Catholic asks about Tradition | Apologetics Live 0005 HD 720p

Was Andrew the one that helped you get the podcast back up Yeah, he did get the podcast didn't help.

He did it. Don't don't you think you owe him a dinner for that? This is apologetics live with Matt slick and Andrew Rappaport part of the

Christian podcast community All right, so we are live apologetics live

I am Andrew Rappaport We're striving fraternity and we have with us Matt slick from calm org by the way

Before we get started we should say we are looking for folks who want to try to improve on the introduction music

We're gonna give away in one of Matt's books to To whoever gives the best

Introduction, so you just need some Well, it's it's okay. Matt's face isn't on there.

So, you know, he's got the face for radio Matt slick today is a special day for calm.

What is today? I don't know what yeah, I Love when

I set it up for you on a tea and you just go. Oh Today is the 23rd anniversary of calm 23 years ago.

I started it That's not bad. I mean you're only what 25 Yeah, really?

Yeah, I was a Diaperinian, that's how I studied Now for folks who don't know what a diaperinian is there there actually is

I get it I get a look again on karm on karm. You have a page for terminology like diaperinian

Yes, I think it was a slick dictionary dictionary slictionary in on karm .org

on the slictionary you can know what a Diaperinian is also a great thing to do. I actually was thinking of doing is you have your own insults up there, which is nice I have a how to insult me page a diaperinian is a person who was overly childish and behavior and action when confronted with truth

And logic and throws crud at you instead of dealing with the issues like an adult There we go

Hey, what before we get started? What mic are you using? I'm using this time.

I'm using the Logitech camera, I can switch it to the headset.

Do you think it's better? Yeah, you probably should okay this thing because I Mean, although I love of when you sound far away.

I mean the further away you sound the better But people are in New Jersey.

I'm in Idaho. I know I've tried to get as far away as possible But you know, I think there's actually for some strange reason.

We have very crazy listeners. They actually want to hear you I don't know why I don't either my wife even listens to me still it doesn't make any sense

I think you're still on the other one though. Yeah, I'm still working on it Switch, but I can't find it now

You have too many you're way too many windows up All right, so today's the 23rd anniversary karm, which you kind of had a radio show today.

You were telling me about that Yeah Yeah, it was a kind of a good show in that there now

I switched sound better Yes much. All right, and we had

It was kind of doctrinal. It was kind of good in that respect And I enjoyed doing that put some various topics, you know

I thought was was worth discussing and some stuff and we added this guy ending up and He wanted me to debate

Somebody on baptism and so he actually got the guy

He wants me to debate on the phone with him and I could barely hear him

And this guy was telling me how he debated people 20 denominations. They don't want to call him back

They want to talk to him back and after talking to him. I go. Yeah, I could figure out why you're a strep and you are annoying, you know who'd want to deal with you and so we argued about baptism and and He let's just say he didn't do very well

You know What's funny? Yes, there was something about babies Yeah, you know he said baptism is necessary for salvation

If it's necessary there can't be an exception So I just you know a quick answer a quick question is do all babies who die go to hell then?

He wouldn't answer the question Well, you know if he's gonna say that then you know that it's necessary that all babies have to go to hell who die

That's all whether I believe that or not isn't an issue because I don't because we have a stalker on the

YouTube today who? Put some stuff in and misrepresented me again completely fails to understand my points

Just you know person who just looks for evil and that's all I find but um, you know

So, you know, that's just a question. I ask people. Does that mean then that all the babies who die go to hell? Is that what you're saying?

You'd have to say that not what I believe but you'd have to say that And uh, he wouldn't answer the question

Then and he tried to dominate the conversation which it's my radio show dude get a life

And uh, he goes you answer my question answer my question. I'm like good brother That's what you tell them get your own radio show and i'll come on Yeah, you know, it's just ridiculous

Well, I I you know, that's where this is allows folks for longer discussions Um for folks who want to get in if you go to if you're watching on youtube

The link to join us is can be found at apologetics live .com. You can watch it there

But this also plays on youtube. So sometimes folks are on youtube. Don't know what the link is The link to join is over at apologetics live .com

We almost always put it up just before eight o 'clock. I put it up a little bit early today accidentally

And so we got someone already in so we may start doing that more regularly just so people are in here right away before we uh go to our first It's strange to say a caller when this they're not actually calling in the first hangout cast.

I don't know what we should call them but uh First visitor there we go first participant

Participant. Hmm sounds like a game show. Uh first set up victim Well first questioner maybe or first question, okay, that works do that one

Uh, so we I did want to talk to you there you released finally Uh several well several wouldn't be the right word maybe uh, many many many articles on annihilationism recently

Um, I think it was what was the final count? Of articles that were released this past month 180 180 articles on Annihilation is related to yes, some were directly tackling it

But some of them are just research, uh where I did a word because they would say, you know, for example They would say the word opalumi uh

Destroy means a certain thing um, in fact Their their go -to guy, for example, uh, what's his name?

Let's see annihilationism uh fudge Edward william fudge. I believe his name is

He said that opalumi mostly refers to death And you know, for example, i'd write an article on that and I went through and did a complete analysis on the word death

I mean a complete analysis On that word in certain verses and found out wrong

And so the analysis of that That word is an article Also, so it's just where it's analyzed percentages and things like that so, uh, you know, it's there it is

I found out that he doesn't know what he's doing it would be sufficient to say that you Have finally annihilated annihilationism.

I believe I have but I don't believe they have like, you know, the word like annihilationism.

I literally for real like for example word opalumi 90 occurrences in 84 verses so I have every single occurrence listed on the website in a table at the bottom of an article

And then what I did was for example I would uh, like, uh, let's see Matthew 2 13 for herod is going to search for the child to destroy him

Well, the object of the destruction is a person and the meaning is destroyed jesus, but Jesus still exists because of the hypostatic union

To destroy him. Well, wait a minute. How could he be destroyed and still live? Because they would say destruction means you don't live anymore

That kind of thing and then you know go to matthew 10 28 to fear not those who kill the body

But are unable to kill the soul but rather fear him was able to destroy both body and soul in hell or soul and body and But it could be continued existence or non -existence

Because that's what the debate's about. So I just you know categorize it. It could be either one You have to decide but you know, you look at how the word destruction has occurred, you know

And so like I have an outline of 17 different contexts accomplishment continued existence or non -existence damnation in a spiritual sense

The destruction of demons destroyed jesus, but he'd still be around because hypothetic union destroy objects

Uh that but are still there wine skins burst open. They're destroyed, but the wine skin still sitting there um

Destroyed spiritually hinder a person loss of reward non -existence The things that are non -existent flower

A flower that grows gold luxurious things wine. I have the references. These are the things that obviously mean they're non -existent

Uh, you can it can mean not remain physical death or spiritual deaths are possible physical death is either strongly implied or clearly stated occurrences of that Possible non -existence in one reference render invalid in one reference remove a body part in two occurrences

Unaccounted for loss of an object eight occurrences like loss of food loss of hair

Losing a coin losing sheep. That's the word up. Illumi So I went through and I would do studies a lot of the uh, the substance of those articles are just that Just analysis of words that they say mean certain things.

So I went in and started studying. I have a whole bunch of them Uh that i've done On that, so there you go

So you and I were talking because there is something we've seen with different people um

Who get into studying one issue? Oh, yeah, you only and it becomes the like really the definition of their life almost.

Yeah I don't Yeah Let's kick that back and forth a bit before we we go to our first questioner

What do you see as the issue You know, let's say let's say we're talking annihilationism. You and I both have the same concern with some of the folks involved in this people who otherwise seem to be solid in in Their doctrines they seem to be

But this is the only thing they work on and and as you and I talked about you end up seeing them associating partnering with people that are bad

Students When you have an ideology above uh evangelism above the exaltation of christ

Then what happens is you'll often become known just for that one thing And then you'll defend the one thing and you'll often side with heretics

In that one thing and use them as an example of support so some annihilationists will side with universalists in support

Or some bad teachers and say well they hold this view too i'm not going to be careful of guilt by association, but the thing is

That you know, you got to be careful of who you associate with when you're defending something And you know, it reminds me of an article

Let's see, uh pagan. Let's see. I have this now greek E -r -e -e -k

Uh, let's see So one of the things that they say is is the immortal soul They say the mortal soul is a greek concept adopted by adopted by the early church

So I went and I looked at and I you know, I found out As an example of something here in that you got to be careful of guilt by association because what they're doing

We are on our side as well as their side. We got to be careful that whole thing because just because they're associated with an

Universalist doesn't mean that their arguments aren't sound but you got to be careful who you're Siding with because it can affect you never negatively and in line of that whole thought

When I did some research, uh guilt by association because that's what they're saying A mortal soul is and guess what

I found out it's kind of a shift in a topic a little bit But guess what I found out That uh annihilation of the soul was portrayed by certain jews.

They believed it the jews rejected jesus. Oh Pagan king lost seven sons as did job

Um, that's in the ugaritic stuff God does battle various biblical texts depicting god in israel and battle with the sea and or dragon have been connected to mesopotamian

Mythological motifs and there's a mountain god son of god coming in the clouds is in Other writings bodily resurrection in other writings.

That was just some of the stuff I found and you know, it so We got to be careful about this guilt by association thing and the annihilationist will try and say well

Pig it's a pagan philosophy of a mortal soul adopted by pagan from pagan stuff.

They just say it Well, wait a minute. There's other things That are similar to pagan stuff that they would hold to as well.

Well, why aren't they guilty of that? And so they're inconsistent how they apply it so we have to be careful as well when we say that the guilty of something

But it is a concern if you're going to join up with heretics To support your view and that's an overall concern

Yeah, and you know, we see where these guys I mean Maybe one meeting at first, but I mean anytime you focus on one issue

And I almost make it and I like how you said it When you put something over the gospel when

I mean, this is a concern I have with some of these people that they'll work with universalists and we'll sit there and you know realize that they won't share the gospel with this person, even though they know they need the gospel because Well, we're partners we got to this whatever our idol is we got to get that.

Yeah pushed out, you know, I'm here with james white was he debated at g3 a roman catholic,

I think a year and a half ago and It was interesting because the arguments that the roman catholic was making was the arguments

Very much the same arguments we hear from uh our non -calvinistic friends making similar type arguments um, and the similarity like people don't even realize like Interesting and there were some that were even

Trying to promote it against james white but you know the catholic guy the christians promoting the catholic guy because The argument that was being made against calvinism

And it was kind of just an interesting thing that you'd have people that claim to be believers working with The roman catholics just because they don't like the calvinism argument.

Yeah Yeah, you know we've talked about this before um layton flowers is an anti -calvinist and he has an anti -calvinism ministry

Why Why Calvinists they teach the sovereignty of god the promotion of the gospel

And but his thing is anti -calvinism and he and I had a debate last week I don't think he did all that.

Well, and I thought there was some stuff I answered that I asked that he couldn't answer couldn't deal with And uh, there are some things

I know he can't deal with Because of his position. Well, okay, whatever but the thing is, um

Why is he known for that one thing because calvinists are christians? Why isn't he?

Uh, you know as what does it say? People I could find that verse they were speaking, but they weren't part of us about the gospel

And we hindered them and jesus says no don't hinder them Because he's you know for me against me.

