Thoughts on the Papal Election

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a special Reformation Dividing Line. I just felt like it was absolutely necessary that we take the time today to talk about, well, answering the question, is the Reformation over?

As I tweeted during the, once the white smoke came out of the Sistine Chapel, and as we waited for the eventual revelation of Jorge Murillo Bergoglio from Argentina, the first pope from the southern hemisphere, the first pope from the Americas, etc., etc., etc.

As I tweeted various issues, I was once again deeply disturbed by many of the responses I get. Now, I know I have a lot of people who follow me on Twitter and on Facebook and things like that that do not agree at all with my theology, so I shouldn't be surprised by that.

But I was once again just amazed at how many people are non-Catholics, but not in any way, shape, or form non-Catholic by conviction. They are non-Catholic by taste, by tradition, but they are more non-Catholic in the sense of, well, that's just not necessarily for me.

And the ignorance of church history, the ignorance of the issues, the Reformation, just startling to me, absolutely startling to me. Now, of course, I was watching television, and I chose to watch the coverage via Fox News, which was hosted completely by Roman Catholics.

And so you had, oh, you know, the 266th successor to St. Peter. Give me a break. No one who knows anything about history could even begin to substantiate that kind of specificity, could even begin to—I mean, it's just completely ignoring anti-popes and schisms and the Babylonian captivity church and all the rest of that stuff.

It's just all—its historical tripe is what it is. It has no meaning whatsoever, but, you know, it makes people feel good, I guess. Maybe that's what it's all about. I don't know. But they're throwing this stuff out.

And so I felt like, you know, it'd be good if we just remind ourselves of some basic truths regarding the papacy. And so I started throwing some things out about how the church at Rome did not have a single bishop until about 140 AD.

There was no monarchical episcopate. This is acknowledged by scholars on both sides of the Tiber River. Hence the idea that, you know, Peter was there, and then he had one particular successor. Those succession lists come later.

There's variations between them, etc., etc., etc., etc. And then I started talking about the theological aspect, and I was just amazed at the responses I started seeing on Twitter. I wasn't really monitoring Facebook.

Most of the stuff I just write in Twitter, and it also posted to Facebook. So I apologize for that. But there's only so many things you can follow at once. And I was just amazed at what I was seeing. And so I wanted to take the time, just needed to take the time, since I'm going to be out of town tomorrow.

We couldn't do it in the regular program then. I don't know if we're even going to be able to fit one in on Friday. So I just wanted to take the time to remind us that the issues of the Reformation, even if it is but a small percentage of people today that care any longer, still matter a lot.

Why the Reformation Still Matters

Now, obviously, it would be a great indicator of the health of the Church if many people recognize that these are definitional and vital issues. But honestly, what can I say? I mean, we noted yesterday on the program that Rick Warren was talking about fasting and praying for the Cardinals in their deliberation.

And I was just left going, what? What? Can you imagine the Apostle Paul tweeting that we should fast and pray for the Judaizers as they choose a new leader in Galatia? Really? But you see today, issues of truth no longer matter to many people who even call themselves Christians.

As long as you just say Jesus is Lord and he rose from the dead, that's it. You don't have to answer. You don't have to explain what that means. People today have no understanding why there was an Aryan controversy, why there was a controversy around Sabellianism and dynamic monarchism in the second century and third century.

The idea that people consider these things so important that they would go to the mat about them, just for most people today, nah. And in fact, I was accused of being divisive. Divisive. And one guy this morning was accusing me of slandering, all because I point out some basic things.

And what are these basic things? Basic thing number one, Rome does not have the gospel. Oh, thank you. Bigelow just pointed out that Rick Warren also tweeted today, welcome Pope Francis, Cardinal Jorge Murillo Bergoglio, Habima Papam, you have our prayers.

Okay. Now, thank you, Rick Warren. Why does that bother me so? Because see, in our day and age, you're not supposed to offend anyone. Everyone's just supposed to get along. It's just, everything's supposed to be wonderful.

Why does that offend me so much? Why am I willing to marginalize myself? And I know that I am. I would get a we didn't do a special program about this. I know that. Why am I doing so? Well, point number one, Rome does not have the gospel.

Now, if you're one of those folks that thinks the gospel can be pared down to two sentences, and that we really didn't need all that stuff in Galatians, we didn't need all that stuff in Romans, then you don't have any reason to believe what I have to say.

