Today’s Document from the Vatican on the Covenants and Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot

Well, that's nice to know that I'm on. I'm not on. Oh, there it goes. I don't know. Oh, it froze again. Okay. Well, I had a really exciting opening, folks, but it was stolen from me. Right as we got started by someone else who will not be named of the vast.

We can start over. Vast number of people in the office right now. Anyway, today is December 10th, and we have a new document coming out of the Vatican. Now, it's not from the Pope. It doesn't say we define, declare, and proclaim.

So for some people, doesn't matter. But as I'm looking at it here, my goodness, theology matters. And here we're going to see why theology matters. This thing is a muddled mess. It's a muddled mess. That's because Roman Catholic theology is a muddled mess, especially today.

You may not, and it's not my area of expertise either. I'll be honest with you. I don't spend a whole lot of time in the especially super modern period of church history, but I know beyond all shadow of a doubt, I've seen the incredible impact of historical events on theology in Western Europe in particular.

And what I mean by that is that since World War II and since the Holocaust, there has been a hypersensitivity developed that has created a grossly warped lens through which the subject of Judaism and the subject of the Jews as a whole is viewed within Western theology.

And you remember what happened? Oh, who was the Southern Baptist guy? About a year and a half ago, maybe not even that long ago now, I think. Big Southern Baptist name, name is skipping me at the moment, may have been the guy that talks some about Islam, but he was preaching through Matthew 24 or it was in Matthew.

And there was something strongly said about the Jews and he repeated it and ended up just getting jumped on. People jumped right down his throat because that's anti-Semitic. So if you in many New Testament programs in Europe, you can't even look at certain passages in First and Second Thessalonians because it's just not acceptable.

It's just not acceptable. And the idea that there could have been conflict between the Jews who rejected the Messiah and the Messiah and then the Jews who followed the Messiah conflict between them. You can't talk about that.

That's can't can't go there. And despite what Roman Catholics think, Rome is just as deeply influenced by trends and movements and developments as anybody else. This idea of apostolic deposit of faith and all the rest of that stuff is pure mythology.

And so Rome's understanding of the Jews has changed radically. I wonder why this new document doesn't talk about that. I mean, it would be pretty easy to demonstrate that the Roman church in years past was directly involved in the granting of indulgences on the basis of the persecution of Jews.

Oops, sorry about that. That actually, I saw it come up on Twitter. Kofi was telling me it was Ed Young from Second Baptist Houston. You sure? You sure it was? Anyway, it was Texas. I remember that. If you could quietly get something going down there, I'd appreciate it.

Yeah, it is. Yeah, I didn't expect that. But anyway, anyhow, so I don't know how long ago it was that Bobs and Janice started talking about the weirdness of Rome's views on Judaism. But something tells me that he's probably going to have some comments about this particular document in the not too distant future, and they will be full, I would imagine.

The Vatican Document on Jewish-Christian Relations and the Problem of Fulfillment

This document is called Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11 -29, a reflection on theological questions pertaining to Catholic-Jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, number 4.

It's a fairly lengthy document. The only way to understand the key section that everyone is citing is to note a few things that are said earlier in the document. It's a fairly lengthy document, unfortunately.

This is available at vatican .va if you want to look it up. A number in paragraph or section 17. With its declaration, Nostra Aetate, sorry about that. I threw an extra syllable in there. The church unequivocally professes that within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity, while affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ.

We've talked about inclusivism, so on and so forth. I think a large number of the bishops are universalists. I think Francis is probably universalist or at least inclusivist. The church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel.

Okay, what do you mean by that? Well, that's going to become fairly clear. Section 18. There have often been attempts to... I immediately, when I read the later sections, they basically say, you know, the old covenant with the Jews is still valid.

It's not like there's two covenants, but it's still valid. And hence a lot of people are reading this as, you know, we don't need to convert the Jews. We don't need to be calling them to faith in Christ.

They have their own way of salvation. You know, the thought crosses your mind, what do you do with the book of Hebrews? What do you do with that? And it's painfully obvious that the group of people who wrote this document, released just today, are, as with everything Rome has to do these days, trying desperately to hold together what is, in fact, not a unified movement.

You know, when Rome talks about one church, all the rest of that stuff, all you've got to do is look with a little bit of care at what is being taught by people all across the Roman Catholic spectrum.

