A Little AHA, and a Long Review of a Roman Catholic Response on John 6

And greetings welcome to the dividing line it is a special Friday edition of the program today because well, we're all messed up this week, so We didn't want to make you have to wait till next week and especially after how heavy the last program was

Decided to do some other things Though the subjects I have to figure out how to do a light dividing line again

We've done some fun stuff in the past. I'm just not really good at fun I guess it's being Scottish or something, but I do have a video that I want to go through today but before I get to the video

I Noted on Facebook again these things that stuff that comes up within 20 minutes or so of the dividing line.

I don't know ends up leading it but I I noticed an article by Matthew Willard Lankford I noticed it because one of my friends

Jason Wallace was commenting on it. And so that brings it into your feed and stuff like that and Unfortunately, he quoted

From a couple things I said Was it the last program maybe even been last? Yeah is when

I was talking about the premiere of unpopular And it conflated two things and then it completely removed it from its context what

I said, and then people are talking Yeah, I used to listen to him. I'm just like listen to me more because he's just so mean to Christians all the rest of stuff and so, you know

It's frustrating Because you know, I said these folks I was referring to AHA have just I'm sorry

They've just completely lost touch with reality what I was referring to Was they're showing up at the premiere of unpopular outside That these are the same people that have shown up at least three weeks,

I think maybe four outside Emilio Ramos's church in the Dallas area and It just seems that a lot of people just Can't hear that for these people as I said in one of my comments the cause has become all the balance is lost and It wasn't that they and you know, how could they anymore?

Had contacted Emilio and said, you know, we want to people are now saying well they were only there to encourage people to rally outside the state capitol for some ballot initiative or Initiative in the house or something.

I don't know. I don't know, uh, Texas state Law and and stuff that's going on in Texas.

I don't live in Texas um, but Now it's being so well, that's the only reason that's not the only reason they're there.

Come on. Let's just be honest Let's just be honest Uh, if you've shown up outside an evangelical church that does street ministry is as Evangelical as Emilio and Trish Ramos With your signs in the church repent movement, and then you show up At their event where they're premiering a film they've made.

Please don't tell them We were just there to try to encourage Christians to show up at the capitol.

Give me a break Come on, seriously Let's be honest

Uh same thing at G3 Uh, why why were they there as part of the church repent thing?

Uh, it's saying you're you're focused on the wrong stuff Uh, the only thing is our cause our cause there could be no balance in the church anymore

You can't teach the gospel. You can't you can't talk about church history. You can't deal with other worldview issues This is the one thing and if you don't agree with us, we will stay outside your church with signs and we'll protest you.

Um Let's that that's the reality and if you can't see it Wow, that's that's self -deception.

That's all there is to it. Yes Whenever you pull that microphone up. I I know that this is as you know

You should have a little light on it that once you raise it up above a certain point A little red light goes on in here warning warning rich wants to talk

As you know, I was unable to resist the urge. Yes. I know walk by them and that shocks me because I know you know

Did you say to one of them? Go for it, buddy Huh? No, no, no, you didn't do that.

Well beyond that there has been some some maturing over the years. It's some yeah Good just a little bit not much, but I It struck me as i'm walking by there

The gentleman the first time is trying to step more and more in in my path And the sidewalk was rather narrow.

It's not it's not wide. No, and so He's And I said listen i've talked with you guys before I've gone 10 hands around with you on facebook and social media

I know what you believe And I know why i'm here and i'm just trying to get to the event

So can you just let me pass? And and he says well if you've talked with us before then you shouldn't be afraid to talk to me now

And and i'm like i'm not i'm not afraid to talk to you now I have somewhere

I need to be going And again, he just keeps pressing this Like we're the most innocent lovable fuzz balls

And why wouldn't you want to talk to me? And I said I finally looked at him and I said, okay

Let's um, let's see what happens when I use one word Incrementalism And the guy lights up Now we're gonna have a an argument

And that's all it takes you you use the trigger word. Yeah, come on, man I mean, don't haven't you haven't we learned about triggering now, you know, you can't trigger anyone you triggered somebody

There you go yeah, well anyway, I saw this article and and it never mentioned

Anything About what I was actually talking about didn't mention the context didn't mention the imbalance

Nothing like that. And then you got people. Yeah, I used to listen to him, but i'm not gonna He's just so mean to people.

It's like Okay, all right, there you go Ah, um, it's it's frustrating.

It's frustrating. Well, anyway speaking of frustrating Um When I was thinking about today

I was thinking about opening the phone stuff and then I remembered that I think before we went to G3 and Dallas and Memphis and all the stuff that's come out from all of that I um

We did a One hour and 51 minute program

Uh called John 6 for Roman Catholics An hour and 51 minutes, so let's say, you know, there's a little introduction a little stuff at the end, you know

Okay an hour and 45 minutes And if you recall um what we did is we just Walked through john chapter 6 and we did so Biblically and I invited people on the other side

Can you can you do the same thing? and come up with The modern dogmatic teaching of Rome that requires the importation of Aristotelian categories of accidents and presence and um accident substance and the real presence being a physical presence rather than a spiritual presence and and and all the stuff that's necessary for The Eucharist to be a propitiatory sacrifice

And There had been a few people on twitter that I had been talking with about this one.

I've finally had to Block this week, by the way There's this real weird idea amongst millennials that For some reason you have a right

To be able to put stuff on my desktop. That's mocking Condescending or just simply silly and I have to leave it there in other words

People actually think that there's something Morally wrong with blocking someone on twitter

Or there's other people think I you you have to make me your friend on facebook You just you have to make me your friend on facebook.

If you don't then you're not you're not showing christ to me Wow, I've I've I've been looking for that in my exegesis of the new testament.

Um haven't been able to find it yet anyway Just weird weird attitudes out there.

Well, there was this was it how to be christian Is that is that what it was on on twitter how to be? They're the ones that did the the video about you.

They did a video about me and I I actually mentioned them when they did the first video about me being a false teacher and all the rest of stuff

And I would have reviewed it on the dividing line, but it was so Scattered and so slow in getting to its point that it's next to impossible to review

I mean, I think the thing was like 20 minutes long There was only about three minutes of substance in it And so it'd take a tremendous amount of work to grab a part here grab a part here put it all together

I just decided you know what? uh Given, you know, here's situation

The guy looked like to be honest with you the how to be christian Looked like he was born after my first book on roman catholicism even came out

And the attitude that i'm running into from people today is oh, so you've written books on this subject I don't want to read books.

I want you to rewrite it for me in twitter And I just can't help but think again of that really um

That that really good statement that doug wilson made at that event at that University which they were trying to shout him down and stuff and he's trying to talk to this radical woman and uh, basically

She just will only allow him to say one sentence at a time and finally he makes a statement says, you know I frequently have thoughts that require more than one sentence to express them which was

Which was a true statement, but also a really nice subtle wham at the same time, you know and That's how

I feel when when people Go after me on twitter about stuff that um, well,

I want to debate you on the subject of wow, where'd I put my justification book? Oh, there it is.

