Bryan Cross

Opening Banter and Upcoming Boston Video Session

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on Whatever day it is Thursday.

Yes No Thursday program next week. I will be flying to Boston for the no compromise video session which I'm Certain will prove to be Very very interesting. I don't know what it's gonna be like to be very honest with you I'm not really sure what we're gonna be saying but when you get Mike Abendroth and Phil Johnson and Carl Truman and myself in one place with video camera rolling I Can guarantee you it won't be boring I don't know.

It might be I suppose anything can happen, but I don't think Mike would allow that to happen. So we're gonna be shooting the emergency room video There in somewhere in Boston. I'm not sure why I guess you go to Boston and it's like I don't know.

It's just like really liberal there, you know. But I Guess we're gonna be shooting it in a church and a studio and a graveyard. I don't know what Mike's doing but I'm gonna show up and Hopefully have something meaningful to add and just sort of sit back and listen to the smart guys talk.

Maybe we'll see how it works. Anyways, that's what we're doing next week so I think what would be best would be to go for a mega DL on Tuesday and That way we still get two hours worth in and there won't be quite as much complaining as there normally would be.

Though there probably will be anyways. Because I'm I'm not around to do the the program on the program today a jumbo edition and I've got some emails and I've got some other stuff that has come up on the web and Maybe get back to Adnan Rashid.

We'll see but I wanted to get to some emails a lot of discussion on Roman Catholicism Today if that is your topic. That's where we're going to be starting anyway, I got an email yesterday and I will confess that at first I didn't understand it and so I'm gonna read that and then there's a expansion and explanation of it and going to try to respond to it as best I can and then a There is a two-pronged discussion going on.

Scripture, Authority, and the Roman Catholic Claim

This morning, I saw an article by Brian cross at called to confusion and It illustrates yet once again the fact that when you swim the Tiber Odd things happen. There must be something in the water that must be what it is.

You might get some water in the ears or something because when I crossed the Tiber I mean when I walked across the bridge anyways. Back in when was I in Italy? What year was that? 2000. Was that oh five or oh six, sir I don't remember what it was, but I was it was oh five it was to 2005 and I walked over the Milvian Bridge and I noticed the Tiber River is not the prettiest river on the planet.

It it it's sort of green. It's not it's not real pretty. So there's something in the water evidently because once you get over there If you swim the river, I just walked over the bridge and walked back the other way.

If you swim the river you end up forgetting what you actually once believed if you actually once believed it and So we'll have an example of that to look at as well. And then we've got some some Ramblings from Bart Ehrman.

I can't give you all the ramblings of Bart Ehrman because I refused to buy it. I Refused to buy a membership just to read his blog. I've got all his books. I don't I don't need to buy a membership to read all to read his blog.

But that's that's what he wants you to do. So well, he's commented on the fragment of Mark thing. And so we'll comment on that as well. So we got 90 minutes. We should be able to get through all that.

Okay to the email. I Won't mention mention names here, but I've indicated this Gentleman that I will be responding so he knows who it is. I'm trying to decide if I should remain Protestant Baptist or join the Catholic Church.

I've listened to several your debates who would like for you to clear up a few statements for me and your debate was staples. You stated that everyone must choose their ultimate authority. You claimed that what sets your choice apart from Rome is that Jesus said scriptures are God breathed.

My first question is how do you know that Jesus said that? What if that statement itself is not true. It seems to me to be circular logic to be precise. One scripture is in errands and infallible because it is God breathed.

Number two. We know this because Jesus says so in a scripture that is in the Bible. Three because the Bible has no mistakes. This must be true for the Bible has no mistakes as Jesus said so in the Bible as if I had ever heard you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not supposed to comment yet anyways. It's interesting. However, I must admit to Hear Back what people think you actually said it is it is a fascinating thing. But we will be correcting the major confusions here in a moment considering all of the alleged errors in the Bible supposedly over 1 ,000.

I'm not sure we got that. How can we as Protestants justify the claim there are too many problems with Rome's doctrine or papacy to accept while at the same time? Accepting and admittedly difficult to accept Bible.

