Jeremiah Nortier responds to William Albrecht's Criticism on Mary's Magnificat Argument

How's it going, everyone? Hopefully you're doing well this evening. My name is Arturo. If you guys don't know, I'm the host and founder of Saint Cetified.

It's an online ministry where I try to provide biblical resources for Bible studies, evangelism, church startups and things like that, more in the context of urban areas.

We also have an online radio station, a Christian hip -hop radio station, if you guys are into that, it's

RedeemProjectRadio .com and it's 24 -7 Christian hip -hop and we also play sermons and scripture readings and things like that.

Please check that out if you can. Today I have a returning guest. It's a pleasure to do ministry with this guy online on my channel.

I truly believe that this is God -glorifying work and people are being edified by it. In fact,

I know because the last time I had him on it caused a lot of discussion on YouTube, on Facebook and things like that.

I have my buddy here, Jeremiah Nortier or Nortier.

What's wrong with you people? Man, I accept both. Oh, you caught me drinking from my mug.

What's wrong with you people? They're my favorite mugs from R .C.

Sproul, quote. Nortier in the South, but it's pronounced

Nortier because it's French. I actually learned that later on in my life. I was like, whoa. Nice, man.

I want to give people a little bit of context why we're doing this. It's not that I like to pick on Catholics or anything like that.

I know recently it's probably seemed that way, but on my channel I've talked about the Apocrypha, Sola Scriptura.

It seems like I'm always talking about Catholics, but I'm not. Really, what's going on is that I recently finished a series on the

Scripture for my podcast. Of course, I'm using the Reformed document,

Westminster Confession of Faith. They dealt a lot with Rome when they wrote that, so there's a lot of reference there.

Then I was so impressed by your debate that you had recently on Marlon's channel.

Really, not so much of the... Obviously, the content was great, but your character is what really stood out to me.

You were polite, a gentleman. You were kind, very, very gracious. That's the kind of apologist that I want to get behind.

Thank you once again, man, for just coming on my show. Thank you. Lord willing, man, this causes more discussion.

We talked about whether or not Mary was sinless. As Protestants, we say yes, and Catholics say no.

There's a lot of history behind that. In our discussion, we did a little overview of your debate.

Then someone got a hold of it and was pretty upset. This is why we're doing a response video to that video.

We're not going to respond to every single point, but we're going to go ahead and at least respond to the major points.

Mainly you. Before we begin, bro, I kind of want people to know who you are in case they've never heard of you before.

Do you mind just letting us know what you do and if you're involved in ministry and things like that? Absolutely.

My name is Jeremiah Nortier. I have a heart for serving

Jesus Christ. I trust in Him in all things. He is my Lord that I adore and the

God that I worship. I believe that He has given us His word and He has given us truth. I love the word.

I love to study the word and God has blessed me with ministry here at 12 .5

Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I have an interest in apologetics, but when

I look at apologetics giving a defense for the hope, the gospel, the hope that lies within us, we've been commanded to do that with gentleness and respect and always sanctify

Jesus as Lord in our hearts as we do that. My view on apologetics is evangelism primarily.

I want to articulate the Christian worldview in such a way that people understand, man, we are made in the image of God and that's truly how we have knowledge that properly represents the truth.

I think the Christian worldview is the only worldview that makes sense of our experience in the world.

Everything that history is pointing to and driving us to is the good message of Jesus Christ.

God not only necessarily exists but He has revealed Himself in human history and told us sufficiently about who

He is. Namely, God the Son, Jesus Christ, stepped into our timeline, if you will, and He died on the cross, paying the full punishment of sin.

I want to explain to people, you need to trust in His finished work on the cross, trust in Him resurrecting from the dead, and that way you can have eternal life, you can have your sin forgiven and truly have hope that is coupled with truth.

My heart is just any avenues that God opens for me to contend for the faith and to share the gospel,

I'm all in. I've been so blessed, Arturo, to serve here at this new Church Point 12 -5 church and to just surround myself with the saints and to be able to contend for the truth and to feel the great commission.