It's two. Oh, that's right I want to I want you to explain to me James chapter two now, by the way, we're still going to do hopefully with pretty quickly here

Uh james chapter two for roman catholics just do a whole program just on james chapter two, uh, because I think that's

That would be useful um but when people want to say uh

I want you to explain james chapter to me on twitter. Okay Wrote wrote a book

It's not it's not it's not the biggest book in the world, but it is uh over 300 pages long

It's three almost 400 pages long um and and a lot of folks have really found it to be very helpful and it's like um

I don't want to read a book. I want you to to do this on twitter uh, or this guy what he was doing was he was like He completely lost me early on when he asked me well, do you believe that like First or second peter is inspired scripture or something like that I was

I forget what it was, but it was it was just a question that you would never ask someone If you had read anything they had said

If you know anything about what their their their commitments are their their position as an elder in the church

You just never ask this question, you know, it's like well, do you believe asking me? Do you believe jesus rose from the dead?

Is that really a meaningful question? No, it's not It is not a meaningful question at all. And so he sort of lost me at that point

But here's a guy Who wants to come after me and I guess the whole substance of one of these videos he did was well

He's misrepresenting roman catholicism rather than going to my published works and debates

Some of which were done before the guy was born probably um He takes a comment on facebook or a statement on a on a program

Not dealing with the published works or anything like that and then twist it from there i'm sorry that's

The internet is full of that kind of stuff. It's just full of that kind of stuff And it's just not it's just not worth the time to to invest in it.

I mean you would spend your entire life Uh responding to everything that was posted about you.

Well about me anyways, uh on youtube It's just it's just amazing the stuff that's out there and there's stuff that's been out there for years

I've never even seen because no one never directed me to it and and I don't go looking for it I don't sit there in the morning All right, you know set up some type of search routine.

What's been said about me since last night? I I don't I don't do that life would really Become a bummer if I did stuff like that.

So Oh, there's someone and there's someone in channel, uh waiting for me to accept their myspace friend request

Ha ha ha Wow, I you know, I heard myspace actually still exists.

Uh, i've i've heard it's It's sort of like yahoo, you know, it's just it's an aol there there, you know, my dad still uses aol which is really

I think um You know, it's sort of like I don't know keeping your model t around, you know, it's just sort of sort of nostalgia type thing.

Um So anyhow, uh Back to the story.

So we did this john chapter six thing and I I invited the other side

Let's see what you can do Let's see if you can walk through the text and you know, come, you know, follow the argument and and do the same type of thing

And this is all I saw Uh, i'd say about a week later um

Oh, did you you probably didn't see that good i've activated the flash thing on my phone uh to where uh when there's a uh uh

Message or something the the light flashes for me now, uh, which is really do you know

They've at they've one of the recent updates I was sitting at waiting to get picked up at the airport and I saw a thing about Cool hacks on the iphone or something like that and they've they've made it one of the update.

I like that uh, because sometimes I've silenced it put it down, but You know anyways,

I just didn't know if I think i've got far enough out of the screen there that you won't have flashing lights And it won't look like the most recent star trek movies with all sorts of uh, the you know

How the lights at the cameras what they call that? Corona effects or or something like that.

The the the guy that did the first star trek reboot was real big into that Anyway, uh, we are wandering about here, aren't we so about I'd say a week after I did it.

So I think it was after we had left uh, bob sullivan Bob sullivan posted a 14 minute video

Uh a catholic's response dr. James white on john 6 So i'm like Okay, so I grabbed it and I I downloaded it but I was just a little bit.

Um I've been too busy and so I have it

I haven't seen it. So what we're gonna do today Is we're gonna We're just gonna play it

And i'm gonna do a live response to a catholic's response to my presentation on john 6 now

I could sit here and predict what's going to happen I can sit here and predict what any meaningful roman catholic has to say lens flares.

Thank you Um, thank you very much. Uh, jj abrams does lens flares. Yes, that's

Uh, that's what uh, oh and there's there's someone in channel, uh also at the same It's it's almost like having a studio audience

Except they're really slow Because there's the delay, you know, um, so I got one in in twitter and I got one in channel all at the same time

And uh, well we do have a studio audience today I wasn't saying you were slow because you're military, right? I don't you could probably kill me with just just you know, one type of thing like that uh, but uh, you know, we do have we do have a studio audience today, but we keep our studio audiences, um,

Gagged and bound actually so they can't actually participate in the program. So that's actually rich's job.

Anyway, uh, so Live response here. I hope that bob sullivan doesn't mind that we do this

Um, but I have to listen too to be able to uh follow along so Here we go.

Uh Uh, yeah. Yeah, uh someone twitter says risky live response.

That's like taking a boxing match last minute No, I I I think

I think our presentation on john 6 was pretty straightforward. So And someone in channel just just changed the the topic to really slow studio audience

So if you're in the channel, you're now part of the really slow folks that that's really not what I Was referring to but that's okay.

Let's uh, let's get to bob sullivan Hello, and uh, thanks for uh, clicking on my video.

I want to take a few minutes. Uh, tonight to talk a little bit about a video that was recently put out by a uh,

Gentleman by the name of dr. James white, uh, dr. James white is a christian fundamentalist

Uh who now I just stop right there christian fundamentalist is an interesting description. I suppose from the roman catholic perspective

You don't differentiate but you need to uh, because meaningfully uh,

I would be a um, uh a reformed theologian And hence

While I would share uh with fundamentalists a very high view of the inspiration of scripture uh, there would be a lot of of Differences, especially as how that fleshes out

Uh in life, uh, at least with how the term is used amongst roman catholics Uh, because I heard here the term fundamentalist used on catholic answers live all the time if you think that that's where i'm coming from Uh, you might want to reread some of those books and and see some of the differences there

Spends a lot of time talking about the catholic church about catholic teachings Um, but he himself is not catholic and what he does is he misunderstands what the church actually teaches

And he misinterprets scripture Well, of course, uh, if you say i'm going to misunderstand what the church teaches let's let's make sure everyone

Recognize something. Um I do debates with Roman catholic apologists and so given that they're formal debates

There is equal time on the other side And so you would think that the constant theme

Of all these debates would be how i'm completely missing what rome is teaching and yet anyone who's watched those debates

And there's well over 30 of them. I think there's like 37 38 just just did one a couple weeks ago um

And probably going to be doing another one lord willing, uh next month, uh down in uh in south africa actually

You would think the constant thing would be misunderstanding But you you watch them and it's very much focused upon what the church actually teaches when

I when I make my presentations um, i'm very often Uh quoting from dogmatic sources.

I know what the dogmatic sources are. Let's be honest today It's a little bit

Challenging to define roman catholic teaching in light of the fact that the the current pope very plainly has a very different perspective than the still living but previous pope and and I I think any roman catholic that that would question that just is is is

Probably suffering from some level of self -delusion or deception because the reality is That the vast majority of people including conservative roman catholics have recognized uh these differences so uh

It's interesting to start off with, you know charges of misrepresentation. We'll see if any of these are actually substantiated uh, especially

You know because it should be pretty easy to do this i've written Uh one two three books specifically on roman catholicism.

I refer to roman catholicism in two others Uh, so there'd be lots of documented grounds for doing this and like I said nearly 40

Uh moderate public debates you could draw from um, what I generally find is these accusations of misrepresentation are based upon well

I don't agree with how you're taking it or I don't agree with that particular Spectrum of roman catholic teaching or whatever else it might be.

Um But anyway in order to try and make him Sound correct and the catholic church incorrect

Most recently he spent About two hours going over John chapter six uh, which is um

One of the basic scripture passages that teaches the catholic teaching of transubstantiation and so In doing this, uh, dr.