Are we not assuming the printers instruction manual is correct? I would be extremely thankful for thoughtful responses. I know much is riding on my and my family's decision. I was left really confused By this because how does converting to Roman Catholicism have anything to do with these questions?

I? mean, there's so many category errors and so much. Complete disconnection between the points being made that I'm like, okay. And so if you join Rome the Bible becomes inerrant. I mean Rome claims it depends on which Roman Catholic you're talking to.

I mean, you've got your liberal Roman Catholics don't believe in the inerrancy of scripture and you've got your conservative Roman Catholics that do and and No one really knows and Rome can't really tell you one way or the other and and so how does becoming a Roman Catholic?

Solve any of this. And so I wrote back and I and I basically said How I don't understand. Could you? Explain to me. What what you mean by this I said in fact I said I am very confused your questions would be common ones if you were playing on leaving the Christian faith becoming agnostic or an Atheist, but they make no sense if you're considering become a Roman Catholic.

I mean, how would following Rome be relevant to alleged errors in the Bible for let's say there are errors in Bible. How would that be relevant at all to the fact that Rome's papacy developed over time?

It was based upon consistent use of forged documents such as the donation of Constantine. The studio is adoring the creedals. I fail to see any consistent logic in your thought in the formation of these questions.

Likewise you ask how I know Jesus said something it wasn't Jesus. It was Paul by the way, it said that Rome says he said the same words. So how would becoming a follower of Rome change anything? Could you shed some light on why you think Rome has answers to the very questions?

You're asking me and how are they relevant to a conversion Roman Catholicism rather than simply an abandonment of faith? And so he wrote back and he said. He said I'm afraid of my attempt to keep the email brief we lost some clarity.

Allow me to illuminate my questions. So that I can look forward to a world-class scholarly response on the dividing line. Yeah, I'm sort of wondering about that too. I'm I just looked out through the window and rich is going.

Okay, I'm not so certain about the I love the the Armenian style Reply that you know, the the eternal lives of my entire family rests on the shoulders of your answer. I I do get the very distinct feeling that this decision has already been made and I do get the distinct feeling that this is so that someone can say oh and I even asked somebody but it's already Exposed facto.

Sola Scriptura, Sola Ecclesia, and the Nature of Authority

I do think I get those I get that feeling but I'm gonna do my best anyways and Leave the results to Lord. I'm attempting to hold you to the standards that you set for yourself and mr Staples during the soul scriptura debate you made the assertion if an argument can be used against both sides is not a valid argument.

I agree. However, it seems to me that your main problem with soul scriptura sola ecclesia. Was that and I I just stopped right there and say are you admitting that Rome actually teaches sola ecclesia?

I mean, it's pretty obvious that it does but I'm just sort of wondering if if you are admitting that number one It was not explicitly stated in the Bible. So evidently one of my arguments was that sola ecclesia is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

I Never remember making that statement. I Clearly stated that it's not taught in the Bible. And in fact, it's taught against in the Bible. But I didn't say sola ecclesia is wrong because the phrase doesn't appear in the Bible because I don't claim that it does in fact sola ecclesia is a phrase that I and others have used as the counterpoint to Rome's Use of sola scriptura and attacking sola scriptura there's got to be both positions have to put on the table and they have to be examined and Rome Roman Catholic apologists don't like to defend Rome's authority claims.

They just like to attack sola scriptura. And So that's why I mentioned that and to that there were many problems with Catholic authority. Namely the bodily assumption of Mary in the papacy. Now, here's where this fellow has major category problems.

Because he seems to be putting the assertion of alleged contradictions in the Bible on the same level. Now in in one sense, I'm glad that he's actually recognizing Rome's real claim is not what Rome says it is.

Because if the if any of these objections are actually meaningful, he's he's he's accepting sola ecclesia. Yeah, Rome's the final authority. Don't don't worry about this tradition stuff. Don't worry about this Three-legged stool thing, you know magisterium.

