important things in this in this subject.

That's as I hope one day you will understand the necessity of yielding private interpretation of Scripture to its rightful Authority the church and of course my response is that the church hears the words of Christ.

The church hears the voice of Christ and once the church claims infallibility for herself Then she is forced into a monologue with herself she cannot any longer she can no longer hear the voice of Christ.

She's now stuck in the silence of her own thoughts. She can only talk to herself because she's infallible. She can't be changed. She can't be corrected and That's a very very important thing to keep in mind.

And so I want to provide I want to provide a response to that and it was I think easier to do it in that fashion than to necessarily Do it on on the blog we had. We had we still having problems the line one, huh?

Bummer, I thought we had fixed the fixed phone lines there. Well, we have a caller calling in but before we get to that let's I promised that I was going to be looking at this particular Item here where Jimmy Akin is Having as a guest on the program someone else who's with Catholic answers by the name of Jim Burnham.

Jim Burnham is joining him on the program and So let's go ahead and start with that because I'm watching rich the window and he's having problems Getting folks on the phone lines. So we knew this is a possibility.

We're not trying to play games anybody we have a brand new phone system and You know, we we were moving people back and forth. Folks who called in and and test and stuff and things like that, but until you actually do it for real.

That's just the way it goes, you know, you never know. But anyway, let's go ahead and play some of these and then we'll take some of our phone calls as well at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one this was I believe the 26th of This month which would have been Monday of this month on Catholic answers live.

Jim Burnham with Jimmy Akin, let's listen to let's listen for accuracy in the presentation of the position being critiqued. I Need music. I need sound their lawyers. Whatever. Do you mean by that Jim?

Well, the twin pillars are the other two basic Protestant ideas or doctrines. That really were the the genesis of the Protestant Reformation and they still are the operating doctrines that guide most Protestant thinking and theology today.

Can what would those be. Basically the first pillar is the the notion of sola scriptura? That's Latin for the Bible alone. This is the the idea that the Bible alone is the soul Christians in matters of faith now.

I stop it immediately. What word is missing? I mean again if if I were to be Representing Roman Catholic theology that has been defined I would try you know, and I have a long track record of Accurately representing it and No one who has seriously interacted With my work with the Bill Webster with Eric Svensson has read a the classic stuff good Whitaker.

No one is going to use that definition. Why. Because we all have rules of faith or not in Scripture I've got the London Bapst Confession of 1689. What is the word that's missing and what's the word that that helps us to focus and discuss this issue meaningfully.

Soul infallible rule of faith. Soul infallible Rule of faith not soul rule of faith. That's again presenting this idea of you've got the person with their With their Bible out in the woods, and that's all there is to it.

That's that's that's not what it is. It's soul infallible rule of faith.

It's basically the idea that all essential religious truths are found in the scripture alone and that we don't need Church councils, we don't need a church. We don't need anything else. We don't need sacred tradition as as you Catholics, you know as we silly Catholics hang on to.

What do you mean need?

Again, this is the the common misrepresentation that hey. You can ignore all of church history and you can't learn anything from anybody else and and those church councils just waste time. There is a vast difference between recognizing the worth of looking at church history and learning both from the good things and the bad things in church history and this idea of.

Well, we don't need them. They they're they're just they're they're irrelevant and we don't need them. If you if you're meeting need in the sense of these are equal scripture yes, of course, they're not equal scripture and that is the point that we're making and that they are to be subject to the ultimate correction of Scripture is the point at hand.

All we need is the Bible and the Bible alone.

That's the the first principle or pillar of the Protestant Reformation and that's not what the Protestant Reformers said.

They said that the Bible is the soul infallible rule of faith but they recognized that God had given to us the church that God had given to us the Preaching and teaching ministry that there is authority when the Word of God is preached.

All those things again. This is the classic straw man of you and your Bible out in the woods alone or the bishop in Rome. The idea that there are there can be authority in the church and like that is just simply dismissed as if It's not even there more straw man argumentation.

Now will Jimmy Akin call him on that. Because Jimmy Akin knows better.

Answer. And and the second pillar. No is the idea of salvation by faith alone. The idea that we are saved by faith alone apart from anything else like good works. And so, you know, in fact, this was this was something that the Martin Luther was very very firm on he said.

That this idea of salvation by faith alone is the is the doctrine by which the Protestant Church.

Stands or falls and of course, that's not what he said at all. Poor Luther. I tell you if if you want if you want to get the Catholics riled up. Say something about Luther. I don't know why they think.

Getting a quote out of Luther is just so absolutely vital. That would that would take a very shallow view of church history that Luther somehow Was the start of all this and if honestly if you're Roman Catholic listening this and you think that's what we believe.

Hello we teach church history, too. You know. We know about Wycliffe and we know about hosts and we know about God's chalk and we know about all this stuff back into church history. It's it's it's really frustrating at times.

Besides that Luther didn't say the Protestant Church that that term didn't even exist in his lifetime. As far as what he would use of it. Anyways, he was talking about the church and Toto the entire Christian Church and he saw that that freedom of God and salvation as as the the the pillar and the descriptive mark of whether a church is standing or falling not the Protestant Church or versus the Catholic Church or anything along the lines and by the way, it's not faith alone.

It's by Grace alone through faith alone and there is a huge difference and that needs to be emphasized.

He was basically saying if this idea of salvation by faith alone is wrong in the entire Protestant Effort is wrong. So he viewed this as a pillar. Yeah. He has is it. And they had Protestants themselves.

Many of them will see you they will acknowledge. These are the the two central ideas or doctrines on which Protestantism is based.

Okay. Well, why don't we start with the first in solo script now, I would. There's more to it than that the five solos would have been would have been nice rather than just the two. But I understand you only got an hour do the two.

But that's not exactly the most in-depth and accurate representation that I would ever find if I gave Representations of Rome's doctrines on that level. I would be ravaged for being so unscholarly and lacking in knowledge and everything else, but We I have another nine minutes of that and we'll get to that because it actually only gets worse from there not any better.