Yes, Women Can Think, and the Dishonesty of Bishop Jaxi

I guess I get to do that. OK, I thought somebody else was doing that. Anyways, greetings, welcome to the dividing line.

Oh, it's this AFV thing. Oh, OK, all right. Stop playing around with stuff.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You've said that for years. But right now, you want to keep fixing unbroken stuff.

Anyway, so we're coming to you live from Las Cruces, New Mexico.

And there is the view out of the back of the window

I'm looking out of. This is camera two. And I very specifically requested one of these back -in sites.

Now, I'm pretty long when I'm hooked up, about 57 feet,

I think. So back -in stuff isn't as fun as a pull -through site.

They do have pull -through sites. The one I was at last time, I can see it right there, over there.

Anyway, but I chose the back -in site because I knew we had this unit.

And we were going to be probably doing a program from back here. And so I could turn that camera.

And you could see beautiful Las Cruces, New Mexico. The KOA is sort of up on the hillside.

The hill is actually much higher than this. I'd say the KOA is 2 thirds the way down the hill.

But you still have a beautiful view from over here. And I remember last time

I was here, last year sometime, I walked over. There's a place you can walk between the units over there.

And I took pictures of the sunrise because the sunrise is right over those mountains. And it's just a beautiful spot.

It's honestly one of the prettiest KOAs that have been. It's not a big

KOA. It's pretty small. They don't have any room for expansion at all. So it does fill up pretty fast.

There are a couple of spots open, actually, still here. But yeah, it's a nice place, nice folks, good location right off the 40.

Though you don't hear the 40 quite so much here as you do at others.

It is a little bit off of the freeway. So it's a little quieter. You don't necessarily hear the siren song of the

KOA, which is always the sound of semi -truck tires at 3 AM. That's what it looks like.

But that's the view from looking out my back window. And I think it's pretty cool.

And there are probably a lot of the rest of you who go, would you just get back to what you're supposed to be doing? But hey, I'm on the road.

And I'll be speaking here tomorrow evening. And then I could get home from here if I wanted to do a really long day's drive.

Today was a long day's drive. But I'm stopping one place before I get home.

And one of my favorite places. The only bummer is it's Wednesday. There's a little cafe at the

KOA in Wilcox, Arizona. They have wonderful cheeseburgers. They really do. They do a great job.

The Roadrunner Cafe. Hey, you can just stop and park there and eat. I recommend it to you.

But Wednesday is my fasting day. So I had to actually ask myself, which is more important?

That fasting day each week or a cheeseburger at the

Roadrunner Cafe? And I'm going to be disciplined. And we're going to skip the cheeseburger at the

Roadrunner Cafe. So won't get to have that. But things can change.

Sometimes I'll wake up in the morning and I'm not feeling well. It's not going to be a good day to fast. So that could change.

But I'm hoping that that will not change. So anyways, all right. So here we are.

And I want to get through this fairly quickly. I don't enjoy having exchanges with Joel Webben on social media.

And if I hadn't spoken to one of his conferences, and if we hadn't had all the stuff with the

Tobias situation, and boy, has the light been shown on that now?

Oh my goodness. Yeah. Joel's so far beyond where his church member was at that time, it's not even funny now.

It makes the whole thing a total joke. But anyway, we had the thing back at Christmas, Silence Jew, remember?

Where, as he put it, a woman who constantly promotes

Zionism, when he wants to dodge having to give a serious answer, well,

I don't have 10 ,000 hours to study that. But boy, he's had 10 ,000 hours to become an author and an expert on heresies that don't exist and all sorts of fun stuff.

Anyway, you had that amazing statement that he stands behind to this day. So if someone promotes

Zionism in the world, that is, evidently, if you don't hold his positions, you promote

Zionism. Because I responded to another

Dale Partridge idiotic statement. And remember,

Dale Partridge is one of the NXR guys now. I do not know how that group stays together.

And it won't. It's not going to stay together. There's got to be tensions already.

There must be. It's just astonishing. But anyway, Dale Partridge, Dale Partridge who says his marriage to his wife isn't ideal because she's not white, that guy.

I just feel so sorry for these women in this crisis nationalism movement. I really, honestly do feel for them.

It's horrible. But Dale Partridge literally made another wonderful statement.

Women shouldn't be in leadership because most women can't think. Women shouldn't be in leadership because most women can't think.

Now, I had Dale as a student once before he was removed from the seminary.

And I can assure you, I've had many female students that could outthink Dale Partridge by a long shot.

When I think of the intelligent women that I know, and I know how this works,

OK? The offensive part was most women can't think.

So what these guys do is they go, oh, we were just talking about women in leadership in the church.