Awesome, bro. That's great. Sounds good, man. Well, yeah, let's just go ahead and get started with this.

And you know, I do got to make one correction here. Actually, the gentleman that we're going to respond to, he actually got caught wind of the actual debate that you were in.

Not so much our video, but he came across someone that he listened to, or a follower of his sent him a link.

I'm not going to pretend like I could pronounce his last name, so I'll let you do it. But yeah, so if you want to give us some context on who this man is, here's a little...

Let me see if I can do this really quick. Okay, so there he is. Who's this guy?

So this is William Albridge, and he is a Roman Catholic apologist, which

I've listened to a little bit of his debates. He debated Tony Acosta, and I actually listened to their debate in preparation for my debate with the

Roman Catholic Matthew... I forget his last name also, but I'm a little bit familiar with William here, and he's a very sharp man, and he got some feedback on the debate that I had with the

Roman Catholic Matthew, and so he decided to make an hour video responding to one point that I made in my opening statement.

And so as we begin to unpack that, I said so much more in the debate than this minor, minor point that I made.

I had no idea it was going to ruffle a lot of Roman Catholic feathers, which is okay.

That's the whole ironing sharp and iron. This allows us to have open dialogue, and to really get down to the nuts and bolts of really the huge, vast differences that Roman Catholics and Protestants have, but we don't have to do it in a way where we have to hurl insults at one another.

We can lovingly talk about the truth. Amen. Yeah, man.

That's good. Yeah, yeah. I haven't really heard of this guy up until he sent me his video.

And let me just get out of the way now, because I know some Protestants might want to check out his video and see what he's about.

It was very tough to listen to, because although he wasn't directly insulting you, he might as well have.

And I know how you are. We talked about it, and for some reason, it wasn't bothering you at all. But for me, it was a little bit frustrating, because it's an hour -long video.

I'm a busy person. I'm already reading a bunch of books, listening to things. So I wanted to get to the content, and it was really hard for me to even...

I just wanted to tell William, like, bro, okay, we get it. You're funny, and you have clever jokes, and you're witty.

But can you just please get to the point? Get to the point and let me know where you disagree with my brother here.

And so just a heads up, when you guys check out... Hopefully, you guys do check out his video and check out his channel. He has a lot of stuff.

A lot of it also, too, is just because he's a Catholic and we're Protestants. There's some overlap there that we can actually say, like, amen to, you know?

He seems like a great debater, great teacher. We just disagree with him on critical issues and also issues of, obviously, the

Marian dogmas. With that being said, bro, is there anything else you want to give? A heads up?

Or before we start going to his video and responding to it, is there anything you want to say before we start?

Yeah, so our goal is to lovingly talk through these issues. When I first listened to William's video, you know, we're going to see some of the zingers that he throws my way and I can look past that and I can chuckle,

I appreciate good humor. It's funny, Arthur, my wife was like, oh my goodness. I was like, Ali, it's okay, girl.

This is how all this thing goes down. So I hope William watches this and respects where we're coming from because I would like to continue the dialogue.

Hopefully, one day, me and him can have a moderated debate on maybe solo scriptura or something else.

I love intellectual conversations back and forth and let's just talk about the scripture without having to attack each other's person.

Let's just lovingly talk about the issues at hand and ultimately, we trust God at the end of the day, so let's just see what happens, right?

Yeah, awesome, bro. Hopefully, he does hear that and he wants to have that discussion with you or public debate on Marlon's channel.

It just shows that you're definitely willing to discuss this further with him. You're not shying away.

You're not there scratching your head like, oh no, what did I get myself into? You're actually saying, no, I'm setting my ground here.

Let's go for it. I respect that first thing, bro. If I had the gift of not stuttering, I would definitely debate more.

I tend to get too wound up. Right. Cool, man.