And the spectrum of belief being expressed in the name Roman Catholic is just as wise as anything else. And you say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but you've got Rome. Yeah, but if Rome allows you to teach this stuff, it's sort of like saying, well, Daniel Kirk teaches for Fuller.

They didn't give him, they didn't give him tenure. Yeah, but they're still letting him teach. They didn't get rid of him. So they're still accountable for it. You think Rome doesn't know what's being taught at Boston College?

Of course they know what's being taught at Boston College. So have they kicked those people out? No. So there you go. So much for your unity. It's a unity of theory, not a unity of reality. It's amazing.

So anyways, Hebrews, listen to this incredible attempt to sort of get around Hebrews. There have often been attempts to identify this, and in the earlier section, it talked about what it calls the replacement theory.

Remember replacement theology? By the way, I looked up fulfillment. One time it's used in a meaningful fashion in this text, but it's sort of otherwise ignored. There have often been attempts to identify this replacement theory in the epistle to the Hebrews.

This epistle, however, is not directed to the Jews, but rather the Christians of Jewish background who have become weary and uncertain. Why had they become weary and uncertain? Because they were being called back to Judaism.

Yes. Well, I forgot that part. Its purpose is to strengthen their faith and to encourage them to persevere. Why should they persevere? If the other covenant, if the Jewish covenant is a valid covenant and a valid way to God, if they went back, what would it matter?

Because they're both valid ways to God, right? Now, I know not a single pope up until this century or the past 50 years would have ever believed any of this stuff. Never. Obviously. Duh. Well, I guess it's not duh because I need to remind all of our Roman Catholic apologist friends about this.

I'd like to hear what Tim Staples says about this. That would be interesting or Jimmy Akin or whoever. Its purpose is strengthen their faith and encourage them to persevere by pointing to Christ Jesus as the true and ultimate high priest, the mediator of the new covenant.

Question, please, Mr. Person in the funny hat, sir. Caught you there. You weren't expecting that. Ultimate high priest? At the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews, there were other high priests in the Jewish system that you're saying were really high priests.

They were OK. So we had Jesus and we had others because they're both valid. Both covenants, both valid. Same time, maybe for at least a number of decades, like four or so. And the mediator of the new covenant.

So does the old covenant have a mediator? OK, this context is necessary to understand the epistles contrast between the first purely earthly covenant and the second better and new covenant. I'm not sure why it says purely earthly.

I mean, it's their earthly shadows, but it was established by God to point to its fulfillment. And the point being that when it's fulfilled, it passes away, the first covenant is defined as outdated. In decline and doomed to obsolescence, that's right, passing away.

While the second covenant is defined as everlasting to establish the foundation of this contrast, the epistle refers to the promise of a new covenant in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, Jeremiah 31. This demonstrates that the epistle of Hebrews has no intention of proving the promises of the old covenant to be false.

But what were they? They pointed to Jesus, but on the contrary, treats them as valid and fulfilled in the new covenant. The reference to the Old Testament promises is intended to help Christians. To be sure of their salvation in Christ.

Oh, the desperation when you when you're standing on a foundation that is so full of gaping holes, you almost, you almost feel sorry for these guys, but I don't. The reference to the Old Testament promises is intended to help Christians be sure of the salvation in Christ.

The only way that could be true is if what? Christ is the fulfillment of those old covenant promises. Fulfillment, not replacement, fulfillment. At issue in the epistle of the Hebrews is not the contrast of the old and new covenants as we understand them today.

Well, here's one of those big problems, because for the biblical Christian, you want to define these things as the Bible does, not as post-World War II European theology does. Nor a contrast between the church and Judaism, rather the contrast between the eternal heavenly priesthood of Christ.

Now, the catch is, remember who's saying this? Think about this for a second. Rather the contrast between the earthly, I'm sorry, the eternal heavenly priesthood of Christ and the transitory earthly priesthood.

And who has priests today? Who ordains all of her priests, calling them alter Christos, another Christ? That would be wrong. Interesting. The fundamental issue in the epistle of the Hebrews in the new situation is a Christological interpretation of the new covenant.

For exactly this reason, Nostra Aetate, A-ta-te, it's a hard word to say, A-ta-te, did not refer to the epistle of the Hebrews, but rather to St. Paul's reflections in his letter to the Romans, chapters 9 through 11.

