Beckwith STR II

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Opening Technical Difficulties and Live Show Banter

Okay, good, oh, oh are we on oh, hey, all right, just Just checking to make sure those those all those those folks with the signs and that they're really upset with me. Aren't yeah. Okay, check that one over there.

I think okay. We have one over there. All right, send the dog over there. We have Zeke the Jesuit trained attack dog Who's going against his natural inclinations right now, but he is defending us. And so we're holding out actually I think he's sleeping in the other room.

We're holding out against the hordes of Rome here I. Like I said, you either got a laugh or yeah, or you got to cry one of the two and if If you're listening to this and didn't see the blog article today, you have no idea what's going on, but it's okay it's it's alright just go to the the August 9th 2007 If If the blog still there by the time you get around to hearing this and you'll see what on earth we were talking.

I tell you we know how to get folks stirred up. Don't we and we don't even try you know, you just. You do what? Oh, you knocked you knocked the feet off. That's a good job. What are you doing from banging on it?

Brilliant. Oh.

Apparently the keyboard did not like that.

Well, we've got we've got him outside. Dangers outside and dangers inside. Yes.

Here you go. You know how many people are listening and all they heard was boom and he died. They were being overrun by them now.

That's good, that's that's good you got a little bit too into it there for a while. Oh. But it's been an interesting 72 hours around here no two ways about it and What can I say? We are trying to get ready here.

We have everybody back now. Are they slowly coming coming back now? That's slowly coming back. Okay. That's good. Trying to get around to continuing our review of the stand to reason interview between Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith but most of you know that.

Because there has been a small amount of interaction not anything actually worth talking about between myself and and dr. Beckwith, but on silly things. That things have gotten a little bit odd and strange, you know now I've been accused of a doctoring things and and all the rest of stuff and we've of course demonstrated that.

The Substantive issues that we have addressed. We've raised have been raising since May Have all gone without any any address at all. But anyway One side plays the other side has to say and the other side just a twist with the other side I'd say I'll let you figure out who's who by the way I forgot to link and I'll do it as soon as the program's over.

But I was on with Jerry medetics on iron sharpens iron today. I'll link to that as soon as the program's over and that was interesting because I Had to drink an entire amp energy tall boy just to be able to talk as fast as Jerry.

It's it's tough to tough to keep up with with Jerry medics the fastest talking man. I've ever met in my life. Anyway, we are reviewing the interview from stand to reason Sunday night. We got more than halfway through the sections I want to play so We're gonna take some we'll be ready to take phone calls probably I don't know 40 minutes after something like that.

877 -753 -334 -1. Of course, there's all sorts of. Just the only way I can describe them as nasty folks out there Who are very very very brave behind keyboards, but will not ever back up what they have to say in in real life.

We've also discovered That's somebody I'd be really interested in knowing if it is Guardian Has registered my name James our white org and made it redirect Catholic answers. You know, you know that the other side has got real problems when you know Envoy has to filter out a omen org and you've got engaged in such infantile childish behavior is that it's One side just ain't doing so good.

I mean, I wouldn't even have time to think about doing stuff like that. I'm too busy doing meaningful stuff to even think of stuff like that, but They they don't they they do it so anyway we had gotten to through the first hour in essence of the of the program and They took an hour.

They took a break at the top of the hour and they began the second hour and you can tell Greg Koukl is Just moving on into the next point and what he's been trying to do is He has been trying To Draw a clear distinction between the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification and the Protestant doctrine justification.

And it was ironic in talking with Jerry medics. He feels that that is the issue upon which the Roman Catholic Church has gone into apostasy on not well. Actually, he wouldn't say it's a Roman Catholic Church he would say that the enemies of the church have taken over the church over the past 40 years is on this exact issue and So Here He's Koukl's trying to get these issues laid out.

He's trying to to get it to where people can understand it and so he asks a very good question concerning the nature of indulgences the Treasury of Merit and I really felt that. That Beckwith response was was really really unfair here.

And I think this is where where he really mistreated Greg Koukl now, of course Catholic Sam. Well, this is where Greg Koukl mistreated him. Listen to it and and see what you think for yourself. Here it is.

Justification, Indulgences, and the Treasury of Merit

It's right in front of me. When did somebody put it where I could see it? Huh? All right. Um here the here the two thoughts that came up to me. I've already made a point about some textural issues, but I had two thoughts that came up to me.