All right. Let's begin this, bro. Again, we're not going to, for people listening, watching this now, we're not going to watch the whole entire hour video and respond to every single point.

We're going to be here all night then. We are going to hit chunks and main points that William does say.

Hopefully, it's edifying, but also if you guys don't believe us, I'll link the video below.

You can watch it yourself. We're not taking them out of context. Let's go ahead and start this, man.

Whoops. I removed you. There you go. This is early on.

He explains why he's making a video. I'll play this now. Feel free to inquire.

Now, why am I going live on a Saturday night when I didn't have anything scheduled? Well, whenever our

Immaculate Mother is attacked, it really gets my blood boiling. Whenever the Trinity's attacked, it gets my blood boiling.

All right, Jeremiah. That was about 15 seconds there, maybe 20 seconds. Do you have anything to say about that?

Yeah, I do. This, I think, gives Protestants a little insight to how

Roman Catholics view Mary. They talk about the veneration of Mary, and they have a lot of doctrine that goes into that.

I think this is just good for Protestants to realize, look, they make strong distinctions. They claim not to worship

Mary. I think in some respectful fashion, we need to honor that in our dialogue and not come, man, y 'all pray to Mary so much.

Y 'all have all these icons, images of her. Seems like y 'all worshiping her. Well, they make certain distinctions there that we need to be aware of.

So, something that we noticed that William said is that when somebody attacks the mother of our

Lord, it really gets blood boiling. Now, that tells me a couple things that Shalise raised from Red Flag.

So, this isn't a slam dunk argument I'm making here, but I just want to point this out to Protestants, and I also want to point this out to Roman Catholics, letting them see how we hear

William when he says that if someone attacks the mother of our Lord, know this, we're not attacking

Mary per se. We really want to honor Mary as we understand the scriptures telling us who she is.

But, when a Roman Catholic says, man, it gets my blood boiling when we claim that Mary was when a

Roman Catholic says that Mary was sinless, we're saying, we see her as a sinner saved by grace through faith like all the other saints of all time.

So, when William says, man, it gets my blood boiling like the Trinity, or even the deity of Christ, that causes me some concern, because if someone starts saying that Jesus isn't

God, absolutely I'm going to come to the defense and be like, hey, this is what the Bible teaches. Jesus is God.

That's the God that I worship and adore. I'm going to come to that very quickly. We see that that's how

Roman Catholics also, in some ways, treat Mary. I just want both sides,

Roman Catholics and Protestants, to understand that that seems kind of scary to Protestants when we see

Roman Catholics lumping Mary into the same conversation as Jesus Christ as God, and the

God that we worship as being Triune. Now, I get they had those category distinctions, but both sides need to understand that we are approaching this issue from completely different platforms,

I would say, to completely different worldviews. So, I just wanted to throw that out there,

Arturo. Awesome, man. Okay, so alright, so he said something else that I kind of want to hear you, and this is something that really is an attack to all, especially

Reformed Calvinistic Protestant apologists. Whenever we engage Rome, things like this are kind of said, so I want to hear you out on this.

There's nothing else for them. They are ripping from the, they don't know it.

Now, Jeremiah seems to be enamored with James White, so he rips the arguments from White.

Look at all those eight Popes that denied the Immaculate Conception, as if we haven't shredded that and exposed some of those for being spurious.

Right? He doesn't do his homework, doesn't know Mariology, doesn't know the dogma of the

Immaculate Conception, doesn't know the Fathers well at all. He called Clement, I think,

Origin, Origin of Clement, of Alexander. The guy doesn't know the

Fathers. The guy doesn't know the Bible. I'm not here to trash him. I'm here to deal with the arguments.

Yeah, okay. I'll stop it right there. Right there, he pretty much says that all these arguments that we try to use, that we learn from James White, and all that, have already been shredded apart and answered, things like that.

Now, I want to say a lot of things, but we don't have time for me and my thoughts, so I want to hear from you. That was a lot.