That, you're almost left speechless. But this is what happens when you have a Roman system. That is not under the ultimate authority of the scriptures. This is what happens when you reject Sola Scriptura.

When you buy into all the Sola Scriptura leads to anarchy. Here's the anarchy. It's right here. Remember at the end of the debate I did with Mitch Pacwa, I got all those documents out. Now I could make that pile twice as high, and the level of confusion twice as much.

And that's what happens when you reject Sola Scriptura. So, in section 23, the church does not replace the people of God of Israel, since as the community founded on Christ, it represents in him the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel.

Well, there's the word that should be repeated a hundred times in this document. Fulfillment. So, why is it a minor theme that doesn't end up truly impacting the Roman Catholic position? Real simple. You don't have a finished work.

You don't have real fulfillment. Since you, since Rome has taken away that finished work, and you're back to the parceling out of grace in the sacramental system, and the never finished perpetuatory sacrifice of the mass.

Fulfillment is not a real major theme. It can't be. It can't be. Theology matters. Theology matters. This does not mean that Israel, not having achieved such a fulfillment, can no longer be considered to be the people of God.

Although the church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. So, Rome's trying to have its cake and eat it too.

It's trying in this new modern era to get the New Testament to say something that it doesn't say. And it is painful to read these attempts to put these things together and to hold this stuff together.

Section 24. Both faith traditions find their foundation in the one God, the God of the covenant, who reveals himself through his word. In seeking a right attitude towards God, Christians turn to Christ as a fount of new life, and Jews to the teaching of the Torah.

Well, if you're just trying to describe an ecumenical conversation, yeah, but that's not what this is. Are you saying these are both valid? Are you saying that Jesus would have accepted this as valid?

You search the Scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life, and it is they that testify of what? Of the Torah. No, of me. Of me. It's so painfully obvious. But again, the Roman system is not under the authority of Scripture.

Section 25. Judaism and the Christian faith, as seen in the New Testament, are two ways by which God's people can make the sacred Scriptures of Israel their own. Really? As seen in the New Testament? You're saying the New Testament teaches that Judaism as a faith and Christianity as a faith are valid ways of making the sacred Scriptures of Israel their own?

That Paul would have said, oh yeah, guys, hey, I forgot to mention all this stuff I'm telling you about, debating with you about, you know, about the Messiah and stuff like that. That's just one way of looking at it.

As you well know, there's other ways. And no, you guys' way is cool too. That's what Paul did, right? No. Then, we've noted this before. Well, you know, I keep seeing people on Twitter. Cheers to everyone, our official Joybus T.

I keep seeing people on Twitter saying things like, really love the program. We've got some really encouraging notes recently, by the way. Some really, really good ones. And you may go, why don't you read all those?

I am torn about that. I mean, there are some I'd really like to read to you. You know, the fellow, Charlie, that wrote in and raised in Roman Catholicism, often, you know, really detested me. You know, goes to college, off into atheism, and then through many things, but this ministry included, brought to faith in Jesus Christ.

Why don't we do that kind of thing? I think it's because years ago, I listened to certain people on the radio a lot. And I got turned off to the, I've just always, I've never wanted to communicate to folks that, you know, we are the cat's meow.

We're the only ones out there. I mean, there was this one guy that would just constantly hammer away, you don't support this ministry and this stuff's not going to happen and blah, blah, blah. And I just, I think I was damaged by it or something.

And I just, I've just had to trust the Lord will move his people to support us without us having to try to trick you into doing it. Basically, I guess we are the world's worst promoters, marketers and everything else.

There's just absolutely no question about it, but that's, that's the way it is. Yeah. Since you mentioned it, what was it the other day on Twitter? I see you posting a link to the forgotten Trinity on Amazon.

Oh yeah. I was like, excuse me, we have our own store. Yeah, that may be, but I wasn't trying to get somebody to, to buy it. They were, it was a, it was a question about, I just look on the subject. I just had to laugh.

Anyway. How did I, how did I get this? Oh, we've, and I, and I see people on Twitter say, Hey, you know, just love the show. We've been listening for six months for two years. And when I sit here and say, now we've mentioned many times before, I'm talking 98 following, you know, and, and I realize I shouldn't do that.

