Open Phones Dividing Line Friday

Welcome to The Dividing Line, an unusual time starting at the half hour, but that's because we just finished recording a sweater vest dialogue with Doug Wilson. That'll drop sometime next week. I assume I didn't actually ask about that, but that's normally the time frame.

Maybe over the weekend. Who knows? I don't know. I just didn't I didn't ask but anyways, so Sitting here in the studio. We've got the studio cooled down. It's How much has it because Doug was complaining We're gonna open the phones by the way eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one Doug was complaining that he He couldn't wear a sweater vest.

I wore a sweater vest. I took it off since then obviously, but I wore a sweater vest and Yeah, it's it's three degrees warmer than when we started. It's 104 here now. We're going for 111 today and Then the rest of the rest of the week at least in my backyard.

I got I have always wanted one of those weather station things, you know, and so I finally got one and So I think it's really cool because you've got you know. It's super accurate and it's solar-powered which is really neat now.

It hasn't we haven't seen a drop of rain since I put it in so I'm not sure how exactly it's gonna do once the wind the rain comes. We'll we'll find out how well I installed it but for For my backyard 111 today 115 115 111 109 108 108 Is is what we've got so.

And he was complaining that it was like 60 degrees up there. So he couldn't wear his sweater vest. So anyways, we had a good Discussion we talked primarily about God as creator and how that is central and foundational to the issues that we are facing in our society today and in the Degradation of our society honestly, I believe that's central to what we are experiencing.

What we're seeing going on. To the progress of secularism Marxism atheism and Both Doug and I would agree of the system that is coming in. It cannot sustain itself. It it cannot sustain itself now given its access to technology.

It will sustain itself for a period of time and it'll be ugly that period of time be ugly. But it does not have the internal framework to be able to Sustain itself. Isn't it interesting that we've made all these dystopian movies all these movies for decades now expressing our inner fear of What could happen when it comes to?

Just the the abuse of Technology the abandonment of a meaningful worldview and a lot of people making these dystopian movies are not Christians but you dig into the themes and a lot of the themes have to do with The very truths that we see in the pages of Scripture there God's Revelation gets through.

It gets through to people and so you you have that kind of of thing. But anyway, so that should drop as I said sometime next week maybe over the weekend, but I would imagine next week. Maybe next weekend.

I don't know what their schedule is up there and who's gonna have time to be working on stuff and all the rest of us I kind of stuff but I think you all will find that to be interesting and a week from today I do not know if it is going to be live.

I mean, it'll it'll it'll be live for us. I don't know if it's gonna be Webcast or not. I'll have to look at that. But there is going to be a four-way apologetics roundtable. Evidential apologetics classical apologetics something called reformed epistemology.

Randall Rausser is going to be doing that. And presuppositional I'll be the presuppositional representative. Dr. Howell from SES and then dr. McClatchy for the evidentialist perspective and so that will be a week from today and I'll look I'll try to find out.

Maybe Jonathan McClatchy can let me know. Well, that's actually gonna be just recorded at that time and then uploaded or whether it will be live via some type of zoom feed or something. I'm not sure how that would work to be honest with you.

But anyway, I don't know right now. We'll find out but that's a week from today on apologetic methodology we each have I think like Seven minutes, I think to present our sides and we're gonna ask each other questions and there's gonna be some give-and-take and some closing statements and stuff like that, but it should be hopefully useful and and Challenging at that point in time.

All right, so with that let's 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the toll-free phone number if you would like to get involved with the program today and. So, let's go down to the state that's trying to out California, California these days.

Let's go down to Texas and talk with Casey. Hi Casey. You're right. Thanks for taking my call. Uh-huh, and I just wanted to know. In regards to the papacy if I wanted to be able to debate this subject, you know professionally.

Do you think it would be sufficient for me to you know, of course, you know read a whole bunch of secondary sources. But at the same time, you know Whenever references are made to the primary sources, you know read those as well.

If I was to do that Do you think it would be sufficient enough for me to be able to debate the topic professionally and just very quickly at the end? Could you provide to me some really good resources like this?

I'm already aware of William Webster's Matthew 16 controversy Edward Denny's papalism and George Sammons infallibility of the church, but apart from those books, I'm not too sure where to go from there.

