Leaving Rome In The Dust - [Hebrews 10:11-14]

The Problem of Rome and the Sufficiency of Scripture

Our father and our God we come before you this morning. Just thankful for all that you have. Given us thankful for who you are. Thankful that you have in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ condescended to us to Redeem us to save us from ourselves from our sin father.

We praise you for that and we just pray that our time this morning as we look at your word and we look at A so-called church that would contradict your word father. We pray for your blessing on our time in Jesus name.

Amen. Well as. Some of you may know we were in Washington DC this week along with Becky. Oh wait, Becky wasn't there. We're here in Washington DC this week. And you know what's happening next week in Washington DC.

What's the big event? The Pope is coming and. And we were very thankful by the way to be in Washington DC the week before the Pope arrived. Not to have to deal with all that. So then something else came up.

I was I saw this article. And I thought you know what? I. I can't. I can't resist myself. I can't resist. How about the title of this article? How Protestants are destroying Christianity? Hmm. Well, you know what may I just say that there is some truth to that right how Protestants are destroying Christianity.

I look at what the Protestant Church in the United States is doing, you know in the name of Christ and it's pretty scary. But of course this this man is a priest a Roman Catholic priest and he says. Right up front.

I should say that there are plenty of terrific Protestant Christians. Listen how he qualifies that. They love the Lord. They live their faith. They reach out to the needy. They engage in mission work.

They give generously. They are joyful and radiate their Christian commitment more strongly than many Catholics. To that I give a hearty. Amen. He says I don't dispute the holiness and courageous witness of many Protestant Christians of all denominations and traditions.

In fact many of them were courageous as we burned them at the stake. No, that isn't really in his article a little Reformation humor there. Let's see. But there is a problem with their theology which ultimately undermines both their own Protestant religion and Christianity in general.

What do you think the problem he's gonna go to is? What's the number one problem? Taylor. Lack of tolerance. No Election. No. They don't have the Pope. You're getting warmer. They're outside the church.

You're in the region. Gary the Eucharist. No, but you guys are dancing all around it. You're so close. It's like if this was you're getting warmer. You're getting warmer. You would be your your hand would be in flames right now.

Charlie. Oh Charlie. You have almost burst into flames. It is their doctrine of sola scriptura or Bible alone. Which you know, come on, at least you could say scripture alone if you're gonna. If you're gonna assault us at least get it, right.

He says here are a few contemporary problems with this belief. Contemporary problems. The weakness of sola scriptura is that if the Bible is the only authority it has to be Watertight and completely consistent within itself and for the church and for the world.

I don't even but I don't even know what that means. What does that mean? Well, he's gonna tell us what it means. Listen to this and see what you think. I'll take some comments after this says the problem is that the Bible is just not like that.

It is not a single consistent Cross-referenced totally precise documents. It is not a constitution or a legal contract. It is not an agreed-upon or an agreed rule book for a for the game or a set of instructions.

It is not a neat owner's manual or a complete a company handbook complete with a set of protocols for every situation. Thoughts. Charlie. Let's give him a hug and we'll just say he has absolutely no clue as to Hermeneutics and we'll see that developed a little bit.

It's one of the interesting things about Catholics and I have a another article where the man goes into that this guy Referenced. I wouldn't want to just assault. You know what? He's saying here without giving fair due to everything.

But yeah, they they have a hermeneutical hermeneutical problem. Other thoughts. Yes, Cory. Yeah. Yeah Cory says the Bible is not as good according to this guy as a constitution or a legal contract. It doesn't cover every contingency.

Well, let me ask you this. Mr. Priest, sir. We've been a country for 200 and how many years. 25 30 38 years. Thank you. I Didn't really count 238 years. Are there situations in the Constitution that have not been addressed yet or yeah, I mean, that's just silly, right?

And this is a document the Constitution that is fixed Cannot be moved or wrongly interpreted. Allegedly. So that's that's just nonsense. Other thoughts. I mean it does kind of get at an Issue when he says here.

It's not a neat owner's manual or a company handbook complete with a set of protocols for every situation. No, but Peter did write and by the way Peter as we'll find out was the first Pope. Peter did write that We God has given us everything what pertaining to life and godliness so it may not be a Company handbook complete with a set of protocols for every situation.