If you're canonically challenged, if you don't have, if the New Testament as a whole does not define for you what the gospel is, then you're not, there's no reason for you to be listening to me because I happen to think that the gospel is defined by divine scripture.

All of scripture. The whole thing. And as a result, there are certain things taught in the New Testament that absolutely, positively leave me without any possibility of responding like Rick Warren has responded to the issue of the papacy.

In Galatians chapter one, the apostle Paul says some very strong things. He sort of skips past his normal greetings, and he says, I am amazed that you are so quickly discerning him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which is really not another, only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

But even if we are an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be anathema, accursed, as we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed.

Do you believe that there is such thing as a false gospel? What would make a false gospel for you? What's a false gospel? Can we understand it? And if there is a false gospel, does that not mean that we can know what a true gospel is?

There are many people today, there are many people in the church today that do not believe that God has maintained a sufficient knowledge of his gospel in the church that we can even address these issues, that we can even talk about these things.

But the apostle Paul did not say, I curse those who preach a false gospel. He specifically stated that it's God's curse that comes upon the one who preaches a false gospel. So the first thing, does Rome have the gospel?

Does the man who stood on that balcony today lead people to a knowledge of the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ? That's the question. Now when you continue on in the book of Galatians, you will notice that Paul says some very strong things and then he talks about going up to Jerusalem and then beginning at verse 3 of chapter 2, notice what he says, but not even Titus who is with me though he was a Greek was compelled to be circumcised.

But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in who had snuck in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Now what does that mean? Could that have only happened once? Do we no longer know what the truth of the gospel is? Who are false brethren? Can we know today? So many of the people that were responding to me, I don't think they could ever tell you who a false brother is.

Why, I'd never call anyone a false brother. Why not? If you would not call someone a false brother, where are your priorities? It's certainly not with the gospel, it's certainly not with Christ, it's certainly not with God because seemingly you're more concerned about their feelings than God's.

And you'll never understand why the reformers risked their lives, why Geneva produced a constant stream of missionaries who went into Italy who died for their faith if you've bought into the modern idea that someone else's feelings are more important than what God has revealed and what God has done in Jesus Christ.

You'll never understand it and you'll certainly never stand in the line of those people. Never. Paul recognized there were false brethren and they had snuck into the fellowship of the saints. They were there to spy out the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus and false teachers always have one goal to bring us into bondage.

Now they can do it in a lot of different ways. Sometimes they do it real blatantly. They bring into bondage by getting you to give them their money. But other people do it and oh they look so humble and they're not trying to get money but they want your allegiance.

As the apostle Paul said, after I leave men will arise from your own number and they will steal people right out of the flock. They want followers for themselves. They want religious authority over others.

So who are the false brethren? Can we identify them? Now Paul went on to say some incredibly strong things in the book of Galatians. Things that to be honest with you a lot of people today would never repeat and they would never condone.

That's why I've said as long as the book of Galatians is in the can of scripture I must seek to evangelize Roman Catholics. Once you can get rid of Galatians then we can start editing the gospel. But notice what is said in Galatians chapter five.

Behold I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under the obligation to keep the whole law.

And what does he say to those who have been seeking to be justified by law? They're only doing one thing. They're only saying you have to be circumcised. But that means they're seeking to be justified by law.

What does Paul say to them? He says you have been severed from Christ. You who are seeking to be justified by law. You have fallen from grace. You hear those words? Severed from Christ. Fallen from grace.

You cannot walk down the road of legalistic fulfillment of law and walk down the road of grace because they go the opposite directions. You can't do it. And so here's the question. If Paul could anathematize the Judaizers.

We have no evidence the Judaizers denied the deity of Christ. Denied the resurrection. Denied the cross. But what they did do was they added one thing. Before the cross can be made effectual for you, you need to do this.

You need to be a part of this. Rome has gone so far beyond anything, anything that the Judaizers could ever, ever have dreamed of. So far beyond it. The Judaizers were amateurs in comparison. To the Bishop of Rome.

What do I mean? Well, I started trying to explain to people. And as one fellow pointed out, you know, the vast majority of evangelicals don't even know what an indulgence is. And he was right. He was right.

And, you know, I've spent so many years on this. In the 1990s, this was our primary focus, quite honestly. I mean, I don't know how many debates I've had. At least 40. Maybe closer to 50. I don't know.

A huge number of my debates have been with Roman Catholics. And yet we have so many new listeners that they seemingly skipped those. Or maybe thought that wasn't something they'd find interesting. Or maybe it's just an eccentricity of mine.

