Sola Scriptura Continued with Interaction with Karlo Broussard of Catholic Answers

Greetings and welcome to the dividing line trying to figure out where to start here. I got so much to try to get to Gonna press on with solo scriptura need to obviously there's so many other things going on, you know

Just a lesson from this morning I saw and Honestly, I had not even looked at who had posted it.

So Rick had nothing to do with you really But I saw an article in my

Facebook feed and it was about Tim Cain and comments that he made to some

LGBTQ RST UV group and I started reading it and The article literally in fact,

I I'm pretty certain I I saved it Yeah, I did the the article

Literally says Tim Cain said these things he also added that quote and and so on and so forth and and the things were well

Clinton Cain say a lot of really outlandish things, but these were

Outside the borders of outlandish just really and so I started going, you know,

I Unfortunately have to becoming extremely skeptical, you know, the color is really weird.

I Mean, maybe it's just always been totally off. Maybe it's accurate now rich is playing with lights folks

I walk in I'm sort of like Yeah Yes, Lord, yes

Yeah, and so he starts talking about how these are white lights versus other kind, you know you just Those of you that are a little bit older if you just go if you just hear if you just hear

Tim Taylor Going. Oh Something like that. Then then you know what it is to work with rich.

Okay, so You know, we're doing something new today and They're sort of flickering a little bit and they're really bright and so I'm gonna

I'm gonna look like death on the dying line for no But now I just it just it's a totally different maybe it's more realistic

I don't don't know It's weird But it's what it's what you deal with, you know, anyways, what was

I talking about? Oh, yeah, Tim Cain. Um, I'm becoming somewhat Skeptical, you know,

I'm skeptical about lights, but I'm really skeptical about almost anything. I read on the internet and So I did a

Google search and I took a phrase from the the craziest part and Here is a here's a pretty good indication that someone's lying to you when the only thing that comes back

Websites is the website that you're looking at and maybe it's Facebook page, which is what happened and So it was

I asked the people in channels that this is could some could someone help me do some fact -checking here because this is outlandish and We actually watched the video and Actually, I actually saved the video because there was some, you know,

Tim Cain and his Look since we are every time a soul scooter Roman Catholicism Roman Catholics out there

You need to you need to understand something when you sit here and talk about your unity and How unified you all are and isn't it wonderful to have the magisterium and then you you don't excommunicate people like him

Who are running around? opposing church teaching promoting

The murder of unborn children and and so on and but you just let him get away with well

I'm a good Roman Catholic. I just you know, I just you know God said he looked at everything and it was good and that makes homosexuality good

Yeah, okay when you start dealing with folks like that Then maybe we could start taking you seriously, but till then

When you've got Boston College, hey when your own Pope sits there and goes who am I to judge?

Just sort of it's a sort of makes the unity clarity thing just sort of seem

Just a tad bit on the disingenuous side Well very much on the disingenuous side anyway

So we watched the comments and lo and behold. He didn't say all of these these things and so Be careful what's out there?

I've linked to stuff that ended up being garbage, and so I really try to Hold on But we're all tempted at times.

So just a lesson for me. Be careful about that in the the flurry of Tweets coming my direction

If if you ever had reason to Wonder whether the feminist

Egalitarianism That is out there on the web is Commensurate with a high

Consistent biblical view of Revelation and Scripture My Twitter feed for the last 24 hours would disabuse you of that the amount of You know,

I tried to have a conversation with a woman this morning on Twitter She was saying that because of people like me women are leaving the church and I was like What church are we talking about here?

We're talking about the Church of Christ a promise to build Which is made up of?

There's there's no male or female bond or free Jew Gentile. You're all one in Christ Jesus that That church and oh, no, no, no, you know, we may leave the local church, but we still love

Jesus Okay, yeah, it's sort of the you get to pick you get to pick the kind of church you want to have

It's you and your Bible and a few friends under a tree someplace type thing And as soon as you know, it's it's amazing

Hebrews 13 17, which talks about being in subjection to those who have the rulership over you Man, I'll tell you when you throw that one out at folks

You'll find out real quick just how high their bibliology is Because man, there was an immediate

Meltdown as soon as I was like, so how do you obey this commandment? That's just all your personal interpretation and and all these

Standard leftist liberal I'm religious, but I really don't believe the

Bible and I can't tell you what I really believe type stuff just comes flowing

Flowing out and I'm still getting it Yeah, I've got people saying the screen looks dark today is the light dim Maybe other people are saying are you dim?

That's a that's possibility too. But yeah, I know it does it does look different It's oh now he's gonna push it push it up and blind me more.

Thanks a lot. Appreciate that and they're flickering and It's just gonna be an interesting program, that's all

I can say, but Anyway You find out pretty quickly and I'm still getting stuff even even right now

Oh, she's just so judgmental and you're just so mean and you're so nasty and you know, all the ad hominems and not

It's it's just so sad to watch people who claim to be Christians and all I can do is emote All they can do is express emotion they they couldn't engage in a rational dialogue if their life depended on it and they are out there and That's not a that's not a good sign for for our nation or for what calls itself the church anyway

Lots of stuff going on and we'll get back to that. But hey, let's let's be honest

Understanding soul scriptura is absolutely foundational to taking a stand against what's happening in our society and I can guarantee you the liberals who to whom

I'm referring Do not believe in solo scriptura Remember there's there's two

Elements to a a truly Christian Truly truly

Christian Understanding of Scripture solo scriptura scripture is the soul and foul rule of faith of the church but then there's another wonderful Latin term

Tota scriptura and You you can

Try to affirm solo scriptura But if you don't believe Tota scriptura,

I I don't I don't think you know It doesn't work all of Scripture all

Scripture is the Agnostos not just parts and listening to emotional individuals women and men just Deciding what parts they like You know the you get all these these pious sounding

Phrases like well, I just live for the gospel and stuff like that And exactly what is the gospel and they get to pick and choose what's comfortable for them.

And what's you know? Don't call that the gospel and don't call it Christianity That's what's all around us and we have to have a firm foundation you can only have that if you understand solo scriptura, and if you practice

Tota a Scriptura as as well. One other thing. I put up a video finally last night.