But Peter writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did say that we have everything we need so. There is that issue then he says this. And this is pardon me for saying so completely liberal. Listen, the Bible is an ancient religious text.

I really don't like that. You know because now what is it? What does that sound like? It's old it needs updating it's an artifact. You know not relevant to today, right? This and when I say liberal this is what I hear from people who support Homosexual marriage and by the way, please don't call it gay marriage.

It's neither gay nor is it marriage? It is homosexual. I Should even call it marriage, but I do just because that's the legal term for it, but it's wrong. He goes on to say it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Well, that was nice of him by a vast range of authors or a period of thousands of years. That's all true. It comes from ancient cultures so vastly different from modern America as to be from another planets.

Well calling it. Listen, what was that? All right. Well, but there's a reason what do you suppose the reason he's saying that is and there you go. Here's here's his point if you just read the Bible, there's no telling how you might understand it, right?

You're too stupid to understand those ancient cultures and understand what's going on back there you need to have someone Help you. Somebody interpreted for you Andrew. Okay. What is he gonna say next?

Not exactly. That's not exactly what he's but he comes close. Listen to this. He says it simply cannot be the sole authority for all questions of doctrine devotion dogma discipline and morals. Here's the funny thing you can go to.

I mean, that's just a really sad statement. Well, and I'll read the next one and then I'll talk about it a little bit. The modern world is too complex. It cannot be the sole authority for all questions of doctrine devotion dogma discipline and morals.

You know what you can go to almost well anything resembling a Genuine church and what's it going to say about the Bible? It's inspired and it is Useful for yeah all those things but it's gonna say ultimately that it is the ultimate Authority and it's gonna say something like it's the ultimate authority for all questions of doctrine devotion dogma Discipline and morals it won't use that wording because that's too Catholic, but it'll be close to that.

Then he says the Bible simply doesn't address many modern concerns concerns. Well, it's true. There's nothing in the Bible about Global warming except for in 2nd Peter 3 where God promises to destroy the earth by fire, but It's an interesting hermeneutic I just employed All right says because Protestant fundamentalists have Followed sola scriptura.

They have often used the Bible as a mine for proof texts. What's a proof text? Okay, you have an idea and you search through the Bible to find a scripture to prove your point so for example Let me give you some proof texting because as many of you know Most of you may know I come from a Mormon background and one of the things that we would do Is get to church by 620 in the morning Monday through Friday while you're in high school.

Thank you very much 100 attendance four years. Thank you, and we would do something some mornings called scripture chasing where the teacher would read aloud a thought or a point or a You know a situation and then you were supposed to go and find a scripture that applied to it now I think I wanted to something like that.

Here's the problem though a Lot of the things that we would do In the Mormon Church were proof texts. So for example, you know you want to say that you know, there's evidence in the Bible that There were That Jesus came to North America.

Anybody know where that is where Jesus came to visit the What we call the Indians the Native Americans here on. It's it's plain as day. Let's just be honest. Exactly right. Very good. Very nice. I didn't write down the verse, but let's see.

Let's see if I can find it Father it's I know I know it's in here. And anyway Jesus says Many sheep I have that are not of this fold. You know, I must Go to them also that that kind of thing. And so this is here we go.

John 10 16 and I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also and they will listen to my voice. Evidence that he came to North America. I Think it's pretty much indisputable. I remember my mom once telling me when I was evangelizing her, you know, I said You know the Book of Mormon, I don't remember exactly what I said, I might have said something like it was swill I didn't say.

You know, well what about and this is one of the prophets I think maybe Ezekiel where it talks about two sticks stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah or something like that and and and they will say that that's evidence that there are two books.

And so I open it up and I looked at it in Context and it had nothing to do with what you know, she was trying to make it say so that's proof texting. Now that's what he says that Fundamentalists do and I think we're gonna see evidence that the Roman Catholics do that.

The problem with this approach proof texting is it doesn't take long for a smart person to realize that Christians pick and choose. Which proof texts to use? Goes on to say I understand that an educated and intelligent Protestant and it's good to know there are some Knows that biblical exegesis is a complex and subtle art which requires a learned and expert scholar.