That's not what he was talking about. And I know women who can provide tremendous leadership in all sorts of different contexts.

We're not just talking about whether you're going to interpret verbs of authority in Pauline literature in one way or another.

This is the crisis nationalism's version of patriarchy. And I'm sure that there were people in the movement that saw

Partridge's tweet and just rolled their eyes, like, oh my goodness, he's at it again. Can't someone take his phone away?

And by the way, my response was something along the lines of some righteous woman's, someone take

Dale's phone away before some righteous woman walks up and knocks him silly. And they decided to say that I was promoting violence against pastors.

You can't make this stuff up. I mean, they are such a caricature of themselves anymore. It's just astonishing.

But the real issue was the statement, most women can't think.

That statement is so absurd, so false on its face.

There's no defense for it. There have been brilliant, brilliant women.

Remember how important women were to the Apollo 13 mission, for example?

There's just one, many, many, many examples of women who could outthink

Dale Partridge in every possible fashion. So it's just like, how do you make statements like that?

How do you hit reply? How do you hit send without something in your mind going, this isn't smart?

But you see, Joel Webben has to jump to his defense. Now, I've noticed something.

And by the way, I'm going to turn the camera so it's not aimed out at bright light the whole time.

You've seen it, so we don't need to. In fact, I'm going to save the lens here.

Oh, that didn't do anything at all. Let's see if this does it. I just don't want to burn something into the lens or something like that.

There you go. These guys protect each other.

They're a very small group, a tiny group. They like to, oh, every place we go, everybody's really excited about it.

But the actual people that are contributing to NXR is very tiny, non -representative.

And so they defend each other. And even when they say the stupidest things on the planet.

And so that's what Joel decided to do. And he jumped in and decided to try to defend what he had said and accused me of, what was it called, incipient of feminism.

Said that I needed to, yes, here we go. Righteous women don't walk up to men and physically attack them.

I don't believe he wrote that. I humbly encourage you to repent of your internalized feminism.

Look, I'm not an expert on feminism. My daughter is. My daughter's been an expert on feminism a whole lot longer than Joel Webbin's even known what first or second wave feminism was.

He's so far behind the eight ball, he doesn't know which end is up. And yes, my daughter can outthink

Joel Webbin by a long shot, as well as Dale Partridge. Either one, or together, wouldn't matter.

So when people say really mega stupid things, and you point it out, their followers will accuse you of being divisive.

I didn't force Dale Partridge to sit down and write something stupid on the internet. I don't know what forces him to do that.

I really don't. But the fact of the matter is, these guys claim to be reformed pastors.

What flavor of reform they are today, what flavor they'll be five years from now, I have no idea.

But that's what they're claiming. And look, feminism has always stunk.

Feminism is unbiblical. But what these guys are attacking as feminism isn't actually feminism.

It's their representation of it. And I don't consider any of these guys worth the gamma stamp as far as their expertise in anything is concerned.

I'll just be straight up honest about that. So is there reason to be talking about feminism?

Sure. And if you want to hear long, in -depth discussions of feminism, Sheologians has done hours and hours and hours and book reviews and all sorts of stuff on first, second, third, fourth, fourteenth, whatever wave feminism and who was who and who started what and the whole nine yards.

If that's what you want to get into, then go with some folks that have some integrity. Not with folks who can literally go, oh, most women can't think.

So next, minimize this here. I realize that X does not represent the best of almost anything.

Most people call it a dumpster fire. It's not that bad if you have a nice long block and mute list.

I added six, seven people to my block list today. Just people making snide comments.

If you have less than a thousand followers and you just show up, I have no idea who you are, and you decide to be insulting or something like that,

I'm just going to block you. I'm just not going to waste my time. You don't have any right to interact with my stuff.

Just block it and not worry about you. Blocked a bunch of guys today who are just being jerks.

There's a lot of jerks on X, but there are a lot of jerks on Facebook and everything else. Anyway, the state of Roman Catholic apologetics on X, there was this

Catholic Maximus guy, and we had had a few semi -decent exchanges on a couple of different topics.

But he and this Bishop Jacksey guy, and I actually had people, you know he's not really a bishop.

Really? Yeah, I did know that. But there's this guy,

Bishop Jacksey, and then this Catholic Maximus guy, and their stuff would come across my feed.

And I'm going to talk about some Bishop Jacksey stuff. He's just such a good example of just how horrifically shallow, surface level, fully refuted for hundreds of years, these people are.

They don't do any research. They don't do any reading. They don't care to. They don't want to. They have no interest.

They sit there, and all they have to do is quote Newman, to redeem history to cease to be part of history.