I don't know what's happened, but screen float for some reason doesn't

Isn't uploading I'll tell it upload to YouTube and it sits there uploading uploading uploading and then it's gone

So that's what happened last night is I was uploading uploading uploading Got back after prayer meeting it was supposed to be there and it was

I don't know where it uploaded it to but It wasn't my channel. So Some poor guy is wondering how this discussion of Islam ended up on his

YouTube channel, I guess but anyway That'd be an interesting thing to wake up to Finally got it got it up last night responded to the

MAP guys the map guys the Muslim apologetics podcast Abu Ayub and Abu Zakariya and We're gonna work something out to where I'll be on their podcast and we'll have them over here and we're gonna discuss hopefully discuss

John chapter 17 and stuff like that, but I dealt with the fig tree argument and The woman healed when she touched

Jesus cloak argument and it was about a little over half an hour long But really tried to get into those specific areas

Put that up there and hopefully that will be helpful to folks as well. So you might want to avail yourself of of that Okay, let's

I've been saying I'm gonna show this so let's get it Let's show it and then we're gonna start listening to Carlo Broussard on on Catholic answers live before it's been such a long time that Carla Broussard is no longer with Catholic answers or something so In 1999 at a large

It was OPC wasn't Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Oh Were they oh

Sort of in the middle someplace. Well, anyways, it's a large Presbyterian Church in the San Diego area

Mitch Pacwa and I had a debate on the subject of sola scriptura

And at the beginning of my closing statement, I sort of used some props to illustrate something and so let's

Let's take a look at this. Here's my closing statement. Oops. Oh Here's my closing statement in the debate with Mitch Pacwa from long long ago

It Doesn't explode don't worry I'd like to present

I guess sort of in a debate. It's sort of like a court of law a few items placed into evidence

The code of canon law the documents of Vatican to the

Universal Catholic Catechism The companion to the

Catechism of the Catholic Church a companion of text referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Just for the fun of it the dogmatic canons and decrees of the

Council of Trent That's a big stack of books That's a lot of reading and that just scratches the surface

We read much in there of what the gospel is and we read about the treasury of merit

And we read about purgatory and we read about condign and congruent merit

And we read about sotus passio, and we read about all these things

Are we truly to believe that that clarifies Paul's simple statement at Romans 5 1

Therefore having been justified by faith We have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ Do I need that the early

Christians didn't if the early Christians Did not need all of this

If they managed to live their lives defend the faith become martyrs

Without all of this that allegedly clarifies the gospel, but I believe actually ends up perverting the gospel

Why do I need it today? That's the question isn't it why do we need that today when we are told that This quote -unquote sacred tradition is

Necessary for a proper understanding of the gospel The reality is that the gospel is not clarified by Rome's alleged

Sacred tradition even if we could give you a meaningful definition of what sacred tradition is as we're going to discover

You can't really do that from the Roman Catholic perspective and that's very very troubling now as We I've already played for you.

We played at the beginning of the series on solo scriptura. We played for you

Carlo Broussard's comments on 2nd, Timothy chapter 3 and as we exegete the text we responded to all of the claims that he made and One of those claims was that 2nd

Timothy chapter 3 Does not actually teach that scripture is sufficient, but only that it is profitable

This is in reference to the term Ophelimos Ophelimos prostitutes

Galeon pros the other things that scripture can do Ophelimos profitable and So there's lots of things that are profitable

So scripture is just one of the things and what we pointed out was that that ignored that Carlo, I think would have a hard time

Defending his Comments here because one of the basic elements of meaningful

Interpretation especially when we're looking at the original languages as well is The fact that there's there's a great book and I'm not certain

Let me see where to go, I'm not certain what the name of it is today because they changed the name

Years after I I read it But Moises Silva had a book on it's basically a book on what's called lexical semantics and it revolutionized my thinking on on Linguistics and language and things like that.

I'm very glad that we Had the opportunity of reading it. It was I forget which class it was but I was pretty much the last person left with poor dr.

Baird and That Particular book really in a very clear and excellent way explained the fact that words have a what's called a semantic domain a a range of meaning and How you determine where in that range of meaning

The author is intending us to draw that meaning now some words have a very very narrow range some words are extremely technical and can only mean one thing and Hence, you know, it's it's almost a pinpoint.

It's it's not a range the pinpoint but on the other hand you have logos in Greek and It has a huge semantic domain and Contextual usage is what's going to determine what that particular word means

That's why you cannot do the Strong's exhaustive concordance type of stuff. It ignores

The reality of how we use language We all know in English. There are all sorts of words that can mean multiple things

I mean look at the word light can be spelled a bunch of different ways. You have all sorts of different meanings and The same thing is true in any other language

It can be more or less German for example is By nature of the

Germanic mind tends to have a closer focus smaller semantic domains

Whereas other languages can be very very fluid and have very large and if this is upon large semantic domains in its lexicography anyway

That's why you can't do when you find someone saying well, this is Strong's number bird bird bird That means it means bird a bird a bird

You're not actually dealing with why is Micah waving at me?

Micah in channel is is trying to get my attention for some reason. I'm not sure it's hi doc hi doc

Then in color and everything else. I'm is is Micah. Okay. You know we need we need to take care of Micah You know

I look like I have seasickness. That's that's what I just realized it is. It's very green Not on the feed.

Oh, okay looks the same to me anyway He What I was saying was the

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance argument anybody doing that just doesn't understand how how language actually actually works well

When we say that context determines these things, what does that mean? Well, there's close grammatical context there is narrative context there's authorial

Context there's a lot of different ways in which context can can be brought in one particular author

May have in their style or the utilization a particular penchant for certain words.

I know everyone likes to make fun of how I use The fact of the matter is or phraseology like that, but Paul has certain phrases that he likes to use and Paul for example is big on Hinnah clauses, and if you want to work on your purpose result stuff there's some important sections like that and so there's all these things that come into a meaningful examination of What a word means in a given context and so for someone to simply say oh, well it just says profitable and ignore the fact that You have a single sentence in verses 16 and 17 and the last half of the sentence begins a

Hinnah clause It contains a Hinnah clause. The Hinnah clause begins in the last half of the sentence Hinnah artios a ha -tu -the -u -anthropos in order that The Ha -tu -the -u -anthropos, so ha is going with anthropos

So tu -the -u is is the descriptor and so you've it's a very common the of God man the man of God Might be

Subjunctive with the Hinnah. This is this is the whole the not now purpose or result

Sometimes they're indistinguishable. Sometimes they're distinguishable, especially in Any type of narrative type thing where you've got it, you're not talking about just general truths, but you know something that's going on or something along those lines

But the point is that the nature of Scripture as Theanostas Has the intended result

Because of its profitability in teaching in reproving rebuking training and righteousness

The result is that and the even I wouldn't say the purpose but it's it's purposeful on God's part in the in regards to the nature of Scripture that the man of God may be

Prepared Ready and then we looked at ex artidso

Sufficient fully equipped pros -pon -erigon -ogathon for every good work.