Not realizing that I have to respond to what Romanism says. To be consistent. Have to be. What is the Roman Gospel? If you've looked at my book, Roman Catholic Controversy, that's what I focus on. And to boil it down to the simplest words, Rome's Gospel cannot give you peace because it has no finished work of Christ.

Now, I don't have the time today to expand upon all this. As I said, you can get hold of debates we've done with Mitchell Pacwa and a bunch of people on these very subjects and expand it upon these very topics.

The Mass and justification, the Marian dogmas and papacy and sola scriptura and priesthood and all this stuff. But the fundamental issue is this. The Gospel of Rome, which Rome defines in her own conciliar documents, in her own infallible statements, which she defines as dogma, goes far beyond anything that the Judaizers could ever dream as far as additions to the Gospel.

And what do I mean by that? Well, let's focus upon the main and plain things. And I don't know if we have any phone calls, but those of you who were accusing me of slander and division, we have a toll-free phone number.

877 -753 -3341. And maybe you didn't know that I have spent years interacting with most of the leading representatives of Roman Catholic apologetics in the United States. Maybe you've not read the books that I've written on the subject or listened to the hours and hours and hours of debates that we've done on the subject.

The number is 877 -753 -3341 if you have the courage of your convictions. And if you'd like to substantiate the allegations, then give us a call. I'd like to hear from you. But listen to what I have to say in the process.

There is no finished work of Christ in the Roman Catholic faith. If you understand the doctrine of transubstantiation, if you understand the doctrine of the Mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice, then you know that it is true, that you can approach the alleged sacrifice of Christ represented in the Mass thousands and thousands of times in your life and yet die impure.

Die impure. Because you see, allegedly by the power of sacramental consecration, the priest is made an alter Christus, another Christ. The man who stood upon that balcony believes he is an alter Christus.

Even George Weigel in his book, Evangelical Catholics, promoted the whole idea. Once again, he used the very term, alter Christus, another Christ. They embrace it. Mitch Pacwa embraced it in our debate on the priesthood.

This is not something that, well, that's what they used to believe. No, this is the current accepted, embraced, rejoiced in teaching that every priest, every bishop is an alter Christus, another Christ.

And that by that sacramental authority, that man, when he says the words of consecration, the miracle of transubstantiation takes place and he renders Jesus body, soul, blood, and divinity present upon the Roman altar as an unbloody sacrifice, propitiatory sacrifice for sins.

But it is not a propitiatory sacrifice that actually perfects. It has a limited response and effect. And that's why you have to keep coming back and coming back and coming back. Because of the miracle that takes place in transubstantiation, that is why the Roman Catholic bows and genuflects toward the tabernacle, the monstrance, the pix, the ciborium, whatever, where the consecrated hosts are kept.

Because Jesus as God is physically present in those hosts. And my friend, if you can approach the sacrifice of Christ 10 ,000 times in your life and still die impure, I say to you, you have never approached it even once.

Because the sacrifice, the sacrifice of the sinless son of God upon the cross of Calvary perfected for all time those for whom it was made. It is not the same sacrifice. It is not a finished work. And that is why you have the whole sacramental system where God's grace is channeled to you.

It's controlled just as you are controlled by the church. That is the essence of human religion, the essence of human religion. And that's why you have men who are called priests. There are no sacramental priests in the New Testament other than Jesus.

Listen to my debate on this subject. Well, you see, presbyters became priests. No, presbyters and elders and bishops, they're all the same office in the New Testament. There was no apostolic establishment of the concept of a priest in the New Testament.

That's a fact of history. It's a fact of history. It's a fact of the Bible. And hence, there was no sacramental forgiveness by priests. There were no penances. There was no purgatory. Oh, yes, they still believe in purgatory.

They'll even debate it once in a while. Just folks, the Catholic answers want to forget when they debate that particular subject. We've debated a number of times. And let me guarantee you, we've never lost a debate on purgatory.

You better not lose a debate on purgatory. I mean, whether it's biblical or historical, the facts are all on our side on that subject. Ask Tim Staples. Ask him why he won't tell anybody about the last time we engaged that subject.

Just sort of conveniently forgot it. Or watch the debate with Father Peter Stravinskis. Doesn't matter which one it is. The fact of the matter is, Rome teaches purgatory. Rome teaches that you can die in the state of grace and then have to undergo satis passio, the suffering of atonement in purgatory before entering into the presence of God.