The way I've heard it was the explanation. Was the explanation that you gave me that that we are not in a state of kind of actual perfection and so we have to have a Period of time or a place or something where we have this transformation.

So we are ready to move into heaven and this is what Paul purgatory where there's a purging that's done. But as it turns out on the Roman Catholic view. You don't actually have to spend that time there in purgatory because there's a system of indulgences including a plenary indulgence.

Which is a full indulgence in which someone can circum circumvent Purgatory and go directly to heaven and this is based on as the Catechism Said as I read it the merits of Christ and the merits of the Saints and Mary.

So the merits of Christ at least are available to the follower of Christ who dies in grace to avoid the the the the torments of purgatory. And they are made available through this indulgence system. Why that then it seems to me if that's the case then the justification for purgatory is is made null and void because the merits of Christ are available for us to avoid purgatory if They are mediated to us through the indulgences done by the Roman Catholic Church.

So you have a question the quest? Well, yeah, the question is then. Mm-hmm. Why is perfect now, did you catch that? Do you have a question? How could you have once been a Convinced Protestant hear that presentation which is in essence saying hey the system you have embraced Dogmatically is inconsistent with itself and then let dead air go by and go you got a question.

And that that's. I don't I can't begin to understand that. And you can sort of see what was coming from from this point because obviously the Catholics it will see that's a trick question. That's not a trick question.

This is the stuff that matters to us. You know, I know they're Roman Catholic all purgatory. I said, that's just all side issues doesn't really matter. Yes, it does matter. I Constituent part of what Rome has defined as dogma over the years.

It's very necessary then if indulgences can get you off from purgatory through the merits of Christ Couple and you see the problem that I'm talking about raising here.

Yeah, this this all this stuff you're bringing up had has virtually nothing to do with why I became a Catholic.

But I and that I again I stop right there. How could it not? How could it? How could it not have everything to do with why someone becomes a Catholic. These are dogmatic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and unless he is already risen to the place in authority in the Roman Catholic hierarchy Whereby He can define what is and what is not important day feed a doctrine, you know.

He's gonna keep saying well, there's only four pages in the Catholic Catechism on indulgences. There's barely that many pages. In fact, I don't think there's that many pages on the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Does that make it less important? There are four pages there are more distinct sections on indulgences than justification for crying out loud. So it's there it is a part of the teaching of the church.

But it's not why I became a Catholic. Well you know if you're gonna if you're going to admit to being a cafeteria style Catholic. Where you you pick and choose what you will and will not believe. Okay.

You know, it's no but I thought that. Right that that Frank Beckwith was this, you know big he's teaching logic and so things have to be Related and logical and consistent and I'm not seeing the application of those things in in the context Roman Catholicism.

I will.

Answer it if you want me to. Yeah, I would it but the reason is is there's only four pages in the Catechism on it. All right.

The reason is Frank it is it's it's not just it. We're talking not just because to find out about you why you became Catholic. But because that you were the president of the ETS and became a Roman Catholic then raises significant questions about the differences to which between Catholicism and Protestantism.

On these vital issues like authority and justification which were in some degree were issues that you had yourself.

So I'm not raising questions about authority and justification. You are going through particular doctrines and Asking me to justify them right elated from the general theological tenor of the church and that's.

Isolated from the general theological tenor of the church. What does that mean? Honestly, what does that mean I mean if these are accurate questions if these are questions that Accurately represent what Roman Catholicism teaches These are questions that have been discussed if it's in the Catechism then Rome knows it's important and Rome has discussed it how can that not be the the tenor of the church unless what he's saying is well, you know, the church has become very liberal and Therefore as a result, it's you know out there doing its thing and The theological tenor has changed, I don't know but what what does it mean that it is Not part of the theological.

It's it sounds like a complaint here that he doesn't want To be asked to justify these things I Didn't hear him saying other than well, this isn't why I joined the church. Well if the gospel proclaimed by the church Isn't the reason that you join the church then what is there must be some Obviously from my perspective less central reason I Mean, I thought that we as Protestants believe the gospel is the main thing and if you join for another reason Then you're thinking the gospel isn't the same isn't as central any longer.

Is that is that it that I think is is not fair.

And it's not my experience or the way in which I became a Catholic now. I do have answers to these questions. Okay, no, it's not. But I just think that you know, if if this was going to be a debate.

You should have told me ahead. Okay. Well, then I know if that's how you feel like for that.