So what? Carlo Broussard was trying to do is to limit the range of Ophelimos at the beginning of the sentence while ignoring the fact that the nature of Scripture is such

That not only does it thoroughly equip the man of God to do everything in the first part of the sentence

But also you are then told That the man of God will be fully equipped

Sufficient for every good work So if there's anything else

It's frosting it's it's excess it's Outside the realm of what

Paul is talking to Timothy about It's not even a good work Scripture is sufficient to Thoroughly equip the man of God to perform every good work

So I Just wanted to emphasize that because it came up in another Statement that he that we may or may not hear

I forget whether I've selected it or not, but That was one of the main parts of the argument there is another aspect that we will catch as well

In this let me see if I Yeah This let's go ahead and grab this while we're on second

Timothy, and then I'll go back and we'll do some jumping around I've been told to quit picking on rich video time

Pierce so You you're picking up some street names rich video time

Pierce, so there you go There's one other element in regard to second

Timothy 316 and I was surprised it didn't come up when but it may just have been due to time

But it did come up later in the program a caller brought it up. So let's go ahead and listen to this. Oh, let me

I was listening to it at 1 .8, which would be really really fast Would sound very strange, but here we go, right?

But if I'm not mistaken at the time that that was written Mm -hmm, that wasn't technically the scripture that was on hand.

Basically all they had then was the Old Testament So couldn't you then argue that all you really need is the Old Testament since the New Testament hadn't been compiled for another 300 years

Frank isn't that's a great on the head brother This this is actually one of the lines of reasoning that Catholic apologists will use to respond

To a Protestant's use of this particular text in support of sola scriptura First of all the scriptures as you pointed out

Frank the scriptures that Paul is referring to is the Old Testament He actually tells Timothy remember the scriptures

That you were from your child that you were acquainted with from your childhood from your childhood

You have been acquainted with the sacred writings st Paul says and he talks about how you know

Timothy received it from his mother and his grandmother So he's referring specifically to the Old Testament here So if we take this text to prove scripture alone

Well, then it proves too much or too less you might sit to too little because it's proving that we would only need the

Old Testament To know the truth of God's Revelation, but of course that's absurd. And so it is true

The New Testament wasn't written yet. So the scripture within its literal historical context that Paul is referring to is the

Old Testament. However Now I'll stop right there because he's about to say something. It's very interesting Listen to what he's about to say here because He's throwing this out.

This is a common argument Roman Catholics apologists will say and you need to be aware of this if you're just gonna cite the text

You need to be aware of this comeback Yeah, but what scriptures had

Timothy known from his youth? the word the New Testament so if The Tanakh is sufficient then you don't need the

New Testament What is the assumption here? The assumption in this form of argument is that the canon of Scripture is in view in Paul's statement as to what is the honest us

It's not nor could it be in the context in which Paul was writing, but that's the assumption always have to identify the assumptions that people are making and A lot of people struggle with the identification of the underlying assumptions of argumentation

No one ever sat me down and taught me how to do that. I didn't have any classes in it.

I mean The the logic class that I took at Phoenix College years and years ago with brother

Callahan was very useful But I was doing this stuff long before I took that class.

So I've mentioned before that When I hear an argument when

I read an argument hear an argument see an argument, whatever it might be It's almost visual for me to to see the form of the argument and see what the assumptions and presuppositions it's based upon are and People go.

Why did you immediately go for that? Well, it's just I don't know. It's just how I got put together and that's what

I see and The assumption of this argument is

That it's Paul's intention to be addressing canonical issues here with Timothy when the

Pasa Grafe Theanustos Means all scripture. It's not addressing whether there will be future scripture where the scriptures currently being given

Anything like that. The point is what makes the man of God Thoroughly equipped for ministry in the church is that which is

Theanustos not that which is not. Now Carlo's gonna admit Sacred tradition is not

Theanustos. Nothing but scripture is Theanustos. The magisterium isn't So the three -legged stool has automatically got a problem because two of the legs are too short to stand with the third

They're of a different nature, different substance, they're ontologically different But that's the assumption and and you need to be prepared to Understand what what is being said there.

Yes For Timothy it was the Tanakh that was able to give him the wisdom that he needed

No question about that. No reason to fight about that. No reason to argue about that. Yes, of course But we're talking about application today, what do we have that is

Theanustos? And technically there's supposed to be agreement between the two sides.

I'd say functionally there isn't But technically there is and that sort of comes out in this brief comment that he makes at the end here

Check out what he says. Even the Second Vatican Council Quotes this particular text in reference to the

New Testament as well So the church will look at St. Paul's writing here and extend it to the New Testament as well But technically it's the

Old Testament. So thank you Frank for that call Now did you catch that? I appreciate the fact that Carlo was honest enough to say well yeah, but Even Rome has recognized and made application of this.

Now, you know, I immediately stopped and And point out is that Is that an infallible interpretation?

Is that a dogmatic interpretation? when vast majority of Roman Catholic leaders will say that the mere citation of a scriptural passage by the

Roman Catholic Church in Council or by the Pope is indicative of a proper use of The text but it's not an infallible definition

So in other words on the one hand they want to say yeah, you can trust the church's

Guidance when it says such and such a text is relevant to such and such a belief But they don't want to be held to oh that means that's an infallible interpretation

Because the reality is that councils in the past, Trent for example

Second Nicaea especially, oh good grief Used scriptural texts in a way, they're just Thoroughly indefensible

Thoroughly indefensible just really bad And so they you know, there's always a there's all the backdoor is always left just a little bit of jar for fast exits

For the for the Roman Catholic on that level. So there you go There's the the discussion of Second Timothy 316.

I think we've I think We've covered everything there. Let's go back and now let's now let's talk about Material and formal sufficiency

Material and formal sufficiency. This is a very artificial

Distinction that is utilized by modern Roman Catholics To say that they can affirm they can affirm the material

Sufficiency of Scripture, but not the formal. Well, what does that mean? Well, they can say well, yeah everything that God wants us to have is

Materially there at least implicitly in Scripture and Look when

Rome starts talking about something implicit All you got to do is

Pick up some of their books Scott Hahn's books Tim Staples On Mary any of the

Marian stuff to find out what something implicitly present means

What that means is you can take a verse of Scripture that Never in the mind of its author its original audience or for people who read those words for hundreds and in some cases

Thousands of years ever dreamed of but with the magical wonderful light of tradition

Oh Look what we see that no one's ever seen before It's implicitly there and so the

Ark of the Covenant becomes all about Mary and and When Solomon brings a throne for his mother this becomes something about Mary and and Just the most amazing

Leaps of imagination and allegorical interpretation you can ever come up with all of a sudden become the very mainstays of Theological dogmatism, so This way they can say oh, well, you know, you're sure there's some there's some texts amongst the early church fathers

They were just talking about material sufficiency You know, that's it's it's but it's not formally

It needs it's not sufficient in of itself To safeguard these things you need to have these these other sources and so on and so forth.