So if you could just also give me some really good books that I can read. I really appreciate that. Well.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the papacy is really useful because it has a lot of References that you can expand out from there. There are so many issues in relationship to the papacy the papacy having existed for so long the all the all the issues would include the origin and rise of the papacy, so issues related to the most primitive history of The church in Rome there are numerous articles a number of articles have been written over the past decade in regards to the primitive form of the church at Rome in other words the rise of the monarchical Episcopate whether the the fact the evidence is that the original Form of church government in Rome was a plurality of elders not a not a single bishop.

But that's a development. It doesn't come to Rome until the 140s and So when Ignatius writes to the church in Rome as he's on his way there. He does not address the bishop even though he addressed the bishop of other churches to whom he was writing and Clement's letter seems to indicate again a plurality of eldership rather than a singular person representing the church at Rome and and That monarchical episcopate the idea of one singular single bishop develops over time in Rome and of course for modern Roman Catholics who have bought into the Development hypothesis anyways, that's not all that big of a deal.

In other words they accept that What they call apostolic belief today really isn't apostolic at all it Has the as Newman put it, you know the acorn in the tree it has the the kernel of truth. But you end up Not being able to escape having a system within Roman Catholicism today That allows for the development of doctrine.

Even to this to the level of development of revelation because most Roman Catholic Scholars will admit that the last Dogmas defined by the church the two in regards to Mary and papal infallibility itself are really unknown to the apostolic period or for any period of time thereafter and So you have to have some methodology of a living tradition that while not Explicitly claiming revelational capacity Functionally is able to give you new information.

That's it's the only way you can you can come up with the bodily assumption as being quote-unquote apostolic. So in answer to your question, I'm not sure what you mean by professionally debate we don't have a society of professional debaters.

So I've debated people that shouldn't have ever debated. There might be some people who think I should ever debate but So I'm not sure what professionally debate actually means. You have to be able to analyze your own capacity and ability to speak with clarity speak in such a way as to Be able to communicate an idea within a particular time frame.

To be able to listen what somebody else is saying and to respond Meaningfully to their argumentation you have to be able to be a multitasker. So you have to be able to listen write Organize all the same time a lot of people are just not built that way there.

I know Brilliant brilliant scholars that are are many many many many IQ points above me that should never debate. That I'd be able to debate under the table. Because they're just not built that way they're they they have to take Extensive periods of time to think things through then when they give you a response it's a great response and it could probably be published in a journal immediately, but it takes some time to do that and you don't have time in a in a in most in the most kinds of normal public debates now if you have written written debate is completely different than than oral debate very very different and What you lose in written debate you also gain in written debate and that is in in oral debate.

You have cross-examination where you can really probe the consistency of the other person's position that becomes somewhat blunted in a Written form because you have more time to spin things basically.

When you're actually having to answer a question directly from the other individual and they're probing the consistency of your position. That's why In even in Hebrew law you you have to be able to face those witnesses.

And and that's where we get it in Western law too is it came from from scripture is you have to be able to face those witnesses and ask them questions and When you can't do that, then their witnesses their their testimony is not allowed.

So that's an incredibly important part of Debating and then as to the sources that you use it sort of depends on the person that you're debating. I mean if you're debating a professor from Notre Dame who Is going to be making his presentation in Latin?

Well, that's going to make it. You know This could be a it's going to indicate where you need to be as to what kind of sources you're utilizing the vast majority of people who Engage in a debate on historical sources are are going to be using secondary sources.

But with with a but checking out with primary sources when possible, I mean the papacy as I said is a massively huge subject and therefore no one has it all mastered no one could possibly have read all the original sources or Read all of patrilogia grecci or patrilogia latinae and and and then all the medieval sources and all the fraudulent works that were used to Substantiate the concept of the papacy the pseudo-isidorean decretals all the rest that kind of stuff I don't know if anybody's read all of that stuff and so everybody at some point has is utilizing secondary sources, but then it's useful to be able to go to the original sources if there's a challenge against something like that, but So it all depends what you mean by Professionally debate what the context would be what your capacity and ability is to be able to express yourself with clarity and and and things like that and What you're focusing on I mean the when I've when I've debated the papacy Jerry Matics and I did seven and a half hours over two nights in Denver in 1993 I think it was 93 and You know, the first night was on the biblical evidence the second night was on the patristic evidence.

So the first what 500 years maybe something along those lines. We didn't get into papal infallibility. We didn't get into the development of papal dogma at later times. None of that kind of stuff Which we certainly could have it's it's relevant information But even as it was that's seven and a half hours for just the biblical evidence and the early patristic sources and No one would say that we covered everything there was to be covered by any stretch the imagination.