No, no Rome's the final authority and I'm functioning on that on that level I that seems to be at least he's admitting that. That that's the case. There would be a lot of Roman Catholics. I'm not sure would be happy that he's admitting that but anyway but secondly We're talking about a an authority here that claims infallibility on The part of a living voice now this living voice.

Then claims to have infallible authority to interpret that which is God breathed which is the scriptures and I pointed out that the claims that the system makes for itself are invalid claims. That for example the bodily assumption Mary is not an apostolic teaching.

Yet my opponent would say that it is but he can't prove that. And I pointed out that the papacy developed over time and that it is the fundamental authority that Underlies all of the claims that Roman Catholicism makes in all other areas.

Now it sounds like what he's saying is well if there are contradictions in the Bible, how is that not a con? Problem is he didn't bother to provide any contradictions in the Bible. I've had lots of atheists try to do that and Mormons try to do that and Muslims try to do that.

That's what was so strange. Remember the debate I did with the Roman Catholic on the Apocrypha and he wouldn't even respond to my pointing out errors in Apocryphal books because well that's questioning inerrancy and so I'm just knocking me answer the question.

So you actually have Roman Catholics that won't even respond To allegations of contradictions in the Bible, but they claim that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible. But there are other Roman Catholics do and if Rome actually has an answer to this. How come there's so much confusion about it.

I mean, why are there Roman Catholics who believe in inerrancy and Roman Catholics don't. I would think that would be a subject that the infallible magisterium would be able to speak with some level of clarity to but it has not and So I'm sort of wondering if this fellow becomes Roman Catholic.

Whose interpretation of Magisterial documents are you going to accept or you could come up with your own? Because now you're not just gonna have to interpret the Bible now. You have to interpret all the stuff that Rome is produced that's why I finished my debate with Mitch Pacwa and I bought out all these books the documents of Vatican 2 and the and the Compendium of documents referred to in Vatican 2 and the Kansas decrees the Council of Trent and and all this stuff.

And I said this clarifies what Romans 5 1 actually says really. Does this clarify or does it confuse? Well, obviously it confuses. So I Didn't say that. My main problem is my main problem is sola ecclesia is That it is historically unfounded and it is not rooted in that which is the honest us that which is God breathed All right.

So he says my problem with the argumentation is that the same issues are found when considering solo scriptura. Well, no, they're not because I don't have an extra biblical authority. I'm attempting to add to that which is the honest us.

But I go on one it is not explicitly found in Scripture. Well, I didn't say that my problem was a solo Ecclesia wasn't explicitly found scripture. I Substantiated and demonstrated in that debate and my debates of geriatrics and other people on the same subject that solo scriptura is in fact taught in Scripture and I don't see any refutation of that in these emails that are Sam and Secondly, there are many problem passages with the actual biblical text.

Okay, name them. Let's talk about them. That's what I've done when I've debated atheists and people like that. But I'm not just going to accept your assertion I know I mean I was debating Dennis McKinsey back in the 1980s for crying out loud and There there you go.

They people love this route. Well, there's all these people that say there are errors in the Bible. Well, I know there are. Let's get specific. Let's let's look at them. But I'm not gonna I'm not gonna just go.

Okay. Well since lots of people say so and it must be true Without having provided I can't really respond to almost any of this because well, give me some examples how can we as Protestants scoff at things like the bodily assumption of Mary and Problem Popes and all the while wear rose-colored glasses to what many scholars find an acceptable Bible.

Well, that's just that's just bogus. This is not true. We don't we write look I Remember when I was doing the the series of debates on Long Island's Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics would come to my debates with others because they recognize that I would do what Roman Catholics would not do.

I would actually defend the Bible against atheists and Muslims and people like that. Their people wouldn't do that. So I'm not wearing any rose-colored glasses. It's the evangelicals. It's the Reformed folks that produce entire books Dealing with alleged biblical problems.

It's not Rome that does that Rome in its in its primary biblical scholarship that is Associated with the current Pope has given up on all that stuff. So I so if you've got a problem here going to Rome's last thing you want to do that.

That's just what doesn't make any sense in any of this is Going to Rome when Rome is considerably less conservative on these issues in its official pronouncements. Then we are. But we ain't wearing any rose-colored glasses.