And they think that's enough. That's all that needs to be said. Everything else is just fine.

But this Catholic Maximus guy, he literally puts out a quote from Ignatius that talks about the

Pope. Ignatius of Antioch gives his date, an early date. Now, I know that in no version of Ignatius' literature, any recension, any language, does he make reference to the

Pope, because there was no Pope in his day. So I just immediately go, okay, you mind giving me the reference?

Oh, I'm just playing 4D chess. He likes to respond to Westhoff.

Whenever Westhoff says anything about the Apocrypha, Canon, early church history, anything like that, they jump all over that.

That's how they get their clicks. That's how they get their monetization, that kind of stuff. And I'm like, so you admit that the quote you gave doesn't actually exist.

Ignatius never said anything like that. The attitude of these guys, and I just block them.

I have no respect for someone like that, none. I cannot bring myself to respect someone who even pretends.

Because, look, look at the number of people who talk to me on X and say, well, you don't think

Ignatius did it. This is a lie. And lies can take on a life of their own.

And dishonest people love lies, and they repeat lies. And so you put out a quote like that, it's going to get re -quoted and re -quoted and re -quoted.

It's a lie. All of the forgeries that Rome used to build its power over the years, the

Nation of Constantine, the Pseudo -Isidorean Decretals, it was a lie when it was written.

It continues to be a lie today. It continues to function as a lie in the foundation of Roman Catholicism.

But it's like on X, it's just like I will re -quote whatever makes me feel good.

And when I get challenged, who cares? I don't care. I don't have to do any homework.

I don't have to do any reading. I don't have to do 10 ,000 hours of study. It doesn't matter to me.

So just an hour or so ago, there was this fellow who talked about converting.

Yeah, this guy named, let's see, who is this? Holden Cole.

Okay, 7 ,300 followers. At least that's someone who's done something on the app.

Roman Catholic convert, traditional Latin mass, daily rosary, theology, history, lifting, the creator of something.

And he posted the following thing on May 16th. Sola Scriptura creates a strange problem.

Scripture alone is the authority. How do you infallibly know which books belong in Scripture without relying on the church to preserve and canonize them?

Now, every person who has listened to a

Sola Scriptura debate, read a book on the subject, read a tract from Catholic Answers has already heard this.

There's nothing new. The Jesuits were parroting this in the

Counter -Reformation, you know, 400 years ago.

Every book. And so what I did is I said, let me see if there's been a response.

No. I said, Holden, before you converted, did you read any of these? And I gave full bibliographical citations of William Whitaker, a disputation of Holy Scripture against the papists, especially

Bellarmine and Stapleton. Martin Chemnitz, Examination Council of Trent, translated by Fred Kramer.

The 1995 Sola Scriptura, the Protestant position on the Bible book, edited by Don Kistler. I have a chapter in that on the early church and Sola Scriptura.

And, oh, there was one other I was going to put in there. Oh, yeah. I skipped it.

William Goodes, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice or a Defense of the Catholic Doctrine of Holy Scripture, has been since the times of the apostles, the sole divine rule of faith and practice to the church.

Now, there is a title for you. Okay, that clearly, from back in the day, when titles weren't meant to be catchy, they were meant to be descriptive.

So, Chemnitz, Whitaker, Goodes. I could have put George Salmon in there, but I was just looking at specifically stuff that would...

Every single one of these books addresses everything that this convert,

Holden Cole, puts into this question and exposes the presuppositions without relying on the church that preserved and canonized them.

Well, that wasn't the modern Roman Catholic Church. It wasn't the Catholic Church of 1546. No honest person who knows history is going to say that.

There's a lot of dishonest people that don't know history that will say that because Rome tells them to say that.

But that's a different issue. But before he converted, did he read any of these things?

I'll be interested to see if the response is, if there is any response. Very often, I'll take the time.

That's a long tweet. You remember the guys in Ogden. That's as long as a James White tweet.

If it's more than 200 words. That's too long to read.

Which, again, I think says everything that needs to be said. But it may not get a response.

We'll see. But the level of Roman Catholic apologetics on X has become absolutely pitiful.

It is so evident that these guys live in an echo chamber. And look, there's bad

Protestant apologetics on X too. I get it. I understand. There are.

There's bad stuff out there. But this is supposed to be the one true church. And remember, when your group claims to be the one true church and claims to be unified, and all you can do is compare yourself to a wide variety of groups that do not claim to be unified, do not claim to have an infallible head of the church, you're comparing apples and oranges.