I just want to make sure we we notice here. This is many modern day roman catholic scholars would hesitate

Uh to go that far and say it actually teaches transubstantiation

I think the more careful statement would be that the church's teaching of Transubstantiation is based upon scripture is consistent with john chapter six

And then elucidated by the tradition and the theologians that that's a little bit more like what you'd get out of the vatican today

I think But look, uh, the gentleman represents much more of the old style conservative uh roman catholic perspective

That yes, the bible is actually teaching this i'm not sure they're really aware of how many of their own theologians would be

Less willing to to make that full type of a statement uh, because there's

You know from from most of the modern roman catholic, uh theologians perspectives um

The bible is not nearly as clear as rome used to think that it was there's been a real infection of liberalism in the magisterium itself and so The terminology that they utilize is normally significantly less

Strong as was just used there white, uh has introduced at least one new argument uh

Against the catholic teaching And then he's also used some old arguments as well a new one.

I didn't know i'd come up with a new argument. I I that's this is news to me. This is exciting to find out what the new argument is

Something tells me it's actually an old argument probably goes back a long ways um

Maybe new to his experience because he's assuming that i'm just like a quote -unquote fundamentalist

And maybe isn't familiar with uh reform theology and things like that. We'll find out i'm i'm now i'm really excited

We only have 11 minutes left, but i'm really excited not in the show But um, i'm really excited to find out what this new argument is.

So let's let's find out what it is But basically what he's doing is he's saying that he knows more than all the theologians church councils um theology professors um and uh, and The vast majority of christians for the last 2 000 years

Okay, that's a complete bogus argument. I hope you hope y 'all recognize when someone throws out

A complete violation of all canons of argumentation. You need to go Penalty box you you need to get off the ice for a little while here um

Whenever you hear someone saying that uh, do they back it up? Um, what what councils uh in the first 500 years talked about transparentiation none

Uh what theologians the first 500 none? uh, so 2 000 years all of them

Uh, once you make a statement like that You won't you just almost never maybe if i'm not feeling good one day i'm not thinking straight or something you never hear me using the all argument

The only I think about the only place where I would do that maybe When it because i've made the statement that about the only belief that you can absolutely identify as universally held in the

Uh patristic period was monotheism pretty much on anything else you can find somebody who went off someplace so I know enough about church history to not make that kind of argument because it's way too easy way too easy

Uh to refute and it's it's an appeal Uh to ignorance. It's an appeal to the ignorance of the audience that they could actually believe

That all theologians are on my side and he's smarter than that's what he's saying Listen to what

I said And what I did is I walked through john chapter six. I wasn't saying they're saying i'm smarter than everybody else

Uh, i'm saying here's what john chapter six says says. Can you interact with it? Can you deal with it?

Um and my experience has been that roman catholics really Move away from trying to to do that because their ultimate authority is not that text

Uh, it is an interpretive grid above that text And uh, they're uncomfortable when they're actually forced to deal with just that so, uh, as you can see it's it's something worth taking a look at see like I said, john six is one of the verses that catholics, uh point to to Explain people, uh, you know what the eucharist is and why we celebrate the mass and things like that um

Dr. White looked at that and he has two primary arguments Uh, he he uses an old argument

Uh, which is that john six is purely spiritual and not physical and then he

Comes up with a new theory as to why the disciples walked away from jesus saying the teaching was too hard Uh in verse 66 of chapter, uh six, ah, so there's the new theory, uh

The new theory which which actually is just simply the observation. Sorry about that is simply the observation

Of the reality, uh, you know, it's just Here's here's the question. Here's what he's referring to for people who are not familiar with it um

And i'm watching the a a there's a bunch of commentary going on that facebook thing on aha while i'm not able to uh get involved with it because i'm

Dealing with the milk the milk i'm dealing with milk issues while they're dealing with the meat.

Um 664 uh But there are some of you

Uh who are not believing? for he knew uh from the beginning

Uh, who was not believing? Uh, and who it was, uh Who literally literally it is

And who is the betrayer of him? So he knew who the betrayer was and that is of course referring to judas

And he was saying dia tuta For this reason

I said to you that no one is able to come to me Uh unless it has been given to him by the father so I just simply recognized the fact that We don't have everything jesus said in the synagogue capernaum

We have a summary of it from the apostle john and jesus upon going through That teaching concluded

By in essence book ending the whole presentation at the beginning he says

You're not believing why because all the father gives me should come to me the one comes to me. I will cast out He's putting everything focused upon him

His self -giving his self -sacrifice. He's the source of all these things He's already defined eating and drinking as coming and believing

It's intimate union with jesus christ has nothing to do with stuff that's going to be established later on Risk -tealing categories any of these things it made sense

To the people they just didn't like the centrality that he was placing himself in And then

I pointed out in verse 65 For this reason I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him from the father and so This is the reason

This is this is what they uh, they said Was bothering them.

This is this is this is offensive to people in fact uh It says he was saying this is the imperfect tense.

He was repeating this He had said at the beginning now. He says at the end. He was repeating it. He was emphasizing it

And what is offensive about it? No one is able No one is able to come to me

Unless it has been granted to him by my father And so verse 66 says

Ectutu because of this so what's the immediate antecedent? The immediate antecedent is the repeated statement on jesus's part of the fact

That no one can come to him unless it's granted him by the father This isn't new

This is simply what's called exegesis. This is simply following the text looking at its

Not only its grammar, but the syntax And the construction the relationship of sentences clauses

Paragraphs, this is just basic exegesis. This isn't something new Uh, I I would be shocked if there were not numerous people even before the reformation

That in looking at john chapter 6 saw the exact same thing This isn't the idea.

This is a theory. No, this is a fact of the grammar Um, and you need to deal with the fact of the grammar

And if you don't have a refutation for the fact of the grammar, then you have to accept it or Be open about the fact you're rejecting what the inspired word actually says and remember the roman catholic says well, that's just your opinion

We have the infallible church and then when you say so has the church infallibly defined the antecedent of ectutu in the original language of john 666

Any meaningful roman catholicism any reading at all will say Of course not. No, I Don't know but we could if we wanted to We could if we wanted to Uh, well, why don't you do it?

Well, it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen Uh, so I guess i'm a little disappointed that's the new theory because it's not a new theory that's just simply how you do exegesis

I mean right now In in seminaries literally around the world, but right here in the united states

Right now you have students sitting in second year greek And they are doing sentence diagramming now we didn't do john when

I did, uh second year greek, but we did james did portions of james and I I wonder if they're still folded up in the back of my second year textbook

I'd have to look but I remember because we were living at the apartment back then and I had hair was skinny.

It was great. Well, actually I wasn't all that skin. Well, yeah in college I still was uh, but uh, it was seminary where age 25 is where the metabolism went and anyway, um

And I remember laying taking eight and a half by 11 sheets of paper and Taping them together.

You had to put the tape on the back so you could draw over the over the seams But taping them together to make this long thing that you could fold up Where you were doing a sentence diagram or diagramming sentences and clauses stuff like that I think it was in It was in james

May have it was either james one or three I wish it had been two because that would have been more helpful to me down the line, I suppose but um and it

Ends up being this big old thing and and if it goes far enough down this way you had to put a piece of paper down here and tape it there and And you know now accordance and bible works and all those programs will just do all these things for you and which

Obviously isn't nearly as good for you as doing yourself. But anyway There's nothing new to this there are students right now sitting in classrooms across the united states that Looking at john 666.