So Yeah, there's a lot of there's a lot of options there. There's a lot of Variables that have to be taken into consideration.

In a situation like that. All right. Well, yeah, you pretty much kind of did answer my question if you aren't even aware but.

So, yeah, I do. Thank you for your comment. Okay. All right. Thanks Casey. Have a good one. All right, my bad eight seven seven seven five three three three four one and let's White is I'm just gonna go with the one that's been on hold the longest.

Is that what I should do? Okay, let's talk with Joshua. Hi, Joshua. Doing good Good good. Thank you for taking my call. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, and I can hear the bird as well.

All right, so I kind of wrote it down so. Basically, I guess I just start with a preface. Do you know who dr. Michael Reeves is dr. White? He's on the Ligonier ministry staff.

Name rings a bell. I'm not. Not not familiar with him. Personal, but I may be but it's I'm not sure.

Okay, well he's pretty awesome. He had a whole series that's on the Ligonier app about the Puritans and he just had like a whole series about that in the English Reformation and stuff, which is really cool, which is really cool.

But basically he just said something that was kind of just kind of Had me thinking and stuff like that. He was basically talking about how the Puritans he described them as heart doctors, right? He was there were those who were concerned with the inner the inner lives of people whether they Truly desired and loves Christ or rather or if it was just anomaly and stuff like that, but he said that the danger that they faced was that they would desire to have a response from the people and the danger would be to leave a focus on a response to the gospel rather than on the gospel itself.

You're tempted to Focus on the holy living and the fruit rather than on the finished work of Christ. So I just kind of wanted your thoughts kind of on on that I'm not sure if you're familiar with anything that he's talking about, but it was just kind of interesting.

Just think to think about of you know. Is it a changed life and you know the fruit the fruit as evidence thereof or is it the gospel? You know of what Christ did for us. It's extra notes, right? It's outside of ourselves that saves us.

So I just wanted to kind of thoughts on that. Well, I.

Find the the the whole issue to be somewhat artificial because it's it's comparing apples and oranges one is the divine act that provides the very foundation upon which God is able to You know Treat us as holy to bring us into his presence to Invite us before the throne of grace.

It's it's all every it's all of God God is the only one who is to be glorified and all these things. But he didn't do that to just simply do that. There was there was an application there is the the existence of the elect and the the necessity of application to the elect and so It's like it's like saying well Is the most important thing the gospel or the fact that God also intended the gospel to have results in in our lives?

It's it's not an either or it's not a competition type thing and one can talk about well You you know, you can lose balance. Well, you can lose balance on on anything I suppose but the The categories into which the the two are placed are are different one is a is the divine accomplishment and Then the other is is also a divine accomplishment, but it's the application in time.

So so I I just don't see how biblically that one can look at Classical passages like Ephesians 2 8 through 10 and not see that from an apostolic Concept there wasn't any way of distinguishing between these things There wasn't any way of of coming up with some kind of a division between them.

It does remind me just in passing of a very strange tweet that I read yesterday from dr. Anthony Bradley Who Number of years ago was a you know conservative reformed Type of guy and now is like so many people moved in light of current events, but he was basically arguing that the That five-point Calvinist reformed people are Have an overemphasis on Paul's Soteriology whereas the black church is focused upon Moses and this was somehow supposed to be some really super Insight that somehow explains things.

I'm not sure what kind of a view of Scripture all that might speak to but I I don't think that you can put Moses versus Paul any more than you can put The application of the gospel versus the accomplishment of the gospel.

They have to be distinguished from one another but it was God's intention that That all those for whom that redemption was accomplished it would be applied so Accomplishment and application. Yeah, we need to distinguish them.

But since both are as certain in the divine decree as the other Trying to quote-unquote prioritize them on a level of importance Doesn't mean it just isn't something. I think the Apostles would have really given consideration to it That that that doesn't seem to follow for me Okay.

That's not a either-or but it's a it's a both and oh it is. Yeah, definitely.

It's just a both and that requires the appropriate Distinguishing on our part to make sure we don't confuse them. Awesome, well, thank you so much for taking my call. Okay. Thanks. Have a good day. God bless you too.

God bless. All right, let's talk with Anthony in California. Hey Anthony. Hi. How's it going? Dr. White doing good. I.