He kind of took a jab at something you said, too, about one of the Church Fathers, so I kind of want to hear you expound on that, too, so go ahead.

Yeah, so I agree with William. I am so appreciative of James White's ministry and his dividing line.

He says I'm enamored with him, like I'm so infatuated. He doesn't know me, so William's doing a little bit of a rally cry for his troops, and I'm okay with that.

James White gets the troops going on our side, too, so I just want people to know that it's all good, and I really do thank

God for James White's ministry, so we can continue to have this dialogue over multiple issues, and I want to encourage people to have the dialogue in a respectful way, not one where we're just hurling insults back and forth, so I just wanted to agree.

Yeah, I'm very thankful to James White's ministry. In preparation for my debate against Matthew, I read two books that were so helpful that I want to encourage people to go read, whether you're

Protestant or Roman Catholic. James White wrote Mary, Another Redeemer. Go read it.

You may read it and disagree with it, and that's okay. I found it very enlightening to help us see a lot of the issues that have went on throughout church history, and he wrote another book called

Scripture Alone, which I really think William would agree with me. This is the underlining distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Is Scripture solus scriptura, Scripture alone? Is that the sole infallible rule of faith in the practice and life of Christians?

As Reformed Protestants, we say yes and amen to that, and we make a biblical case for that. Now, Williams, being a true

Roman Catholic, is going to say, no, the Bible doesn't teach that. That's self -refuting and unbiblical, and we should trust the magisterium.

I'm like, hey, that's okay. Let's continue the dialogue about those things, but I'm a little bit familiar with William Albrich.

I've listened to some of his content. Very sharp. When he debated Tony Costa on these eight popes that disagreed and defined things differently than Pope Pius IX that came later in church history, that's great.

Encourage people to go look at the recorded documentation. Go to Alpha and Omega Ministries, where I believe they have very clear citations of these eight popes and how they defined

Mary being in original sin. That goes against what Pope Pius IX said, but you know what?

If William wants to debate people on that's really what the pope said, I would imagine William would want to do that because if you have the popes differing on certain major topics, that seems to be a massive internal contradiction on Roman Catholics' own terms.

So, a couple more things here. I don't know a ton of the

Roman Catholic position in great detail on Mariology. I'm a student of these things.

I'm going to continue to try to understand the Roman Catholic side better over time so I can better engage with it.

William, hear me say, I'm a student in these things. That's why I would like to actually develop a good friendship with you so you can educate me more in your perspective.

Maybe you would say I can't really teach you anything from my side. That's okay, but I would like to have a robust, very good back and forth on some of these things.

Just know my heart in the matter, that I'm a learner at heart, and hopefully you believe me on that.

Last thing here, Arturo, is he caught me on saying the origin of Alexander, and I get that that's not the origin of Alexandria.

That's what I had in my notes. William, you've got to give me some grace, man. I misspoke there.

I don't know the early church fathers as well as you, but that's an area that I'm willing to learn.

From a Protestant's perspective, you've got to understand that that's not my ultimate authority. I actually think just because the early church fathers got something wrong, or they were in a different polemical time frame, they weren't warring the same heresies that we're fighting today,

I don't put all my eggs in the basket, even if all the early church fathers were unanimous on something.

To me, that's not the end -all be -all. I'm listening more to their argumentation for why they believe something, and I'm like a noble Berean that takes their arguments and tests them with Scripture.

That's what all Protestants should be saying is, that's great that the early church held to certain views, but at the end of the day, what does the

Bible teach? I just want to encourage people that that's ultimately what we should be contending for, and a lot of those principles

Roman Catholics would agree with. So I think it kind of got a little bit cut off.

There was a little stutter there. It might be the connection. So you said origin of Alexander.

Yeah, and that's wrong. It's origin of Alexandria, and I misspoke in the debate,

I said, of Alexander. So William, you've got to show me a little grace, man. I did misspeak with my notes.