This is exactly what layton's doing He's he's hindering Calvinists and calvinism and working against and we're trying to preach the gospel and now

Instead of going out and doing apologetics against unbelievers and false doctrine. I have to for example deal with this

So he's taking me away and others away from doing that kind of a thing and having to defend in calvinism

So he's actually causing problems and he should repent of that Likewise some of the like chris date

And i've had him here in the office and I like chris He's a nice guy. We have each other's cell numbers and things like that But chris date his big thing is annihilationism annihilationism this annihilationism that he can do other things

But he's known for this thing This is what he seems to be by appearance devoting his life to is a promotion of annihilationism.

Well, wait a minute. Why do that? Because now people like me and others I have to deal with annihilationism.

I wrote 100. It took me months Of course I did it with my wife being sick and I you know, I just kept studying this thing

But you know, I would I I really should put that time into the false teachers within the christian church To name it and claim it blab it and grab it wackos.

We're teaching against orthodoxy. I mean against the sufficiency of the atonement against the sufficiency of god's sovereignty against um

Salvation by grace alone. I mean these people are teaching flat -out damnable heresies But to be honest universalism doesn't mean you can't be a christian any more than annihilationism does

So people will agree with me on both accounts. No, you can be those things and still be christians and you can

You know be an error in varying degrees but the thing is That now, you know i've had to defend myself against universalists

I've had to defend myself now or defend the issues of annihilationism And write a whole bunch of stuff and why?

I should be out there writing on buddhism I should be writing on these cults analyzing the false teachers that are out there and doing that and so These guys who are dedicated to this kind of thing.

Oh this promotion. It's like what if I were to promote calvinism against everything? That's what I got to be known for calvinism

I hope nobody knows me or considers me the calvinist guy. No way

It should be the guy who runs karm the apologist he happens to be a calvinist that's that's okay

And i'm not against arminians, you know as latent as against calvinism i'm not against arminianism

I don't write against arminianism And when I said that he actually typed in calvinistcorner .com

in a chat room. We were in when I said this Calvinistcorner .com is not against arminianism. It's defending calvinism

And so what that is is a defense of that and I even took it off of a

Harm and put it because I don't want it to be known with a karm thing because karm is what I work with So I have a problem with people trying to be known for a certain thing.

It'd be like you being known as a Dispensationalist defender if that was the case where you were starting to do it's all about dispensationalism

You know We wouldn't be working well together because and I know you would never do something like that because that's not the issue

The issue is jesus christ and him crucified you and I both could go out on the street corner we could go to To the station was a station out there and where we preached before Union square.

Yeah, we can go to union square together and just all our Differences which really aren't that important all our differences are

Gone, we're preaching that gospel and we're uplifting each other and we're supporting each other in the process which we've done before And that's how it's supposed to be

Instead of this idiocy in my opinion of being known and making a ministry out of a single Non -essential issue that you become known for I think it's a problem

I do. Yeah, I I mean I I certainly agree I mean, this is one of the things I see as a problem when people I mean, look,

I I like layton personally Uh, we used to do an online bible study came in during ephesians and and I said to him

I called him privately and said look You come in and you made the whole thing about anti -calvinism

You you study god's word Let's you know the the I forget where we were in ephesians

But he agreed with us with all the other people there what the the text was saying But he he like almost had to go on his rant against calvinism.

And I said hey Come on in and just discuss the text of scripture and You know,

I did the same thing with with chris date. I I personally I like him. He's a he's a very likable guy and He you know,

I said look you should really branch out do other things than just The the one thing on and it's not he doesn't actually teach annihilationism, but he you know conditional, uh,

Conditional and not conditionalism. Uh, oh conditionalism, you know, yeah, i'm forgetting the folk I equate them together because the nuances, you know, yeah

I mean, there's a nuance there that he makes and so I I don't want to lump him into son He doesn't hold to but the thing being is, you know,

I said you should branch out do other things also So, um, you you mentioned something. I just want to I want to raise when

I ask this as my own question to you you know, you said People can be believe in universalism And still be christian wrong, but still be christian.

How? How how do you see that someone can hold to those two? I can I can see how someone could not hold to a right view of of Hell, but i'm confused on the on the other what's the question?

I missed it You you mentioned that someone can believe in universalism And you're christian

Yes, and most people disagree with me But when I say this Um what

I say what I mean is it can you have an individual who's born again? Who's indwelt by the lord who also mistakenly thinks that jesus is going to save everybody who ever lived?

Is that possible? Okay Yeah, I guess I I yeah. All right.

I'm trying to think through it. I guess it could be I would just see that I mean for a person to recognize that they're

They have a need for christ they have to recognize they're a sinner and have a punishment if they think everyone

Huh universalists affirm that Christian universalists are from the trinity the deity of christ

The physical resurrection justification by faith alone Period they just also happen to believe that everybody's going to be saved and they have references they go to in the scriptures

But why would why would they see a need to repent then? Repentance is still necessary in order to be a christian.

Yeah, but they would be going to have repent in the afterlife I'm, just telling you their arguments. I'm not defending them.

No, no, and i'm just It's the first time i'm hearing it that argument being made. So i'm just engaging with it.

No, but so I got lambasted by some people When I said yes Technically universalists can be christians

Oh, no, they can't. Well, wait a minute. You mean if someone teaches If someone affirms the deity of christ the resurrection the trinity, you know

Justification by faith his physical resurrection, but he believes that everybody's going to heaven that now it means he's damned

Show me in this scripture where that's that is a requirement or that that invalidates Salvation and that's my point

Where is that? It's not there. No, they're wrong universalists is wrong. They're wrong. I have a whole section against it i'm just saying

As an example that yes, you can be an error and still be a christian and that's one of the errors you can hold to Just like annihilationism.

You can be an error holding to that and still be a christian Annihilationism doesn't make you a christian or not a christian

You know think about annihilationism says all um All the unbelievers are going to stop existing

Does that mean that they're not they can't be christian because they hold to that position universalists say that christian universalists say that Uh, everybody's going to end up going to heaven

Does that mean you're not a christian because of that Yeah, I guess I guess my thing is and and I just don't see how someone why someone would bother even saying

I need to come to repentance if i'm that's a different issue It's a different issue why I say that you become repentance and that's one of the dangers of universalism

Yes, why because you can kind of repentance in the in the afterlife and it's it's a dangerous gospel Okay, but it does not

Invalidate someone from being a christian if they simply have that mistaken view that everybody's going to be saved

I mean first timothy 410. He's a savior of all men people will say well He's all he's a savior of everybody.

How can he not be? I mean i'm not saying they understand things properly But I see nothing in scripture that says if you believe that or hints to the fact

Or the or the idea that if you believe everybody goes to heaven you end up you're going to hell for that I don't see that in scripture, but i've had people get on me and say matt.

You can't say that that's false Show me in scripture And that's all I say and they haven't been able to show me that the teaching of universalism means you're automatically going to hell

Yeah, I believe universalists are way wrong The matt slick live podcast and there was a guy who got on you for saying, you know, how can someone

Not understand the trinity and go to heaven and and there I mean I know from my own personal experience

I didn't understand the trinity growing up. Jewish. I had no knowledge of it. It was something obviously it wasn't something taught in synagogue

But I knew christ was god. I believed he was god and he asked me how could he be?

On the cross dying and yet be controlling the world. It's like well, he's god. He could do what he wants, right?

So I don't fully understand him. So there's there was error that I had because I didn't know the trinity.

I didn't argue against it I just didn't understand it. Right? So my my my theology wouldn't have been as informed and I would have been

You know an error in some Right. Well, that's you know, that's a in these I call it a secondary essential but um

Annihilationism universalism is not an essential doctrine It's a debatable issue In that you can affirm it or deny it doesn't mean you're saved or not saved

If you believe that everybody's going to be annihilated the wicked I would and if someone said that that's so unchristian you can't be saved i'd say

Okay, show me in scripture and I don't mean show me in scripture. I got a chip on my shoulder. I mean Maybe i'm missing something and i'm serious because I I take my teaching very seriously that I may

I don't know everything Maybe someone's got an answer to something. I don't know show me I'm open.

I haven't seen it. I don't think it's there, but I could be wrong show me the verse I'm completely open to being corrected, but it has to be by scripture

And if they can't show me in scripture that i'm forced to conclude that my position is still consistent and true

Where babies get baptized and it's not there it's not explicitly taught

All right, so so let's we're gonna go Uh, we're gonna end up bringing in our first questioner folks who want to join us

You're welcome to join. You can go to apologetics live .com There's a link to join there

And that is how you'd be able to come in ask your questions. I know we got a lot of people watching and in Youtube, but you can come on in ask your questions and before we go to uh, the first caller ariel

Matt we we get we got a new sponsor. Well, it's actually a sponsor from your radio show Good we're we're gonna be working with and it is well, it happens to be my favorite pillow

Yeah, it's good my pillow You you got a my pillow, don't you? Yeah, I love it.

I'm serious. I'm not just saying it I could not believe it's like oh, come on. Give me a pillow.

What's the big deal? I slept with her one night. My wife goes how'd it go? I love this. I would marry it.

That's how much I love it So you your wife must be jealous you want to marry a lot of things But I travel

I I can't go to hotels without my my my pillow I mean with you I I have it in the wrapped up and by the way

I did hear you busting on me on your radio show, even though you didn't use my name Referring to a guy that can fall asleep in three seconds

Yeah that you can definitely do that. Uh, yeah, we've shared rooms before and uh,

I mean, yeah But you know the thing I love about the my pillow is you know, it's it doesn't matter

How much you lay on it is is always the same firmness It's you know, i've been i've had it for years now

I just you know, you could throw it in the washing machine wash it dry it and it's it's

Just great. It lasts It's always the same firmness where i've had other pillows that just over time you end up having to get new pillows

It's got like a 10 -year warranty on it. It's good. It is good. Seriously Yo, it's it is great and so we if you want to to get a my pillow they have different deals that you can get

You can call one eight hundred Nine four four Five three nine six that's one eight hundred nine four four

Five three nine six to get a my pillow. What are you holding up there matt? Yeah, and I do

I I do recommend you get one. I'm not kidding It really is good and when I travel I take it with me seriously

So i'm not just saying that even if they weren't our sponsors i'd still say it I would I say before they respond

I I was in cosco and they and my pillow was there and this guy was thinking about It and I wasn't sure and I just I literally turned to a guy and I I already had one

It wasn't like I was gonna buy one. I turned to him. I said, dude I don't travel without it. He goes well, I travel every week i'm, like I don't travel without it and he turns looked at the guy and he's like It's really that good the guy was like I don't travel without it either and i'm traveling every week

So yeah, I mean it it is a great it's a great pillow It's moldable and I have a c -pad machine and I can sleep with it very well when

I go to hotels I always get rid of all their hard, you know, they're they're they're from the cement factory. That's where they get these pillows

And uh, so I just use this one. Oh, it's awesome Okay, this is what I was uh showing everybody

That's a nice picture of me with my eyes closed hold on let me make it so kind of half it's uh It looks better on my full screen instead of on the phone here.

But uh, yeah, I think this is uh, my new favorite picture of you You know Someone took it

I don't know what it is about my facial expressions when I teach the striving fraternity academy

I mean people go out to youtube. They take our classes and we had one guy just When we people used to watch live it would freeze on them and we had one guy that used to just snap the picture every time it froze and he put it together and it was a whole stream of My crazy looking faces kind of like that one there.