And so here's here's where That comes up in in the conversation

So that is a that's that's the key distinction. Yeah, and that's that's something else to you know as Catholics You know we can believe in what is called the material sufficiency of Scripture We can we don't have to But we can it's an option

Which I've always found interesting stuff all of the stuff of divine revelation is present there

Implicitly it's there but you also need the church and the magisterium to give it form

You know, you can have all of the stuff you need to build a house But you need the builder the carpenter to take the stuff and give it its proper form

So you realize what that's saying the Scripture is this? Pile of wood and Joyce's and joints and and Concrete and nails shingles

But the church is the builder Yeah, I realize most of these guys don't realize how wildly

Disrespectful to Scripture this stuff is because it's what they've been raised with but It is wildly disrespectful of Scripture anyway

Really is and so too we have God's revelation embedded embodied in the written form in sacred scripture

The stuff is there But we also need the magisterium that is the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope the living teaching authority of the church to take what is there to give it form to draw out of the deposit of faith and make

Explicit what is there implicit for it to be intelligible for us as Christians 2 ,000 years later

So we can assent to it with divine faith. So Without the magisterium to draw forth from sacred tradition

Define these things for us. Then we just be going on. I don't know what this is supposed to be

It's you know, it's just like a I've just gotten you know when I was a kid I remember when

I got my mega set of tinker toys, you know the big big round thing, you know and you

Empty that out on the floor and there's just all sorts of different colored wooden dowels and then the connector things and it was just a mess of wood on the floor and You know half an hour later

You've got a house or an airplane or a tank or something that your imagination would come up with probably much better for children

Than video games. But anyway That's just me being old Oh speaking of old.

Happy birthday old man Yes, I Shouldn't pick on about the lights today because that's just what old folks do.

But anyway, I Just sort of like it better that way what do you think

Margaret anyway? What were we talking about? Oh, yeah tinker toys.

Yes tinker toys material formal sufficiency That's the idea is is it's just this unformed mess

Unformed mess of stuff on the floor that then the church and the magisterium comes along and puts all these things together and That's the material formal explicit implicit stuff there you've got to be kidding me

Wow Did you see that on Twitter? Yeah Now now a certain wild -eyed

Incredibly emotional rather extremely Imbalanced woman is talking about death death threats from whites followers

No, no this this this lady really needs some assistance she should not be out in public

Yeah, amazing Wow Yikes There are some you've run into folks on the net sometimes and it's gets a little little scary

I'm thinking of some movies. I've seen it's like, okay. Yeah now I know where that character came from in that movie

Anyway, we press on despite the looniness of stuff out in out in loony land

Remember the debate I did with Roberts and Janice in Santa Fe It's a 2010 was it

Well, of course it's on YouTube for now. Anyways When I Challenged Roman Catholic apologists

Only Roberts and Janice was willing to step up and Defend the concept of the bodily assumption of Mary So give give

Bob's and Janice props on that, you know Bob is an interesting guy

Some debates he's just one of the nastiest guys you could ever run into and other debates And then there's some in between and So it depends on the day and he's into some really interesting stuff, you know the geocentrism stuff and all that kind of thing and He's had an interesting interesting road,

I really don't even know where he is right now to be honest with you, but anyway when

How did he choose to defend the concept of? The bodily assumption of Mary.

Well, if you've listened to it about the only way he could and And that was well look at Acts 15 in Acts 15 the church

In Council had the right to define dogma and therefore the church in Council Well, actually it wasn't it was the

Pope but the church headed by the Pope 1900 years plus later

Still has the same authority that had back then now Obviously, there's a big difference and that is

Acts 15 is revelatory and That's why I keep saying

Rome says there's no revelation today, but she doesn't act that way The only logical way to really believe in the bodily assumption

Mary, especially the way Jerry Matitick's expressed it on the same level as the resurrection is to say that it's revelatory that new revelation was given

Because there isn't any question about the fact that the the first four centuries minimally of The Christian Church didn't had never even heard of the concept and when it was heard of rejected it

But then over time with the growth of mariolatry and so on so forth you eventually have what was once initially rejected becoming accepted

So it made sense, you know, you can't defend it from Scripture The few texts, you know the woman in in the book of Revelation or whatever

So easy to provide Patristic even patristic citation of those texts

Against that utilization that interpretation that the only way you do it is to say well acts 15 and so other

Roman Catholic apologists will utilize acts 15 specifically To promote what

I call the the Peter syndrome and I happen to look at Happen to look at a video.

It just happened to come up in YouTube. I was looking for something else and The rebuttal period by Scott Butler in our debate at Boston College in 1993 came up and I watched a few minutes of it and it was the

Scott Butler meltdown because toward the end he just He turned toward me and he was he was spitting.

I Mean there was spit flying. I was sort of like Having to move out of the way because he was just melting down and Didn't realize couldn't realize that he was

Giving the most glorious example of the Peter syndrome that I had already defined.

I had already described this kind of Behavior on the part of Roman Catholic apologists where they

Anything they can find about Peter in any church, right? It doesn't matter what it's really about. It's just we will exalt

Peter And and make the connection to the Pope of Rome and that's just it's just how that's how we're gonna do it

Well, he did it and one of the ways they do this acts 15 see Peter decided the issue

Peter decided the issue. So here's just a brief little Mention of that from Carla Broussard Go ahead

I was just gonna say yeah that that's the instructions given to the Apostles by Jesus and the Apostles actually carry out

Those instructions in Acts chapter 15 at the Council of Jerusalem when there was a dispute about circumcision and salvation, etc

And acts 15 7 Peter rises up declares the matter the multitudes of that The Apostles and the elders fall silent and he declares the truth and the issue was settled what sounds that sounds pretty impressive that Peter stands up and he says

I'm the Pope and The the matter is settled, right? Well, um

That's not what happened and I guess it works if you can sort of assume that your audience probably hasn't been doing much reading in Acts 15 recently, but Acts 15 6 the

Apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. Why didn't they just turn to when they turn to Peter? If they're at the end if they had the modern

Roman Catholic understanding Why didn't they just turn to Peter say Peter you're the vicar of Christ? We don't need to get together to talk about this you tell us what to do.