And this is one of the main things that they do. You don't get apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

You don't get them comparing themselves to other religious groups that deny

Sola Scriptura and claim to have an infallible authority outside of Scripture, like the

Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or people like that. They don't compare themselves. Well, there are heretics. Right.

Once you deny Sola Scriptura and once you claim to have an infallible authority outside of Scripture, those groups can't even decide whether there's one

God or billions of them. There's no unity amongst them. Well, I'm not going to compare myself to them.

Right. Just like I'm not going to compare myself to the wild -eyed charismatics and Pentecostals that you guys like to quote and post videos of.

Oh, this is the early church, huh? That's not me. And you don't want to be compared over there.

Oh, you do want to do apples to apples. Oh, okay. Now all of a sudden we want to. It's just shocking how these guys just don't even ever think about what they're doing and what they're posting.

And one of the worst is this Bishop Jackson. And we've talked about him before.

And again, I know. His thing says true

God from true God. Okay, deus vult. Yeah, okay. He's got his pictures of a crusader and all the rest of the stuff.

Defender of Christendom, destroyer of heretics, student of history, philosophy, and science.

Yeah, well, you're the worst student I've ever seen, buddy. Oh, wow. Anyway, oh, good.

Here we go. This one says 19 seconds ago. Yeah, because I said I'll be responding to this.

A few other examples of how very dismal the Roman Catholic apologetics world is on X and the dividing line. Announce this.

And he says, I'm really looking forward to Dr. James White making a video where he avoids and misrepresents my argument, spends most of his time attacking my character, and then appeals his own intellect and ego, which is a completely non -substantive response.

Prove it. Where have I done that? I have torn this guy's arguments to shreds. I've provided the documentation, original languages, historical sources.

He has no way of defending his claims, and he knows it. He knows it, but he doesn't care.

He's going to keep making them. So when you see an argument like that, when you see that kind of a statement, this is a person who knows he's been refuted repeatedly in the past, but has no way of rehabilitating his arguments.

And he knows it. He understands that. So why does he do it? That's really the question.

I mean, I know why I do apologetics. I mean, a lot of people say, oh, if you do apologetics, it means you have a weak faith and you're afraid of, you know, being refuted.

All this psychobabble, psy -op stuff that's just foolish.

I've been doing apologetics for 43 stinking years. I can point to a larger, more extensive body of work than almost anyone else alive today.

Seriously. It's just because I'm old. Okay? But you can go back. You can go back to stuff.

Man, this stuff is good. That's red raspberry.

No. Some kind of blue raspberry isopure.

Fizzy water. Ultima raspberry electrolytes.

Man, that's good. I haven't touched a pop or a soda in forever because they don't taste nearly as good as this stuff does.

There's 16 grams of protein in there plus the electrolytes. Why? And it costs me much less.

Well, you know what? I'll take that back. No, it doesn't cost you much less. Isopure is pricey.

No two ways about it. But, man, it tastes good. And, I mean, there ain't no sugar in there.

Not a bit. That's so good. I've got that one and I've got a grape one over there.

And I'm making some of you thirsty now. Anyway, what was

I talking about? Oh, yes, Bishop Jackson. So we can demonstrate that we have held the same standard of consistency.

Back when we started dealing with Mormonism, there were much larger ministries that jumped on things like the salamander letter.

I don't know what the salamander letter was about, but you can look it up if you want to. We have been consistent longer than probably

Bishop Jackson has been alive. So we can point to this and go, look, we don't have one standard for us and another standard for other people.

We use the same standard all along. You have to if you're going to be truthful. So all the throwing of dust and obfuscation and everything else that they do, irrelevant to us.

And when it comes to Roman Catholicism, hey, starting in 1990, recorded, documented consistency all the way along.

I think that's what drives them nuts because they got nothing other than posts on X.

So what I want to do is I just want to go through some of these and just demonstrate just how shallow this stuff is.

And yet it's what passes for, oh, yeah, go get them, guy. You're good. In Catholic apologetics online.

So, for example, three hours ago, 2 Timothy 3, 16 -17 says all Scripture is God breathed and profitable.

So the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work. Protestants read that and somehow get. Now, are there not extensive scholarly discussions of this text in the original languages, in my own books, in the

Soul of Scripture book that I mentioned earlier, going all the way back to the Reformation? Yes.

Has he read it? I don't think so. Does he care that he hasn't read it? I don't think so.

Does that tell you something about his dedication to truthfulness? I think it does. And those people who follow him, they don't feel any need to.

Now, do lots of Protestants misrepresent Rome and don't feel any need to actually find out?

Yeah. And do I rebuke them? I do. Okay. But we're talking about this is someone,

I represent the one true church. Protestants read that and somehow get only

Scripture is God -breathed, Scripture alone is profitable, and Scripture alone is sufficient. Now, let's think about that.