And even today, if you listened carefully, if you listened carefully, you heard that in the announcement of the new pope, a plenary indulgence was offered to those who were watching. What's an indulgence?

It's a transfer from the thesaurus meritorium, the treasury of merit, which is made up of the excess merit of Jesus, because he only had to shed one drop of blood to redeem the world, but he shed his blood copiously.

So there's an extra amount of merit that comes from that. And then the extra amount of merit that comes from Mary, because she was perfectly sinless and therefore she had all this extra merit. And then the extra merit of the saints, it's all put into the thesaurus meritorium.

And then the church uses that to dole it out to you. And there are more sections on indulgences in the universal Catholic catechism of the Catholic church than there are in justification. Look it up. Look it up.

Read Indulgentiarum Doctrina, the post-Vatican II conciliar document, apostolic document, apostolic constitution, I'm sorry. Read it for yourself. No finished work. Alter Christus. I guess it'd be alter Christoi, plural.

Purgatory. Indulgences. You think that goes just a little bit beyond what the Judaizers dreamed up? Just a little bit. Just a little bit. And we haven't even talked about the fact that Rome has defined as a dogma, the Marian dogmas.

You have to believe that. You have to believe that. You cannot reject that and be a member of the Catholic church, according to Rome's definition. And never ever forget the amazing statement made in my first debate with Jerry Matitix in New York.

It wasn't our first debate. When we debated the Marian dogmas in speaking of the bodily assumption of Mary, what did he say? We have just as much a basis and ground for believing the bodily assumption of Mary as we do the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That's what he said. You can listen to it for yourself. An absolute myth of history placed on the very same level as the very resurrection of the Son of God. That's Romanism. That's why I call it Romanism.

It's not Catholicism. It's not, according to the whole, it's not the universal faith of everyone who's believed. There was not a single person at the Council of Nicaea, not one that believed everything you have to believe to be a Roman Catholic today.

Not one. None of them believed that. None of them believed in purgatory and indulgences and the Marian dogmas and all the rest of the stuff that has been defined as dogma. Don't talk to me about the 2000 year old church.

Not when you have changed what must be believed, which is the essence of the faith itself. And so what about the Pope? What about that man? He seems so nice. He seems, everyone is talking about how humble he is.

Everyone's talking about how humble he is. Is that why he allowed thousands of people to stand out in the cold and the rain and shout his new name? Is that why people will bow down and kiss his ring? Is that why he was wearing these vestments?

Is that what humility is? Really? That strikes me as odd. But you see, what I was pointing out on Twitter that just got people just so upset are the names and titles of the papacy. He's called Pontifex Maximus.

Ironically, that was initially an insult. Tertullian used it against the Bishop of Rome to insult him because it was the primary name of the high priest of the Roman religions. But it became a title used of the Bishop of Rome himself.

What are the other terms? Well, he's called the Holy Father. I was listening to Catholic radio this afternoon on my way into the office. Our Holy Papa! We have our Holy Father again! Really? There is, of course, only one use of that term in the New Testament, and it is in Jesus' high priestly prayer where he refers to the Father as the Holy Father.

We have a Holy Father, and one is enough, and there is only one. I cannot imagine a Christian man allowing another Christian to bow the knee, kiss his ring, and call him Holy Father. I can't imagine it.

Oh, well, it's just tradition. I can't imagine it. Another term, Vicar of Christ. Vicar of Christ. Who is the Vicar of Christ? Well, vicarious, vicarious punishment, right? The one who takes the place of another, a vicar.

So, the alter Christus who becomes the alter Christus, the primary person, is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Who is the Vicar of Christ on earth? Well, biblically. There's only one answer to that question.

It's the Holy Spirit of God. Think of it. This man embodies in himself the unique title of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Wow! I don't know about you, but I don't want to stand before God someday and explain why I allowed anyone to apply triune names to me.

Don't want to do it. No, thank you. The papacy has a long and checkered history. Unfortunately, many today don't really care that for many centuries, the Bishop of Rome was one of the primary persecutors of Christians.

Many a saint, many a saint, was ushered into the presence of the Lord through the machinations of the Roman papacy. In fact, one of the ironies is that the very same source that people on the Roman Catholic side like to quote about the 33 ,000 denominations, the very same source on the next page, as I recall, identifies the Roman Catholic Church as one of the primary makers of Christian martyrs.

They don't quote that part for some odd strange reason. But the reality is that many of our forefathers entered into glory on the commands of many of the great popes of the past. Now, after 1870, I've been forced to believe, if you want to be a faith Roman Catholic, that the Bishop of Rome is infallible.