Have a quick question for you. Very simple. Years ago Sam Gibbs put a video out there about what's the big deal about the KJV? Uh-huh, and I know you have made a video in response to that a number of them actually.

Yeah, yeah, I've seen them all and they were good. Kind of recently maybe two years ago another video was put out there by Sam Gibbs at the King James Conference and He's still putting out the same narrative out there that the righteous Antioch manuscripts versus the Alexandrian manuscript.

Yeah, Sam Sam doesn't Sam doesn't come up with any new arguments. He he he repeats the same thing over and over again matter how many times you refute it. So that's just that's the nature of King James only isn't I?

Know it's like Watching a video stuck on repeat or something basically. Yeah. But my question is on a scholarly basis. Is there any evidence of? These Antioch manuscripts that he's talking about. I know about the Benzantine type manuscripts that come out of Byzantium.

But is there some type of manuscripts flowing out of Antioch of Syria that we can pinpoint to because that's this whole argument.

Yeah, well, we the the fact the matter is manuscripts do not have Originations stamps on them and so you can theorize Almost any especially of the more major Manuscripts there when you read about their origin and their character.

You'll have theories that this was done in Caesarea. This was done in Alexandria. This was done in Antioch or whatever. But they're all completely theories and You could have You can have four different scholars with six different views on that.

It's it's all excess excessively Subjective when you get to the idea of saying oh, I think this or this this originated in such-and-such a place Gip has no has no Basis of saying these are manuscripts that came from Antioch.

Because manuscripts don't say things like that and and if you get to the point where they do they're they're so modern that they're textually pretty much irrelevant, so there is a But what happens in the King James only movement is you get? facts that are derived from theories that are derived from just something being preached a lot and so Something gets repeated enough times that it just becomes unquestioned and so they have all sorts of theories about Antioch good Alexandria bad and so anything associated with Alexandria even if it's just Theoretical even if there's there's nothing in the manuscript that would indicate this that makes that manuscript bad if it's associated with Antioch.

That's good. Despite the fact that it was Alexandria that defended the deity of Christ and Antioch that gave in on it after the Council of Nicaea, but hey anyways Let's not worry about church history, right?

You know, so, you know Lucian of Antioch and it was had some had some interesting problems and things like that. But none of that none of that actually matters. The the reality is we don't know where manuscripts came from with sufficient accuracy to be able to Make the kinds of claims that he's talking about.

It's just something that that you'll find in movies and that guy that did the Sinaiticus it was a fraud movie. Then he did a he did a video. Yeah, what? Yeah, Chris Pinto. I guess he did a video afterwards that I was in because I went because I Think it was Memphis.

I went to someplace. I went to And did some recording and I I don't think you ever sent me one but I saw some clips of it anyway. They they will present as if it's factual these theories about groups of manuscripts.

And you have the pure manuscripts over here and the corrupted manuscripts are there. When you push and say show me your evidence show me Show me in the manuscript itself how you know these things they've got no answer because it's just it's just the whole group of them.

They're just repeating these things to themselves. So it's cross Citation, but that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't actually accomplish anything. That's why serious scholarship doesn't take that kind of stuff and doesn't even allow it in the room because it It's circular in its argumentation at that point.

So Yeah. There there are no there's there's no reason to believe that manuscripts that are even Traditionally associated with a particular area Are therefore either to be exalted or to be put down or anything else you examine manuscripts on their own basis.

You examine their readings on their own basis and That's that's how actual scholarship works. But King James only ism has never ever been an expression of Christian scholarship. It really hasn't the King James was but I am firmly convinced that every single one every single one of the King James translators were they to be raised from the dead and introduced today To the King James only movement would look at you in absolute utter disdain and go you've got to be kidding me.

This is this is absurdity on and especially if they had to read anything by Peter Ruckman. They would just they would just shoot themselves to get back in the grave. They really would so yeah, yeah, but but Sam Gipp, I mean, I'm sorry.

If if you haven't if if after all these years it even after the anchor bird show. That was enough. But but but if people haven't figured old Sam Gipp out by now. What can I say? But. But I do know that Steven Anderson and Sam Gipp do not like each other at all and That is correct.

So what's interesting is I just discovered. What was it yesterday day before yesterday? All of Steven Anderson's Media outlets have been closed down.

Correct. Yeah gone. From his own YouTube channel, he removed them all especially on all of his videos towards your work that you did on your book.

Okay. Now you said you said you said he removed them all. I.