The teacher is going to say Ecc tutu What is it related to what is its antecedent?

What is coming before it? What's it referring to? It's not a this isn't these aren't theories

Uh, these are things that are worked out in reality Uh, and you know, it even happens in roman catholic seminaries too if they're still doing much of that kind of thing um and doing this dr

White and i'll get to my argument on those here shortly, but uh in doing that. Dr White basically says that You know, we aren't saved by eating physical bread and we aren't saved by drinking physical wine.

We're saved by Coming to jesus going to jesus And you know, he's kind of right with that.

Um, you know catholics agree that we are not saved by eating bread and drinking wine Um, and that's why we don't do that at mass

That's why we have the eucharist at mass um Because after the priest consecrates what was bread and what was wine uh, those, uh are then the

Truly the body blood soul and divinity of jesus christ transubstantiation Again, that's what john 6 was talking about John, jesus was teaching when he jesus says in verse 35 jesus said to them.

I am the bread of life the one Coming to me

Will never it's umay. It's it's a strong, uh denial will never hunger okay, so coming to me

This is this is before any anything else is is stated Before there's anything about eating his flesh and drinking his blood

The one coming to me will never hunger Hunger and the one believing in me will never thirst same use of the same form of strong denial

So jesus establishes the categories And the established categories is that whatever this eating and drinking is it is satiated

By coming and believing So again

There's the text and if you believe that you walk through a text and that it builds upon itself and that It defines its own categories.

What what are you going to do with that? If the text is not your final authority, then you just simply go.

Oh, well, it's an interesting theory But the church has said this is transubstantiation I don't have to establish anybody used that term back then because they didn't and i don't have to establish that the apostles would have understood aristotelian categories of substance and And accidents and things like that Because my final authority is the modern roman catholic church

And if it says that's what it means Then that's what it means what it meant originally what it meant in the context is irrelevant to me

And what this is this is where? You see the difference between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia

It's it's a functional difference and the meaning of the text Becomes whatever rome says it is in the one

Rather than what Jesus spoke and what john intended and what his readers would have intended

When the scriptures were actually written and remember according to second timothy chapter 3 All scripture is theionistos.

It's the scripture. It's theionistos not the church not interpretations to come along later point So the the miracle of divine revelation is in the inscripturation itself the final product of that process

And that's what we're looking at and that's what our final authority is Rome fundamentally undercuts that Fundamentally undercuts it has to because rome defines as dogma de fide belief

Numerous things that have no foundation in scripture whatsoever. The most recent example clearly being

The definition of the bodily assumption of mary Oh, why do you go to mary because it's the last dogma that was defined

It was only what 63 years ago 60 62 and a quarter whatever

Uh, was it wasn't december? Or was that was that immaculate conception anyways? 1950s not that long ago

In fact, if it was 1950 then it was uh, then it was 67 years But anyway, it's within the lifetime of some people in my audiences not within my lifetime

And not even amazingly within rich's lifetime but uh within the lifetime of of other folks um

Just trying to keep you awake man, because I I could tell by the eyes a little bit of wandering, you know, he's you know so Really?

Calling? Oh, just what just watching the uh, just watching the stuff Oh blaming you or naming you.

Oh, of course. Well, you're the one that went over and talked to him You're the you're the bad guy So there you go

They have nothing else to be doing. Um, so anyway, we press on here. We still have uh, 10 minutes to go

And so we agree with dr. White on that Um, we also agree that in order to be saved we must come to christ christ is the way the truth in the life

He is the only way and So that's why we do things like pray the apostles creed

We we profess our faith in one god the father almighty the creator of heaven and earth and in jesus Christ his only son our lord

That's why we read the scripture at every mass and the entire catholic mass is is all based on scripture

Um, it's got direct quotes and prayers. It's got Um, you know readings and passages that we go through Uh, and that's why well, you know,

I suppose people do need to realize there's a lot of reading of scripture Whether it's being read in context or whether it has anything to do with what's being done or things like that.

That's not the point but Remember I just I hope people don't get lost in the discussion

Uh, we're supposed to be talking. We're supposed to be responding to Supposed to be providing a counter exegesis of john chapter 6

Can you walk through john chapter 6? And establish your perspective keep keep that in mind uh, because sometimes people

Lose track of what the what the goal is we do a lot of things in our catholic faith Um that's bring us to jesus in the way that jesus designed us to come to him

Basically the catholic church and catholics believe all that the bible teaches We don't spend time, uh, you know going over specific chapters and passages trying to explain away what christ clearly was teaching um

Don't you have to establish that? In other words, this is that's the conclusion being used as the argument

You're saying i'm trying to explain something away. Wait a minute I gave you an hour and 45 minutes directly from the text um, you're supposed to supposed to go

Oh, no, here's what you missed and here's here's how you missed it And here's where you missed that and and no that's not the antecedent and that's not the argument that's being made

If you're just simply saying oh, you're just you're just explaining it away without engaging the text you are admitting

That you don't have an argument to present and that the other side has established their position

And again, you know bob sullivan didn't have to put a video up um But he did

So if you're going to put it up then it's going to we need to examine it on the same basis As I invited other people to examine the presentation on john 6

And it sounds like you're getting to your conclusion before you've actually provided the argumentation for it

That passage like dr. White does here in chapter 6 So let's go to his first argument where he says chapter 6 is purely spiritual or at least mostly spiritual and this isn't a new argument um

But it's still a wrong argument. It always has been and always will be You need to read

Uh chapter six, especially the bread of life discourse, which is about the second two -third or the later two -thirds of that chapter

Both with a spiritual and a physical understanding what christ is saying overemphasizing the spiritual

Leads you to refuse christ teaching And refuse to do something that he was telling you to do in chapter six and that is to eat his body and drink his blood

That's a real problem Because if christ is teaching that and you aren't doing it. Um I don't want to be making the argument for you getting into heaven someday.

Okay All right now, I appreciate the honesty there because you know, uh friend of mine who remained nameless because I still want to get into trouble

Is often asking roman catholics, you know, why do you call a separated brother? Because if you really believe

That jesus was talking about transubstantiation If you don't eat his flesh don't drink his blood you have no life in yourself

How how can I be a separated brother if I have no life in myself? Uh, and that was rome's position in the past obviously,

I mean It it's it's painfully clear the 250 years ago, this wouldn't even be a place of argumentation

I I I note, um And I I forgot to cover this.

Oh, man, maybe i'll have to do it toward the end. I'm, sorry Uh, but time's going by really quickly here. Maybe I won't have to but um, this was just quoted, uh by the beloved skyman in our chat channel

Uh who has a he better have a backup of his hard drive. That's all I can say He better have multiple backups of his hard drive

Because he is the quote monster quoting from augustine and If I have time,

I want to briefly mention something about augustine I was going to do it before I talked about this and I got sidetracked and i'll just blame rich for it.

Um Which is why everybody comes to be you need to be nicer you're rich on your program That's what they're that they're doing a g3 need to be nice and rich um anyway, uh augustine in his uh tractates on john tractate number 26 paragraph 1

Uh, wherefore the lord about to give the holy spirit said that himself was the bread that came down from heaven exhorting us to believe

On him for to believe on him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats. He is sated invisibly because invisibly is he born again a

Babe within a new man within where he is made new there. He is satisfied with food.