That was a gulp. This is not the way it is perceived. However by the vast relatively unlearned populace. They hear Protestant preachers issue prohibitions and pronouncements based on a Bible text and they respond by asking why this text was Authoritative and not and that one is not in other words.

Why are we picking this one and not that one? That's one of the really grand things about Preaching through the Bible verse by verse is you don't get to do this. You have to take things in context. You have to follow the arguments of the author.

He goes on he says in the public square. Therefore the most common objective to Christian teaching on traditional marriage is The argument that goes like this you say I can't even say it gay. There's nothing gay about it.

You say homosexual sex is an abomination because one verse in the Old Testament says so. But why don't you therefore outlaw bacon sandwiches eating shrimp and say every boy needs to be circumcised, huh?

What is that called when you do that kind of argumentation? I say we need to bring in I don't know a couple pallet loads of hay. Soak them bad boys in kerosene and torture because that is a straw man.

It's a massive straw, man. Why don't you yeah, I mean wait, there's so many problems with that. Why don't we or why is it? Okay to eat bacon sandwiches? Because the New Testament tells us so I mean Peter had the dream, you know, there are other issues, you know.

But we're done with the law. At least the Old Testament law pursuit, you know the Mosaic law let's put it that way and Shrimp same. But this one, you know circumcision New Testament talks about circumcision.

It doesn't say, you know, every boy needs to be circumcised. It says circumcision is now something that goes on inside of us. Now so is there anywhere in the New Testament where it says that Homosexuality is an abomination.

I mean that that's why that's really dopey. You know, it's like Roman Catholic priest is like listen, I'm a scholar fellas. I know what I'm talking about. Only the Old Testament condemns homosexuality next they skip around and they don't look at things in context and Again, why is that?

Because you can prove what you want to prove and you you don't have to deal with difficult issues. My brother and I were talking about you know. Because he's a former Mormon as well funny how that works and he was on a Mormon mission and we were just talking about what a sacrament meeting is like and you guys have no idea what a sacrament meeting is like you don't even know what a sacrament meeting is, but a Mormon Sunday would consist of these three meetings now when I when I was young this is the way it would go you had priesthood meeting in the morning all the men would go and then a little bit later there was Sunday school then there was a sacrament meeting.

Usually in the evening. So it was like all day long. You were going back and forth to church and then they started Combining the meetings they were more efficient, you know, so we would have priesthood Sunday school and sacrament all three right in a row.

Sacrament is a worship service. But here's the funny thing and this is what my brother and I were talking about I can't tell you one time. Not one time in the entire time. I was in the Mormon Church where somebody said open your Bibles to or Open your Book of Mormon to or open your Doctrine and Covenants.

They might reference a scripture but it was all in the context of whatever experience they had a mission trip to South America or Speaking, you know it in Utah or whatever. And it was always about being a better person being a better husband being a better better better better better better.

That's just how they did it and never an explanation of scripture. You know, that was really for man, talk. Our priest priesthood means we might talk about you know the really intricate parts of Mormon doctrine but nowhere else because only the really serious people went to priesthood meeting but the same thing in if you go to a Roman Catholic service.

What are those like how much scripture do you actually hear taught? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that the priest will use a small snippet of if he's going to speak at all about something like this a small snippet of scripture and then just kind of launch on whatever he wants to talk about and Then after 15 -20 minutes or whatever he's done.

Everybody goes home. Was that close? I mean other than bowing to the Eucharist and there just isn't a lot of Teaching there. Why. Because teaching will just confuse you just be a better person says. After his foolish statement, there are foolish question.

He says even though most basically informed Christian will be able to answer the question. But the question would not exist if it were not for the false doctrine of sola scriptura really. Because Why?

No, it says so scripture is also troublesome when it comes to modernist biblical criticism. Biblical criticism being I mean, let's put it this way. It's okay when I say a Given section of John at the end of John chapter 7.

In fact, let's just turn there for a minute because this is an example of biblical criticism. If you look at John chapter 7 verse 53 and following They each went to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, etc Etc, etc all the way up until verse 11, you know you see it marked off and that's known as the woman caught in adultery and it's marked off basically because Critical scholars tell us that it shouldn't be in the gospel of John.

You say well doesn't that really attack the doctrine of sola scriptura or the inerrancy of Scripture. No. It actually proves it because now that we have all these manuscripts we can look and we can see that the older manuscripts.