I went back to my notes. I had Alexandria, like you're supposed to say, but it's all good. Yeah, when you're in the moment in a debate, things are going to come out that ...

My heart was going boom, boom, boom. Yeah, I was running on adrenaline.

Yeah, that's good. I wonder, too, man, because I always hear people say St. Augustine or St.

Augustine. There's things like that where I'm like, I never know which one ... Anyway, it is what it is.

But okay, sounds good, man. Sounds good. So the next part

I definitely want to talk about is ... In fact, we talked about this in our live discussion on my platform, and it had to do with the quotes that you used in the debate or referenced in the debate.

So let me go ahead and get the video back up here. So now we're at almost at the seven -minute mark, in case people want to know.

Oh, well, you know, Basil denied it. Irenaeus denied it. No context behind it.

When I hear that and when I've heard the arguments of the Popes, tip of the hat to Matthew for pushing him to prove the veracity of the quote, he's not going to be able to.

He can't. Okay, so that's that, man. So yeah, you can go ahead and just respond to that if you can.

Yeah, so when I heard William say this, that I wasn't able to respond to Matthew supposedly pressing on the quote, that was interesting because Matthew really didn't press me on these citations.

I watched James White debate Gerry Maditax, and I saw that there was an issue with James White not having the quotations in English.

He had them in Latin. And so I knew it was very important to have all these citations and quotes ready to go, which

I had, and we did talk a little bit, but Matthew did not press me deep on these at all, and it was because I told

Matthew, we can talk about the citations and we can continue to go back and forth, but this is a small point in my overall rebuttal because my response was twofold.

I wanted to present an internal contradiction on Rome's own terms, and then I wanted to vindicate

Scripture alone is the ultimate authority in the life of the Christian. So, just wasting a lot of time trying to dispute citations that so many people agree, early church fathers, canonized saints, and many popes articulated things differently than how

Pope Pius IX made a dogma and anathematized it by disagreeing. It's like pushing rope uphill.

Most people don't want to take on that task. And what I told Matthew was another

Roman Catholic apologist that he recommended me, which is Robert Synginus, he bit the bullet in his debate with Tony Costa and James White and just said, it's okay if there's all this disagreement back in church history.

You just can't have any more disagreement after 1854. And so, my big point was we can debate the citations a little bit, but it's really not going to damage anything that I'm pushing for.

If anything, you're going to try to salvage not having so huge glaring contradiction on your own side, but it really doesn't touch a whole lot.

So, the stronger argument that I brought up to Matthew, and he backed away strong, very fast about going deep into these citations, is that even

Robert Synginus bit the bullet like a lot of Roman Catholics do and say, well, yeah, there was tons of disagreement. It wasn't unanimous.

You did have early church fathers saying that Mary had personal sin, right?

And when we get into the eight popes, they said that she was born in original sin.

I think William, I mean, if he wants to debate that with people, by all means, he tried to with Tony Costa, and Tony Costa brought out how that is just a tough road ahead.

But William said that he was right for pressing me. Matthew didn't really press me on that.

It's showing me that William, it would have been good for him to listen to the whole debate, to understand truly my points, because as we're going to get into a little bit

Arturo, William misrepresents me a lot, and it's all good, but when you listen to the whole thing, that's bound to happen.

And for those who are now who are just now tuning in to this video, the debate was on whether or not

Mary was sinless, and as a Protestant, our brother here, Jeremiah, we did a great job.

I'll link the actual debate. I have, I'm definitely going to use that debate and share it with others, whoever, anyone who wants to look into that more and see that both sides,

I'm pretty confident in how our brother here handled himself, and in that debate, I think he had the upper hand, and just did a really great job.

Thank you. In that debate, there's an argument that Jeremiah made that caught the attention of an apologist online, and he's the one that we're actually responding to now.

So we're now about seven minutes into his response. He hasn't got into the argument yet that we're going to focus on, but that was just some context for you guys in case you guys are barely tuning in.