This is useful to consider. This is useful to think about. Is that what we're saying?

Well, the first phrase is correct.

Only Scripture is God -breathed. And when I first started debating

Catholic answers, they agreed. And, in fact,

Rome does agree, at least theoretically, that Scripture is unique as being

God -breathed. Now, again, I ran into a Catholic apologist in Colorado Springs a couple years ago.

I heard that he wasn't a Catholic apologist after that and then that he is again. I don't know.

That was a sad situation. But I've had no contact with him. But he said that the church is

Theotokos. Mitch Pacwa never made that claim. Mitch Pacwa is a

Jesuit scholar, familiar with 12 different languages, and he affirmed that only

Scripture is Theotokos. I do not believe that you can find a dogmatic statement identifying anything other than Scripture as Theotokos.

But this is the web. Who cares? These guys don't care. So the first statement, only

Scripture is God -breathed, if that is true, then that is why

Scripture is profitable so that the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work.

It's because of the nature of Scripture. That's why I think Trent Horne played around with the idea of that whacked -out article that he dug up and played around with the idea of saying, hey, we can get around this argument by saying that Theonistos doesn't actually mean

God -breathed. Well, it does actually mean God -breathed. That article was whacked.

He's no longer citing it, thankfully, and shouldn't have in the first place. But the point is,

Scripture is unique. You can prove that from Jesus' own teaching.

When Jesus spoke to the Sadducees, he said, have you not read what God spoke to you saying?

He never says that about tradition. He never says that about anything else. This is God speaking. It is ontologically unique as the very breath of God.

Without that, you don't have Christianity. Every denomination that has ever abandoned that has either just completely apostatized in a matter of generations into nothing but a religious social club or has become a completely different religion.

And when I watch all the Marian stuff online, that's where the completely different religion comes in, most definitely.

But if Scripture is God -breathed, then Scripture is profitable in a unique way for the equipping of the man of God.

So it would not be that Scripture alone is profitable, because notice the Scripture twist. Profitable for what?

So that the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work. So the profitability in this text is in reference to Timothy as the man of God in the church being called and equipped for every good work.

So Scripture is profitable in a unique way.

Does God use other things to equip the man of God? Not other as in other sources of revelation, but every minister who has gone through the

CCU deathbed experience with members of the congregation and then walked the family through the grieving process, the burial, all the difficult things that frequently come from death.

God can use our sanctifying experiences to more thoroughly equip us.

But everything the man of God is doing there is based upon following the principles of the word of God.

So it remains primary. And then you have the application of its principles. So it would not be

Scripture alone is profitable. It would be that Scripture alone, because it's

God -breathed, is the foundation of the training of the man of God.

And that's why it's profitable. And Scripture alone is sufficient? Well, that raises the whole issue of what you mean by sufficient.

Sufficient for what? The text identifies that sufficient for the man of God to be equipped for every good work.

That's why I asked Patrick Madrid decades ago, does the

Bible, is preaching the bodily assumption of Mary a good work for the man of the church?

The Roman Catholic has to say yes. How does the Bible equip you to do that? Well, their only answer to that is, well, it equips you by teaching you to follow the

Pope, which, of course, it doesn't. But they know they cannot even begin to demonstrate the bodily assumption of Mary.

So they don't even go there. So if this guy had actually wanted to say something serious, then he would have engaged the text.

And he would have engaged it with the knowledge of what Protestants actually believe. He's not serious about the

Bible. He's not serious about the text. He's not serious about actually reaching Protestants. This is clickbait for Roman Catholics.

And so what you're doing is you are pandering to your being surface level because they're surface level.

And if you go into depth, that takes too much time. That's not what they want. You're pandering to the people who don't want to do serious study.

They don't want to do serious dialogue. They don't want to do serious discussion. And you're just proving that point over and over and over again in the way that you do that.

And then, of course, he goes on. He says, only one problem, Paul. Who said that?

Try that logic anywhere else. All grapes are created by God and are profitable so the man may be nourished, healthy and strong, very good work.

Read that like a Protestant. This means only grapes created by God and grapes alone are profitable for nourishment. Of course, that's beyond absurd.

He's already misrepresented Protestants up above. And nobody cares.

Now, I didn't read all the responses to this. It would warm my heart if there was some

Roman Catholic in the response that said that that's not what they're saying. But I think there's a 99 .9

% chance that that didn't happen. And even if it did, I don't think he'd care because this is the character of the people that are producing this kind of information.