Because most of you are not algo, you know, algo knows that I've mentioned this many times before Nick in Ukraine knows that I've mentioned this many times before. There are a couple of others of you who have introduced yourselves as the, you know, the German algo or the South African algo or whatever else it might be like that.

But we have a number of times in the past made reference to official Roman Catholic teaching about the universal salvific will of God and what they mean by that is different than what many, a Protestant would mean by that in the sense of we are commanded by God to command all men everywhere to repent, that we are to preach the gospel to all creatures.

We don't know the identity of the elect. And therefore we are to proclaim to all people, if you will repent and believe you'll find Jesus Christ to be a perfect savior. Got that. That's, that's not what Rome is saying any more than it was what John Wesley was saying.

What, what they both are saying, and this is where Arminianism and Roman Catholicism do the, do the tango here together is that there is not a specific, a specific decree of God that includes an elect people of God.

And this comes out in this section that his will for salvation is universally directed as testified by the scriptures. Genesis 12, 1 through 3, Isaiah 2, 2 through 5, and 1 Timothy 2, 4. Now, most of you have heard us address universalistic passages before have heard 1 Timothy 2, 4.

We have even in talking about the movement to have Mary defined as co-mediatrix gone through that very section because that's the sections they use to try to defend their, uh, their position. But you will find that assumption, that errant assumption that there is no redemptive love of God.

There is no, uh, elect of God, et cetera, et cetera. You'll find that all through Roman Catholic documents as Rome promotes various falsehoods as a part of their, their perspective. Therefore, there are not two paths to salvation.

According to the expression, Jews hold the Torah Christians hold to Christ. Christian faith proclaims that Christ's work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. Now, is that universalism or is that more of the Norman Geisler God, Christ makes all men savable.

And then it's up to us whether we participate in that salvation or not. It might be both for the fact that obviously this document was written by a number of people. And in fact, it almost seems to me, this was a committee made up of a lot of people who had a lot of different differences with one another.

And then they cobbled this all together because doesn't flow all that well. Um, but anyway, um, there is the statement the new covenant does not revoke the earlier covenants, but it brings them to fulfillment.

Well, what fulfillment should mean? What does that not mean? Is that not what the writer of the Hebrews is saying is the old was looking forward to types of shadows. Once the reality comes, what happens to the shadow?

It remains just as valid and good. No, of course not. It's exactly what happened in 80, 70, right? Done. Not can't say it anymore. Not, not if you want to hold high positions in certain, certain seminaries, things.

Section 27, the term, check this out. The term covenant therefore means a relationship with God that takes effect in different ways for Jews and Christians. I'd like, I'd like to see you prove that one.

From lexical sources. Let me read that again. The term covenant therefore means a relationship with God that takes effect in different ways for Jews and Christians. The new covenant can never replace the old, but presupposes it and gives it a new dimension of meaning.

No, it fulfills it. The old was pointing to it. It's fulfilled in it by reinforcing the personal nature of God has revealed in the old covenant and establishing it as openness for all who respond faithfully from all the nations.

Oh, wow. Theology matters folks. Theology matters. Um, yes, I, I know brother Moeller is, is using that a lot these days and I think that's a good thing. We just, we all need to be repeating it regularly.

All right. Well, what's the big, I, I've, Oh my goodness. Sorry. Three 30. I'm sorry. Um, let's, let's get to the part that's getting quoted by everybody. Section five, the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God's unrevoked covenant with Israel.

So evidently I think, I wonder if Israel gets to rebuild the temple and do animal sacrifices. I don't see why not. There it is. Section 35, since God has never revoked his covenant with his people, Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God's salvation.

This is, this is where they, they, they just basically have to come on us and say, we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. And it's just a mystery. It's contradiction. Both cannot be two at the same time, but we say they're going to be, here's, here's how, here's how they do it.

The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith.

Yes, it would confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of the Christian faith. Yes, it does. So too does the confession of the one God, the God of Israel who through his revelation, Jesus Christ has become totally manifest as the God of all peoples.

Insofar as in him, the promise has been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to God of Israel, to the God of Israel as the one God, Isaiah 561 through eight. Well, I wouldn't say it that way. I'd say more, but anyway, the document notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic church published by the Holy See's commission for religious relations with the Jews in 1985, therefore maintain that the church and Judaism cannot be represented as two parallel ways to salvation, but that the church must witness to Christ as the redeemer for all.