Now, of course, I have found this to be one of the most vapid of Roman dogmas because you can never really define what it means. Find an error of an ancient pope and, well, he wasn't speaking infallibly there.

It's a great dogma, totally undisprovable, because it doesn't matter what you show. If you find an error, well, he just wasn't speaking infallibly there. And you can never, ever, ever, ever, ever know when he's speaking infallibly.

So it's absolutely irrelevant outside of providing this shallow, meaningless feeling of warmth that, well, I'm following the pope and he's infallible. He might be wrong about this, but if so, then he's not speaking infallibly, but I'll never know in my lifetime.

It's just great. It's meaningless, but it's a bait and switch thing. Here's a man and people look at this guy and they want to go, they want to go, he looks like a nice fellow. I mean, did you know he only has one lung?

Yes, he only has one lung. That lung was removed in his youth with some infection or something.

Wow, it's amazing.

And I hear that he takes the bus to work and that he lives in a little apartment and he cooks his own food. I think all of that is wonderful, but you know what? Arius is probably a nice guy too. And I know some wonderful Mormons and some sincere Jehovah's Witnesses and some great Muslims.

And I've known a few atheists that were downright kind. It doesn't have anything to do with the truthfulness of what he says. And so what do we have today? The phone lines are open, 877 -753 -3341. We've got one line taken, but we got others if you want to get in.

What do we have today?

We have very clearly a massive demonstration in the outpouring of, first of all, utter ignorance of church history, utter ignorance of the gospel, utter ignorance of what defines the Christian faith, a massive outpouring of the proof that so many today who are not Roman Catholics don't really have any reason not to be.

They're just not Roman Catholics by taste, by preference. I don't like what they wear. I don't like the service. I prefer drums. Well, you know, there are lots of Roman Catholic parishes that are trying to bend things to draw you in.

And you may end up going there.

I don't know. I don't know.

But the fact of the matter is, the person who's serious about what the New Testament teaches, watched that today and had to have been praying, Lord, bring your gospel to the many millions who have been given a false hope, a false hope.

They've been given a false gospel. They've been given a gospel that keeps them under the heel of a sacramental system, but never gives them peace, hangs over them the specter of purgatory. I mean, I cannot tell you how many hundreds or thousands of people are walking around right here in my beloved hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, and they're praying to Mary.

They've got statues of Mary in their yard, in their home. Many of them are wearing the scapular. And they actually believe the promise that if they die wearing the scapular, that Mary will descend and bring them personally out of purgatory before the first Saturday they're there.

So much for the idea that there's no time in purgatory. Yeah, they actually believe that. And sadly, many of them are praying the same prayers that, especially the prayer that, in fact, I even found this little book, the very one that I had found in a seat at the chapel at Thunderbird Samaritan Hospital so many years ago.

They're praying the prayer to Mary to deliver them from the devil, the flesh, and Jesus. Yeah, they're praying to Mary to deliver them from Jesus, because by one prayer from her, he, their judge, will be appeased.

And I say to you, any person who prays to Mary for deliverance from Jesus does not know the gospel and needs to hear the gospel. So once again, we've marginalized ourselves. We've put ourselves out there on the radical fringe.

Why? Because we actually believe that as creatures of God, we should think, not just feel. And that God has given us his word, not so we can feel good about it, but we should listen and learn and order our lives in light of it.

How unusual that seems to be. There's so many. Let me ask you a question. Whoever it was in Twitter that accused me of this earlier. I'm the one that's being divisive. Don't you think Rick Warren's being divisive?

Because see, it depends on how you define division, doesn't it? What is real division? Real division is causing division within the true body by focusing upon yourself. And I'd like to suggest to you that when we seek to get along with the world, when we seek to not offend anybody, when we seek to somehow make the very truth that the Bible says is foolishness to the world and an offense to those who are perishing, something other than foolishness and something that's other than offensive, we are the ones who are being divisive.

And I won't do that. I refuse to do that. And so what I thought would just be an interesting historical event today, because I just happened in God's providence to have just come home when it happened.

I wasn't going to be there. I almost left beforehand, started to tweet about it, and I started seeing the responses. And oh, my heart was stirred because so many have given of themselves that we might recognize the truth of these issues.

And yet so many today, utterly ignorant of the Reformation. And how many today have any passion whatsoever about the issues, the truths that motivated Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin and all the unnamed people who stood to lose everything and did so because the gospel was precious to them.