Almost none of them in other words closer to the originals almost none of them. Have that passage and it doesn't really fit the context and if you take it out, it all makes perfect sense. Anyway Biblical criticism is the idea.

There are two levels of it. One is we look at things like that where we can compare the manuscripts and go. Okay out of the thousands of manuscripts we have this is in two. It doesn't fit, you know, blah blah blah blah.

So it's probably not in the Bible. Higher criticism is this it looks at something like the gospel of John and says well it wasn't written by John it looks at something like You know Ephesians and says it wasn't written by Paul even if it says I Paul.

So that would be the issue there, but he says if sola scriptura is true, then the whole Bible must be watertight and consistent. Okay, I I'll take that. Now watertight. I don't know what that means. But it is consistent.

It cannot have factual errors superstition or inconsistency. Without an external authority to judge that and here we count. Here we go without an external authority to judge the Bible itself. The Bible must be self-supporting.

We say it again without an external authority to judge the Bible itself. Well, who do you suppose that would be the Roman Catholic Church, of course? If the Bible is all of that he means if that's if it is the authority then it must stand or it must all fall.

Consequently it is a very big deal when biblical scholars poke through the Bible and say well. We don't think this particular story happened exactly like this or the external historical record indicates.

These Bible stories are not completely historical. I. Inspiration what does inerrancy mean? It means this. That in the original manuscripts as they were written by the human authors and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

They are without error. Now who has a copy of the original manuscripts? Raise your hand. I'd like to come over your house. Nobody has those. But here's what biblical scholars are able to do now they take all the hundreds and thousands of different manuscripts that we have and compare them and.

They're able and we can't really go through the process. But they're able to go through a number of steps and determine, you know, whether There are any mistakes in any of the manuscripts by by just by understanding what the most likely mistake is for example If I'm and.

And I think this is a good example if I'm speaking to you if I'm dictating to you and you start to nod off a little bit. Fancy that and I and I use the word there and you're just copying down everything as fast as you can.

You could only understand which there of the three there are only three. To put down by the context right but if you're if you're if you make a mistake if you use the possessive instead of the. You know over there, whatever that is noun kind of thing if You use th e IR and it should be th e r e.

Does that negate? What I dictated to you. No. So what and what happens is as these manuscripts would get copied that's exactly what they would do they would either write these things down and. So there might be a misspelling or they would dictate them and somebody else would write them down and they might miss here or miss write.

What somebody says and so it's those kind of errors and then they look at it and go well, that's the wrong there. You've got the wrong there there and it's those kind of things that they can now correct.

So his his statement here. You know biblical scholars listen, here's the funny thing and I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'll say it till I'm dead. There are biblical scholars who are good and godly and study the word and study the languages and know what they're talking about.

And then there are biblical scholars who are dead as a doorknob. They don't understand the Bible. They don't understand scripture, but they make their living doing it. You say how is that possible? I don't know.

But I do know that I had to read a Multitude of pages by a man named Andrew Lincoln who wrote this commentary on the book of Ephesians and I'm not kidding I should like Put it up on the wall or something.

I think he wrote like 40 or 50 pages. Explaining why Paul did not write the book of Ephesians. It's just hard to take it's just you know, I remember reading it going. I want my money back on this commentary.

Because if he can't get that right if he can't get I Paul an apostle. Correct, then what else is he getting wrong? And that's you know biblical scholars. You know each of them have their own issues and Getting back to what he says here, and I don't even understand it cannot have factual errors.

Super, you know here if the correct number of men in a given instance is 10 ,000 and the Bible says 100 ,000 or if it says 100 ,000 is 10 ,000. Does that change anything? I Don't think so. Do you ever make an error in your checkbook?

Does that negate your checkbook? Well, not really. I Just don't think small little niggling things like that. Especially when you give when you're looking at the number of times things are copied and stuff like that that has nothing to do with anything.

Superstitions or inconsistencies. What about you know different things that the New Testament says about Jesus the different Gospels and how the different writers Handle it. Well, there's something called what a harmony of the Gospels where you put them all together and there are no inconsistencies.

That can't be resolved so-called inconsistencies. Consequently is a very big deal. Blah blah blah blah. Okay. He talks about textual or and Linguistic evidence in the case that there are two or three different authors here.