So folks who are listening on the podcast For apologetics live you can't see that but it was basically my ugly mug looking

It's pretty ugly That's right, that's why Perfect All right, so I am bringing ariel into Uh the hangout ariel you can unmute yourself

Uh, and while he does he's a roman catholic that had a question for you matt on Solo scriptura and folks who want to join come on into apologetics live .com

The link to join is there ariel go for it Awesome. Can you guys hear me? Yep Oh perfect Um, so I just had a question more of an open -ended question, but not too open -ended about solo scriptura

And obviously i'm a roman catholic. So i'm wondering, you know what the other perspective is So as a catholic,

I do believe that there are three pillars of authority. There's scripture tradition and the magisterium uh, one of the reasons why

I believe that And there's many examples I could give but i'll just give one example and I want to hear your thoughts on it one example is so if you look at the

The period of revelation in the first century I don't seem to find any evidence within the new testament that uh, the period of revelation ends at the death of the last apostle or the last apostolic person, for example

I don't seem to find that in scripture, but I do know that from tradition from the church tradition and um that's one thing another thing is

Uh, there isn't any evidence that the last apostle was the apostle john who died at the end of the first century

But we seem to know that from the church tradition that john was the last living apostle But i'm wondering how a protestant for example would answer that from soul scriptura answer what?

Uh When the the end of public revelation was when it's when public revelation ceased

I believe in um, I mean public revelation. That's interesting Yeah Like the apostles kind of stuff

Yeah, yeah that kind of stuff with the apostles yeah, but uh

Obviously so to get an example paul was appointed an apostle and he didn't directly, you know

Uh meet christ during his earthly ministry. So there could be theoretically apostles. Well, wait, what?

I think you cut out. Sorry But he said he did Paul appealed to his epistole

And matt you're starting to uh freeze up a bit. You may want to turn your bandwidth down Matt's frozen authority and position

Well, thanks, let's see Any better yet? Yeah, we can hear you now.

Yeah. Okay. Let me keep Closing some stuff if you keep the uh, if you keep the bandwidth down to so it's not on Like auto high definition, you'll look fuzzier and that'll be better for those watching online.

It's true It would be okay. How do I sound now? Good, perfect. And how do I look look the camera's fine

Unfortunately, you're in the camera it is okay good. So, um, I just closed a bunch of windows and uh, so I was saying is that paul the apostle defended his apostolic authority by uh,

Well by saying in first corinthians 9 1 that he was an apostle. He had seen the risen lord so, um

So I know that he's an apostle and paul recognizes is peter recognized him as a scriptural

Is writing as a scriptural as apostolic issue, so that's it now i'm a I believe in the continuation of all the charismatic gifts

So I believe in a type of revelation that continues but not in an apostolic sense One of the things the apostles could do and there's seven different kinds of apostles in the new testament but um one of the things the apostles could do was write scripture, but not necessarily all of them and uh, we do know that the authority that was demonstrated which uh, the catholic church does not have

I claims it can have it but it just does not and we can go into why the roman catholic church is apostate and false if you want but um

Jesus is the one Who gave the authority? And which I I did some research on this in scripture

When I found out what was interesting. Come on. Here we go Uh, yeah, yeah, come on Okay, here we go in my article does the roman catholic church have the authority of christ because you said the tradition which

I'll get questions about and magisterium um Well, the magisterium is supposed to have its authority from jesus

I think it's paragraph 83 or 2 or 5 or something like that in the catholic catechism Well, check this out.

Jesus raised the dead on command Peter raised the dead on command

Peter healed on command paul healed on command This is part of their apostolic authority

And what you find is that uh In matthew 10 1 jesus summoned his 12 disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness

And matthew 10 8 heal the sick raise the dead cleanse the lepers cast out demons So this is the authority that that they had from christ

Now the roman catholic church says it has the apostolic authority from christ. Well, that means along with the disciples

But you see the thing is roman catholics can't do the same thing these disciples did the apostles did They were able to heal and raise the dead on command doesn't happen in the catholic church

So sure there are healings that occur in catholicism and healings that occur in protestantism

So each time a catholic says well, we have a protestant or we have catholic healings that shows our authority

Protestants could say well we have healings too. Therefore we have authority but the catholics would say well, no, we don't recognize yours well i'm going to go to the scriptures and what

I see is the pattern of apostolic authority is Part of it is to be able to do it on command and neither one can do it necessarily on command

You know except there's some ambiguity here as well In that, you know protestant and a catholic priest

I would say a catholic priest is doing it by the power of the evil one But a protestant pastor they could both be sitting in the same place and one they could say things like In the name of jesus christ rise and it could happen or name of jesus christ be healed it could happen

But we have to be careful because even that Uh, how do we interpret it because I would say and I firmly believe catholic priests

There may be exceptions are just servants of the devil. I believe that And protestant pastors doesn't mean they're automatically christian because they're protestant pastors, but for the most part,

I believe they're fine both could Command so to speak a healing and it could occur and we know that demonic healings can occur because jesus talks about them in That day lord lord, they would not prophesy cast out demons perform many miracles in your name get away from me

I never knew you so they weren't doing it by his authority. They're doing it by a different authority So we can have a false healing thing.

So this position here Of authority is really problematic. The roman catholic church simply says it has authority really uh so So what they're going to have authority demonstrate the authority

How can it demonstrate its authority it says it has it from christ really uh So what you can say it all you want.

Let's see it because jesus said in order for you to know That the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins

I say to this paralytic take up your your palate and walk He backed up his authority by what he's able to do.

Let's see the roman catholics do the same thing in their priesthood Um, yeah, so I totally agree with you that um

The the catholic church doesn't it isn't apostolic in the sense that it has the same the very same authority that the apostles did

So the catholic church can't produce new revelation after the death of the apostles. It does it all the time

Oh like what example would that be oh, uh, mary ascended into heaven mary's sinlessness, for example full of grace mediatrix things like that These are not biblical revelations

These are extra biblical and they're doctrine and they're supposed to be official roman catholic theology

That is extra biblical revelation that they claim out of the magisterium authority well them not being in the bible doesn't doesn't entail that they were created revelation after the fact of Biblical the biblical period of revelation so they could have been

It could have existed during the period of biblical revelation without them being real Then you had to go with tradition then

Right. Yeah, I would have to go to tradition, but that's why I asked the question about where did you? Where do you have this idea that?

Uh bit that that uh apostolic revelation ended at the death of the last apostle That's that seems to be a tradition that you have because it's apostolic

Apostolic Authority and the apostles had that authority and apostles died Their authority died with them because they were apostles.

That's why they call it apostolic authority Well, what's this idea that you need to have apostolic authority in order to have a revelation?

I don't believe we do You asked the question. I was answering your question the way you phrased it Oh, i'm, sorry.

So let me qualify then. Let me just say that uh How do you have this idea that you you cannot have revelation after the death of the last apostles revelation

I don't believe that you can't have revelation after the death of the last apostles But like even the charismatic gifts

I believe in the charismatic gifts but like like a binding revelation like revelation that You need to believe for the sake of salvation or whatever.

Oh, I mean, I don't believe that I don't I don't believe that personally, but i'm just saying what? There's nothing in scripture specifically saying that there cannot be revelation after the death of the last apostles

You're right. Nothing in scripture says that can't happen, right? Yeah, but you seem to believe that don't you?

That you know, I believe in the charismatic gifts I believe that god can give revelational knowledge to people for certain situations in certain times

But that isn't binding on every christian correct. So those seem to be private revelations

No public in the sense Not not the same authority as scripture, but i'm specifically wondering about uh revelation.

That's that has the same authority as scripture because Uh scripture has the final authority. So yeah, that's

I do not believe that continues anymore Now that's the right way to answer the ask the question the same apology of scripture.

I know for no problem, man. It's all right Uh the same authority of scripture, um, because we know that only the apostles wrote scripture

So therefore since we know that only scripture is inspired And tradition is not inspired therefore, we can't say we have equal

Revelatory authority and power from tradition to scripture because only scripture is said to be inspired not tradition

So that's why I would hold that it's that kind of revelation stopped with the apostles Because jesus gave his authority only to the apostles and they were able to exercise that and they were directly with them

And jesus did say i'm an apostle. Have I not seen the risen lord? That was really interesting first corinthians 9 1 one of his apostolic requirements.

It seems to be Is that he saw the risen lord saw? And when they had to replace judas matthias was picked by lot

But they said in the part of the requirement who's going to be one to take his place who was with him from the beginning

And the implication is saw the resurrection as well So it seems to be that true apostolic authority at least true apostles

Like that have to have been alive at the time of christ So what the catholic church does is it says it has apostolic succession authority

Well, that's just a claim That's all it is It can claim it

But so what? I could say they're wrong and they could say well, this is your claim. Yep. It's equal in claim to the roman catholic church

Because I want to see in scripture Show me in scripture. See again only scripture is said to be inspired second timothy 3 16 jesus appealed to scripture the apostles appealed to scripture

Jesus was god in flesh. Of course. He made new scripture by just speaking. I mean, that's his unique ability, but even god in flesh referenced scripture

As his authority when he was rebuking the devil. I mean You and I could sit there and go.

Well, why didn't he just go? And the devil's gone, you know solve a lot of problems, you know, but he didn't he rebuked him with scripture jesus authority

Seems to be that he you know wanted scripture And so let's just follow after christ.

Let's follow after the apostles the problem with tradition is I could ask a bunch of questions about tradition. I know i'm talking a lot but There's a lot of there's a lot of problems with tradition

There's a lot. I mean I have an article I have uh 65 questions related to tradition

And we can't go all I don't expect you to answer every one i'm not trying to you know, make it look bad

But these are questions, you know, what exactly is sacred tradition? That's my first question.

What is it? And how is sacred tradition declared to be such in the church? And what is the means of the church determining?

What is true sacred tradition did the apostles intend for their sacred tradition to be sacred tradition some?

Uh, or something invented by the church or is it but by the church? Those are just the first four opening questions. You know, what is sacred tradition when

I ask catholics that They don't really have an answer Because you know not to be mocking this is not a mocking intent but you know priest bob and priest frank are walking in the vatican

And tradition means it's by verbal things with traditions of things maybe some of it could be written down But either way what is written had to be verbalized first So, let's say bob pastor priest bob and priest frank are talking and priest bob says hey

I got some sacred tradition for you or some tradition Really? What is it? And he says something about one of the apostles that did or said someplace or time

All right, let's just say let's make one up here. This is just to make one up that peter Uh on his third attempt was able to walk on water

It's not i'm not saying it is or is not just you know making this up and it's a tradition Okay, is it true or is it not true?

How do you know? How do you know it wasn't made up in the 400s and the 800s? How do you know someone didn't overhear someone saying something in a you know in a hallway in the vatican and overheard it?

And overheard it out of context. It says oh that's part of the tradition and then starts repeating it. I mean

What is sacred tradition? How do you know it's sacred tradition? How is it transmitted verbally?

And how do you know is there a corpus of all these statements that people are saying in the vatican?

Hey, do you hear the one about you hear the one about no, I didn't hear about that one. What about that? What about this? How many things are there?

And these are serious questions. How is sacred tradition transmitted in the church through the centuries?

Is sacred tradition transmitted through the centuries orally by written by written record divine revelation?

Is it invented and then voted on or is it a combination of these? If it's a combination of these then which options are the right ones?