So yeah, I want to keep playing the video, Jeremiah, if you don't mind, and have you respond to this next part, okay?

I'm going to play about maybe 30, 40 seconds here. Now, I want to be clear about one thing.

When the gentleman began to try to go into the Greek, it becomes a major mess.

He doesn't know any Greek, you can tell. What is the problem? I'm going to take a wild guess and imagine that maybe somebody helped him out, told him, hey, you know what, you've got this particular

Greek word there, you've got these Greek words there, this is a good argument, hey, here's a new argument, hasn't been utilized before.

All right, so I'll stop it there.

Now, I'm not going to say much here. I'm going to let you respond and go ahead and just take it away.

Yeah, so I wish William could have watched our episode that we did last time,

Arturo, because I explained exactly how I came across Humble Estate simply when

I was studying more of how Roman Catholics define the Marian dogmas. I noticed the way that they look to Luke 1 .28

where the angel said to Mary, oh, everyone, it seemed like all the Marian dogmas spawned back to this verse, and I thought, you know, in preparation for my debate,

I want to know that verse very well in the broader context of everything else that's going on.

Not too further later, you see Mary's Magnificat, right? She is exalting God, she's praying to God, and I thought, man,

I really want to be familiar with Mary's prayer, and we come across, later we're going to talk about this in the video, but she mentions the word humble estate.

It's a phrase, but it's a singular Greek word, and it's a stronger version of humility.

How do we know that? Well, she uses the more general word for humble and humility later in her

Magnificat, and so I started noticing some changes in this terminology and it got me very curious on, okay, there seems to be more going on with this word, and I'm going to be accused of reinventing the

Greek. We're going to see how that's just not true. A lot of my study, I explain on your channel and on the debate that the tool that I was using to analyze the

Greek is the Blue Letter Bible, and they go back to Thayer's Greek Lexicon.

Now, that has been a widespread resource available to people for a very long time.

It's a free resource, which I think is very important, but it never contradicts the updated scholarship that we have today that is super valuable, super important, and props to William for bringing out some of those resources later, which

I've already begun the process of investing in Gingrich, BDAG, some of these updated scholarship that is worth the money and the investment.

What I heard from William there once again is a rally cry. He didn't make any technical points about anything, but he's getting the troops ready.

He's setting that stage, and I get that. That's good, man.

That's good. Also, just in your defense as well, in our live video that we did on my channel,

I made a comment about I was hesitant to even bring up the Blue Letter Bible because as you know and as I know,

I have studied Greek in the past, and I know that a little bit of Greek can be dangerous.

I just quoted you, in fact, because you're the one that said that on my channel. A little bit of Greek, not knowing very much.

However, the tools are there, and we definitely want to encourage Christians to check out those tools.

Just do it carefully. Make sure you really do your homework. William kept saying that he didn't do your homework, and when he's the one that didn't watch the debate to begin with, he didn't see how you handled those texts.

He only responded to a minute of the entire thing. Some things weren't even accurate.

He said that you spoke for 38 minutes, and there was no substance. I'm like, no. He had to speak only for 15 minutes because there was an opening statement.

Before that, it was Matt. Things like that was questionable, but at the same time, it's like, no, man.

You do your homework. A little bit of Greek can be dangerous. We know that already. It's not like we're going into it and just having fun with it.

Also, too... Go ahead. I thought this was interesting. Me and William don't know each other.

He basically put me in a corner and said, he either figured this out on his own, or he got someone to help him.

I was like, I don't know how many other options there are there, but maybe to his surprise, maybe he'd be like,

I knew it. This particular argument, I totally studied on my own, and I was trying to be real careful with it, too.

As we're going to show, I was arguing for something so much bigger that you have to assume, for the sake of argument, sola scriptura.

We'll repeat this throughout the video here a few times so people understand. If you grant that the

Word of God is preeminent and the ultimate rule of the faith and practice for us, for God's people, then

Mary is indistinguishable in terms of her. There's no way to see that she was saved differently than all the other saints.