You look you look sir since I know he's listening or will listen the podcast anyways you look at the the Sermons how many hours worth of Jamie used to know how many hours worth of sermons on Hebrews I've done so far 45 hours or something along those lines.

So far, what's that? More than 45, okay. And coming up in a couple weeks could be adding to that you look at the just the sermon series I've done on Hebrews some of the toughest biblical difficulties That I've ever found are found Hebrews.

Have I ducked them. Have I dodged them. Have I worn? Rose-colored glasses. So as to avoid them. No but. How come I've gotten exactly one person? To attempt to defend the bodily assumption of Mary, and I don't think that debate was even close I will allow anybody to listen to the debate.

I did Roberts and Jenison bodily assumption of Mary and it. No one else will do it. Staples won't do it. Staples won't even admit that we debated purgatory. That's just that's just sort of like the pseudo-Isidore decretals.

It's just well. We won't worry about the fact that that's actually bogus. Um so We do not have. And by the way, it's not scoffing at the bodily assumption of Mary. To document that no one in the first 500 years of the history of the church had any clue.

That that was an alleged dogma from God. That's not scoffing. That's demonstrating historically that what Rome has said in Rome's own claims and defining these dogmas is a lie. It's just a lie. I mean we're talking history here.

We're talking documentary history here um so. There is no is no comparison at all all the Catholics. You have debated I continue on thus far have all accepted your view of scripture. Well. That's interesting in the sense that Roman Catholic apologists do tend to be conservatives because when you're a liberal Roman Catholic you don't do apologetics.

I found that I mean who are the liberal Protestant apologists there aren't any. Because they don't have anything to defend if God has not spoken. It's all just a matter of opinion anyways so. Why why even worry about it?

So yeah, they've pretty much operated on a high view of scripture. I'm not sure that Mitch Pack was a Jesuit. Well. You know he might he might he's but if he does He's one of like four Jesuits that would hold that high a view of scripture and all the rest of them would not and he'd Be the first one to admit that to you you really would be.

That's why I like Mitch, but anyways All the Catholics who debated thus far have all accepted your view of scripture. However you made the statement that you could find Catholic scholars That could fill this place up that would not agree at the Bible is indeed errant inerrant.

Yep. Just go up to Boston College or any number of Roman Catholic institutions in the United States and elsewhere and you will find every kind of wild teaching in regards to the Bible and Rome for some reason fails to fail to discipline these people.

Strange isn't it for the infallible Church? This makes things more difficult. All that you offered up was a type of circular logic explained in the previous email. I'm sorry. We haven't seen any circular logic yet.

Because we have seen category errors on the part of my correspondent here. We have seen no circular logic whatsoever. There are many Protestants and Catholics that do not hold to an inerrant biblical text for example CS Lewis.

Just love when people throw Lewis around for as if that's somehow relevant to me. So I do not see that it follows necessarily these issues are only for those considering atheism. Well again sir, you wrote to me and your objections are the objections of atheists and yet your Contemplated conversion is to Roman Catholicism a system that cannot answer any of your objections.

That's why it was Confusing and remains confusing. What's what are you gonna get by going to Rome? What what do you accomplish? It doesn't it doesn't follow finally why Roman not atheism to be perfectly honest.

There is absolutely no argument that could convince me that my relationship with Christ is all in my head. Well, what is your relationship with Christ sir? What do you is this is this a subjective feeling and so you've got a subjective feeling of a Christ presence.

But You know like I said, I get the strong feeling that I'm already talking to someone who's on the other side of the Tiber but for others who might be in the same position I Will never understand how anyone who has found peace in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them a finished sacrifice never to be repeated or Represented that perfects those for whom it is made a Righteousness that knows no addition and no imperfection.

I Will never understand how someone Who has made that confession? can then look at the never-ending treadmill of Roman Catholicism and its sacraments and its imperfect sacrifice and its priests and its penances and its purgatory and See something in that That could even begin to be compared to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'll never understand it. I'll never understand When I have people say to me, well, you know It's a sort of looks to me like what you find the Gospels is a little bit more like Rome than what you find in Rome in reformed theology.