Well, it's not information. This kind of rhetoric, this kind of clickbait, this kind of stuff to make

Roman Catholics feel better about themselves, I guess. I don't know. So, you know, he says, 1773 proves

Scripture is inspired and profitable. Notice he doesn't even try to deal with what the text actually says.

So the man of God may be equipped for every good work.

It's just like I remember talking to this guy years and years ago who converted from Mormonism.

And he was a missionary. And he said, you know, after I came to know

Christ, I went back and looked at the Bible that I carried on my mission.

And I read through the Gospel of John and I'm looking at what

I marked. And there's whole swaths of stuff that contradicted what I believed.

And I never marked it. It's like I couldn't even see it. And here's Bishop Jackson. He even put the words into his tweet.

But it's like, just doesn't even see them. Doesn't even see what the text is saying.

There is a spiritual blindness involved. There really is. So he says, it does not prove soul

Scripture. That doctrine has to be smuggled into the verse because it is not actually in the verse. Well, since he never really touched the verse and only misrepresented the other side, meaningless verbiage.

Then there was a, I know this is important in regards to soteriology.

It is finished did not mean you never need to repent again. As Catholics, we go to confession because it takes in seriously, actually fight against it, are truly contrite and believe repentance is ongoing in how we live our lives.

Well, again, do they bother to read a

Puritan? Maybe just once or twice. Read J .C. Ryle's Holiness? No, they don't.

Probably never even heard of it. Classics. Classics. And the issue though is this.

When we say it is finished, we're not saying what they think we're saying.

The real issue with Roman Catholicism is you don't have a finished work because of your doctrine of the mass.

Because you make the Eucharist an unbloody sacrifice that is represented but perfects no one.

And because you have purgatory, because you have indulgences, because you have saddus passio. I had a

Catholic this week, for example. Those little ice chunks are so good.

I had a Catholic this week on X.

What was it they were trying to tell me? I ended up blocking him again after trying to get them to reason with me.

Oh, crap. He was right on the tip of my tongue there and I drank it. I took a drink and it disappeared.

What was that one? Let me just look here real quick. Feminism. No.

Oh, there's good old Calvin Robinson. Did you see that? I'll go back to Jackson in a second.

Did you see what Calvin Robinson said? For all of you that thought that guy was a Protestant of some type, he actually quoted that Eckius Maximus guy.

Who posted a video of some Pentecostal people dancing around.

By the way, that Eckius Maximus guy was going after Westhoff.

Westhoff had said the Reformation was about going back to Apostolic Christianity. And everybody agrees that that's what the

Reformers were saying. If you knew anything about history, you would know that the

Reformers would never have even brooked that kind of behavior in the church that was seen in that video.

And if you've read, and this is the problem, these people don't read and don't want to read and don't care to read and don't care that what they say is therefore a lie because they won't read.

If you read Calvin's response to Sadaletto, classic, classic

Reformation study. And it doesn't take long to do this either, by the way. To read

Sadaletto's letter to the Genevans, read Calvin's response, maybe read some of the background stuff.

Do it. It's well worth it. It really is. You would discover that their intention was to remove the influence of the accretion of human traditions over the gospel and go back to the early church.

That's exactly what Westhoff was saying. He was right. These people are wrong. Westhoff has read history.

They have not. And so that's why they do this type of stuff. But Calvin Robinson quotes the

Achaeus Maximus guy and says the Reformation failed. Folks, those of you who are palling around with this guy, you're a traitor to the

Reformation. And you will not remain Reformed. I question your commitment to Reformed theology.

If you're smoking cigarettes with someone who's an enemy of the

Reformation, purposefully and knowingly, wake up.

Let me see. Yeah, missing the point.

Boy, there's been a lot of this stuff. I've talked to a lot of folks. Oh, the stuff about Michael Heiser.

I'll just say one thing about the Michael Heiser stuff. I retweeted someone who said

Heiser has done great damage to the church, which I agree he has. He used his position at Logos, which says a lot right there, to promote some pretty weird stuff.

We opposed him on Psalm 82 decades ago. You can go online and read my lengthy response to him on that.

But his followers are nasty. It is almost cult -like.

You dare not question their leader. Yeah, see, here's a guy.

So you can deny that St. Ignatius existed. I said, no, I never had. Lots of wildly dishonest or dull people have latched onto the fake story that I did or do.

That only shows the shallow level of apologetics from certain corners. There is the

Ignatius quote. I think this is it here. Oh, why did

I do that? Oh, no, that was

Eckeus Maximus. Anyways, I can't find that specific one now. That is the only...

well, not the only. But that's one of the main problems I have with X.

Just a few days after you write stuff, you'll never find it again. It's just gone.