They didn't Instead the Apostles and the elders came together looking this matter after there been much debate

Peter stood up and said to them so Peter stands up there's been much debate and He goes on All the way through verse 11

But we believe that we are saved through the grace Lord Jesus Christ in the same way as they also are

So what we should read now is this decided the matter and There was no further discussion and it was done all the people kept silent and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as They're relating what signs and wonders

God had done through them among the Gentiles. Well, wait a minute, but Peter just decided all this What why are why part of us and Paul now speaking why are they providing

Testimony as to what God had done Through them among the

Gentiles After they had stopped speaking James answered saying brethren.

Listen to me Listen to me

Simeon That would be Peter has laid how God first concerned himself about taking from among the

Gentiles of people for his name With this the words the prophets agree Well, why even bother pointing out that what he's saying is in accordance with the prophets

It had already been settled, right? Then he goes through just after this just as is written etc, etc.

We have a number of you can see all the Wait, whoa, whoa verse 19. Let me let me show you the

Greek over here DIA EGO Creno Therefore it is my judgment

James James James James don't you realize the Vicar of Christ is sitting there and You stand up and you say

Creno I I judge Therefore is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the

Gentiles But that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood and That seemed good to the

Apostles and the elders. Oh, where did Peter go? Must be a text for variant

Then it seemed good of the Apostles and the elders with the whole church to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas Judas called

Barabbas and Silas leading among the brethren they sent this letter by them and Let me see the letter will undoubtedly be signed in the name of the

Vicar of Christ. Oh No, no Peters not nothing about papacy of the

Pope Huh, you know when you when you actually look at Acts 15 it it doesn't say what

Carlo Broussard said it said In fact James is the one who's writing the council, isn't he and James the one who renders the verdict

He's the only one says Creno Peter doesn't say Creno hmm interesting

So so where does where does Carlo Broussard get that from? Well a tradition Now remember

Rome has not infallibly defined Acts chapter 15. There's no dogmatic infallible interpretation and so in essence all of this is the apologist personal opinion and when

Roman Catholics Discuss sola scriptura. Well personal opinion is a bad thing and yet they live and die by it

It's their personal opinion of what the text say it's their personal interpretation of what the magisterium has said

Because they they sort of ignore the the reality is that well You need someone to tell you what the text says, but the whole point of my illustration with Mitch Pacwa Was the multiplication of words doesn't help you you can stack up a pile of books as high as the ceiling

And if it does not accurately represent what Romans 5 1 says you're gonna be better off just reading

Romans 5 1 Without reading 47 volumes. It'll just confuse you in the process and when people say well, but it's you know, it's just your interpretation and Rome relieves you from that.

No now you get to interpret the interpreters But we have a living voice. Whoa, wait a minute.

What do you mean? You have a living voice? In fact, you know, uh Man I Generally don't do things like this on the well

I do on the program I guess and you all have gotten sort of accustomed to it. I suppose Let me see if I can do this and Rich is sitting in there going, you know, you could be nice to me on my birthday

But that would be a first so we don't want to we don't want to start strange things at times like this

Right. No, of course not don't want to throw Anybody a curve

I think there's about four minutes and 15 seconds in Let me see if I can find it real fast

Because this is interesting Let's go searching for a quote shall we it's the only way

I can do it Didn't really work and $9 in the bank what that's how you started look at how far you have come

My wife Anne is with me tonight story of following that North Star All people have equal worth and dignity from hate crimes across this land and we know and celebrate on and The University was forced to allow them to meet at the

Student Union Even more convinced that I wanted to stand up and fight for what was right. So I went to law school

I became a civil rights lawyer and Leave that marriage was something different I knew gay couples as friends in my neighborhood.

I knew them to be great neighbors I knew them to be great parents to beautiful kids and I saw him struggle with antiquated and even hostile adoption laws

But I had a difficult time Reconciling that reality what I knew to be true from the evidence of my own life

With the teachings of the faith that I had been raised in for my entire life Then in 2005 my last year as lieutenant governor the

Virginia Legislature began the process of pushing a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples and I asked the proponents of the amendments to explain why this needed to be in the

Bill of Rights in the Virginia Constitution Some told me candidly

This is what they said That they were doing it because they wanted to make Virginia a place that Lgbtq lgbtq folks would find so hostile that they would decide to leave and go elsewhere or move elsewhere and that was bad enough, but When I heard the proponents describe their motivation it

Her dad had been the lieutenant governor from it's in your summer Aston it was a dark day for our state of unfinished business

In there for a long time decided not to run again because sometimes In life, you don't get a chance to finish the unfinished business, but I've been given an opportunity to do it

So teaches me About a creator in the first chapter. There it is sir found it.

Okay. Here's that I still attend but But I think that's going to change too

Okay, now he's talking about Rome this man's a Roman Catholic and he's talking about Rome lifelong

Roman Catholic Y 'all saw in the vice presidential debate Toward the end the stuff about abortion and again, that's why

I said at the beginning of the program when you're Roman Catholic start getting serious About dealing with people who could actually make a difference

But who live in such a way as to thoroughly violate the teachings of your faith

And you don't do anything about it Why should we take you seriously? But listen to what he says he says here.

I think it's going to change and listen to why he how he says it I think that's going to change too

And I think it's going to change because my church also teaches me

About a creator in the first chapter of genesis who surveys the entire world including mankind and said it is very good

It is very good Pope francis famously said who am I to judge

And to that I want to add who am I to challenge god for the beautiful diversity

Of the human family, I think we're supposed to celebrate it not challenge it So there you go

Now i've got i've got a roman catholic on on twitter. This is Trying to be obtuse I guess

Cain does not represent catholic theology. Then why is he still a roman catholic? Hello You've kicked other people out what about him?

I'm not saying this man defines catholic theology. I'm pointing out to you. You don't take your claims seriously

But did you hear what he said Who did he quote? Yeah, he quoted the pope

Who am I to judge? That's not an infallible statement Time out. Here we go How do you know

At the time when a pope is alive What is true and what is false

Because he's your ultimate authority, right? He's your ultimate authority now. I know and I believe any honest person knows that what cardinal ratzinger believes theologically is not what francis believes and I can't remember what his

Pre -papal name was. Sorry berga something whatever They are not

One of these things is not like the other They are not on the same page don't lie to me

You know it too And I well know that officially what the pope says on an airplane is not dogma.