Well, evidently augustine sat around And was explaining verses and chapters away, too uh, but of course

He wasn't um, which is which is a shame That what you need to do is cooperate with what god says what christ says in the gospels

And if he says eat my body and drink my blood Um, you better find a way to do that. Okay um, the other uh, the flip side of this is taking the

Physical too far and that's what the disciples did in verse 66, you know, they thought this is cannibalism um, so, uh, wait a minute, um verse 66

Uh, I I you know have just pointed out what the antecedent was grammatically Could we have even hoped?

for a a Textually based argument. Well, we can hope but are we getting one?

No Uh not gonna worry about what the text says not gonna worry about the grammar Antecedents, let's not let's go into that Rome says it

I believe it that settles it. So in other words, I don't have a response I'm, just gonna repeat what rome has told me to say

I can't interact with the arguments against my position i'm just gonna I'm, just gonna go there um and this is this is

What do you have with roman catholicism? If you take it too lightly and say it's spiritual you got a problem because then you aren't obeying god if you take it too physical, uh, then you've got yourself a problem because Uh, you know, you're going to see it as cannibalism and that's um, you know

Just repulsive. So, uh, you need to read it both ways christ's words are physical and spiritual

Just as the eucharist is physical and spiritual and just as we as human creations are physical and spiritual

So let's look at dr White's interpretation of why the disciples walked away from christ in verse 66

Now keep in mind that verse 66. John six six six Ominous numbers there is the only place in the gospels only place in the whole bible where disciples of christ

Hear his teaching are with him and are believing in him And then they reject him and walk away because of what christ was teaching

Um, no, it's not No, it's not john chapter eight very plainly

Uh john chapter eight after jesus said certain things disciples believed in him

Now it's the heiress there not the present tense That's john's points. It's false faith, but it's not the only place by the end of the chapter they pick em stones stone him.

So It's not um And the 12

Do not go away So, uh all these others And remember what jesus said in john in in 6 35 and 36

You're not believing He identified them as unbelievers. He said they're believing and they walk away.

The text says they weren't believing and they walk away. So Direct contradiction, you know, uh lens, you know the filters of tradition.

You don't even see what's there. We covered it He heard me talking about how key it is to see jesus says you are not believing that's the context of verse 37

You are not believing and yet Puts a video together.

Oh, they're believing and then they walk away uh People say how powerful really is tradition?

Well, it can turn the turn the text 180 degrees backwards Okay, it's the only place that happens.

John 6 66 So there's many places in the bible where other people walk away from christ.

Um, these are the skeptics, you know, the pharisees um Non -believers, uh, the high priests those non -believers, which is the very term used in verse 36 you are not believing

Saint people. Yeah, there you go People hear what christ is saying, but they didn't believe it in the first place and they refuse to believe in the future and so, uh that those are different than verse 66

Of chapter 6 and for 2 000 years christians have understood verse 66, uh, excuse me uh

It is really hard to take seriously When people say this this continuous for 2 000 years things it's just You cannot be someone

Who has spent any time at all? Um actually reading early church fathers to use the 2 000 years argument, i'm, sorry

You have to be reading secondary sources tertiary sources rhetorical sources, whatever

If you've actually read Um the early church fathers, you're not going to say that kind of thing

Because you're going to realize well, there's you know, this guy this view and oh, wow, then there's origin yikes um, and uh, then there's clement of alexandria and oh my goodness, and you just you're just not going to go there, um

It is a rhetorical device And it's an immediate Red light to me that this person is only going on secondary sources.

They are not Someone who actually takes time to read original sources, uh, and i'm not even talking about original sources in the original languages

Uh, i'm just i'm just talking about you know, reading the the erdman set, you know, 38 volumes just reading through there

There's there's all sorts of other sets of early church fathers writings are still being released You know in paperback from various universities and things like that Not reading stuff like that Not reading stuff like that.

Um Because you just you wouldn't use this terminology, uh, if you were way the catholic church currently still believes verse 66

Teaches and that is that these disciples they heard christ teaching And they walked away because he was saying eat my body eat my flesh and drink my blood

And he don't he not only said that once but he says that numerous times in in chapter six.

He's getting his point across But what dr White says is that these disciples didn't walk away because christ was saying you've got to eat my flesh and drink my blood

No, no, no They were walking away because christ was teaching other things like he was the son of god or he was divine

I never said any such thing Anyone who listened to my presentation knows

I never said any such thing here again what we're seeing and again, I I'm listening to this for the first time

You want to see the power of tradition? not only Can tradition filters?

Remove what was said? But can insert things that never were said I never said anything even close to that This has nothing to do with rejecting the deity of christ claim to be the son of god anything like that What did

I say? specifically what I repeated before Verse 65 for this reason.

I've said to you that no one can come to me unless it's been granted to him by the father It's the inability of man to come to christ out of his own alleged free will that is so offensive to man

And that's the exact same thing that two chapters later in john chapter 8 when these people believe in him goes

Oh, he's got good words. He's a good arguer. He's a good debater Gia says if you continue in my words

Then you're my disciples indeed and you should know the truth and what? the truth Will set you free

Now, isn't that the same concept no one is able the truth will set you free And immediately they rejected what gia said who had just believed in him

We've never been enslaved anyone. Uh, yes you have and yes you are self -deception so The text my explanation is clear.

How do you twist that? I don't believe that mr. Sullivan is doing this purposefully

I believe this is the result of an implicit acceptance Of a tradition that then becomes the filter through which the word of god comes and if I thought it was up to me

Um if I If I thought that I have to somehow Talk him out of this.

I would I would be in it someplace And i'm nothing nothing against all you guys in your it.

We need you Um, but that's what I would do Because I wouldn't do what i'm doing now because I The the only thing

And that's why I could never be an arminian apologist You know what? I I would it would be really depressing to be an arminian apologist really would um because If it was up to me

I there's there's no way to get through to someone like this because anything I say is just getting twisted through the The filter of tradition into something

I never even said and we're seeing this you can take this film it I found it

Easily enough on youtube and it's titled a catholic catholic space s space response to doctor underscore

James white So if you put that in It was the first thing that popped up when

I did a search on youtube Listen to the john 6 Listen to this and sit back and go

Wow Tradition is an amazing thing

It's powerful And now you know why when I play that clip from dave hunt james,

I have no traditions That I go That's one of the most dangerous things i've ever heard someone say

Because when you don't realize the traditions you have you can never examine them. They control you um

Yeah, yeah, there you go. I never said what was just said, uh, or that uh, he was talking about his centrality something

That's true. Talk about christ's centrality um, he was uh, he dr. White says they were walking away because Uh christ said nobody comes to me unless the father gives them to me riches verse.

So those are the reasons that dr. White Uh says these these you might want to mention.

Mr. Sullivan. That's Almost a direct quote of the preceding verse

And when you have the phrase You have to explain what it's referring to As a result the word is this as a result of this

It is a basic question of human language As a result of what could you please define that please if you were sitting in a court of law?

And you said well because of this I did such and so could you define what that is? So what do you mean because of this?

That's that's a that's a absolutely fair question Absolutely fair question and you just quoted verse 65

And then dismissed it Why? Do you not realize you have to give us an answer here?