I actually entered the show kind of thinking this is going to be a time where I'll be able to share my journey. You know in a in a in a safe place and I and I just don't sense that. Okay.

Well, no, I I guess you and I had a little bit different expectations here share my journey in a safe place. If If if the president of the Evangelical Theological Society became a Mormon and Then went on a program like this would would anyone have a reasonable expectation that what was being provided was just a place a safe place to share his journey.

Remember I played at the beginning of the last program. From the start Mr. Kochel said we're going to disagree today. We're going to be disagreeing with another because we're gonna be talking about things that really mean a lot to us.

So why would there be disagreement if this was just going to be a safe place to share my journey? Where there would be no challenges. This seems to be part and parcel of of the Roman Catholic Convert syndrome that I have observed many many times.

Roman Catholic converts want to be able to make the claim. Well this I discovered this the early church fathers said this and if you dare say well, wait a minute. This early church father said this and this early church father said that and you claim this early church father meant this but this hadn't Yet developed and and you're you're being uncharitable.

You're being mean I as a convert to Rome. Demand the right to make assertions, but I demand the right to make them without being challenged and if you challenge me you are Uncharitable that seems to be the demand that is that is being made not just by Dr. Beckwith but seems to be made by by many.

But I don't want to pursue something that isn't what you had in mind, and I don't want to be untoward in my questions here. I thought partly when I started out the show talking about they were going to disagree at a lot of things.

This was these were the kinds of issues that would be coming up. And this is my expectation what we talking about would be talking about not just a matter of reporting. You know your journey as it is because the journey raises questions to listeners about exactly.

How could how do we make sense out of out of this? This decision that you're making because you didn't just make a change of denominations you went to what you thought was the true church and Therefore that leaves the rest of us kind of not in the true church.

And you adopted doctrines that we disagree with or that that you held before but now you disagree with and so it's a matter of trying To figure this this thing out. But I don't want to be contentious about this and if if you would we can just well.

Let me change the mode briefly. A couple of things about the doctrine of indulgence is it is. Obviously there are some good reasons why Protestants raised questions about them. Factor. They had a bigger big factor in Lutheran Luther's breaking away from from the Catholic Church.

But the thing the thing that a lot of people don't realize that it they really make such a minor part of the catechism. Four out of the 1 ,000 pages. Deal with show of indulgences.

Okay, I'm sorry. But I don't believe that the number of pages Determines the importance of a teaching as I said how many pages Specifically are dedicated to the person and deity of the Holy Spirit. You know that that's that's not how you determine the importance of something.

This is a doctrine that touches on the concept of the treasury of merit it touches on How Rome views the idea of what it means to be a saint it touches upon? How much merit do you need to enter into heaven so that you can have excess merit it?

Reveals the fact that this modern well, we don't know how long purgatory is we don't even know if time exists in purgatory. Idea is just that it's a change. It's not what was believed before and there therefore there has been a change that means for literally hundreds of years.

You could have believed one thing as a faithful Roman Catholic now. You can believe something else and people's lives were deeply deeply deeply impacted by that former belief. People gave great amounts of money because they were so concerned about their loved ones suffering for long periods of time in purgatory.

All of this goes back to what the meaning of justification is. I've said many times the clearest differentiation Between Rome's view and the biblical view of justification I've ever had in debate was with father Peter Stravinsky's in debating purgatory not justification.

Because there was that you have this massive difference between what it means to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. And and what it means to to have to undergo sada spasio. I was listening to the the Bible answer man discussion with Jimmy Akin and and I challenged him to show me where in Ludwig Ott it says that sada spasio is the application of the merits of Christ.

Well, I can do that. I hand it in my book. I'd forgotten I had done that. I he said well, I don't have it with me. So I hand it to well I'm not gonna be paging through a book. It's not there. He never says it.

Sada spasio is not the application of the merits of Christ. It simply isn't. So these things are vitally important. It tells us the difference between what it means to have Christ's righteousness imputed to you and Christ's righteousness infused into you so that you become subjectively and objectively pleasing to God.

So that the reason you go to heaven is because you are pleasing to God and so when you commit sins that destroy that you're No longer pleasing to God's therefore. You don't get heaven, etc, etc, etc, etc.

These are important issues. So say well, there's just four pages. This is just a clear illustration of what the underlying differences are all about. That's why saying well, there's just four pages has nothing to do with why I became Roman Catholic.