I go really you can look at the Gospels and find priests who call themselves altered Christus. You can find purgatory in the Gospels. You can find the mass and Transubstantiation and satis passio in the Gospels that looks more to you Than what you have in reformed theology in Romans 4 and the Blessed Man.

Really? I Don't get it. Don't Get it. Don't understand it. It's not possible major disconnection. That truly makes me wonder about Paul's words When he said if we don't love the truth then God might cause us to love a lie.

No more than anyone could show me that my wife and children are simply imaginary. I must admit however that I am greatly troubled by the failure of sola scriptura and application. Well, we haven't seen a failure of sola scriptura and application, sir.

Could you could you explain what that is? I See a a massive wide variety of expressions within Roman Catholicism where you have a denial of sola scriptura and Religions that deny sola scriptura present a massively wide viewpoint on the Bible, but those who actually confess understand confess and Seek to practice sola scriptura.

Wow there is not nearly the range of theological expression amongst those folks. Not nearly the range. That's what so that's what's so desperately dishonest about Roman Catholic apologetics when they talk about 30 ,000 nominations, that's a lie.

We all know it's a lie. We've documented to be a lie so many times that every time you hear by saying it just go up that person is lying. There's there's a lie there. Because they include Gnostics and Mormons and people who's Explicitly reject sola scriptura, but if you actually get down to the people who actually Confess it and try to practice it you will find significantly more unity about what they say.

Then amongst those who take the Bible and say ah, you need an external authority. We deny sola scriptura. So I Guess you would have to admit then That you would be more greatly troubled by the failure of sola ecclesia in application, which would mean you can't go to Rome, right?

I mean if you're gonna be consistent If you're gonna be consistent, how do I please God and Who do I go to to teach me? My life dream is to be a Christian apologist really. So do I learn from John MacArthur or Kenneth Copeland?

Okay, right there. I just throw my hands up and go really hard to take this seriously really hard to take this seriously. Because if you practice sola scriptura, you really have a question there. I Don't I don't think any rational person could but if you do something else is going on there big time I think your friends down under would say he's he'd be dreaming.

He'd be he's dreaming. Did he even. That's right, it's a nice little thought that'll keep the the Australians are now going hey, hey. They're all very happy about that. He beat the demon. So to learn from John MacArthur or Kenneth Copeland William Lane Craig or James White well One of the two of us will state the other person's position accurately and take it to the Bible and one of us will not even mention the other one or Talk about the other one or debate the other one or anything else.

Martin Luther or John Calvin. Well John Calvin, obviously. Should I speak in tongues must I be baptized for salvation. Should I have my two-month-old son baptized or not? So in other words because I can have all these questions and people disagree then the Bible's not enough.

So I'm gonna turn my brain off and go to Rome. Even though Rome can't answer any of these questions for me either other than just simply saying follow me. Sir there are all sorts of people out there. Who if you are willing to hand your brain over to them will tell you what to believe.

There's folks in Salt Lake and there's folks in Brooklyn and there's there's folks everywhere. That's not an argument against God having spoken. Is there an underlying? Concept here if he is serious if this is serious.

That he's looking for something like what my wife described when she was raised in Rome that when she asked those difficult questions She was told to be quiet and do what she was told. I don't know I mean, is that what he's looking for?

I can't have these you can't answer these questions. So I need somebody to just tell me what to do. Well, there's. No, it's more. The issue is more well because there are disagreements see I've mentioned this many many times.

But you know not everybody listens way back machine, you know, and and this hasn't been the big focus for a while. So, let me let me point it out again. Rome gets unstable and untaught people and some of these questions.

Evidence instability and a lack of solid grounding on the part of my correspondent. They get them. They they snatch them away. They grab disciples under themselves. By getting them to accept certain presuppositions and assumptions that are bogus and false one of them is that we are all Supposed to just be able to sit down and There's we all should just say the exact same thing and think the exact same thing.