Now, I thought that was still holding to the old orthodoxy that Judaism was not a valid way of salvation. You know, that, that would have been consistent with the preceding Popes, but Hey, with Rome, you know, as long as you make the current magisterium, the final interpreter of all things, words don't have any words that have any meaning.

It's like our Supreme court. Now you can have a law that says X and they go, well, it was meant to mean not X. And so it's 1984 brave new world and the Vatican all at the same time. Great. The Christian faith confesses that God wants to lead all people to salvation.

Theology matters that Jesus Christ is universal mediator of salvation, not the universal trier of salvation from the Bible's perspective, but the actual accomplisher of, and that there is no other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved X four 12 from the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation.

However, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God's salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel and the son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of St. Paul, who in letter to the Romans, not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the Jews.

Well, it did because that's where the SIA came from. God entrusted Israel with a unique mission and he does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation and he does, and he does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all people's to fulfillment.

There we go. Without drawing into it, his firstborn son, Exodus four, 22 from this, it is self-evident. It's always a buzzword for, I can't explain this. Let's make it look really cool from this. It is self-evident that Paul in the letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people just as decisively.

He asserts that the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Romans 11, 29, that the Jews are participants in God's salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.

We don't know. It is therefore no accident that Paul's satirological reflection to Romans nine through 11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the background of Christ's mystery culminate in a magnificent doxology.

Oh, the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God have inscrutable or his judgments and Alan searchable his ways. Bernard of Clairvaux says that for the Jews, a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated.

So it's both and, and we don't know. And don't ask. I was about to say I have a certain friends in a certain denomination that won't be able to object to that because they love the term mystery too, but I won't go there.

I know you get to answer the phone. Why should I care? You're the pin cushion. Next section. Another focus for Catholics must continue to be the highly complex theological question of how Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ.

Can it be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never revoked covenant of God with Israel? Yeah. You think maybe fulfillment, maybe we are the true circumcision. Maybe we are the people of God made up of Jews and Gentiles.

Yeah. You'd think it is to believe the church, the Christ, the savior for all, there cannot be two ways of salvation. Therefore, since Christ's also the redeemer, the Jews, in addition to the Gentiles here, we confront the mystery of God's work, which is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation the Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united.

When all peoples will call on God with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder. Well, there you go. That's where they're getting. That's where all the news headlines are getting there. Don't convert the Jews right there.

Here we confront the mystery of God's work, which is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the Lord will bring about the hour and we will all be united. We are already united.

That's what the church is. Jews and Gentiles together confessing the one savior, Jesus Christ. So anyway, there's obviously, you know, a lot to that, but theology matters. And here Rome has demonstrated, you know, I, I, I keep running into people who will talk about all sorts of reasons why they went to Rome and always an attack on scripture is in there.

And yet when I start pointing out stuff like this, when I start pointing out, pointing out, so you're telling me that I stack up all these Roman Catholic books and the documents of Vatican two and the compendium of documents from Vatican two.

And now we've got this to, you know, you put all this stuff together and that clarifies Romans five, one that clarifies the statements of scripture. No, it doesn't. It has led to massive confusion. That is a confused muddled.

We all know. And it clearly is theology that has been deeply influenced by history rather than scripture. That's what you get. That's the result of Sola Scriptura right there. All right. So there's the today's document.

We're right on top of it. In fact, we beat Al Mohler to it. That's pretty unusual because he's on five days a week. We're only on, well, whatever days we choose to be on, um, at whatever time to choose to be on.

I'm sorry. Uh, whatever. I can't hear you. We're on two-ish times. Two-ish, three-ish, 11 ish. It all depends. It tends. Um, I was looking at one of the many articles floating around the internet on polling of religious people and their beliefs.

Now we've all heard the polls seriously wondering if the Pope knows who James White is. No, no, no. Um, we've all heard the polls that say, what, what is it still 60, 62 is still up in the 60s. I think 62 of the American population identify as themselves in some way as Christian.