If the means of transmission is not known, then how can sacred tradition be true? Is the transmission of the tradition a verbal communication from one person to another through the centuries regarding ancient theological?

teachings that originated with the apostles How would you know? Is sacred tradition a verbal communication if it is then does the person know that he's communicating actual sacred tradition?

Or does he not if such person is unaware? Then how does he know he's conveying authentic information if he is not aware?

Then how's a tradition discovered among the plethora of rumored statements among the apostles and I can go on and that's just question number 20

See there's problems. Where's the roman catholic church get off and saying what is and isn't sacred tradition? Or because they have the authority who says they have the authority the catholic church does that's circular, uh

Could I respond by saying uh by asking about uh, So here's one instance that I think is analogous to this.

Um, I think the development of the canon for example Uh, if you were to ask a christian during the second century or maybe the early second century

What's the canon of the new testament? It depends on which christian in which area which bishop you ask what the canon of the new testament is going to be

Absolutely. So there was a process of ongoing development of the recognition of the canon and tradition

Tradition was part of it and it might fall into these these questions that you're asking uh Except that is it might have those

In what way? Well, let's just pick the idea of mary's ascension into heaven There's nothing in scripture that that even hints towards that nothing

So it has to be something else now So, let's say 300 years later and this isn't exactly accurate but this is for the illustrator

Illustrating something 300 years later after jesus died. There's a council uh, roughly 200 years or was and they're determining what scripture is well part of the issues of what was it was not scripture was

The tradition that they had but also was the writings that they possess authored by An apostle or an amanuensis of an apostle a secretary of an apostle like luke

And so was that the case? If it was then that was one of the levels that it would pass and had to go on and accept it

Uh, does it have that? And here's the subjective thing that authority Now jesus did say my sheep will hear my voice and they'll follow after me

And I use that in the declaration that the church itself and dwelt by christ will recognize the word of god

And so early on I don't believe that the roman catholic church was very apostate. I believe it was just Getting there and so I believe the spirit of god could work through even unbelievers

Uh to bring about his will It works all things after the council of his will he knows what are his scriptures?

He worked through people and think about this. What's inspiration of scripture? So paul the apostle sits down and he writes something and what's interesting is that His will is subjected to the will of god

But yet he's still free and what he's writing is exactly what god decreed from eternity would be in place

And yet he's free to do that And so the spirit works through people and the inspiration of scripture is proof of that And so as the apostles wrote scripture and was in scripturated

We have that same kind of a thing in the indwelling of the people by the holy spirit of god Recognizing what the holy spirit himself or jesus words are in the scriptures my sheep hear my voice.

They follow me And I believe that's a legitimate understanding and part of recognition of the scriptures the issue of mary by for example

Is completely unbiblical in the sense that it's not in scriptures period. It has to come outside of the scriptures

And because it comes outside of the scriptures, it's not inspired So In response to that, uh, you gave the criteria that uh in order to be considered

I think it's considered for canonicity Uh a book of the new testament had to either be written by an apostle or an associate of the apostles

But again, I don't see that criteria in scripture. That seems to be of course not a tradition Yeah, it just seems a common sense thing that was done because you know, what if uh, you know, uh apostle bob

You know from a different sect comes up and goes. Yeah, I got something I wrote about jesus Uh, did you were you with him?

No Were you in jerusalem? No Did you ever meet the apostles? No we seem to have some

Testament were Were so for example, you might disagree with me on here on this one But I don't think hebrews was written by paul.

A lot of christians don't Um, I do but it was still considered. Yeah, that's true But uh, it's all right.

It was a it was a debated issue within the early church Yeah, it was not all the fathers agreed on this point and james Included In james revelation.

Yeah. Yeah, and we don't know if the john who wrote revelation Well, I I think that the john who wrote revelation was a disciple of jesus

But a lot of christians questioned this issue and yet it was still included as part of the canon so It wasn't a strict criterion

But you're talking about this recognition of god's word all that's all you're talking about not invention of new doctrines

Well, that's begging the question so the question to be To be argued is whether or not the assumption of mary was invented

Doctrine and i'm arguing that if you're going to argue that then you have to argue that uh

The canon we have the criterion for canonicity are themselves Invented because they're not strictly speaking in scripture.

I can bypass all of this The roman catholic church says it has the authority And that's how it says that that is a true doctrine if the roman catholic church teaches stuff against scripture then it's lost its authority

Simple principle, okay Yeah, right and and so if we can find places where it does

Then it's a problem and then we know it doesn't have the authority and it does in many places you know, um

Let me let me go to something here. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to set you up You're a nice guy. You're not out to you know, you're not mean you're not, you know, not a jerk

So i'm going to tell you ahead of time i'm setting you up All right You ready? Sounds good

Like being set up if i'm telling you i'm setting you up Okay, you're telling him up and he says sounds good

Right, all right, so i'm setting you up You are you are you you like being tortured like being said?

Okay Yeah, I just put something in the uh in the text this is from the catechism paragraph 972

After speaking of the church her origin mission and destiny we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to mary

Do you agree with the statement? Yeah Okay. So now think about what the statement is saying

There's no better way to conclude than to look to mary I'll have to look at the entire citation, but there's a way that you can read it there's more than one way to read it obviously and you could read it and uh,

I don't I don't want to put it this way, but there's an unsympathetic way to read it and i'm not trying to say that you're doing it deliberately, but No, i'm not trying to Okay, um, but sure sure there is a bad way to read it.

Yeah Yeah, and in fact i'm going to go to where this is and um

Uh, i'm going to go i'm going to enter the catechism of the paragraph. This is a paragraph.

Um, 972 So i'm going to read 971 and Two and three, okay

Because this is important. You'll see it. Okay, so we can't do I can read for eight hours, but i'm not trying to be contextual

All generations will call me blessed the church's devotion to the blessed virgin is intrinsic to christian worship

Well, where's that in scripture? But anyway The church rightly honors a blessed virgin with special devotion from the most ancient times a blessed virgin has been honored with the title of mother of god to those

To whose protection the faithful flying all their dangers and needs That's what i'm going to write an article on that one

This very special devotion differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate word and equally to the father

And the holy spirit greatly fosters this adoration, you know, let the tree and hyperdulia. So The liturgical feasts dedicated to the mother of god and mary in prayer such as the rosary

Are an epitome of the whole gospel They express this devotion to the virgin mary paragraph 79 72

After speaking of the church her origin mission and destiny We can find no better way to conclude than by looking to mary in her we contemplate what the church already is in her mystery

On her own pilgrimage of faith and what she will be in the homeland In the homeland at the end of her journey there in the glory of the most high and undivided trinity in the communion of all

The saints the church is awaited by the one she venerates as mother Of her lord and as her own mother in the meantime the mother of jesus in the glory

Which she possesses embodying soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the church the mother of jesus is okay is the image and beginning of the church as It is to be perfected in the world to come likewise.

She signed she Shines forth on earth today. I'm messing up likewise.

She Shines forth on earth until the day of our lord. Jesus shall come a sign of certain

Hope and comfort to the pilgrim people of god paragraph 973. It's really short by Pronouncing her fiat at the annunciation and giving her consent to the incarnation.

Mary was already collaborating with the work Whole work of her son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is savior and head of the mystical body

Okay So it says in 972 After speaking of the church her origin mission and destiny we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to mary

In her we contemplate what the church already is in her mystery, etc. Do you agree with that? Yeah, because uh in catholic theology and this is spoken of by pope benedict the 16th he's written about this that Mary is seen as the perfect role model the perfect christian the perfect follower of christ

And she already has in her body with christians are waiting In uh in heaven, so she is the first christian after christ to have

Received her glorified body and that's why we look to her and why we venerate her above the other saints

Yeah, she's received her glorified body already Yeah, oh she was assumed to heaven so I didn't know that oh i gotta find that because that would be a heresy

But let's stick with this Um No better way to conclude by looking to mary

I would offer a correction There is a better way to conclude by looking to jesus

Is looking at this kind of like better than is jesus looking to jesus better than looking to mary Regarding the no,

I totally agree. I totally agree. So this is not I don't I don't view this as an unqualified statement

This would be like jesus saying of all those who are born of women. There is none greater than john the baptist Well, obviously jesus is born of a woman and he's obviously greater than john the baptist

So jesus is saying it in a very qualified way and I view this in a very similar vein I'm, I think that the the writers of the catechism obviously had in mind that jesus was obviously the best person to look to But why is it not speaking about?

Well, we're talking about Those who belong to the church now christ is the head of the church

But of those who are in the body of the church, there's no better person to look to than to mary She's the perfect role model.

No Uh, jesus is the perfect role model because jesus rebuked mary in john 2

That is uh controversial But it is controversial There's a it's controversial because the roman catholic church cannot allow it to be a rebuke

When he said what he said to her mother, I mean woman, what have I to do with you? That was a polite rebuke against her and that's how it was understood in the culture of the time because she was

Asking him to do something was not his time to do She blew it As a catholic you can't have that be it has to be interpreted someplace else

The problem here is that i'm just trying to show you one of the very subtle ways that the roman catholic church is false

It says no better way to look Than by looking to mary. Yes Jesus is the better way and it should always be if they're going to be really christian

After speaking of the church her origin mission and destiny we can find no better way to conclude it by looking to jesus

In him we contemplate what the church already is in the mystery and the pilgrimage of our faith

Is what in him as a homeland we're seeking in our journey. That's how it should be

Because the holy spirit bears witness of jesus. John 14 26. John 15 26 Jesus bears witness of himself.

The father bears witness of himself. Let me let me show you something here if you go to carm And you go to carm .org

I did it it took me years to write about two years to research this 100 truths about jesus

And i'm going to i'm going to convert it to a book. It's just a simple article. I got to it here And i'm going to read

This is what it says here about in the scriptures. It says Uh, jesus bears witness of himself.

John 8 18. Jesus works bear witness of himself. John 5 36 The father bears witness of jesus.

John 5 37. The holy spirit bears witness of jesus. John 15 26 The multitudes bear witness of jesus.

John 12 17. The prophets bear witness of jesus. Acts 10 43 The scriptures bear witness of jesus.

John 5 39 now Of those things guess how many there are

There's six I think there's gonna be more Actually, wait, one two, three, four, five six seven.

That's right. I always thought there was seven There's seven issues seven the perfect number Out of the bible that speak of bearing witness of christ

Jesus himself His works the father the holy spirit the multitudes the prophets and the scriptures all bear witness of christ

This is because the holy spirit is working through them. That's not the case here in more in I want to say mormon in catholicism

Mary is elevated. Mary is the one you've got to go to Mary is the one because in in Mary is full of grace.

Mary is not subject to corruption. Mary is the all holy one Mary is the second eve there's devotion to mary you entrust our cares to mary ask mary to pray for us

Pray to mary mary in prayer is the epitome of the gospel Mary is worshiped and I have the book right there

I can open up and show it to you where it has the word worship in it from a catholic source Entrusting ourselves to mary's prayer mary sits at the right hand of christ mary is second only to jesus

No, man goes to christ, but by his mother Mary taken into heaven mary's our advocate helper of mediatrix

Mary the mother members of christ mary preserved from original sin Mary's the queen over all things mary brings us the gifts of eternal life

Mary's the advocate mediatrix mary helped make atonement for the sins of man

Mary crushed the head of the serpent mary delivers our souls from death. She brings us the gift of eternal salvation She's preparing a home for us.