Oh, well Paul says Yeah, he had to exhort Christians had to exhort them. Why do you have to exhort them? Well. Because sometimes Christians Don't hear and sometimes Christians have traditions and there's all sorts of well Trout at all.

There's all this stuff in the New Testament about churches having difficulties. Hmm. You see it's based upon the assumption That there is supposed to be this this lockstep mentality where you just sort of go to the you go to the.

Well, you go to the magisterium. And the magisterium will just tell you exactly why you're supposed to what you're supposed to say what you're supposed to do. The problem is Not even Rome offers that I mean aside from all the differences how many Biblical texts can you go to and get an infallible interpretation from Rome?

There are some Roman Catholics to say none. Some will say seven verses. Congratulations 2 ,000 years seven verses at this rate. It's gonna take about what 25 ,000 years to get through the New Testament so What do you what the assumption is?

That when Paul met with the Ephesian elders and he says you're not gonna see my face anymore and they're weeping and These are men he has invested three years of his life in. He spent more time helping this church to become established which by the way did not have a Roman Catholic form of church government.

But anyways, he's established his church. He's met with the elders plural and He's never gonna see him again. So what does he say to him? Make sure to follow the successors of Peter. Is that what he says to him?

No he warns them the tough kind of times are coming and There are gonna be people that are gonna rise from their own midst. They're gonna draw people away. This is Acts chapter 20. Difficult times coming.

So just follow Rome that's what he says, right? No. He commits them to God and to the word of his grace. Oh Come on Paul, that's not enough. Evidently it is if you follow the Apostles. Now if you want to grab hold of well there there needs to be this other standard there needs we need to have more unity.

That worked real well during the Inquisition, I'll never forget when I debated fastidious on those television programs and Just offhandedly. Well, the cameras weren't running but the people in the control studio saw it.

I Pointed out that one of the things he had said was contradicted by these other Roman Catholic scholars and he said well Yeah, there is a whole lot a whole lot wider range of opinion being expressed since we stopped the Inquisition.

Yeah, yeah, you think. Yeah, you think yep. Mm-hmm, but still that didn't even accomplish it did it? No it did not. It seems that it is God's intention that every generation must struggle with ep agonism I Jude they must struggle for The once-for-all delivered the Saints faith.

But you see they never give up faith that it's the once-for-all delivered the Saints faith. They don't need some unbiblical anti-biblical Structure of church government often a city someplace that had no New Testament roots as far as being the head of all Christians To take away from their them their responsibility to struggle and To work through these things and.

Misuse of an Adequate Source Is Not a Failure of Sola Scriptura

Yeah, that means there's gonna be some disagreements. There were during the days of the Apostles anyway. If I accept your reasoning that the misuse of an adequate source Does not explicitly deny that source is adequacy that still leaves me with two feet planted firmly into nothing.

Now for those who don't know what he's referring to I Pointed out that you can misuse an adequate source. You can buy a printer and it can have a this was back in the days when they would still Ship this remember the big huge printer manuals that were normally bound on the spiral thing.

You know now it's on a PDF that you stick it and stick on a disk or download from the net. But I pointed out that there are people who misuse scripture that doesn't mean scripture is wrong. It doesn't mean that scripture isn't is not an infallible source.

It's not sufficient for the church and I point out scripture itself warned us that Untaught and unstable men would distort the scriptures their own destruction. That means that there are taught and stable men who will not.

Okay, that's the background. So he says if I accept your reasoning that the misuse of an adequate source does not explicitly deny the source is adequacy. That still leaves him with two feet planted firmly into nothing.

I am no longer I am no closer to understanding the darn computer manual. Oh, really? I Mean this is this is this is someone who's just already given up. I mean, this is and I've seen it so many times once you once you.

Once anyone no longer believes that God has spoken with clarity then they're right for anything cults Rome Easter out that doesn't matter atheism doesn't matter that they're gonna go someplace and I firmly believe I Firmly believe that it is part of the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration.

To with to implant in the heart of his redeemed. That same thing that G has talked about my sheep hear my voice. This is not a sheep speaking here. That language is not a sheep. This man may be. But he's either been deceived or in the process of being deceived wanted to.