I know But tells you a lot about what he actually believes isn't it And given that the vast majority of popes live and die without ever uttering quote -unquote dogma

Without ever defining something What good are they?

the whole concept of papal infallibility Is not only worthless because it's unfalsifiable

You know honorius was an infallible pope except when he wasn't being an infallible pope So the pope can't make an error except when he does then he's not really acting as the pope

Well, that's useful When honorius the bishop of rome taught monothelitism

As the bishop of rome in epistles and letters as the bishop of rome at that time if you had followed his advice

You would have been in error And only in later years would you have known that you were in error, but if you died then you'd die in error

So there's no way of knowing History might tell you later, but then history might change its interpretation later

And so when the pope Can stand there and say Who am

I to judge you and I both know? that probably No pope before him ever would have even thought of saying those words in that context things.

They'd be a changing God's truth doesn't change but um papal interpretation does

Don't tell me that sixtus of fifth or the author of the papal syllabus of errors or That that they and and francis

Are teaching the same thing. They're not come on be honest They're not And you know it

And so someone who's clearly Look, I know this guy's not

It is obvious to me that on numerous levels When I when

I read the anathemas That are attached to The definition of the immaculate conception the definition of the bodily assumption

To where it is said if someone even thinks in their heart other than we have defined

They are separated from the church. They are anathema Even if they do not give expression to the statements this guy gives expression to the statements

He is an apostate. There's no question about that. This guy is not a roman catholic

But for some reason y 'all don't get rid of your apostates Which the apostles did which means you're not apostolic again the point being

How do you know if if the pope's the final authority? How do you know your interpretation is right?

Maybe you've just been interpreting all those earlier popes wrong and francis is the one that's got it, right? And you don't have any reason to question you can't

I mean, it seems pretty obvious, but hey He's the infallible one, right?

That's the problem this system doesn't give you What it pretends to give you it doesn't even come close

It just you know, it says well you there's all these questions about what scripture teaches and what it does It just moves the line back one step

And hopes you don't realize Well you foolish protestant we can give you certainty because we have the living magisterium

Excuse me as soon as the pope speaks you have to interpret what he said right and I can guarantee you anything the pope says

I can go to boston college and get one interpretation Go to a conservative place get another interpretation go to a middle of the road place get a third interpretation

So you haven't accomplished anything have you no you haven't but you know how many people

Have abandoned the bedrock of theanoustas scripture for the ever shifting sands of roman opinion

Solely based upon that argument Far too many to note far too many to even even note it's

It's a shame, but that's the way it is Now I mentioned earlier Uh, we'd get to this one revelation

Has ceased revelation has ceased Now he might be thinking in his mind.

Well god's public revelation Ceased with the death of the last apostle and that's something we believe as catholics as well.

Uh, the epistle the epistle public Revelation, maybe that well, okay.

Okay. Yeah, they they do make a distinction between public revelation Which is to be binding upon everyone and private revelation, which is only binding upon the individual who receives it.

That's how they that's how they can deal with the mystics and the saints and their visions of mary and You know all this other kind of mystical hoo -ha, that's been a part of uh roman catholicism since well

Really going all the way back to the pillar saints and stuff like that even though that wasn't roman catholicism then but that's how you make a distinction between Private and public jude.

I think it's jude 1 3 if i'm not mistaken, you know, the the faith was once for all Delivered to the saints that's sort of a scriptural text that lends itself toward the understanding

That god's general or public revelation ceased and was completed with the death of john the last apostle

But that public revelation is to be distinguished Uh from what we call private revelation in our catholic tradition

Namely people having visions of jesus or jesus communicating, uh to people to christians throughout the centuries

Uh, so that's the first thing I would say to the first part of the question now concerning How do we know for sure like whether okay, so there you have revelation public revelation

Has ceased The canon is closed now how you

How you deal with all the alleged Revelations from jesus and mary and and all the rest of this stuff that so many popes have given so much credence to How do you how do you square that with uh, the pope as the head of the magisterium

Using the keys of peter to grant indulgences based upon alleged visions from mary how do you how

How does it I don't think those things do fit together Um but Rome tries to say they do

But but they don't so revelation has ceased but You still end up with this idea of Dogma that no christian ever knew

Now one of the most common, uh arguments that is used

By roman catholic apologists is well look It can't just be you and your bible under a tree

Because there are difficult texts, uh, there there are things and prophecies that are hard to understand

Sola scriptura can't be true because of this but hopefully by now you immediately said wait, but that's not what sola scriptura means

Yes, god uses his people God uses witness god uses his spirit

God uses knowledgeable christians to teach Christians who are less knowledgeable to make them more knowledgeable so they can then teach another generation and the church is important and the church

Is central see? In the roman system what they want you to think Is either you have them

Or it's you and your bible under a tree And then what they like to do when they when they ever do address the ecclesiology over here

What they want to do is they want to go after the weakest ecclesiology they can find and I've told the story before but the only person who would remember it would be algo um

And and that's because uh Man I forget what it was

I mentioned something on the channel recently and and like within three seconds He mentioned the month and the date and what

I was wearing when I said it and i'm just sort of like this man frightens me He really does. Uh, we call algo the google of my life uh

So And i've met some other algos from other nations So foreign language algos so it is it's sort of scary

It really is because I don't remember that stuff. Yeah, but they do anyway He would remember what

I was talking about no anyway, uh I've mentioned this story before there is a series of books called surprised by truth, which i've always found

To be somewhat of an ironic, uh ironic title to a series of books like this, but it's converts to roman catholicism and They come from a lot of different backgrounds so it's not just protestants but the vast majority of them are and the vast majority of them

Include arguments against sola scriptura. One of them was of a a woman

Um Who was a member of the orthodox presbyterian church now opc

Pretty conservative i've said many times. I think the two denominations that are Most like one another uh opc and reformed baptist uh, we sing the same songs and We tend to have very very similar worship services and stuff like that and uh, so You're you're gonna get exposed to a lot of Really solidly biblical teaching in the opc

And I was reading this woman's uh conversion testimony And she made reference to first timothy 3 15 first timothy 3 15

But in case I am delayed I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of god

Hates est in ecclesia theus zontos, which is the ecclesia the church of the living god stulas chi

Hedrioma teis ale theos the pillar And support or foundation teis ale theos of the truth and so she said in her

Testimony I had never seen this verse before And it obviously gave a teaching about the authority of the church that we did not believe and I was

Dumbfounded first of all, how could you have not encountered this? I know amongst reformed baptists and I I think it's probably true amongst a lot of opc um

We read a chapter Or if it's really long, we'll cut it in half, but we generally read one full chapter of the new testament every morning service

And one full chapter of the old testament in the evening service and i've been at prbc long enough that I don't know which time on the new testament we're on But we're

I think on the third trip through the old Been there a long time over a quarter of a century

So, how did you not know first timothy 315 was there how It seems

Very difficult for me to believe That someone could be raised in the opc

And never heard a sermon on first timothy 315 Because I know you couldn't go to prbc your whole life

And not hear a sermon on first timothy 315. I've preached on it. I know I have so this text is

Very frequently utilized by roman catholic apologists And again, they read into it

The idea that the church of the living god is the roman church

And it's the roman church that is supporting and holding up The truth and so the church defines what the truth is not the scriptures.