She hears our prayers This is all The worst one for you out of all those

Uh, it's one of the worst one of the worst ones. Yeah, that's it. Do you know what the church? Go ahead.

I'm, sorry. Oh, do you know what the church typically means by that? It isn't tell me in the same sense in which uh christ makes atonement, of course

Mary just makes reparation for the temporal punishment for our sins Which is not the same thing as christ.

Is she what i'm sorry? What she she offers reparation? For the temporal punishments of our reparation r -e -p reparation

Yeah, reparation r -e -p -a -r -a -t -i -o -n -s. You have reparation.

Can you define reparation? Uh, there's multiple ways but i'll i'll give you the definition that uh includes um

What christ normally does what christ did in the act of atonement so christ repairs the uh, well he satisfies the infinite debt of sin

That was due to us And he saves us from eternal damnation but the reparation in terms of uh temporal punishment

Is uh, so whenever we have our sins forgiven there remains A temporal debt that we have to god.

So there's there remains. Uh An act or an expression of uh of sorrow that we have to give to god

As a token of our repentance after we have been forgiven And we can either perform it ourselves or we can ask somebody to perform it for us

And in mary's case mary is a source of that reparation she can offer to god a token of our sorrow for sin

The sorrow that we've already been forgiven through uh, the infinite merits of christ So that's an act of atonement repair.

You're repairing means to make amends to fix it reparation To to satisfy that can either mean that or it can mean to satisfy

Some kind of debt that you have right Making this case A debt or wrong or an injury or something like that, correct?

Sure. Yeah, and so mary makes reparations for what? And the the reparation she makes is uh, the debt that we have to Offer to god a token of our sorrow

A token of repentance that we've already made so we've already made repentance But it's good to offer to god a visible token of our repentance.

So she made by prayer by fasting She makes it possible So during her earthly life she already performed, uh acts of holiness

And the church actually, um through the church's prayers they ask for mary's acts of holiness to be applied to us um

And and not just mary but any of the saints but mary's the the primary source Of reparation because she performed and had the theology the the greatest acts of holiness out of all those in the church.

Yeah And my heart breaks for you you're so lost You're so damned you're such you're such lost state

And you're you're lost. This has nothing to do with this is not about salvation. It's just about no, you're just about temporal punishment

No, I know. It's just that you believe this And it's so ungodly It is it's just so grieving

Um, it's part of tradition Yeah part of sacred crap tradition. Oh, sorry I shouldn't have said that.

Um, because that's not respectful. I'm not I'm really struggling between Strong anger at these lies

Um, I don't mean that you're a liar But these things that injure people in their eternal salvation

I'm torn between that and my my just my heart breaks for you uh that you are trapped in these lies and I'm having real struggle here

Which part wants to take dominance? Um Reparation means to make things right

Mary doesn't do anything for us Uh, jesus did everything Jesus the one who did all that's necessary.

He finished it on the on the cross What catholicism does is then say well, yeah, he did that part, but we have to do our part

Uh to make things right before god may that blasphemous demonic doctrine die in a pit of hell Because that's what it is when we ask for when we ask for other people's prayers when we ask for somebody for On behalf of somebody else to make somebody else holier

Uh, is that not an active? Show me a scripture where you can pray to other people show me a scripture where you can pray to mary

Show me an inspired word No, you pray to mary and you ask mary to do things.

Uh, show me a scripture god's inspired word for that Um, when

I come to pray to the saints there are some some Arguable, uh citations, but I prefer to just defer to tradition on the question of But how do you know the saints

I can? How do you know? um I mean on the same basis that I know the canon of scripture is the accurate canon of scripture

And how do you know the canon of scripture is accurate canon? I trust the church's judgment on that That that canon authority that canon includes the apocrypha

Of the judeo canon which is part of you trust with the church's apocrypha. So how do you know your church is true?

Uh christ said that he would lead uh the church into all truth so you're interpreting the scriptures on your own

And subjecting the church to it Ultimately we have to make our own judgments and I think but that's a problem

Because you don't have the authority to it. There's a problem You don't have the authority to interpret scripture apart from the authority of the roman catholic church

So if you just Judge the roman catholic church of tradition true based on what you think scripture says

Then you're the one interpreting scripture and subjecting the roman catholic church to it When the bible when the roman catholic church says you can't do that Well, the catholic church has only infallibly defined a few verses of scripture.

So most have ever heard is 15 Right. Yeah, something like that. So so that means it's not

Infallibly interpreted something like 99 .98 % of the bible No, like, uh, they haven't given detailed interpretations of most of the bible, but there's general principles

That you have to go by when you're interpreting scripture So you put your trust and your faith in the holy roman catholic church

Because it says it has a tradition and it says it has the authority And it has the authority to interpret scripture

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the word of god whether in its written form or in the form of tradition has been entrusted

To the living teaching office of the church alone its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of jesus christ paragraph 85 the church's magisterium exercises the authority it holds from christ paragraph 88

But I would not believe the gospel had not the authority the catholic church already moved me paragraph 119

So the roman catholic church is claiming to be that authority But how do you know the roman catholic church is true? And then you just said by your interpretation of scripture

So this is how I do it I so if I were to come to the scripture as a non -catholic

I would try to exegete the text of scripture reading out of the text as opposed to reading into the text and if I were to in my view if I were to Read out of the text what the text says

You know given the historical context and um the actual, you know, the original languages and General principles of hermeneutics in my view.

I would find evidence that the historical church called the roman catholic church

Is what christ is referring to when he says that he would leave the church Where's that evidence in the scriptures?

Can you show me one of them? Well Jesus said that he would lead the church into all truth

And and that would entail that that would entail what I don't have a I don't know the exact verse, but let's see if we can find it because he's made a statement the holy

He will guide you guide you Right, maybe try gospel john gospel john

John 16 13, but when he the spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth.

Who's he speaking to? the apostles Okay, is he speaking in the roman catholic church?

No, but from that time you just read into the text you just isogeted you just broke your own thing

Okay, so that doesn't let me let me explain so christians have generally interpreted that as referring to not only the apostles

But the church that would gather the the revelation that the apostles would preach to them So I think you would agree that the church

Throughout the ages has had the core truth of the gospel based on that text

Based on the fact that christ would lead his apostles into all truth and the apostles would preach To the church and the church would not fall into.

Um complete apostasy No Of course, there's an apostasy

Because the bible prophesies there's going to be an apostasy and that Yeah, because we have protestantism

So there's not going to be complete even though I will say very quickly That a lot of protestantism is going into apostasy

The roman catholic church already is Now protestantism is going into it as well I mean, so i'm not just picking on you your church

But this verse out of john 16 13 Is not about the succession of apostolic authority in the magisterium of the roman catholic church.

You just read into the text You broke your own. Is it about the church though? Is it about the church?

He's well we always whenever we're going to understand something he said what we're going to do What we have to do is who is he speaking to?

Right the apostle. He's speaking to the apostles. He says but when he the spirit of truth comes he will guide you

He's talking to the apostles into the truth. He will not speak on his own initiative But whatever he hears he will speak and he will disclose to you what is to come

Now if you say that's the word church that that's the church well then let me just i'm going to click i'll do experiment

This doesn't prove anything i'm hitting control f i'm typing the word church The next appearance of that word is in the book of acts chapter 5

All right. So let me give you a better text then that is more explicit Okay, uh, matthew 16 18

Matthew 16 18. I'll also say to you that you are peter and upon this rock I'll be build my church to the gates of hades will not overpower it.

There's a problem The word peter there is petros and the word rock That that is i'm not worried about that.

I'm talking about the church part the church part. I'm, sorry I'm, i'm going to show you The word peter is petros.

The word rock is petra Petra is a large mass Peter petros is a small little pebble

You are the small pebble, but upon the large mass of truth. I'll build my church

It's not upon This has nothing to do with any papacy or church authority or anything because the gates of hades will not overpower it

The word church is ecclesia The word church is used in at least five different ways

Because that ecclesia can mean gathering of people But church we have what's called the invisible and the visible church and you would agree with this basic principle

That you could go to a church you and I could go to a particular church And you would agree that some people in it statistically

Are saved and really christians and some are not even though they're attending That's certainly a possibility.

We would call that visible church the visible church the invisible church are the church

Members who are really redeemed And so my church i'll build my church.

What is he talking about an ecclesiastical structure with bishops and presbyt uh presbyterians Or is he talking about the people who are indwelt by him whom he has called to follow him

Because you don't need a building You don't need all this stuff You know if we're on a desert island, you know, and you got converted to christianity.

We could have church right there as a church service If you just you and I right and it's there why

I don't know if you're married or not families whatever Okay, we we'd be having church. You don't know under palm trees. There's our church right but What's he saying?

You can't read into the text. What isn't there? So if I'm reading into the church you get

Your i'm sorry, you're breaking up scriptural idea that the church. I'm, sorry um If i'm reading into the text

Where would you get your scriptural evidence for the idea that the church has the authority to recognize the canon infallibly?

Jesus says my sheep will hear my voice and I give eternal life to perfect The sheep are those who are christians

But that's the invisible church Not the visible church my sheep. He says there's sheep and their goats.

There's true believers. There's false believers So only the true believers are recognized Okay, hey matt real quick I think there was a

Fallacy of equivocation there on the word church. I think both of you guys are using the word church differently

Well, i'm getting ready to clear that up. Yeah, if it comes to it. Yeah By the word because on karm coincidentally i've done a study on the word church

But anyway, go ahead Oh, i'm, sorry. Um But so it's not visible in any way.

So how would you know I didn't say it was invisible in any way Okay, I see I mean

Certainly, I think that there is a church that's invisible in a certain way in which

I believe that there's those who are elect for salvation And um, it's not everybody who's in the church in the visible church at least yeah,

I know you have a different uh, Satyriology than I do but so there are some similarities there

But um ultimately um I would agree with you that the people of god ultimately are those who recognize the canon of scripture

But that's that's all i'm saying That's ultimately what I was saying that right I get my evidence of that from what christ says about the people of god being able to be led into The truth of the gospel which includes the canon of scripture, which is one of the means of which by which we recognize christ's voice

Yeah And that's why my view that's why my view is not circular. You're not listening to christ

You're listening to the church. Okay Well, i'm listening to christ's words in the gospel of john

Well, yeah, but you misinterpreted them. I mean I was just showing you You know,

I mean you're reading into the text we had to go to john 16 13 that wasn't it He went to different verse matthew 16 18

And now we have the issue. What is the church? I was going by a memory my apologies It's all right

But you know the word church is used as a body of the body of christ a gathering of people Local churches the people of god and ecclesiastical body

Five different I have a research i've done it every single instance of the word ecclesia in the in the new testament

Strong number 1577 115 occurrences and 112 verses. Yeah, they're definitely different senses of the word church.

Absolutely So we have to you know, it's called the semantic domain, but we don't want to make a mistake though There's a an exegetical error called illegitimate totality transfer.

So for example You're peter upon this rock i'll build my church So there's a sense in which the word church means gathering of people in acts 1932 when it says for the assembly was in confusion

So I could say that means a gathering a bunch of people so I could then transfer the meeting This would be a this is called illegitimate totality transfer in that it one of the meetings of the word in different context

Is an assembly of people And I transfer that meeting over to here. I will I say to your peter and upon this rock

I'll build my assembly of people and the gates of hades will not overpower it and you go that doesn't make sense So that's an exegetical error so we're going to be careful because i'm actually criticizing potential in my own interpretations you know is

Is I want you to understand that i'm aware of this problem and i'll build my church. What does the word church mean?