You have to People's were walking away from christ In verse 66, but there is one huge and obvious and instrumental problem to dr

White's argument on this. Okay, and that is that christ was teaching all those things elsewhere in the gospels both before and after john

Six, okay So christ frequently taught that he was a son of god. He was frequently irrelevant himself in the divine.

Of course He was talking about him as being Sent by the father

You know for me like in john chapter five where they pick up stones to stone him when he taught that Maybe there

Where where before this? Okay, john chapter two you have signs nothing nothing like uh his centrality there john chapter three is to nicodemus

We don't know what nicodemus's response was at that point that day But we know what it was later on because we see him at the uh after the cross

Uh john chapter four woman at the well John chapter five when jesus claims deity the jews pick up stones to stone him.

This is john chapter six. So what came before this? You you're making the claims, but the text doesn't back up your claims to anyone who knows the text

Later on jesus is going to say these things But nowhere Do you have?

Where where before this? Do you have jesus saying well in john chapter five you you begin?

To start having The high revelation of who jesus is Specifically in relationship to the father, but where do you have the idea that no one has the capacity to come to him?

Uh that if you're of god, you're going to hear his words. That's john a that's going to come later on He's going to that's going to be continued to flesh out all the way through john chapter 17

Sorry, but once again if you allow john to be john and follow the flow

The argument fails so notice he said this is a big obvious reason why it fails

And the reason actually failed itself upon examination Uh the salvation forgiveness of sins and those types of things.

So he's talking about his centrality He he says I am the way the truth and the life. Uh, that's john chapter.

Um, um, oh, yeah 14 Get much more central than that. So He was also talking about Um, oh and by the way, john chapter 14 was to his disciples not to people he had identified as unbelievers

See how much see how much complete Throwing out of context consistent exegesis.

There's there's not even attempt here because From his perspective. He doesn't have to do that. He probably hasn't been trained in doing those types of things

He doesn't recognize the necessity of it but When you have an overarching authority

Then you can just approach scripture in this way and just grab something here grab something there grab something And folks, can

I just point out that if If our preachers preach that way Our people will never be able to recognize the error of it.

Anyways So one of the reasons to engage in meaningful exegetical preparation for the sermon

Is to model for your people how to respect the word of god. This is not a respectful use of the word of god again

Mr. Sullivan, I don't think is intending to do that. But because he has fundamentally embraced a foreign authority that rules over the word of god

It's impossible to avoid it But we need to model in how we preach and teach the word of god a respect for it, which doesn't allow you to parallel john chapter 14

Spoken to believers at a later point with john chapter 6 spoken to unbelievers in a different context.

Why don't you put those two together? And he has uh He was given authority by the father and that the father sent him and and that the father was giving him things people and authority and power and so Those teachings were not new in john 6 and each time that christ taught those in other parts of the gospels

Believers didn't walk away If if anybody walked away, it was then notice the continuing error.

He has in his mind. These are believers I guess because he's assuming disciples means they were believers ignoring major portion of my presentation, which is a major portion of The text john 6 36, but you are not believing.

These are people that rode across the lake to find jesus Okay, it really is is it well they must be believers they they they were seeking after jesus no not according to john

You are not believers. That's jesus's statement. And yet he's basing all his argument upon ignoring that um but not believers

But there is one new teaching in john 6 And that is that christ is the bread of life and that we must eat his body and drink his blood

If we wish to have eternal life, that's a very shocking teaching people are still shocked by that thought today

You know the eating and drinking of christ's very own flesh, uh would have been uh, particularly repulsive to the jews of his day

So again, the other teachings that christ has in uh chapter six Nobody ever walked away from those no believers did okay.

We've already established Complete fault argument just just dismiss that one major failure mark next to that one

Uh, that's not what the text is talking about and he's had to jump to other sections and completely ignore context

But notice something else I think is important here. One of the things that I emphasized when I made the presentation Was the continuity of the argument?

We can start at the beginning of the chapter and follow the argument all the way through Including see for them

Once jesus says eat my flesh drink my blood all of a sudden. This is a whole new thing

Has nothing to do with what he said before we pointed out that jesus bookends that section with 637

Through 44 Sovereignty of god and giving people to christ 644 no one's able to come to me unless the father sent me draws him.

I'll raise him up the last day Get down to 665 No one's able to come to me Unless it's been granted him of the father

That's book ending which means he hasn't changed subjects And that's why to try to turn

What is said in between into some discussion of some magical sacramental thing that nobody

Nobody in that synagogue would have had a clue what the world was talking about They have no idea what priests are because jesus never ordained priests no idea of sacraments never no idea of aristotelian

Categories none of that It would it would be like jesus started speaking in tongues And there was no interpreter

They have to have that section all of a sudden take off on its own and only be interpretable a thousand years later

When the actual text then goes back to the same point that was made before which means there was a consistent way of interpreting

All this which is what we gave you But again if The text itself is not your final authority

Then you can chop it up into pieces and do what you want with it. And that's what rome does Does it here in john chapter 6?

Does it in john chapter 19? with the elevation of mary And so what jesus says to to to john john all of a sudden now becomes representative of the entire church

Behold your mother means you're supposed to look to mary as our mother for the entire church That has nothing to do with what john was communicating

Nobody in that original context would have ever understood it that way, but that doesn't matter Because that's not your final authority

The written scriptures are just a part of the word of god The rest of it's the oral traditions which are under the control of the living magisterium.

And once you accept that You don't know what you're going to believe tomorrow because the pope could change it because it just becomes whatever rome says sola ecclesia

And in sola ecclesia, the final authority is church the final important thing is church And the only thing you know about the church is the church, you know right now

And even if you look back at what the church has said in the past Well, the church actually has to interpret what it said in the past for you so if the church used to say

That you had to be a roman catholic to be saved and now the church says actually other people can be saved

Well, you have to interpret what was said back then in light of what's said now The problem is tomorrow there could be a different interpretation

That's the breaks You don't have an objective revelation. It's now become a malleable

Where is the play -doh? There's play -doh. I can't I can't read we've put the play -doh in an unreachable location Well, there we go

It it's become play -doh and you can uh, you can No, it's actually still pretty good.

It's still pretty good. Yeah It still smells like play -doh it's still because we kept we kept the top on so top is gonna you want to form it into That the studio audience is laughing

Uh at uh at the play -doh thing there. That's good. But here with this one new teaching suddenly we have disciples

That are saying this teaching is too hard And and they walk away not believing And dr.

White says oh nothing to see here. Don't look at that verse, you know, don't look at this information Now remember one of us provided exegesis all the way through and i'm saying don't look at it

This is this is whistling while you're walking by the graveyard again. It's like, uh, you know, this is When you have to so badly misrepresent what you're allegedly reviewing are you you know?

I have to wonder does he just not think that the people are going to listen to him are actually going to listen to me Or that they are so indebted to the same traditions

He is that they won't that they'll just sort of buy it. I I don't know all kinds of other reasons This could have happened

You know, have you ever seen the wizard of oz when they pulled away the curtain? Yeah, it's kind of what uh, it's kind of what we're seeing here with dr.

White So dr. White wants you to believe his new interpretation new because john 6 is such a strong and totally scriptural teaching of Transubstantiation and what the eucharist is to the catholic church

Notice the anachronisms, you know, uh, we're looking back rome's told us this is what is He doesn't realize he has not established any of this stuff.