Don't know who removed him. I shouldn't say that. I'll read back that statement. Okay, they have been removed. I shouldn't say he removed them, but they're no longer on his Right YouTube channel. They've been removed.

So I shouldn't say he did it but they have been removed and a lot of his videos have been removed.

Yeah, my understanding was YouTube shut him down. So Just canceled those those accounts so. You know and I do not I do not rejoice in that. Because they're coming for me. Eventually. It's gonna it's gonna happen.

There's no no question about it so. That's that's not a good thing. But at the same time I'm I'm always wondering. Okay. What was the what pulled the trigger? What what was the the final thing? You know.

Because I don't think he had nearly as many views as many the rest of us did and and yet they they went after him so who knows but. What that does mean is that a few of the videos taking on Sam Gipp have now disappeared from from from?

Yeah, that's why I say anymore you got to grab stuff if you if you ever want to see it twice. You might want to might want to be grabbing it. So yeah, but anyways, all right, Anthony appreciate the phone call.

I really appreciate it. Thank you, and I appreciate all your work that you do on textual criticism. Thank you.

Okay, thanks a lot. All right. God bless. You're welcome. Bye. Bye. All right. Now I don't have any Names or anything else on three of two of the three. So, oh, oh. Okay. All right. So we have lines open.

We've got one down to get to. But we have lines open at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. I forgot to tweet this. I forgot Let me let me do this lines are open on the DL for you right now eight seven seven seven five three dash two three four one there.

There we go. I I neglected it the time sort of sneak up snuck up on us and. So we didn't really get it out there as much as as we a lot of people just might not even know we're on right now Because I've only put it on on On Twitter, so there's a couple so, okay.

Let's let's go to the one that we do have right now. Let's talk with Matt in Indiana. Hi, Matt.

Hi, Dr. White. How you doing doing good?

Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yeah, lately, you know what you're not right. You're not wearing a mask or anything. Are you? No, okay. Good. Good. Yeah, I'm.

Right. I recently had to deal with Roman Catholic apologists and my questions on the topic of the justification Of Abraham. It's not specifically on whether you know, it was it was by faith alone of our works.

I know they appeal the passages and like Romans 2 verses 6 to 7 to try and offend justification like plus works but my question is on you know, the number of times Abraham was justified and the Roman Catholic apologist that I have engaging with I.

Not very popular. You probably haven't heard of him. But he basically appealed to Hebrews 11 verse 8 in order to support the idea that Abraham was justified or had faith in Genesis 12 and that Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 are just like other times he was justified to try to support the Roman Catholic beyond the issue.

So I wanted to like what are your thoughts on like Hebrews 11 verse 8 that you know, yeah.

Yeah extensive section on this argument in the God who justifies for those who have my book on the doctrine of justification it is a common form of argumentation and it is to me anyways indicative of Where Roman Catholicism is in that it is arguing against Paul's own point in Romans chapter 4.

First of all a couple things to keep in mind on the on just simply the factual level. Yes Hebrews talks about Abra Abraham is a man of actually Abram at that point as a man of faith but what's interesting is the you the first use of the word faith in Genesis is not in chapter 12.

It's in chapter 15 and Genesis 15 6 Abram believed God and it was reckoned him as righteousness is. The second most often quoted text from the Old Testament in the New Testament the most often is Psalm 110 1 and so the second most often is Genesis 15 6.

So let me just let make sure people understand what the argument is in Roman Catholicism. You can be justified multiple times. Justification is a State that is actually dependent upon now. This is an old this is in older more Orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine going back to the Council of Trent.

It's important I think to note that I don't think that the current Pope Would hold any of these views just don't I don't think that he would I doubt that he would find this to be a useful conversation His I Think he's a universalist and so all this stuff wouldn't be overly relevant, but More Orthodox historical Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic apologists and like the people you're dealing with Will make the argument that Abram was justified Minimally three times because in Roman Catholicism you can be justified then lose Your status of justification through the commission of a mortal sin and then have to be rejustified now how Abraham was able to do this without a priesthood without sacraments without any of these things and without it ever being mentioned in Scripture is a difficult thing to begin to comprehend and the idea of Abram regularly committing mortal sins Is likewise something that you would think might be mentioned somewhere in the narrative speaking of him I would just simply suggest to you.

The Apostle Paul has no concept of venial mortal sin distinctions Destructions the state of grace by mortal sin any of that stuff that is plainly post apostolic Development, it's not apostolic. It doesn't come from the Apostles.