Well It can mean at least five different things. I think there's seven some people have said seven different meanings, but i've found five basic ones

So, how do you know that the word church here means for example, uh a traditional ecclesiastical body

The roman catholic church or how do you know it doesn't mean the invisible church body of christ

We have those two options it could mean other things as well You know the people of god because it can mean that And great fear came upon the whole church and all those who heard these things

That could mean you know, it could mean a local body as well. But you see You know catholics read into the text a lot what isn't there

For the purposes of this discussion. I'm not committing myself to either reading so for the sake of argument I can just agree with your reading

And I don't think it changes my argument Okay, um, the point is that the essential argument

I was making was that the canon of scripture um Was recognized by the church apart from any appeal to scripture itself

But that was ultimately based on tradition. No, no, no, no It was appeal though.

The scriptures themselves were looked to absolutely the content of them who wrote them what was said in them

Absolutely, they were examined It was not just tradition arbitrary But that was they were examined absolutely, but they weren't the final appeal of authority

Well, would you say that anything jesus said written down by an apostle naturally had authority

Very true, but we don't there are texts Whose authorship was disputed?

Yes And we know there's only four gospels That's very true

And there's reasons I can back you give you evidence out of the old testament for that For what

I can give you evidence out of the old testament for the only four gospels God knows what he's doing in his word.

He does It's just you know, the roman catholic church you look at it I mean, dude, come on look

You believe jesus is god in flesh, right? Absolutely, he has all authority in heaven and earth, right?

Absolutely And he said to pray to him, right? Absolutely And so if you pray to jesus and ask him who has all authority to forgive you of all of your sins

Would he forgive you of all of your sins? Absolutely Do you need mary?

For no, i mean mary's not gonna Mary's not gonna forgive my sins only jesus can Okay, and you don't need a priest

You don't need a priest. Do you you go straight to jesus? Can't you? Yeah, if i'm sorry for my sins because I love god then christ will automatically forgive me of my sins

Wait, whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa Oh, so it's a formula now He will automatically do something based on your condition of heart based on my faith

Oh and trust in him So then it's not based based on my disposition it's not based on Any commandments that you would do as the roman catholic church says are necessary for salvation

In paragraph 2068 It says that that baptism

Uh the bishops successors of the apostles received from the lord the mission of teaching all peoples and of preaching the gospel to every creature so that all men may attain salvation through faith baptism and The observance of the commandments and you just said by faith that contradicts

So there's different Yeah, there's different senses of faith and we see this if we look at paul and james james and paul have different definitions of faith

No, they don't. Um well, even in your view of uh your interpretation of james james is talking about Uh dead faith versus saving faith, right?

But paul is usually talking about saving faith, right? Faith that justifies it for god Faith that justifies it before men faith is still right something you have it's the same definition

They're talking about focuses of it and what is true and what is false Yeah so some catholic documents

Refer to faith as simply intellectual scent That's called while you'll have other

Yeah While other catholic authors, uh talk about fiducia as you would define it, right and that's the faithful trust.

I think that Fiducia is faith So do you attain salvation through commandments do you obtain salvation by what you do?

Well, I think that fiducia essentially incorporates an obedience to god and his commandment so Can you be saved?

Can you be justified by faith alone in christ alone? It depends how you define faith alone

But just trust in what christ has done. You cannot fall into mortal sin. That's my view

You go to jesus in prayer Because he's god in flesh who has all authority in heaven and earth

You're on your knees like, you know doesn't matter if you are or not But you're on your knees and for all intents and purposes you have a faithful honest prayer to him

And you're just talking to jesus And you're saying jesus i'm a sinner. I did blah blah blah blah blah.

I have been doing blah blah blah, whatever it is and You come to him and you just appeal to christ

And you just ask him To save you from your sins to forgive you of all of your sins right then and there

Would he do that would he forgive you right then and there Absolutely, and the catholic church teaches that if you have what's called perfect.

He will save you on the spot then When it says you may attain salvation through faith baptism and observance of the commandments

Then why don't they just say all you got to do is just go to jesus and just Confess your sins to christ and ask him to forgive you and he will

Instead of saying you have to go through the catechism. You got to go through these things You got to be baptism observance of the commandments.

You have to um Recognize that the church teaches that the church is necessary for salvation penance are necessary for salvation

Sacraments are necessary for salvation service of and witness of the faith are necessary the keeping of the natural law

Which paragraph 20 70 says it's 10 commandments is a good reflection of it. There's necessary to keep those paragraph 20 36

Uh debt detachment from riches are necessary to keep or necessary for salvation But you see the roman catholic church is contradicting even what you're saying

You're saying it's okay to just go to jesus and just be forgiven And i'm not saying in a mocking sense, but just go to christ and just ask him to forgive you

You know and yet the roman if that's it if that's it then how is it necessary that you have to be baptized the church?

penance sacraments Service and witness of the faith keeping the 10 commandments and detachment from riches are necessary Because if it's necessary then you can't go to just jesus and ask him to forgive you and be be saved

Because other things are necessary You can't have a couple things here There are a couple things here.

The first thing I wanted to say is um When the I think that's catechism, right when the catechism says that you need to um have faith in christ and follow the commandments

I guess they're defining faith in a different way. Uh, Ascensia plus, uh the commandments And I think in your view you would say that if you have both of these you intellectually a sense of god

His existence and you follow his commandments faithfully. That would be that would amount to fiducia would not or No, uh fiducia is a trust in The situation

I gave where someone just trusts jesus as we get this thing of just trusting in him

That's fiducia. It's just trust in him and that's It has a later

Notice something because I was setting you up without telling you I was setting you up. Okay, i'll fill you in if you go on your

And I say this the right way, you know as you call it perfect contrition. Nobody's perfect I don't affirm that that statement but for the intents and purposes you're sitting there

You're really confessing your sins before the lord and and you're just trusting in him for salvation And you said you're all your sins are forgiven and that means that you're saved that means you've attained salvation

And you just agree that that is what does it? And yet you're also trying to argue that you attain salvation through observing commandments

But you can't have that The bible speaks against that very clearly romans 3 28 romans 4 five

Galatians 2 16 and 21 It speaks against those things And so the roman catholic church adds works to salvation and therefore

It teaches a false gospel It's a false gospel. The roman catholic church is teaching you yourself admitted

That when you pray and you ask jesus to forgive you you're saved and not a single Commandment is obeyed except for just believing but that's something he gives to you even

It's 129. No observing of the commandments is necessary commandments here in 26 8 is in the plural not just to believe

Because god grants what you believe in 129 Repentance doesn't save you Well faith saving faith brings with it the disposition to repent does it not no does not regeneration do that No generation doesn't generation does

But you said faith brings with it. No god gives you faith god grants you faith philippians 129

He grants sure he grants it and he also grants repentance second timothy 225

He grants that you believe and that you repent and this is concomitant with regeneration

Which he causes upon you first peter 1 3 and you're born again not of your own will john 1 13

So it's not about keeping commandments you preach A works righteousness gospel. Let me ask you a question.

Do you affirm basically that we're saved by grace through faith after all we can do

Saved by grace No, no, we're saved by grace after uh

It depends on what you mean by faith. So obviously if you're referring to saving faith saving faith

It brings with it the disposition to abstain from mortal sins Now, let's say let's say

I were to let's say if somebody were to be justified and if that individual Say like a day after being justified were to worship false idols by that Work by that bad deed that individual will fall into mortal sin and lose the grace justification

Not simply because he broke the commandment but because of saving faith His saving faith was was was lost because he lost his saving faith because of what he disposed himself to do

So you got a big problem If you do Okay scriptures.

Let me show you something Sin is a legal debt, right? If you break the law of god is sin first john 4 1 legal debts are transferable

Jesus bore our sin in his body on the cross first peter 2 24, right? Well, I don't believe in penal substitution, but I'll yeah, he bore our sins on the cross.

Sure. Of course, you can't believe in penal substitution Because you're a catholic. I'm a catholic. Of course.

Yeah, absolutely They don't believe in biblical Atonement look what it says in colossians 2 14 It's talking about jesus having canceled out the certificate of debt

Consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us. He's taken it out of the way having nailed it to the cross the word

It's a three words in english certificate of debt Is a single greek word caragraphon

It just that's just What it is And that word is only used once in the entire bible right there and we know what it means in other contexts and other writings

But it means a handwritten iou of legal indebtedness Okay, no big deal

So the he canceled out the certificate of debt what debt was canceled on the cross our debt to sin or that Yes, I would agree

And incidentally if you ask me I can back it up, but jesus equated sin with legal debt I can show you the exact verses for that.

So he canceled the sin debt now That means you and me for example are 2 000 years after christ.

That means our sins are future to him now let's just say that This is talking about a bunch of about christians who are going to heaven and he canceled their sin debt, right?

Can it be uncanceled? He canceled the sin that we have committed so far

It doesn't say we're to say so far in there Read what it actually says not what you want it to say

Hello, are you still there? Yeah I'm, sorry, it hiccuped. Okay. Sorry Sorry So, yeah, he did cancel the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us

The verse 13 the question. Yeah When you were dead in your transgressions in the uncircumcision of your flesh

He made you alive together with him having forgiven us All our transgressions having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us

So it's all Not just the ones up to that point Because you can't think about it.

Did jesus cancel all of the sin debt or not? All of it because if you're going to say

That he and this is what typically they do This is what typically The cults do that.

I bring this up to them They say the exact same thing that you do because they also have a worse righteousness system up to that point

It doesn't say up to that point and even if it Did which it doesn't because it would contradict the rest of scripture.

Well, then that means your salvation now depends upon you Keeping the commandments And then you're back to worse righteousness and then that would contradict the issue of All you gotta do is ask them to forgive you of all of your sins.

No commandments are necessary Your theology implodes He forgave us all of our transgressions cancelling the sin debt at the cross

Do you talk about mortal sin? That means you're in and out of salvation Oh, wait a minute, but he canceled all of our sin debt

How is it possible to have all of our sin debt canceled 2 000 years ago and you're in and out of salvation

In and out of it via mortal sin. How's that possible? Can I ask you?

Uh, can I answer it by asking another question? I'm not trying to you know step out of it No, I respect you because I I You're not like the other guys

I appreciate that so When I try to do systematic theology, I try to read uh, not simply that text but also

Texts like the gospels for example, and when I noticed in for example the lord's prayer is jesus saying you know when you're praying the lord when you're praying pray like this and then

The the lord's prayer consists of us asking god to forgive us of our sins Just as we forgive those who sin against us or trespass against us

How can god continuously forgive us every time we say the lord's prayer? if Every single sin that we have not just have committed but will ever commit has already been blotted out

Now you're asking the right questions Now you're thinking You're not thinking like a roman catholic now.

You're thinking according to what the text is is leading you to Good question. Actually, you can also go to first john 1 8 9 but talks there about confessing our sins if we if we confess our sins

He'd faithful just to forgive us our sins what's going on? In one sense. It's already clearly stated that jesus already cancelled the sin debt

On the other sense we have hey, you got to confess your sins now generically

People have to confess their sins But if we were to speak this to a bunch of people, of course, there are people who have to confess their sins

Because that's what we do And god is faithful to forgive us because he says in the our father art in heaven.