He's just accepting what rome is taught He can't establish these things and it doesn't need to doesn't need to um

And again, this just demonstrates if you're not reformed if you don't think the spirit of god

Can can break through all this if it was up to me Wouldn't even try

Couldn't do it. Couldn't do it because this is this is a You can say words and they end up having a different meaning where you can say words they just disappear

Not there um amazing illustration of it Fundamentalist christians hate it when you can point to scripture and say this is why the church teaches what it teaches

You know, they'll do almost anything they can to try to explain that away So including doing the actual exegesis of the original languages of the text in the historical context in which they were used

Yeah, that's a that's a bad thing to do Dr. White's religious beliefs require him to misinterpret john 6 and uh, maybe you should realize that it's the dogmatic teachings of roman catholicism that don't allow you to exegete john chapter 6 who who has a dogmatic structure

That demands they see certain things in scripture and who's the one saying that we need to derive Who who rejects sola scriptura you do not me?

So this is this is the same irony that we heard with trent horn Our theology should be derived from scripture except when it comes to mary and priests and the pope and no

Where is the consistency there? Uh, wow, okay It's characterized what the catholic church actually teaches

Uh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Was there a Mischaracterizes I didn't hear where I did that To mischaracterize but yeah,

I didn't go far enough back There we go So here dr.

White's religious beliefs require him To misinterpret john 6 and to mischaracterize what the catholic church actually teaches.

Um, Where did I do that? Where did I do that? I mean, it's just a

Curveball from from outside i'll just make an accusation. I won't back it up. I won't tell you what he's mischaracterized but i'll accuse him of it and And I just go this is why

I like cross -examination, you know Uh, because if you throw it out there i've actually got the opportunity to say excuse me

What could could you could you document that could you tell me what that was? This is why Debates are so useful

Because I can put a video up then you put a video up then I put a video up then you put a bit And you never you never actually get the interaction that you need this is about as close as you're going to get unfortunately for a lot of this stuff, but Beyond john 6 itself.

There are other teachings in scripture That talk about transubstantiation without using that word transubstantiation.

See that word didn't come along until centuries later. That's right it's the belief that has always been there since john 6 since uh the last supper accounts in in the gospels, uh since first corinthians 10 and first corinthians 11

So the so the at the lord's time you need to understand what's being said here according to traditional historic orthodox roman catholic teaching jesus ordained the apostles as priests

When he said do this remember to me because the only way you can do this is if they can work the miracle transubstantiation Substantiation so therefore they had to be ordained as priests now

Roman catholic historians recognize the concept of a sacramental priesthood developed over time that it was not a part of the prim of church

So how could you even have transubstantiation without a sacerdotal priesthood? That question is almost

That's what I would like to ask. Mr. Sullivan. Could you explain in light of the fact that the vast majority of roman catholic historians recognize?

the Development over time of the sacerdotal priesthood. How can you have

The sacrament of the of the eucharist, how can you have the mass as a perpetuary sacrifice if you don't have priests little question

The the teaching of transubstantiation has been there without the name But the belief and the teaching and the practice has always been there

So you can get those in you can get those scripture passages last supper accounts first corinthians 10 and 11

And then john 6 to see it right there in scripture and then you can see it in the early church fathers um, and you can see it in all of christianity from The very first recordings of what the christians were saying and doing until today now you notice

Uh, didn't I I did at the end of the john 6 thing. I I gave some quotes from augustine, didn't

I? On augustine's belief that the physical body of christ was removed from the earth We don't have his physical presence with us any longer and I believe

I also mentioned. Um The the reality that in the early church

Uh, the consecrated hosts were not reserved And were not worshipped So in other words, you'd have the host you might take it to someone who was a shut -in

Stuck at home sick or something like that, but it wasn't put in a in a pick sabore and wasn't carried around worship things like that Why not?

if As is being said here. This is a 2000 year old teaching Why did they just dispose these things they hadn't developed enough understanding yet or Just what or is it not much more obvious?

that the absurd physicality of the concept of transplantation comes

Much later and that the spiritual presence of christ's people was not a physical presence that involved some

Aristotelian categories of accidents and and and substance. That's the obvious fact

So, you know, you don't have to take my word for it Uh read john 6 read first corinthians, uh, 10 and first corinthians 11 both those chapters

Um read the last supper accounts You also need to read the early church father saint ignatius of anioch speaks about the eucharist and that's in the within a hundred years of christ's crucifixion

And i've of course gone through every I believe every single alleged citation

From ignatius on that and demonstrated. This is a gross Anachronistic reading into ignatius of categories that never would have been there uh in the in the original context

Uh, saint justin, uh martyr, right? Apology to the roman emperor in about 151 ad

So a little bit after saint ignatius of anioch and in there he basically explains what the mass is and why

We believe what we believe with the eucharist is a which never of course talks about Transubstantiation in the format that he is alleging.

Uh had to have wonderful apology. I think it's um, I think it's chapter 66 of uh, justin's uh, first apology saint justin martyr's first apology

And then you can also read the didache the didache was basically the handbook of the early apostles of the first which you all

Remember, I read you the entirety of the didache and of course, there's nothing even close to transubstantiation found there in apostles

Probably the 12 apostles and um, we believe that was written in 50 ad 60 ad about the same time 50 or 60 ad for the didache who believes that i've never even heard of that The earliest state i've ever heard for the didache is around 100 uh, but 50 or 60 wow, uh

The books of the bible were uh of the new testament anyway We're being written as well and the didache talks about the eucharist.

It's called the thanksgiving. Um Um eucharist means thanksgiving in greek. That's what the eucharist is

And with that you'll come away with a lot better understanding about Transubstantiation and you won't ever hear the word transubstantiation or any of the categories that would explain transubstantiation in any of those sources only by anachronistically accepting

Dogmas defined a thousand years later and reading them back. This is the abuse of church history

It's rampant in roman catholicism, but it's necessary in roman catholicism Act that the church has always believed it to be what it is and Through that you will see um, you know that dr.

White's um interpretations, uh Leave a lot out and uh, they don't take into full consideration

Uh all the scripture uh all the church history and so if you know if you had the

Misfortune to see his two -hour video You know, he comes across as very bright very well studied

Um, but he it's just not very well thought through and it's full of uh, you know little errors little mistakes uh gross oversights uh things that Things that are just inaccurate and in the end he tries to wrap it up in a nice tight little bow

But uh, I think you can see after reading these things for yourselves um, that's

It just ain't so So there it is there's all of it. Um, that's all

I saw that's all i've seen And It uh didn't even come close.

It wasn't wasn't Appreciate it. Mr. Sullivan, but um,

I I I have complete confidence That the honest hard person who examines the two presentations will be able to See where the problem is.

I do want to in the last minutes here. What? No, no, no, no, go ahead.

What what do you what do you want? No, i've i've been like you were a little bit distracted by the aha discussion, uh going on on facebook

My arm has been vibrating. Yeah, I can imagine it has been bouncing back. Um There is a denial that this was a protest because there was a sign that said this is not a protest therefore the it's not a protest and I would

Like which one the one at the one at the theater is any of them? The one the one at uh g3 there was a sign that said this is not a protest.