Our churches are filled today with Christians of comfort, Christians of compromise. And when it comes to the face of men, and when it comes to the fear of offending men, Christians of cowardice. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

I'm not even sure what I just said is legal in Canada, but we'll head up that direction and talk with Justin. Hi, Justin.

Have a good debate.

You know, I was about to say those exact same words. It would have sounded really weird if I did, but I'm glad I didn't. But anyways.

Yeah, no, I got a question here. Anyways, we've been talking back and forth. He keeps on bringing up that.

Justin, please.

Yes.

Justin, I've been debating Roman Catholics since the 1980s. I've written a number of books on the subject, and I can direct you to entire debates that focus upon the fact that the assertion that you have in that text, an oral and written tradition, and we're not holding to the oral part, is not only a violation of the context, but that it's utterly untenable in light of the fact that what Paul is stating is that we are to hold fast to the gospel, which he had delivered to the Thessalonians in two ways, through preaching and through the written letter.

The point that I've challenged numerous Roman Catholics on for decades now is to demonstrate that the oral tradition upon which they have defined such things as the Marian dogmas and papal infallibility and so on and so forth can be traced back to the Church of Thessalonica, because Paul had said he had delivered these things orally to them.

They know they can't do that. They know that the dogmas that they have defined on the basis of this alleged tradition, such as the bodily assumption, such as the immaculate conception of Mary, cannot be found in early Church history.

And so they cannot go to that text. They cannot utilize that text. They are abusing that text to say that, well, Paul had taught these things in oral form to the Thessalonians. They knew these things.

No, they did not. And history shows us that. So it's an abuse of the text, and I would highly recommend the numerous debates that we've done, which are available at aomin .org, with men like Jerry Matytix and Patrick Madrid and others on the subject of Sola Scriptura, where we go in depth on these things, or at least the book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, it has about three chapters on that, where we go into it.

And we have other books. There's a fantastic three-volume set available that we have by David King and Bill Webster called Holy Scripture that will probably give you a whole lot more than you actually wanted, because it's 1 ,100 pages long.

But the information is there. It's out there. And unfortunately, a lot of folks today, just this is not a subject that they've been exposed to, but it's definitely one that you need to be aware of.

No, I was just talking about Scripture, even though I mean, I argue with them, but you shouldn't.

Well, yeah, fundamentally, the argument would be, well, we're the ancient church, all the rest of it. It becomes extremely circular. Remember something, Justin. One of the things that you'll frequently fall into, that many Protestants, non-Roman Catholics will fall into, is we believe in Sola Scriptura.

We spend time defending Sola Scriptura. Rare is the Roman Catholic that will honestly recognize that what they believe is Sola Ecclesia, and they will almost never allow for an examination of their positive authority claims.

Because you see, what Rome is saying is, Rome will frequently say, well, we have three sources of authority. We have Scripture, we have tradition, and we have the magisterium of the church. But the problem is, it's the magisterium of the church that, from their perspective, defines what is and what is not Scripture, and also claims the ability to infallibly define what Scripture teaches, even though it's almost never done that, and claims to be able to define what is and what is not tradition, and what tradition does or does not teach.

Now, if one of your three legs of authority defines the other two, how can you actually believe that you have a three-legged stool? What they believe in is Sola Ecclesia, the church as the final and sole authority.

And when you get down to asking the question, why do you believe that? They don't have an answer, because it is their ultimate authority, and they can't go any farther than that. They very rarely allow for that to be recognized.

Yeah, that's in Scripture.

Right, right. I understand, believe me. I'd recommend the Roman Catholic Controversy to you. I think you'd find it to be helpful. All right. All right, thanks, Justin. All right, bye-bye. 877 -753 -3341.

Let's go to Stephen right here in Phoenix. Hi, Stephen.

Hello.

Pretty warm today, isn't it?

Yeah, it is.

Way too early, but it is Phoenix, so what can I say? What can we do for you?

I know, hey, I just wanted to comment on, well, first of all, thank you for your apologetic work, and thank you for defending and debating these different issues, along with the Muslim issue and other issues.

I would just like to comment and say, I agree with you as you were talking about history and how important that is, and just to remember the things that the Catholic Church has done throughout the years, for centuries, holding Europe in spiritual bondage while claiming to be the truth and claiming to have the truth, but really just putting people in bondage and these sort of things, and how they opposed even allowing the Scripture out in people's own tongues.