Hallowed be thy name, you know Forgive us our debt That's luke. That's matthew 6 12 forgive us our debts and luke 11 4 forgive us our sins

Jesus equates sin with legal debt. And so he's talking about what the procedure is We're supposed to be doing we're supposed to be forgiving others as we have been forgiven

And he's just talking about this in a generic moral sense about our behavior and why we're supposed to be

But in this legal sense in the penal substitutionary atonement And it's substitutionary because you go to isaiah 53 4 through 6

It clearly says he took our sins and bore our stripes. That's substitutionary

It's penal and it's legal because sin is a legal debt Which matthew 6 12 luke 11 4 clearly states and jesus bore our sin in his body on the cross first peter 2 24

And he said john 19 30 it is finished which is the greek word to tell us die Which is a word written on the bottom of ancient tax receipts signifying a legal debt had been paid in full

So for you to deny legal substitutionary atonement is to go against scripture

Yeah, I know people got the the other theory this other that that's what it says It says he bore our sin.

How is that possible if it's not legal sin is a legal debt People say well it didn't do it what it says he did it

How is it possible if you don't have legal substitutionary atonement and isaiah 53 says it's substitutionary.

He took our place That's exactly what penal substitutionary atonement is and in light of that Colossians 2 14 makes perfect sense

He canceled that sin debt at the cross. Who did he cancel it for? Who did he cancel it for everybody ever lived?

Or only the elect in my view Which one well in my yeah in my view, um

Well, you obviously know that I don't hold to penal substitution So my view is that christ there's a sense in which he canceled it by offering us the pardon

But in my view an unaccepted pardon is a part, you know that oh, so if it's canceled

It's if it's canceled is also not canceled So there's a sense in which we no longer have the obligation that we used to because we can accept the pardon

But if we don't accept the pardon, so it's a conditional Offer so in that sense, it's canceled. No conditional.

So I think we have nothing conditional about colossus 2 14. It's canceled at the cross When's the sin debt canceled?

When's it canceled when you believe when you're baptized when you go to church take communion or when jesus was crucified Yeah, so I think so.

I think actually find ourselves I think the issue we find ourselves in is One of us is prioritizing one set of texts over the other so in my view,

I I don't think that you're prioritizing the texts For example the lord's prayer where we ask god for forgiveness and he forgives us of our sins

I think that you're not prioritizing that enough You're not reading it in its plain sense

When you're but then you're again, you're accusing me of not reading colossians 2 in the plain sense

If you want you can cross -examine those other verses. I mean, I know the references I can quote them to you

You affirm he's god in flesh That's john 1 1 verse 14 colossus 2 9 Philippians 2 5 through 8 and go to zechariah 12 10 and go to the old testament if you want

I can give you references in the old testament Okay, he's god in flesh. He says ask me anything in my name. John 14 14 people pray to him

That's one verse you can also go to uh, zech uh, excuse me. Zechariah 13 9 and we can go to psalm 116 4 they call upon the name of the lord that phrase is used of Jesus in first corinthians 1 2 and that's in reference to prayer and adoration and worship.

So he's prayed to Okay, so there's there's nothing there. He has all authority in heaven and earth. Matthew 28 18 He's a high priest at the door of mount catholic.

He was 620 is 25 725 We didn't know he has that authority to forgive. He's atoning sacrifice

I mean, this is it's not it's not hard He's the high priest that we have.

There's only one priest that we need jesus christ And what you have to do is trust in him alone

Not him and baptism not him and commandments not him in the church Not him and sacraments you trust in jesus alone because he said it's finished on the cross

And it means a legal debt is paid in full your denial of penal substitutionary atonement is just foolishness

Because the scriptures teach sin is breaking the law of god. First john 4 1

Sends a legal debt. Jesus said so forgive us our sins. Forgive us our debts in the in our father in heaven.

He said that He co -op paul uses a legal debt term about sin being canceled

Colossians 2 14. This is penal. This is all penal. John 19 30. It is finished to tell a story a legal statement

This is penal substitutionary is the very fact of isaiah 53 4 through 6.

He clearly says he took our stripes. He bore what was due to us. That's a petitionary For you to denial penal substitutionary stuff is just simply foolishness because the scriptures teach it

That's what the biblical position is. There's no other way you can bear our sins If there is no legal transference of sin debt, how does he bear our sins in his body in the cross?

Do you have any idea how that's possible? well, i'm sympathetic toward anselm's idea that The sense in which he bore our sins on the cross is not that they were imputed to him but that his act his uh

Meritorious act of dying innocently as the god man Was meritorious enough to cancel

The debt we had to send so it isn't that That makes no sense Doesn't make any sense

Because sin requires a penalty. It's a law the wages in his death romans 6 23

Is usually if anselm is saying that it's just his meritorious life that cancels in debt Forget that that's not true.

The bible itself says without the shedding of blood is no forgiveness of sins You go to leviticus 17 11 which is referencing and I believe he was 9 22.

I may be wrong on that one The forgiveness of sins is necessary The shedding of blood death is the means by which we have that if anselm is saying that his perfect life cancels in debt

Anselm's a jerk I know anselm's a super smart guy, but in that area, he just blew it and people great minds.

They blow it Because his perfect life is what did that? Where'd you get that in the bible? No, he cancelled our sin debt at the cross

That's what it was cancelled Cancelled it by the death of christ well, he

I'm, sorry I'm, sorry. Anyways, um so In my view, he cancelled the sin debt

So he was punished but not by god So he offered his punishment his his suffering as a means of satisfaction

What was the payment Death The wages of sin is death romans 6 23 the soul that sin shall die ezekiel 18 4

Did he die? Yes, that's what the requirement of the law was So his death was that payment

Yeah Okay, so that's where he cancelled the sin debt in his death On the cross colossus 214, right?

Yes, welcome to penal substitutionary atonement You just affirmed the fundamentals of it.

Yeah No, i'm asking you specific questions sin is a legal debt. Yeah He just bore our sin sin is legal debts can be transferred

There's no other way. I asked you. How is it transferred? How did he bear it and you told me anselm said well his victorious holy life is what paid for it

No, I said, how did he bear our sin? That's what you did that's not anselm's answer that you gave isn't answering the question.

How did he bear our sin? What does that mean to bear our sin? If my child, um throws a rock through a neighbor's window

I bear The debt it becomes mine. I'm the father You know my eight -year -old kid, you know that kind of thing

But even in your view in your example, you're not literally guilty Yes, I am responsibility you're taking responsibility for it, but you're not literally guilty it wasn't you

Oh, I I meant okay. Sorry in the rock thing, right? I'm responsibility. I didn't actually do it But that debt is now transferred to me

I'm legally you make satisfaction for it. You make satisfaction for it. So it's an analogy

In my view paul's offering an analogy and no analogy. This is an analogy. It transfers 14

He doesn't literally have sin in his body He had the debt of sin transferred to him

It's legal. See even then I I wouldn't argue. That's a literal Absolutely, he's speaking literally.

Yes, he bore our sin in his body in the cross. How else is that possible? Only if it's legal debt legal debts can be transferred and jesus says forgive us our debts forgive us our sins

He equates them together He said to tell us that it's a legal statement.

It's a legal statement. He was saying I Do agree that was it was legal, but it was satisfied not by imputing sin to him it was satisfied by him offering his body as a gift to god, which made reparation for the

For the sins we committed good his death sacrifice on the christ is what cleanses us

While he's on the cross our sin the sin of the elect Was transferred to him now think about this

The elect the chosen of god ephesians 1 4 and 5 2nd. Thessalonians 2 13 The elect whom god chose and gave to the son.

John 6 37 through 40 that he gave them to the son to uh atone for Jesus only atoned for and canceled the sin debt of the ones given to him by the father period

That makes perfect sense. There's no problem here Absolutely. No problem here makes perfect sense with the text and then

This mortal sin idea invented by the roman catholic church Just doesn't have any traction at all

So I think a lot of this also depends on uh So the assumption of penal substitution and I would actually agree with you that if you assume penal substitution, you're also going to assume

Something like the perseverance of all the saints for example I think that goes hand in hand with penal substitution and a lot of protestants would disagree with you there but I think that that's the most consistent view that penal substitution inevitably leads the idea that There is a limited atonement and then all saints will persevere to the end

But uh, I happen to think that that idea isn't biblical, right? So I think that one last evidence that christians do fall into sin and do fall out of salvation

I'll prove limited atonement here that he didn't bear everybody's sins and I know

I gotta use a restroom and then Andrew wants to say something look in the text I'm speaking therefore i've sworn to the house of eli and the iniquity of eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever

Jesus did not atone for him for that house Did not offer that didn't make any satisfaction for them at all nothing

That proves that it was not for everybody But at any rate andrew wanted to say something yeah, yeah,

I mean a couple things I mean, um, Originally the discussion was was on The church and tradition, right?

So you you would hold that the church The magisterium and scripture are equal in authority.

Would that be fair to say? Yeah, okay um

I want to read to you first first. Um From the catholic catechism. That's and i'm actually getting this from a great book.

I wrote it. What do they believe? Um, shameless shameless but uh but That's just it really is my quick reference to look these things up.

So uh catechism paragraph 82 says as a result the church to whom

The transmission and interpretation of revelation is entrusted Does not derive her

Her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy scriptures alone

Both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored as equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

Would you would you agree with that? Yes, yeah Would you agree when speaking of the magisterium in paragraph?

100 it says the task of interpreting the word of god Authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the church

That is to the pope to the bishops to the communion of him. Do you agree with that?

There's a sense in which I agree with that, but I think that you can't interpret the bible correctly In certain areas without the magisterium, but ultimately the magisterium has the best interpretation

Okay. Yeah, you're saying that ultimately the magisterium would would have The final authority to script to over scripture then

They have the overriding authority so if there is Yes, the church teaches authoritatively.

Yeah. Yeah, so you see you actually have a dilemma now If the catholic church is true

And it teaches that scripture the magisterium and tradition are equal in authority Yet they also teach

That they are the final authority on interpreting scripture Then the magisterium are above scripture.

They're not equal in authority because they are the final authority You had said scripture is the final authority, but ultimately

According to the catholic church. The catholic church is the final authority right

Right Because because if if something if there is any organization or person

That's the final authority on interpreting scripture Then what they say is a greater authority than scripture is

So here's the thing that matt was trying to express to you when you look to the church and tradition and not scripture and this is the issue that John huss had this is the issue martin luther had

Is that the church puts themselves in the position of an authority? And they claim that authority, but they claim it of themselves

And they try to say scripture gives them the authority, but here's the problem They say they're equal in authority to scripture, but if they are the final interpreters of scripture

Then they are a greater authority than the scriptures Do you see that? So I think that there's a sense in which there's a there's a system of checks and balances because The magisterium just can't say anything everything that the magisterium says has to be in some way tempered by the tradition of the church

So the magisterium can never say anything um You see don't interpret all tradition

Yeah, but but the point the point is is that if there's a difference between scripture and the magisterium who's the final authority?

It's not the scripture It's the magisterium is it not? Because they're the interpreters

Yeah I mean if there's Would you believe that we could become god one day that we could that we'd be god

No, no, you don't okay if the magisterium taught something like that, would it be an error?