Never to be heard again. So, anyway, sorry I brought that guy up and can't remember what he was saying.

I will remember as soon as the program ends. But back to the issue of it is finished.

It is finished is about the sacrifice of Christ. It is finished is about the death of Christ in behalf of his people.

It is about what allows him to be seated at the right hand of the Father. Not on an altar placed there by the magical powers of a priest, but seated and interceding, not through representation of sacrifice.

But the Lamb stands as a slave. Another reason to go through the debate with Joe Heshmire.

I really... it's a shame that that debate got completely overshadowed by some stupid, silly lying about Ignatius.

Because the issue of what sacrifice was, Heshmire did not do well with the

New Testament. And the biblical passages he presented were extremely strange.

But that has sort of gotten lost in the process. So that's what that's all about.

And this was actually the one I was going to respond to. We're just not getting to it with 11 minutes left. On the 17th, so yesterday, a

Protestant can condemn every council, reject every father, disagree with every historic Christian, start his own church in a strip mall, and still call it biblical

Christianity. That should terrify people more than it does. The Catholic Church does not ask each generation to reinvent

Christianity. The Church guards what was handed down. Now that sounds so great. But as with everything

Bishop Jackson says, it is a straw man. I actually have a straw man.

It's in the front of the unit. I should store it in here so I can have it available and have a little lighter, ready to go.

A Protestant can condemn every council. Well, which ones? Trent? Okay, yeah, sure. Nicaea?

No. Don't agree with some of the canons. But the fact of the matter is, your councils are not even consistent with each other.

Your popes are not consistent with the popes. And your modern pope is most assuredly not consistent with previous popes.

Did you notice your modern pope, Bishop Jackson, on the plane last week, saying that more important than sexual morality and ethics is religious freedom?

He's big on saying Islam is not a threat, all the rest of that stuff. Do you really believe that?

Do you see what's going on in Nigeria? But he was saying religious freedom.

I'd like to hear Bishop Jackson comment on the papal syllabus of errors in comparison to Pope Francis and Pope Leo, because they are not teaching the same thing.

Pope Francis and Pope Leo do not agree with the papal syllabus of errors. What are you going to do about that? Because you say, the church guards, it was handed down.

Really? By changing it? Was the content of the catechism of the

Council of Trent handed down from the apostles? They certainly believed it back then. Your Catholic catechism today contradicts it.

The fact says what it says about capital punishment has always been sinful. Right?

It's a fact. So, reject every father.

Okay, this is the kind of, you know, he hasn't read any

Protestant scholars on patristics. He's not going to. He doesn't care.

He doesn't care how many church history professors there are outside of Roman Catholicism.

We don't reject every father. By the way, you're the ones that have an arbitrary standard as to what patristic sources are going to be accepted and what are going to be rejected.

I encountered that in the first debate I did in Long Island. I gave quotes from early church writers, and Jerry Matasik said,

Ah, he wasn't a father. Really? Well, he wasn't a father. So, the church gets to decide who is a church father, who transmitted tradition, what tradition is, what tradition means.

It's all in ecclesia, all over the place. That's all I got. Disagree with every historic

Christian. You know, it's just, again, these people don't read.

They're not trying to be fair. They're not trying to be scholarly. They're not trying to be balanced. They're just throwing stuff out there to make it sound good.

Start his own church in a strip mall. Well, there's people who started a church in a strip mall.

I think churches should be started by other churches. But I don't think that necessarily requires some kind of, well, let's just put it this way.

That doesn't mean that what Rome calls apostolic authority has anything to do with the apostles at all.

Poplio has zero authority from an apostle. Apostolic tradition, apostolic teaching is teaching what the apostles taught.

It is not claiming a de facto listing of authority that allows you to teach, you know, the

Marian dogmas, which the apostles never taught, obviously. And still call it biblical

Christianity. Well, there are churches in strip malls that are teaching what the apostles taught, while Popelio does not.

They are blessed, he isn't. When that little church down at the strip mall is faithfully preaching the word of God, while Popelio is blessing blocks of ice, while Popelio is contradicting the papal syllabus of errors, and still has

Tucho Fernandez in charge of the congregation, the doctrine of the faith, that should tell you something.

That should tell you something. Tucho Fernandez admitted that he was to the left of Francis, and Leo has left him in that position of major authority?

You guys can ignore this all you want. You know, I know the people Bishop Jackson is writing for.

I don't even know half that stuff, but there you go. The Catholic Church does not ask each generation to reinvent

Christianity, but it does ask every generation to believe that whatever it says is

Christianity has always been Christianity, even when historically that is bunkum, and demonstrably so.