Well, that's all based on word studies and wrong. Says if the Bible is all of them the findings of biblical scholars are an earthquake which shaped the faith of many Protestants. Well only if you believe in a God who is not sovereign.

Only if you believe in a God who needs help. Only if you believe in a God who needs The church and we're gonna see that's exactly the premise from which he's working. God works. Well, basically turns over control to almost everything to the Roman Catholic Church and to the Pope.

Says the Catholic understanding from the beginning is against sola scriptura. In fact, sola scriptura was never heard of before the 16th century and I suppose that's true. In what sense? Those words I I Mean you'd have a hard time reading through the New Testament of thinking.

Well, you know Scripture isn't enough scripture isn't sufficient. He says I've always found it ironic to the extreme that Protestants blamed Catholics for following late man-made Unscriptural doctrines when their entire edifice is based on sola scriptura.

The Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ founded the church and I don't even understand what this means here and nowhere predicted a New Testament the Holy Spirit inspired and filled the church. Okay.

The scriptures are an inspired witness to the work of Christ in the world and the work of his body the church. The New Testament itself is clearly a document of the church. The Gospels come from the teaching and preaching and liturgy of the early church.

The Acts of the Apostles is the story of the foundation of the church. The epistles are documents to the churches and for the churches. The Old Testament is the story of the people of God looking forward to Christ in his church.

Thoughts about that. I mean you quickly understand that the church is what it's preeminent. It's everything. The church continues to be the inspired interpreter of the scriptures. This answers the questions in current society, do you want to know which verses we believe teach doctrine and morals ask the church?

The Catholic Church has good answers as to why certain teachings like dietary prohibitions are not applicable while others are universal and foundational the Catholic Church doesn't mind if there are historical inconsistencies or editorial mishaps.

Because the church is the greater authority and the living inspiration of the church is there to balance the written inspiration of the scriptures. Thoughts about that because I have a few thoughts about that.

Any any comments? At least he's honest. Here's my question to you. What would be the difference? If I was to take out the Catholic Church and to say the Watchtower or If I was to say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or if I was to say any number of cults.

What if I was to say Jim Jones? Jim Jones continues to be the entire or the inspired interpreter of scriptures. He answers the questions in current society. Do you want to know which verses he believes teach doctrine and morals ask Jim Jones?

What is this? It's man-centered religion. I would go a step further it is Occult we are the authority the only way you can understand what these complicated and vastly, you know Disparate Writings mean Is through the church.

We are the ones who will tell you what it means. Therefore leave your Bibles at home. In fact, you know what better yet? Why don't we just chain them up here? So you can't take them home. Because you'll only get confused all you need to know is what we tell you.

Have a nice day. That's their message says false doctrines. Always in the end destroy the faith. Sola Scriptura is a deeply false and misleading doctrine. Which was only formulated by the Reformers out of their rebellion against the church and rejection of her rightful authority.

I really like this. This is a really a great whitewashing of history. Martin Luther was just a Just a ne 'er-do-well, you know, he was. He just was a rebel. I forget about indulgences and you know. Misrepresenting the gospel and all this other stuff forget about that.

They were rebellious and they rejected the rightful authority of the Catholic Church. Says their rightful authority is that of the bishops of the church in succession from the Apostles. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura has led to private interpretation of Scripture.

Which has in turn led to thousands of schisms in the church and the departure of thousands Who thought things through and realized that the Bible as presented by the fundamentalist couldn't be true. So they rejected the entire faith.

So, let me just change that wording a little bit here some people who would have been Christians Have been led astray by false understandings of Scripture and they walked away from Christianity. Is that true or false?

Why is it false? Christ never loses any of his own. Exactly. Okay good. You know, no one is able to snatch them out of my hand. Well, somebody can it's these Protestants with their False understanding of Scripture.

The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. He has a real problem that they rejected the entire faith here next page. It says speaking of or this is me. Actually, I finally get to say something speaking of proof texting the author cites an article by a former evangelical who converted to Catholicism and He used to be an Anglican priest and now he's a Catholic priest.

So basically he walked across the street. I mean there are a couple of denominations now that have moved so closely To Rome. In fact, the Anglican churches have gotten, you know, just got more and more liberal in the United States.