Really makes me go. Well, have you really thought through what it means?

The Meaning of Christ's Merits, Purgatory, and Sada Spasio

To be a Roman Catholic when it talks about Christ merits. When it comes to indulgence, it's it's not referring. It's it's referring to the suffering he underwent as a man that We can that can be distributed to us in the process in which we Become more virtuous Christians throughout our throughout our lives.

It's not that is not.

What indulgency RM doctrina says? So who do we believe Frank Beckwith or the post Vatican to? Apostolic Constitution the revision of indulgences. Who speaks for Rome? Who speaks for Rome? That's what I want to know.

Has Frank Beckwith read indulgency RM doctrina? That's a fair question, isn't it? Why would that not be a fair question? I think it's a fair question. Have you read indulgency RM doctrina? I mean, you're the one telling us that viaticum.

It's in the 13th can of Nicaea means indulgence. So I would think if you're gonna if you're gonna put yourself out there and start making these statements. We have to do our homework. You know. Why why did why do the converts?

Why do they have a completely different standard in essence than anybody else?

I'm talking about the aspect of Christ merit as it refers to the eternal Removal of our sin. It's a it's talking about the temporal consequences of sins and that aspect of Christ. It is actually in many ways it's almost an unfortunate term that That that the catechism uses because it doesn't precisely mean the same thing as It does when it's referring to Christ's death removing us of our sins.

In the way I like to look at it Greg is that it allows? What essentially penance and indulgences and these sorts of things do I look at it as a as a loving father. Disciplining his children so that the children can become more like he wants them to be.

The reason that a person in classical Roman Catholic theology The reason that a person goes to purgatory is not because a loving father is sanctifying them or disciplining them. These are legal Punishments temporal punishments attached to sins and those sins are imputed to us and therefore those legal punishments must be taken care of they must be atoned for and They are atoned for not through the application of the sufferings of Christ, but through our own.

That's why you do penances. That's why you go through the things you do temporarily in this life and in the life to come in the sense of suffering in Purgatory, that's what sada spacio is about now. If you know, I applaud if Roman Catholics want to reject that but don't deny that that's what has been taught.

That's that's the problem. Okay, that's that's the issue that needs to be to meet needs to be considered. This isn't this isn't just a father. Making us more like Jesus how on earth can can purgatory and Sada spacio and the the the the distribution of the treasury of merit.

How can that make me more like Christ? How can some? Saint I've never heard of who dies. And he has excess merit. How can that excess merit being transferred to me to get me out of purgatory make me more like Christ?

How does that work and Does that not result then in my standing before God when I finally entered his presence? Clothed the righteousness of Christ marrying the Saints as well as my own.

How can you avoid that and that that's liberating not?

Oppressive right but it. But in terms of the Catholic system though that isn't the purpose of. Isn't the purpose of indulgences to take time off of purgatory and that's why we say. And actually to take time off penance.

It's okay thing about time is actually all right. Well, it's like all the six Pope all the six altered it so that it would be more clearly. Okay. Okay. Well, how can any Pope? alter.

Something that was at one point true. I Think about the scapular, you know about the promise that if you you die wearing the scapular then Mary's could come down to purgatory at a certain point in time and Remove you before a certain point of time if you die wearing the scapular.

How many thousands tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics have died. Believing that's the case and then well the Pope but the Pope altered that just change that. So was the promise a lie before that and then just wasn't needed anymore.

Was it ever true? I? Mean obvious in my perspective the whole thing is a lie but It's so easy and glib For people to be able to well, you know, it's just been altered. It's been changed using that term time then in a very very general sense, but let's just say take off penance then.

So if the penance is meant, I guess I'm can I guess I'm can. Now I'm left very confused about this because.

I will admit to you. It is confusing and. Okay, I and look I think I'm a smart guy and I've reread this stuff all the time, right? Right. Okay. Wow.

Okay, did you hear that? Yeah, I stuff's confusing. I'm a smart guy and I read this stuff all the time. He started reading this stuff in January. Has he read indulgent arm doctrina if he did why. There's plenty in there that explains this.

Why not just refer to that. I wonder or is it maybe what he's been reading. Are these secondary sources these these sort of westernized defenses of Roman Catholicism, maybe that's what it is. Who knows?

I don't know. Well, let's let's continue to press on here.