That's the interpretation given to it But that's not what it says is it um

What's it talking about? In case I am delayed I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of god.

Well What church is being referred to here the local church The local church

The church where you have The elders and the deacons

And you have the supper and you have baptism and you have discipline You have the the singing of hymns and psalms and spiritual songs

You have worship the instruction the word It's the local church.

That's the household of god And that is the church of the living god the pillar and support the truth

But what does the pillar and support do it holds something else up? It doesn't define those things.

It holds something else up The church does not define the truth the church lives is given birth by the truth

And what is the very center of what is to be being presented and preached and taught the foundation

Of everything that's done in the worship service, but that which is the anusta same author different letter same author

What's timothy to be doing in that church? Training and righteousness reproving rebuking exhorting

Hmm. What does he do that from? That which is the honest us Again our our roman catholic twitter follower

Is demonstrating he's listened more to catholic answers live Than listening to what we're actually saying here and following the argumentation um

He points out that people can believe in sola scriptura And still differ with one another well, that's it folks.

There you go sir Excuse me. How do you solve that?

You try to solve that with an external authority that only makes more differences That isn't even divine

You you you solve that by pointing us to a source of authority that denies the gospel

Tell me you mentioned sproll moeller and mu On the trinity the gospel the resurrection the details are they more?

in line with one another than the leaders of the magisterium

And the scholars of rome you better believe they are you better believe they are how is that possible?

The addition of your traditions creates more confusion sir More confusion to fact

Go to boston college go ask the priests At that place what they believe you'll be shocked uh

Tim kane differs with pope benedict. So what is his point? If that's a question being addressed to me

The point is Why is tim kane still a member of the roman catholic church a and b?

Why can he quote appropriately the current bishop of rome? Who doesn't seem to have the same views as the previous bishops of rome?

I I wasn't clear on that. I think I was clear on that. I think I was really clear on that Anyway, so we go back first.

Timothy 3 15 having been completely distracted Uh by social media, but it makes it

Alive What? No, it doesn't really flow it actually just sort of It ebbs and flows and hangs hard lefts and does things like that.

Yeah um the point is that Oh, okay.

Wonder Wonder who you're aiming that at social media is just so confusing at times. Um, the point is the local church

Is the pillar and support of the truth. It doesn't define the truth It does not supplant the truth.

The truth is not dependent upon it for definition The bride of christ hears the voice of christ

Not the other way around and the roman situation is she can no longer hear the voice of christ because as I pointed out last time sola ecclesia

She defines the extent of tradition the meaning of tradition the extent of scripture and the meaning of scripture. It's a monologue

No matter what else she tries to say. It's a monologue Now why do I say that because this next section

Is where broussard tries to say well look it's either rome or it's

Basically nothing at all An ecclesiology that takes seriously the purpose of god in the church

The union of the elect with christ as their head um christ will build his church he has been doing so the wisdom of learning from the generations that came before us not simply

Ignoring them. They don't really want to admit that there are high churchmen outside of rome because for them unless Unless you believe that the church

Is rome then you you're not really a churchman at all. But the reality is there are a lot of us out here

They very rarely deal with us very rarely deal with what we're believing what we're saying and so One of the illustrations they'll use is well look at look at the ethiopian eunuch

The poor guy he needed the magisterium So philip who is not an apostle in that sense and um

Actually is explaining. What was he explaining? Oh prophecy of scripture. That's right And in fact his explanation is only scripture in that the whole story itself is recorded in scripture

Huh? Well, anyway, despite all that the idea is we'll see you need something other than scripture the argument being is

Unless it's just you and your bible. You can't learn anything from anybody else That's somehow a denial of sola scriptura and hopefully by now you realize that's not a denial of sola scriptura at all

It is just a further misrepresentation thereof, but Having said that let's listen to it

I guess I was just saying again. I don't know the exact line in verse, but I recall that something I think it was axe where there was was it an ethiopian eunuch who was trying to read scripture and he

Basically admits I just can't do this alone I kind of need it was at the church or the priest of the apostles that I need

I need help being able to properly discern scripture Doesn't that say that there's a need for church or something like that?

That is correct Yeah, you could look to that passage in act chapter 8 with the ethiopian eunuch and you know He's in his chariot and scripture tells us there's the there's the deacon philip deacon philip comes up to the chariot and joins the ethiopian

Eunuch he begins teaching to him the ethiopian eunuch says he's you know, he's reading the prophet isaiah How can I understand this unless somebody explains it to me that?

Deacon philip explains the text to the ethiopian eunuch He's baptized and then all of a sudden deacon philip disappears and finds himself in another place

But therein lies sort of that hint to how scripture needs an interpreter indeed in our protestant brothers and sisters

Um, some will agree with that But the question is who has the authority to interpret the sacred page sacred scripture in an authoritative manner?

Because if there is no infallible voice on this earth to interpret the sacred text for us Well, then it's just a bunch of educated guesses.

We could never have a certitude in what is god's revelation So that's a good text to look to frank.

Thanks for suggesting that now the problem is that he just gave us his own best guess as to what that text actually says because There is no dogmatic statement from rome.

There is no inspired commentary from rome As to what acts chapter 8 is actually indicating so that's just his best guess but it's okay

To do the best guess thing in the service of the papacy. It's just not when you're opposing the papacy evidently,

I guess um but again, um He did go back to acts 15.

We're going to skip that one We've already listened to second thessalonians 2 15

Uh, so Since we already did the second thessalonians 2 15 1. Let's see if we can sneak in Uh, second thessalonians 3 6 before we run it.

We're gonna wrap up with a jumbo today a 90 minute Uh program so we only have about eight minutes left.