No question about it. The infamous 20 ,000 dominations may not explicitly deny scripture as an infallible source, but probably probability. Probabilistically, it becomes greatly unreasonable think that this is a sufficient soul source.

Why? First of all, the numbers a lie, please accept that look at the documentation. You'll see it's a lie. If you can accept the twenty thirty thousand and you have to accept there's seven hundred fifty four Roman Catholic churches and all the rest that stuff.

It's just a lie. People who repeat it are lying and they know they're lying. Let's let's that's that's not even an argument anymore. Okay, that's leave that over the side. You want unity. Great Rome won't give it to you.

Rome won't give it to you. I mean you can you can go into the honeymoon period and And go into Rome and think all is well, but once you open your eyes. You will see there is no unity there. You will see there is just as wide a variety of viewpoints and you can't just ring up old Benny the 16th on the phone.

Say, how do you interpret this text? You can go to this Roman Catholic and that Roman Catholic and this prelate and that cardinal and this bishop and that that's a member of the pontifical biblical Institute and come up with just as wide a Variety of opinions as you did before and any honest person will have to admit that.

So don't tell me this is why you're converting because it isn't you've got to know this. Hence the great attraction to the Catholic claim of infallible interpreter. No. Wow. Seven verses even admitting that seven verses.

This is this is this is this is how you somehow get around that. Your exegesis of scripture and mistress and Genesis exegesis both seem intelligent and informed really. You couldn't tell the difference in our exegesis when we debated the bodily assumption well, there couldn't be any bodily assumption because it's not the Bible, but in Acts 15, you can't tell a difference there and Bob's in Genesis isn't quoting an infallible interpretation.

Because he doesn't have one. There is no infallible interpretation of the Bible that substantiates what we are arguing about. So why not go with the attractive infallible interpreter because it accomplishes nothing it's a lie.

It's a phantom. It's a mist. Where his Rome infallibly interpreted Romans 5 1 where sir, they haven't. They haven't so why not go with the attractive infallible interpreter because there are problem popes there are problem scriptures.

Why is your choice? Dr. White better off than mr. Staples? That's that's the thinking of someone who's already already on the other side and Already willing to just close the eyes and go. Okay, we're infallible.

But yeah. We've had Pope sort of Contradicted themselves, but but still we're infallible. But yeah, I know we have an infallibly interpreted almost a the Bible at all. But we're still infallible. But I it just makes me feel so good that I can go to an infallible interpreter.

Even if they don't interpret anything infallibly for me, and it just makes you feel good. What did it accomplish. When you go to your bishop and ask him to infallibly interpret a text for you, is he going to do so?

No, he's not gonna do so. He's gonna say well, there are certain Roman Catholics say this and some bishops say that and some scholars say this. Well, what happened to my infallible interpretation? Well, that well, that's that's.

We have an infallible authority to tell you what to believe. But We're not gonna infallibly interpret the Bible for you. It's just so sad To see someone who has become so confused. That you can't see the forest for the trees anymore.

We are infallible in the papacy. Don't worry about the pornography and don't worry about the fact that for hundreds of years. Every person became a bishop of Rome had to anathematize on Aureus. That's that was all back then.

Don't worry about everything is fine now. And yes, I know the entire papacy was built up using Forged documents that we recognize are forged now. But yeah, it just sort of hangs in midair because its foundations have been knocked out.

But just believe it'll make you feel so good. To say I've gotten infallible for I don't have to struggle with anything anymore and If you want to keep your eyes closed To the vast differences and the teachings of of this Roman Catholic theologian and that Roman Catholic you you can.

You can go through life going. Ah, all is well, but there's a reason. There's a reason why it's not Roman Catholic apologists that really challenge the rest of the world today. There's a reason why they were little Roman Catholic ladies sitting down front when I debated Hamza Abdul Malik.

Because they know their folks don't really do real well at that and You might have a honeymoon period where all seems well, but you know, my prayer is The Spirit of God would force your eyes open to see That you've been sold a bill of goods.