So, yeah, we have documented so many times the utilization of anachronism on the part of Roman Catholicism.

That's what they're doing. Okay. One last one real quick here.

We've got a couple minutes left. A guy named Danny, TruthMatters20, had posted,

Religious people hate sola scriptura because it makes the Bible the authority and not their man -made religious system.

I don't know what the exact context of that was. But he responds to it and says,

Narcissists love sola scriptura because it makes them the authority and not the church Christ established.

Well, since sola scriptura says that the Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church, that would mean

I can't be the infallible rule of faith of the church. So that would limit my narcissism, wouldn't it?

Yeah, it would. Again, is this an accurate understanding of sola scriptura? Of course not. Has this man ever taken the time to try to gain an accurate knowledge of sola scriptura?

No, he has not. The question that we have to ask is, why wouldn't he want to? Because if his goal is actually to reach people outside of Roman Catholicism, then you need to accurately represent that stuff.

That's why I know who Tujo Fernandez is, and most of these guys don't.

And I know what Fiducia Supplicans was, and I know its background, and I read it because I want to reach

Roman Catholics. So I read their sources. I've got Denzinger's Enchiridion sitting on my desk at home, and I know where to track it down online and how to get the proper dogmatic statements and cite them properly and stuff like that.

They don't do any of that. They don't care. They have no interest, no integrity.

There's just nothing there. And that is...

Yeah, so, last one here. Oh, this is great. So you've got the

Archbishop of Canterbury, you've got some woman, I don't know who she is, you've got Kenneth Copeland, then some guy in a rainbow stole thing, all believe in sola scriptura.

That is an absolute lie. Absolute lie.

I hadn't seen this one. It says, the fruit of sola scriptura is chaos, anarchy, and disunity.

The untrue church is not found in Protestantism because Protestantism is the antithesis of one. Absolute lie.

These people do not believe in sola scriptura. Do you think Kenneth Copeland believes in sola scriptura?

God speaks to him all the time, dude. All the time.

That's not sola scriptura. These people who believe in LGBTQ stuff, they don't believe in sola scriptura.

Why are you such a liar? What makes you think you have the right to lie like this?

I don't understand it. I really don't. You don't realize how repulsive this makes your faith to anybody who knows the truth?

Are you doing this purposefully? Are you a Protestant just trying to make Catholics look bad? Is that possible?

I don't think so. I don't think so. I hadn't seen this one. I'm going to be responding to that one. He says,

Bit image credit to Cath steel man. Well, you're not steel manning the other side. That's for sure.

That's astonishing. No, no, astonishing is disgusting. All right, so what's all this mean?

Catholic apologetics online is in a sad state of affairs. And I think one of the primary reasons is,

Is that they recognize in the days of Francis and Leo, They can't be looking to leadership any longer.

They're sort of making up as they go along. And since they don't have the integrity to actually be doing reading,

The result is this kind of chaotic representation of long refuted argumentation.

It's embarrassing how long it's been refuted. And when you say, have you ever read these things? No, I should have.

There you go. There you go. Some of us read the documents, the counter -reformation.

Some of us have had to read Bellarmine and that kind of stuff.

You guys don't care. It's a different attitude toward truth. It really is.

It really is. Well, I was going to actually get back to, I had the Alibeth Stuckey stuff queued up.

And it was an interesting part. We'll get to it. My plan right now is to try to do another program from Wilcox on Wednesday.

Because it's not a long drive from here to Wilcox. So I love that KOA.

And as I recall correctly, the Internet there is pretty good. I still got the

Starlink I can put together if I need to. So the plan is to do Wednesday because I get back

Thursday. You have to unload the RV. Can't leave really almost anything that's temperature sensitive in it at this time of year, even though we have a mainly covered storage spot for it.

And as of right now, thanks be to the Lord, we unload it.

And I take it to the storage spot. We're not going to have to take it to the dealership.

There ain't nothing wrong with it. And, in fact, I'll just mention this briefly. It was really windy today.

I mean, I only got 6 .8 miles to the gallon. It was either whipping from the side or straight at me, depending on which direction

I was going. And you're talking 35, 40 mile per hour winds. I don't know how they do it, but this unit did not throw me around hardly at all.

There was only once or twice I felt like I was moving a little bit. In comparison to all the other units we've had, this thing is amazing.

It really, really is. This company has done a great job. And so we're very, very happy and very, very thankful for this unit.

And, yeah, I already unplugged that one. I already showed you the mountains again. But the sun's just about to set, too.

You can see it coming through the window there. So, anyways, with that, let's say

God bless you. We will see you, Lord willing, on Wednesday from Wilcox.