It's practically Not even a real church, but you know Lutheran's very very similar now to. Which is ironic, isn't it? Very similar to Roman Catholics, but listen what he says so Catholics say the Bible is inspired not just because this is just part of his article not just because 2nd Timothy 3 16 says so which it does.

But also because the Bible is the product of the people of God. The Bible is inspired because it is the product of the spirit-filled Church. The Inspired people of God wrote the scriptures used the scriptures prayed the scriptures and chose which writings were to be considered Scripture and that is why we believe the Bible to be inspired.

Thoughts about that. Okay, the church comes in which is a great point the church comes under the Scripture or the authority of Scripture and not the other way around which is definitely what they what they want you to believe in this idea here.

The inspired people of God wrote the scriptures. Yes, that's true. But you know again The the product of the spirit-filled Church. Yes, that's true. But I mean he he's making this mean something that it doesn't quite mean, you know, it's like he gets to 80 and then he just takes it to 100

And a more poignant point though is that is the fact that you know that I couldn't even believe what the other guy said and That the church judges Scripture that's Kind of makes me shudder but even here It's the church that the Catholic Church is the Catholic view they believe that they chose what books would go in the Bible which is really interesting given the fact that you know, apparently they forgot about the Apocrypha and they have a whole explanation for that and all that kind of thing, but The this is just wrong thinking this is backwards we're not to submit to scripture.

We we are over scripture and that's why they're able to violate scripture. He says the truth in the Bible comes to us through the experience of the church and I agree, you know should we talk about the Catholic Church just understand when I say church unless I specify.

Otherwise, I'm probably just slipping in using the Catholic Terminology here. That's what he's talking about through the experience of the Catholic Church and this matches up exactly with Paul's view in 1st Timothy 3 15.

He says something very important God's Church is the household of the Living God and the pillar and foundation of the truth. And in Ephesians 3 10, he says that it is God's intent that through the church the manifold wisdom should be made known.

Now what's the problem even with those passages there was Paul writing in I'll just use Ephesians chapter 3 since that's the one that most readily comes to mind here was Paul writing there about a singular entity an authoritative Roman Catholic Church.

What did he say in Rome or in Ephesians chapter 3 let's look at that. What is the? How is it that the manifold wisdom of God was going to be made known? By the way, this is going to you know provide I hope good fodder for you in the next couple weeks while they're just making a Great big deal.

I think it's gonna be all over the news everything because first he's going to Cuba and then he's coming to The East Coast. Yeah, Philadelphia and then DC and there's a big dust up about who's being invited to the the White House along with the Pope, but I Couldn't help but wonder if if they would invite the same people should be what is it the Sultan of Saudi Arabia?

Who's the king whatever he is if he was gonna be there would they invite all these? You know homosexual activists and all that other stuff. I don't think they would Call me old-fashioned. Let's start in verse 7.

Well, in fact, we need to back up further and let's just Let's just read starting in verse 1. For this reason I Paul which I just like to read that anyway, because again who wrote this book. Great difficulty and I understand that you have to go to school for many years.

I understand that a Prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles. Assuming you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you how the mystery was made known to me by revelation as I have written briefly when you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ.

Which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been Revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs members of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel of This gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace which was given me by the working of his power to me.

Though I am the very least of all the Saints. This grace was given to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ and to bring delight for everyone. What is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things?

So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he realized in Christ Jesus our Lord in whom we have Boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.

So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory now. When you read that and you see the word church. Does it make you think? Roman Catholic Church it doesn't know all to me when he's talking about how the the Gentiles have been grafted in and You know along with the Jews that was a mystery, right?

So when he says. So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might not now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. The Roman Catholic Church is in there. Through the church the manifold wisdom of God through the Roman Catholic Church.

Let me put it that way the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities In the heavenly places. Who are the rulers and authorities in heavenly places? Yeah, angelic beings.

Demons even. So what does that have to do with the Roman Catholic Church? Not really sure but he's trying to do and so what am I saying? I'm saying that this man is Proof texting. Because we're really what Paul is explaining there is how this this enmity that existed and it goes back to Ephesians 2 and How this enmity existed between the Gentiles and the Jews?