Nicaea, Canon 13, and Claims About Early Indulgences

Here's a little section about an I see early church fathers that J. But you chef's kid recommended I read and and some more on church history and and it and I was actually shocked. And to find and it's and this is amazed me because I had delved much into the early fathers when dealing with Mormons and but somehow I missed all the other stuff and that is to say I dealt with issues of God in Christ and in the Trinity and things of that sort and Didn't really deal much with the practices of the early church.

And so when I for example discovered that the Council of Nicaea which gave us the Nicene Creed during that time We have the practices such as Pet Council of Nicaea actually in its 13th canon mentions indulgences not by name, but refers to the practice.

Is related to purgatory. Was the indulgence is related to the doctor. I don't think it's I'm. No, I don't think it relates to perl.

Okay, I'd have to reread it. It's a very brief canon.

But well, let's let's read it because this is one of the issues that I've raised. To dr. Beckwith on the stand to reason board have gotten zero response in regards to this Canon 13 now what you need to realize is when the Council of Nicaea meets.

They have one primary thing they're dealing with but they don't just meet for that. There's also Canons that are passed that generally have to do with disciplinary issues administrative issues practice issues things long along these lines and Canon 13 says Concerning the departing which would be those who are dying.

The ancient canonical law is still to be maintained to wit that if any man be at the point of death He must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum there's the term that we need to look at that's Where the assertion is being made.

But if anyone should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of Let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only but in general and in the case of any dying person Whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist that the bishop after examination made give it to him.

So here is an assertion That is being made that when someone's dying they should be given the Lord's Supper. This is the last and most indispensable viaticum there to begin Lord's Supper now. What did that look like back then.

Well, it didn't look like what it looks like in Rome today in this sense. The whole idea if you were if this were to happen today a priest would come and he would have Consecrated elements in a in these special pics saboreum monstrance, you know the tabernacle in the church.

Because this is where the presence of God is. That stuff is still at the time the Council and I see about 700 years down the road. The idea of Transubstantiation and the idea that consecrated hosts are actually the body and blood of Jesus after the time of the Eucharist is.

Is down the road someplace that kind of physical? Aristotelian Accidents and and and and substance a lot of stuff not a part of of the presence of Christ of people which is spiritual. So they wouldn't be coming in with those things.

But the Eucharist has already been elevated above even where it is in the New Testament at this point. And so a person who's dying Wants to have that now, of course, there's everything right with that.

I know that in our own churches. There are people who are shut-ins who are very ill and It's perfectly appropriate for the church To go to them and to into celebrate the Lord's Supper with them as a part of the church.

Nothing, nothing wrong with that at all. If that's something that is requested. That's great fine and wonderful. But here's the problem here. You have the former president evangelical theological society saying something that the vast majority of Roman Catholic Theologians and historians would never ever ever say today.

Would never ever say today why because they recognize that the concept of indulgences first requires and if an indulgence is a transfer the Treasury merit you have to have the Treasury of Merit first.

The Treasury of Merit had not developed yet. Even from the Roman Catholic even even go with Newman and the acorn in the tree stuff. It's not here yet. So you don't have purgatory is not here yet the Treasury of Merit's not here yet.

So, I don't know what he's been reading. But to say that the Council of Nicaea in Canon 13 is is talking about Something along the lines of indulgences it Is absolutely Beyond the balance. It's just not true.

And so I would challenge Frank Beckwith prove it prove it go into the writings of the time and give us a Foundation upon which we can believe this to be the case. And while you're doing it How about respond to what I pointed out about another Canon only a few cannons before Canon six?

Of Nicaea which reads as follows. Let the ancient customs in Egypt Libya and pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these. Since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also likewise in Antioch and other provinces that the churches retain their privileges and This is to be universally understood that if anyone be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.

If however two or three bishops shall from natural love of Contradiction oppose the common suffrage of the rest it being reasonable in accordance with the ecclesiastical law then let the choice the majority prevail.

Now this has to do with the authority of bishops and What should catch your attention is that Egypt Libyan pentapolis? Who has the jurisdiction there? The Bishop of Alexandria. Just as the Bishop of Rome Had authority in Italy I Thought the Bishop of Rome had universal authority.

Well that comes much much later. That's not what the Council of Nicaea said so Aside from the fact that can 13 doesn't say what Frank Beckwith thinks it says I'd like to know how does Frank Beckwith explain?