It doesn't come from the New Testament. So the argument though is that initially in Genesis 12 when Abram obeys and leaves or the Chaldees that this has to be an act of faith and therefore it has to have been justifying faith and So he's justified in Genesis 12, even though Paul never says that.

Then he's justified again. So something happens Between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 to where he loses the state of justification. He's committed a mortal sin. He is then Rejustified in Genesis 15. Now, here's one of the biggest problems.

Wait a minute Genesis 15 and then is Justified again in Genesis chapter 22 in the offering of Isaac on the altar and so three different Situations where that's based on James 2 by the way. Three different places where where Abram is justified.

So here's here's The problem with with all of that as I said Faith is only used one. So the first time is used in Genesis chapter 15 verse 6. Secondly, if you look at what happens in Genesis 15 a covenant is made remember the cutting of the animals the torch passing through everything that takes that takes place there a Promise is given in Genesis 12.

There's no question about that. But the idea of faith in response to a covenantal promise is picked up by the Apostle Paul and made the point of Abram's justification in Romans chapters 3 4 specifically chapter 4 so if Abram is justified multiple times before and after circumcision.

This becomes an argument against Paul's own position in Romans chapter 4, let me show you why we recognize the centrality of This to His argument in chapter 4 it says what then shall we say that Abram our father according the flesh is found.

For if Abraham was justified by works. He has something to boast about but not before God. For what does the scripture say Abraham believed God and it was cred to him as righteous that's Genesis 15 6.

Now if he had been justified before why doesn't he quote from Genesis 12 if he's justified later? Why doesn't he quote in Genesis chapter 22? These are our relevant questions because Paul is engaged in an argument here and he's engaged in an argument against Judaizers.

This is the foundation of how Paul is going to be defending his gospel and he's been defending his gospel against Judaizers for quite some time. So they know the Old Testament text just as well probably better than most of us today do.

So if he's if he's focusing on Genesis 15 6 It needs to be defensible. For what does the scripture say Abram believed God has credit him as righteousness now the one who works his wage is not credit as a Favor but as what is due but the one who does not work believes in him who justifies the ungodly.

His faith is credited as righteousness. And so it's a 108 degree contrast. You have the person who works and the person not working. The person who works his wage is not Considered to be a gift or grace, but but it's a debt what is owed to him.

But to the one not working, but instead believing connected directly back to Genesis 15 6 His faith is credited as Righteousness. So here's where righteousness is coming from. It's from a faith That is in God.

That is not seeking to get something from God to fulfill some kind of conditions. It is a it's the empty hand of faith the only the empty hand of faith that can grasp the hand of grace. Then he says just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man To whom God credits righteousness apart from works.

Now it's fascinating that that here Paul says here's the blessing on the man To whom God credits righteousness, so this is an imputation. It's the term like it's a tie. Legitimae is the Greek term for imputation.

Here's where imputation of righteousness. This is something Rome denies. But here it is directly in the text God reckons imputes righteousness cordis ergon apart from works without the addition of or the Medium of works and then what's interesting is when he quotes from the Psalms Psalm 32 what you find in the Psalm is the negative of what Paul says, so in other words, it's Paul says this is God crediting righteousness apart from works.

But here are the words blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. So notice it is non imputation of sin in Romans 4 7 8 that Paul sees as being the necessary Scriptural foundation of the positive crediting of righteousness that's found in verse 6 interesting apostolic interpretation and again We might the the Jewish person is going to argue against this and if you want to see there are Jewish rabbis on YouTube right.

Now that will argue with this very text and you can go look them up. So he he's gonna have to substantiate what he's just said, but notice what he says Blesses the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.

Now what I would suggest to you. I don't know if you've gotten to this Matt. But if you're talking with Roman Catholic apologists, I have asked them many many times Who is the blessed man of Romans 4 8?

Who is the blessed man and a Roman Catholic cannot answer that question meaningfully. When I asked dr. Peter Stravinsky's a man with two PhDs from Ivy League schools a Roman Catholic priest actually, it's a Byzantine Right priest but same thing a Roman Catholic priest.

When I asked him who is the blessed man of Romans 4 8? His initial response was Jesus. So Jesus is blessed because the Lord will not count Jesus's sin against him. Yeah, I don't think so. So I gave him the opportunity of rethinking that and so the second answer he came up with was well I hope to be that man.