You and I both know that if nearly two thirds of the people living in this nation were actually Christian, this nation would be a completely different nation than it is. You and I both know that the actual number of born again, redeemed, regenerated, living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ Christians in our society is a tiny fraction of that 62 or 67%, whatever the last polls were.

And you and I really sit around and chuckle when these polls come out talking about what Christians believe, you know, 54 of Christians believe this thing that you and I just go, what? And of course they're throwing in the Muslim, the Muslims, the Mormons and the Jehovah's witnesses and oneness Pentecostals.

And you just, we, we, we've come to understand that people taking polls probably are not the most theologically adept of folks on the planet, you know? And hence I anyways, look at polls about religious belief with tremendous skepticism because I am so often misrepresented by those very polls.

And I hate when people say, yeah, but Christians believe this. I don't believe that. Well, that just puts you in the minority. And no, there's all sorts of, there are all sorts of nominal Christians. You know, you got Billy Bob hanging out in Arkansas someplace and, well, he's a Christian cause he's an American.

That's just, just the way it's supposed to be. And so when they ask him about immigration or whatever, you know, I mean, now all Christians are responsible for that. And I go, ah, no, that, that this is no clear thinking person is going to go.

Yeah, that's highly relevant. There's no, you're not going to do that. Well, I think most of you probably would agree with what I was just saying, but the article I'm looking at, isn't about us. It's an article called challenging the tiny minority of extremists myth.

And it goes along with a video I saw from that Ben Shapiro fellow where he was going through basically making the argument that well over half of the world's Muslims are all radicalized. And how did he come up with that?

Well, I did notice that it was based on percentages of Muslims who agreed with a certain set of statements. The most common one was that they believed in Sharia. And if you believe in Sharia, you're radicalized.

This past Sunday, I was speaking in a church, St. Charles, Missouri. And I said to the congregation, I said, how many of you in this room believe that someday every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God, the father.

How many of you believe that? Everybody puts their hand up. I didn't count, but I assume everybody did. And I stopped and said, you're all a bunch of radicals. You're all radicalized. I mean, if you really believe that, there'll be a day when religious freedom ends by divine fiat and force, divine fiat and force, not military fiat and force.

That's one of the most important differences. We're all radicals. And from the perspective of many people writing today, they recognize that as long as you have monotheistic religions, everybody in them that takes that religion seriously is radicalized.

If that religion includes within it, the final situation where God wraps everything up and makes everything right, that's considered radical. That's considered radical. Now, when you say, well, 70 of the Muslims in nation X believe in Sharia, and that makes 70 of them radicalized.

Did you ask them what they meant by Sharia? Let me put the shoe on the other foot again. I know so many people do not like the fact that I'm putting the shoe on the other foot, but you know, I saw that one guy, something was posted today from one of those secret places on the internet, as if there are such secret places.

And this guy says, I'm now sailing in dangerous waters. Actually, I'm just being as consistent as I've ever been. I haven't changed a licking. Let me put the shoe on the other foot. How many of us believe that God's law is good and just and righteous?

Be careful. Be careful. What does Paul say in Romans 3? Do we do away with the law or do we establish the law? And is Paul's statement that the law is a bad thing or that it's a good thing as long as it's understood properly?

See, you can't say that God's law is a bad thing. No Christian could ever say that who has a, an inkling of understanding the New Testament, which might say something right there, but we believe God's law is a good thing.

But do all Christians have the same understanding of God's law? No. Don't. So why would you say, ah, but X percentage of Muslims believe in Sharia. Do you know what Sharia is? Do you know how many different interpretations there are of it?

I mean, you know, the Taliban has got its interpretation. It's different than what you've got in Saudi Arabia. They're both barbaric and frightening, but they're not identical. There are all sorts of different interpretations of Sharia.

I mean, just like we have all sorts of different interpretations. You think that maybe the guys taking the poll, you think they're experts in Sharia? And who are these Muslims that they're asking these questions of?

How many of them are nominal? How many of them are truly religious, representational of the worshiping community there or just nominal because that's what you are in this country. And then there was something else aside from the fact that, again, we would ask all these questions.

If we're the ones being attacked, we would be asking all these questions about, well, how was the question phrased and who was being asked and who do you consider to be a Christian? And how did you how did you filter out the nominal people and how did you filter out the people just decide that would be fun to answer some questions for you who really don't have a clue what the world they're talking about?