So let's uh, let's look at second thessalonians 3 6 that is scripture and the second verse

I would um, Encourage you to check out is second thessalonians chapter 3 verse 6

Listen to this j. St. Paul writes we command you brethren in the name of our lord. Jesus christ

So this is not just an opinion of st. Paul. He's invoking the name of jesus So he's basically saying thus saith the lord right that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness

And not in accord with the paradosis the tradition that you received from us

So notice paul in the name of jesus Is binding the thessalonians

To to put it positively live in accord with the sacred paradosis or the sacred tradition

So in these two texts we see tradition being held up by paul to have equal value as god's revelation in its written form

So thus you have scripture and tradition having equal value now when it comes to the magisterium j i'll just conclude with Okay, uh notice what was said there catch that right now

We already saw the error that he made in second thessalonians 2 15 We already saw that what is in view in second thessalonians 2 15 in the oral and written is the one body one body of truth the gospel

That it did not contain all the extraneous Stuff that's been defined by rome later on You need to understand and and carlo broussard may have not even thought these things through he just may just be

Doing what he's been taught to do whatever but what rome is doing is

Trying to keep you from recognizing that they're smuggling something in without having to demonstrate its existence

Because they'll use phrases like sacred tradition And what they want you to do is to think that in paul's day

What that meant is what it means in the roman catholic usage today And there is a world of difference between the two a world of difference

And the things that rome and the only way we can demonstrate this Is to go okay

What has rome defined on the basis of sacred tradition? Then we look at those things

And we go so you're telling me That the apostles taught these things to the thessalonians.

Can you prove that well, they can't They can't not just because the pausity of historical information

But because the historical information we have demonstrates that the early christians didn't believe so many of the things

That rome has defined dogmatically today And so we've already demonstrated that problem with second thessalonians 2 but then notice what's what's said here

To have equal value as god's revelation in its written form. So equal value

Equal value between scripture and tradition So, how do you come up with this?

Well, you go to a period of time which is A period of revelation

And so you're trafficking on a unique period of time To create a normative situation for the rest of church history, even though you've already admitted

There's not gonna be a revelation during the rest of church history. See what's going on. See the bait and switch And so what you're saying is well

Now we command you brethren in the name of our lord. Jesus christ that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life

Not according to the tradition which you receive from us Okay, so there is a tradition passed down What was this tradition about mary pope's purgatory indulgences?

No has nothing to do with it. It's the gospel Just like it was before. It's the gospel It's what paul taught the thessalonians when he was there

And he taught them. Hey, you know if you don't work you don't eat And there's a certain way a christian is supposed to live and this is how it's supposed to be

And so when there are people who don't do that when there are people who are bumming off of other people

Then you mark them off you keep away from has nothing to do with sacred tradition any type of passing down of Of revealed truth in some form other than the written form, etc.

Etc. Nothing to do with it at all see, they're they're desperate because Their later theology has developed

Concepts that are nowhere to be found in the apostles. And so you've got to find words like tradition and then fill them up This is what they do with any reference to mary any reference to mary adult man, you're just gonna

The angel greets her kakar to many. Oh, let's build a theology 4 000 feet tall on an angelic greeting

It is so pathetic But that's what rome's been forced to do. That's what rome's been forced to do

Uh, and that's what you're doing here It's clear that what paul's talking about is remember when I was with you remember what

I said to you There's a there's an orderly way to live the christian life So, let me just ask uh roman catholic in the audience um dogmatically

Define for me what this tradition was that paul gave to them Anybody calling in?

You can't because you don't have it You know why I know you don't have it because Of this call and we'll finish up with this one

I got a question Oh, yeah, i'm a convert to the catholic faith.

I get to be confirmed, but hopefully will be soon And my question is is I hear about tradition being used

As a word to reference other knowledge But uh what I don't hear is the specificity of what is tradition

Yeah, where is it written down or where is it referenced or how do I learn? What is this quote unquote tradition?

Aaron? How dare you demand that we define the terms we use? Carla yeah, I know this this is a great question.

Um, aaron I would encourage you to check out the catechism of the catholic church If you don't have a copy of it, it'd be great to get one.

Okay, great in paragraph 76 the catechism Quotes, uh, the second vatican council's dogmatic constitution on the word of god that patrick was talking about Earlier namely dave arabum or the word of god and it talks about how god's revelation was transmitted in two ways

Orally and in written form Under its oral under the oral form of transmitting god's revelation.

It says that they Transmitted I like to I I actually it was clearer for me when I looked at it as transmitting god's revelation in a written form

And an unwritten form. So what are the unwritten ways? That the apostles transmitted god's revelation that might help us understand how we can identify the sacred tradition today with the guidance of the magisterium

Dave ervin talked about how the apostles transmitted god's revelation in an unwritten way by the spoken word of their preaching

By the example they gave And by the institutions they established what they have received from the lips of christ and through his example in his preaching, etc

So what we see here are sort of three elements that comprise of the sacred tradition the oral preaching of the apostles the life testimony or the example of the early christians and the ceremonial observances observances or the institutions they establish such as Now by the way, absolutely positively none of that would be sufficient basis for anything rome's defined the basis tradition at all nothing

Lord's supper the eucharistic celebration. And so what we see there is The creed we have elements of the creed

We have elements of the moral life of the church and then we also have the liturgy or the sacraments, right? the prayer life of the church and so All of these three elements throughout the history of the church.

It sort of embody The sacred tradition and thanks be to god we have the magisterium guided by the holy spirit to identify for us

What in the liturgy what in the creedal statements of the church? What in the moral teachings of the church are those things that are a part of that original sacred tradition?

That with the written form comprises god's revelation so in other words Whatever the magisterium tells you

There there's no we we can't we can't we can't identify it until the magisterium says oh that's that Um, you can read the early church fathers, but you just have to go to the magisterium and say how about this word?

How about that word? How about this sentence? How about that sentence? And of course they won't answer that question There is no commentary.

There is nothing anywhere where rome has said Here is sacred tradition in the patristic sources

They've had all you know, you think of the time that has passed at all the time in the world

To create such a document such a set of documents multi -volume work

Will never do it can't do it Because the reality is as mitch pacco admitted in cross -examination

Can you give me a single word jesus said just just one thing jesus said one thing the apostles said

Can't do it because they don't possess anything The only thing in the possession of the church that is theodustos is the scriptures

Which is what shows us the complete error of rome catholicism

And ironically andy stanley at the same time Isn't that amazing Yeah, think about that almost done with Carlo broussard

I've got some uh, I want to talk to you a little bit about some things that I said in here

Regarding the phrase apostolic tradition. What do you think? Let me give you a little homework as we sign off here

What do you think? the early the earliest time a

Extra biblical writer said well, it was taught by the apostles and passed down to us that What do you think?

The content of that alleged apostolic tradition was I think this would be important because from what we've been hearing there needs to be real accuracy

In the distribution of these apostolic traditions So that very first one wonder what it was

Hope I remembered to tell you somebody will probably remind me if I don't We'll talk about that next time on the dividing line.