I chuckled as I walked by um If I stand outside of your church on sunday morning and I pass out tracks

About my church calling for the church to repent, right? Well, let's just set that aside if if i'm just simply doing that Uh, one of two things is happening either.

I am so incredibly bold As to figure out that the sales technique that I need to use to sell my church

And my doctrine is to go to your church and try to draw your people away.

Well, they're not selling a church. I know There's that Or i'm standing there and i'm telling your people there's something wrong going on inside.

Yeah Okay, and that i'm telling them the truth and what's going on inside is a lie

That's what passing out tracks in front of a church Whether you have a sign saying that we're not actually passing out tracks in front of the church

We're not actually saying that there's something wrong going on inside that we're not actually doing what we're actually doing

You can deny it all day long, but you're doing it and you can deny it That just simply tells you more of what really is going on inside your group.

This is not a protest really Yeah, there was a sign and he actually posted it There's a picture on the feed there of the guy that was holding the sign that said this is not a protest

What is this? What else does it say? Um Because see they were church repent dot com

This is not a protest We are here to bring your apathy into conflict with their deaths church repent dot com

But this is not a protest. No Wow Um, there's a meltdown so you can see why

I should not and you need to need to understand I never saw any of these folks in in dallas. I did not know until We were going home, uh, did emilio let me know they're even there so That was going on not only while the film was premiering

But while I was doing a 35 minute, uh presentation on the gospel itself. I was First I presented the gospel if there are any unbelievers there

And then spoke to the people about uh, the challenges of the gospel we have in our modern day society.

So they're out there Referring people to church repent .com but not protesting while the gospel is being presented

Priorities are gone priorities are gone. And if you if they're so self -deceived That they then can't see what they're doing

Wow, what did uh What an amazing thing. No, I was not following any of that. Obviously, uh,

I just kept seeing Uh just kept feeling the watch vibrating and uh and stuff like that.

So, uh, there you go I may be able to catch up with some of that stuff. Uh, I may I may not

I I don't know sometimes social media is just really Uh depressing anyway, uh

I I should have just enough time to make this a jumbo edition And I need lunch. So, um, uh, we're gonna we're gonna wrap things up here.

Um, There's another one right there see my my my wrist is vibrating again, uh

I want to talk a little bit about uh, augustine And i've told this story before so if you've already heard this story, you can you can you can turn off and Go find something else go listen to al moeller or something but um the discussion

Not just the discussion we just saw We just had in regards to the early church from uh, mr.

Sullivan but uh some of the stuff that trent horn said and some of the discussions we've had on the uh,

On twitter and things like that I Posted a quote yesterday. I don't I never sat down and tried to memorize it

It just stuck with me so well that I have memorized it bb warfield benjamin breckenridge warfield the great princeton theologian said

The reformation inwardly considered was nothing more than the victory of augustine's doctrine of grace over augustine's doctrine of the church

And I think that one stuck with me the very first time I either heard it or read it um, because it makes you think

And there is a presupposition there that many people would struggle with and that is that augustine was self -contradictory in his teachings well augustine recognized in his retactionis in his

A later work where he sort of looked at his earlier works and said Not so sure about that or i'm not so sure about this and and that's a good thing to do by the way, uh, given the huge number of volumes he had produced and He recognized that he had developed in his theology over time and that's also a good thing um, but No one could ever recognize it fully

And really have it's it's really next to impossible for us to have a an objective perspective on ourselves we're too close to these things, uh, there's all sorts of reasons for that, but And so what you need to understand is there were two major Periods in augustine's life theologically and they're both formed by the primary conflicts that he was involved with Uh the first period the earlier period of his life

As he begins public ministry and remember he's converted as an adult um Is the fact that he's immediately faced with schism in the church

And schism was considered a tremendous scandal And in his day, uh

I believe he even mentioned that the donatists Uh in one of their meetings had as many as 700 bishops

Uh, that would represent 700 churches across north africa that were not in union

With augustine and with what would have been called the catholic church not the roman catholic church They wouldn't have even understood what that meant at that time period um, but with the catholic church and Very quickly that the schism was over sacramentology, it was over The fact that there a man had been ordained as a bishop

One of the or people who ordained him was considered to be an apostate a trodditor He had given over the scriptures.

That was the allegation Obviously both sides disagreed as to whether that was true or not um but Uh, the donatists split off.

They were a separatist basically holiness group um, and they believed that as cyprian in north africa did and this is why augustine sort of had to walk a tightrope because Cyprian was highly revered in north africa as a martyr bishop as he was beheaded by the romans

Uh 258 as I recall, um Cyprian had held to The sacramental view of ex opera operanti

That the one performing the sacrament had to be in a state of grace had to be in right relationship with god for the sacrament itself to be efficacious and so The donatist idea was this person was not in a state of grace.

They were an apostate. They were a trodditor Therefore I can't follow this bishop because he's not been properly ordained as a bishop

Um augustine in fighting against that uh

Developed and promulgated it became the official position of the church over time ex opera operato sacramentalism that the

Efficaciousness of the sacrament is found in the sacrament itself not in the person performing it

So much so the eventual formulation was that you know today in roman catholic theology a buddhist

Can sacrament can sacramentally validly baptize you as long as the Or as long as the sacrament

Is proper so if it's done in the name of the father son, holy spirit Uh, the person doing it is irrelevant

It's the sacrament itself that matters now Obviously that would not consider that to be the best way to do it But the point is the the the power is in the sacrament not in the person performing um so that donatist controversy

And trying to hold the church together That developed the concepts developed in augustine's theology that would eventually

In the medieval period especially in regards to the utilization of government suppression of the donatists

Would eventually lead to what we call the inquisition Now did augustine have any idea that would happen?

Of course not of course not he had no earthly clue But a lot of people today like to accuse him

Of being the father of modern day roman catholicism look There's there is a direct line but once you go past someone's lifetime don't blame them for what happens after that because Because they can't

It may be a direct line, but it's a line that's fed into by all sorts of other things that no one could ever see coming um

This is something i've talked about in my church history class and and we'll talk about more in the future anyway Um, so the donatist controversy is where augustine's doctrine of the church comes from And even when he engages in the later controversy

The pelagian controversy where you get his writings on on predestination election and grace and the elect and all the rest that kind of stuff even then

He has to try to hold that together with the Outflow of the donatist controversy and his doctrine of baptism in the church and it

It doesn't fit together seamlessly. There are contradictions in it And so in the reformation both sides quoted from augustine

And generally what you have are the roman catholics quoting from his anti -donatist works

And the protestants quoting from his anti -pelagian works And there is a contradiction in his in his thinking um so What does this tell us?

Well that even you can even have a great intellect like augustine's and still contradict yourself And you are still the result of the movements and especially the controversies in which you are involved and so um

That's an important thing to keep in mind In looking at church history and not trying to force someone to be on your side recognize that you can uh respect augustine as a christian thinker

But disagree with some of the formulations of theology that he came to there were reasons for it

He wasn't really good in greek. He primarily worked in latin um Didn't have the hebrew old testament available to him.

There's all sorts of reasons You know, I I really get bugged when people become hypercritical

Given all the advantages that they have that the other person didn't have Real easy to pick on people that way.

But anyway, I digress so wanted to throw that in there just for the fun of it Uh, just to provide some balance there.

Thank you very much for watching the program today lord willing we'll be back pretty much regular time next week