Can six of The Council of Nicaea and I've had some Catholic apologists even have to go to pseudo cannons Arabic cannons of Nicaea that were not a part of the original try to get around can six amazingly enough they've even done that debate and certainly Rome's long history very very long history of Attempting to of utilizing fraudulent documents the donation of Constantine the pseudo-isidore and decretals to prop up the papacy in the light of actual history is is a fascinating study and I assert that if we hadn't had those particular things those particular False documents there there wouldn't be a papacy as it exists today anyway, but that's that's another issue so There we have can 13 and canon 6 which side provides all of it which side provides a discussion of it.

I provided citations in my STR blog or comment comm box comments to Catholic sources on The subject of Vatican and what it means, but we can't get responses. We can't get commentary from that. Somehow dr. Beckwith has time to accuse me of doctoring posts when I had actually provided full links to his post and things like that.

But these issues which might actually you know really help folks to.

Apostolic Succession, Conciliar Authority, and the Canon of Scripture

Analyze Rome's authority claims somehow get a mistake. Yeah, but you find actually very early on at that time penance. The notion of the real presence in communion. You don't find the obviously the theory of transubstantiation.

Oh, that's more worked out, but and that's actually you know one of the things that that that there's a difference between holding a belief and having a theory about it, which is that.

In any event now now did you hear what just happened there? Well, we had real presence, but we didn't have transubstantiation. Now now many Roman Catholics When I have pointed out the difference between real presence and transubstantiation have had a Cow how dare you suggest such a thing?

But there you just heard Frank Frank Beckwith and He's exactly right. What. What does real presence mean. Well it it certainly doesn't mean transubstantiation. You know. And that was what was just said was real presence transmit you two different things and that's exactly right.

That they are two two different things. One of the things that that you find I think very early on Is that these practices and beliefs such as penance confession real presence even the notion of apostolic succession are widely held.

Widely held you know it's funny a lot of these guys what they do is they they see citations especially from the bishops of Rome promoting their own authority and think that that was representative of the entire church and.

Of course it wasn't. I would highly recommend people for example look at Cyprian and his relationship with Stephen and how at the Council of Carthage. The council itself said none of us makes himself a bishop of bishops and yet that is one of the very terms Used of the bishop of Rome today is bishop of bishops, and how how for example the deacons at Rome referred to to The bishop of Carthage as as Pope and As as father and How these terms developed over time.

It's so easy if all you're reading is stuff from one side for that one side to spin things. That's why Debates are so useful real debates are so useful in fleshing these things out or they're not Explicitly resisted and to me or did you catch that or they are not explicitly?

Resisted well you know what the idea of the Book of Mormon was not explicitly resisted in the early church either. Space aliens were not explicitly resisted. Ordination of homosexual bishops was not explicitly resisted because no one thought of these things.

It is amazing. When when when Rome should be able to so easily I mean if she's the only true church if she's the one true church. She should be able to so easily. Shoulder the burden of the demonstration of her central and unique dogmatic teachings.

It shouldn't be all that tough, and so how is it are you well they didn't explicitly resist these things. Well. Isn't it up to you to prove that it was actually something that could or could not be Specifically resisted first.

I mean logically rationally, right? This is the man teaching logic at Baylor University this fall, right? So how can he fall for these things? Easy this isn't a matter of rationality. It's a matter of spirit that.

You know I thought if I'm going to If the church was wise enough to Come up with The Nicene Creed and then later on Able to fix the canon of Scripture and something that I have challenged him on many times.

In my many times I've challenged him on on the blog and in other commentary that I've done. You know he really feels. The church fixed the canon of Scripture. When? When he's connecting this Nicaea, but Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.

Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils. The first dogmatic Definition of the canon of Scripture from the Rome Catholic viewpoint was April of 1546. That's when it was. Folks disagree with that.

All you want. That's what even the Catholics say at least the ones who are honest their own history. Anyways admit that that is the first dogmatic Definition. Is that when Rome fixed the canon. I?

Would argue that it's not but that's the assertion and it seems to me that they're that they. That I have to take seriously the practices that that church happened, and then I had to ask myself. Even if I had doubts about it even if I thought well.

It may be that they they could have been wrong. Is schism justified.

And It that's something that Paul when you say schism you mean schism you mean like the Reformation. Is that what you mean?

I'm talking about my own personal separation from the church from. You're talking about the Roman Catholic Church. That's right. I believe that my. In the case of those of us that have been baptized to confirm Catholic We have a different relationship than those that have always been Protestant.