Hypothetically. Yeah, because it would contradict tradition and scripture. Let me read from the magisterium catholic catechism

Paragraph 460. I got this from matt slick when we're in an apologetics cruise. I I don't know why I didn't see this

This this is what the catholic church in an authoritative statement has said

Okay in the question of the son of man became flesh Why did the word become flesh?

That's the question being answered Paragraph 460 says the word became flesh to make us

Quote partakers of the divine nature For this is why the word became man that the son of god became son of man so that man

By entering into communion with the word and thus receiving divine sonship

Might become a son of god for the son of god Became man

So that we might become god the only begotten son of god wanting to make us sharers in his divinity assumed our nature so that he

Made man might make men gods That is the magisterium

So you you just confirmed earlier that if they taught what they teach They would be wrong.

That's womanism No, so that's so The church when they so there's a lot of things to say here a lot of church fathers actually made this exact same claim

So saint irenaeus, for example made a similar claim. St. Athanasius quotes from the church fathers.

Yeah Yeah, those are quotes from the church fathers. So athanasius who's very famous can be wrong.

Can the catholic church be wrong? The church fathers could be wrong Yes, I agree.

The church fathers could be wrong Can the church when interpreting scripture and giving doctrine can it be wrong?

Well, there's several questions here. Uh, I think that that quote is actually true We might become gods and not this

Not in the same sense that god is god So when the church fathers said that they're not saying that we can ontologically be the same as god

But that we can become divinized And this is actually referring to something peter says in one of his epistles that we become partakers of the divine nature

But they're not literally saying that we can become ontologically god that we can somehow bridge the infinite chasm between creator and creature

That's not at all what the church fathers say. And so when the catechism quotes that that's not what they're saying well, it just means that we're able to see god face to face unlike But that's the situation we have on earth

That's not what this is saying because if you look at that quote and that's why I asked you up front

If this if the magisterium taught this would they be wrong? You said yes And yet they're saying that we are sharers in his divinity

Okay, we are co -heirs with christ. We are co -heirs with christ that we would be men made gods

He's not talking to shares in Really quick because it's worth noting something just really fast

Nothing in the catechism before or after clarifies That it's not saying you actually become gods.

It leaves it open. It just quotes these things and leaves it at that That's a serious problem.

Go ahead Yeah, so it's the church fathers too Yeah, but the church fathers can be an error

And have been plenty of times But when you say that this is something that is a greater authority than scripture because it is the interpreter scripture

I asked you up front if the church taught this would they be in error and you said hypothetically?

Yes. Well, they do teach this and so With an equivocation because I was assuming you said god you didn't say gods the plural so I was assuming you're referring to the god

Like ontologically sharing god sharing divinity is the god We we we may be inheritors.

There's only one divine nature. That's god Huh? There's only one divine nature. That's god so we can't become divine

Share of divinity is if he's indwelling us we participate in that and that's uh, that's as close as we can get But it does not say any clarification

God's glory or the glorified nature Okay, but we are not Being divine.

We're not sharing in his divinity. That's what that verse says is that we share in his divinity and and so I i'm saying this, you know, because we're going to end up wrapping up the show because We go about two hours.

We will have an after show A few and and I did put the link in here Um, i'll drop it in again for for you and and you know

We have an after show done by the the council. You're more than welcome to come and join and and discuss

Um, and we we keep going there a little bit longer but the thing that you know I want you to see is matt tried to show you about penal substitution and what the scriptures say

What what i'm saying is if the catholic church is true Then it's false

That you have no other choice because if the catholic church is true when they say That scripture is equal in authority to the magisterium and tradition

And yet at the same time they say that the magisterium And tradition are the final authority over scripture because that's the interpreters of it anything

That is the final authority to interpret is greater than the thing being interpreted And therefore if they claim

They're true And they claim that the scripture is equal to the church Yet they set themselves up as above the scriptures

And and this is why you know, as matt said earlier my heart breaks for you I mean, it really does it's

You know You're you're a very likable guy. Okay but you're deceived and You know, it's it's something that this deception could lead you to an eternity in a lake of fire

And that's why I plead with you to consider it because The catholic church is setting themselves up as the authority

It's a circular argument when they say they're the authority and you look to them to prove that they are the authority they claim

The scriptures don't support it. And in fact if they're the authority that they claim then the scriptures is not the authority that it claims

So I want you to consider that I want you to consider that there's things that Matt shared with you

About substitution that are essential because christ's death on that cross. That's when it was paid

Therefore it can't have anything to do with your works and anything that you do Because it was already paid on the cross

In fact, let me just share with this one thing before we look to close out. I want you to think about this

Jesus christ almighty god Came to earth to die on a cross that's how severe sin is that god himself had to pay that fine

That's pretty serious If any man stands before god and says I know you you came to to die

And it was an eternal death you being an eternal being paid it for once in time all for eternity And yet look at my good works.

Look at what I did. That is the most disingenuous thing any man could ever do In fact in revelations in the book of revelation it says that the the there's two books that people are going to be judged by the lamb's book of life those who've

Who god has has brought to repentance? And their names are in the lamb's book of life. And though the others that are judged to eternity and lake of fire

It is called the book of works It's the very works people think are going to set them free that is going to condemn them because compared to what jesus christ did

Compared to that none of our works are anything. In fact, isaiah says they're dirty rags. They're filthy rags

Technically in the hebrew. It's a menstrual rack and that's why it's so serious And matt, you know tried to encourage you with this because it is it is serious

And I know you want to hold to the church but when you were talking with him about mary you see the catholic church puts replaces christ with mary and and Actually has where she has to be almost divine hear all the prayers of all the the people everywhere in the world

She has to be omniscient. She has to be omnipresent to be able to do those things To be able to that christ submits to mary think about this

For christ almighty god to submit to mary. No, it is the church set themselves above scripture.

They set mary above god And that's some serious stuff Okay Now we're going to close out

I do, you know, I encourage you to come back We can keep the discussion going we can join in the after show done by the council.

Um, but I do want you to think about where you're going to spend eternity because You're not going to go to a place of purgatory.

We're going to work off sins Sin, if you read ephesians 2 8 9 titus 3 5

Works are not going to save you It doesn't matter if you want to misinterpret James the reality is look at the clear passages

That that we have in ephesians and titus And you need to come to repentance

All right. I just want you to think about that All right We appreciate you coming in. I know.

Um, there's been some other catholics that wanted to Said they might come in next week.

Um Let me close with this matt. I shared with this a little bit with you.

And so this will be an open challenge to Any roman catholics out there? I got this message today um

Matt slick has lost every debate against catholic apologists tim staples mark

Biannico probably mispronounced it robert synergist. I probably mispronounced that one too matt

For more than a year refused to respond to traditional catholic monks Monk brother peter diamonds debate challenge on the topic of justification catholic apologist

Jerry Metatics, I mispronounced that Also challenged matt to an official one -on -one debate months ago matt has not accepted his challenge

Um, so he he basically wanted to set up a challenge. Well, here's the thing if you guys want to set up a challenge Matt will be happy to debate you on these things.

I think you did have a discussion matt or hang out with jerry But let me be really clear matt slick

Has not been avoiding debates on roman catholicism And what

I said to this person is very clear matt's wife Went through major heart surgery

Then had complications afterwards has been in and out of er rooms

For unfortunately the better part of this year And I am sorry if those roman catholics out there think that matt should put debating you guys above his wife

I will stand by the fact that his wife should be a higher priority than debating your roman catholicism.

This isn't to to you uh, um here, um You know adele

This is more to these guys who've been challenging matt and why he won't take it. Well If you want you can come on in here

And we can set up a formal debate And you can debate the issues that is one of the things that apologetics live is set up for but I will tell you that I get real upset with people that want to say matt is avoiding the debate because he has the nerve to care for his wife

Who could have died on an operating table? Okay Huh She almost did

I know And the only time it happened before in 25 years of surgery the doctor said one time it happened before and um

The patient died. My wife has a very rare connective tissue disorder called smad three

Literally right now i'm upstairs right now downstairs. She's downstairs in pain Her back is hurting her so much and her best friend that she grew up with flew in a couple days ago staying here

And they can't even go out Because my wife is in such pain And it's not like she's debilitating, you know, but my wife sits in rocks

Uh when she's suffering and she's rocking And um, she's had her gallbladder out.

She's got arthritis. She's got scoliosis I have been out of commission and because of this

And uh here I am up here, you know, but And this is the thing. I mean look If people want to sit there, you know

If you're going to sit there and say that these debates should be more important to matt than his wife

You're wrong Okay flat out. You're wrong All right He should he has a responsibility to care for his wife.

Now. His wife is starting to do a little bit better We've set these things up if you would like to set up and you want to Set up here a debate you can reach out to me

It's easy to do. You can go to striving for attorney .org. There's a contact page. You can contact me there

You can email me You can email me at karm's andrew at karm .org

You can email me there. We will set up the debate right here We have two hours set aside as long as they all agree on what the topic is

Yeah, well, we're going to work out the topic. That's where that's why we email it If it's going to be a formal debate, there's going to be a formal topic that we work out

But to you know, but matt hasn't been avoiding it Okay, i'm i'm speaking for matt now.

I know jerry medetix had uh, some problems with his wife health reasons and he bowed out I don't know if you guys know that I That happened.

He bowed out for a while No one's going to give him a hard time if he does he has a result So You know, so I just wanted to close that out folks want to reach out to us go ahead reach out to to me

We'll set up the debate. It doesn't have to be on roma catholicism If there's other things you want to to have a formal debate, we'll try to work it out here

Um now next week what we hope to do uh for next week is We're going to hopefully deal with uh, at least in the beginning not the whole show

But we're going to have someone come in and with matt and discuss the topic of molinism Uh, tyler villa has recently done a podcast on it has a very interesting.

I think view that's that Matt has studied molinism quite a bit and I think it'll be an interesting back and forth as the two of them

Dig into it more. So that's going to be what we're going to start the show with then we're going to do open q a

So just to let you guys know matt slick has a regular radio show You can listen to it on the radio or on podcast form

It's called matt slick live. You can search for matt slick on your podcast app or search for christian apologetics research ministry on your podcast app

That's five days a week monday through friday one hour long if you want to get more of my podcast the rap report

It's wrapped with two p's andrew rapport's rap report There's a two minute daily even matt with his add can handle two minutes,

I think but I can handle two minutes of most people but you

That's a whole 120 seconds so so Two minutes every day monday through friday

Uh saturdays, we do a wrap -up typically and then on sundays we drop a one hour episode

We're actually going to break those into two separate podcasts soon so that you'll have the dailies separate from the weeklies

But you can download and listen to rap report this podcast or this show becomes a podcast and you can search for apologetics live

Apologetics live and that's the podcast. This is an apologetics live and the rap report are part of the christian part of the the christian podcast community

And that's a community of podcasters that you can if you're a podcaster and out there you can join our facebook group

Uh, but we're going to be hosting different podcasts Like this one for you to get a plethora of good solid podcasts

So those are some resources for you guys. Uh, You know Ariel, I hope that you come back

Great questions. I think it was great dialogue Really appreciate that. I hope you think about some of the stuff Uh that matt and I shared and if you guys want to join the after show put on by the council

Um, I will drop that link into youtube after matt gets in there so he can get in So, uh, we go in right now.

So you go get over there. Okay. Yep And so we thank you guys for for staying tuned in make sure to share the apologetics live both in video and podcast