When she says, God my Savior, we can only understand that one way, that she's a sinner, saved by grace through faith.

That's a bigger argument. You do have to assume sola scriptura in this. When she starts utilizing terms that we see in the

Old Testament, well, good Bible study, exegesis, and hermeneutics come into play.

We do want to look at the etymology and see the full syntactic domain of these words. I don't want to jump too far ahead, but we're going to get more into some of these technical things.

It'll be good. I hope we just listen to this and we continue some cordial dialogue. Alright.

I'm going to go ahead and play this next part. This is going almost to the nine -minute mark.

I'm going to go ahead and let it play out for about 40 seconds or so and allow you to respond.

At this point, we're almost getting into the argument. Eight minutes in, we're almost getting to the argument.

You have to forward it a little bit. Anyway, here we are. By the way, the gentleman

Jeremiah couldn't deal with Genesis 3. There's a reason why. They can't deal with it. I've heard the very best they can utilize.

I've heard the best that modern -day Jews can utilize. Protestantism, I know what the reformers taught on it.

There's a reason why he didn't have a reply to that. There's a reason why he had to piggyback on Ephesians 1 thinking that Ephesians 1 and the usage of that particular

Greek word would help his case. The problem is, he doesn't know

Greek. The problem is the person that, I don't know who or what group of individuals might have maybe helped him, they don't know

Greek very well either. Or if they do, they're trying to play games with Greek to the point where it's a fair comedy show.

The level of an Adam Sandler comedy movie back when he was in his prime is probably more laughable than that.

We're going to play the clip. All right, so there you go,

Jeremiah. Feel free to respond to that part. Yeah. This is a good part to pause because William had some zingers and props.

This man has a sense of humor. He was saying that my handling of the Greek was more laughable than an

Adam Sandler comedy. Hey, I get it. Rally the troops, man. Do it. But, then on the flip side, we'll get serious and look at the points.

So he brought up two verses. He brought up Genesis 3 .15 and then he said, you know,

I ran away from that because I couldn't deal with it and I tried to run away to Ephesians 1 verse 6.

And I do want to admit something. In the debate, we talked about this last time, Arturo. When I went back and listened to the debate,

I was like, oh man, I wish I would have responded a little bit differently because I misunderstood

Matthew's point when he was talking about Genesis 3 .15. He was talking about the word entity.

We're going to define this word here in a minute. I thought he was saying that Mary was the one crushing the head of the serpent.

Almost to be like, ah, there's some textual variant here in the Hebrew. It really should say her because I've looked up articles and some

Roman Catholics take that line of thinking. One of the popes, I can't remember which one, it might have been the one right after Pope Pius the

Ninth, but one of them makes a strong case that it is Mary the one who's crushing the head of the serpent.

Anybody that's familiar with Genesis 3 .15 and the manuscript tradition there, that is never disputed that it really should be the woman there and refer to a feminine now referring to her.

That's not true. So that's what I immediately jumped to conclusions and everybody has to understand when you're debating, you try to understand rightly the opponent, but you're also trying to get ready for what you're going to say next.

So I want to totally own that. I misunderstood Matthew's point. But I rightly understand it now and really he's keen on the word entity.

So Arturo, I have a quote here from Matthew in our debate. I'd like to read that and tell you how we should properly understand their point and how we should properly respond to it.

So in our debate at 41 minutes and 26 minutes 41 minutes, 26 seconds

Matthew said, in Genesis 3 God is the one who confirms. I will put entity.

I myself will put entity between you. Matthew goes on to say he is talking about the serpent, the serpent of Satan.

I will put entity between you and the woman, between her offspring and yours. Matthew says, so Mary and her offspring

Jesus Christ are both at enmity with Satan and enmity means to be at complete odds.

Complete odds. Jesus of course was sinless by his very nature. Mary was sinless.

So really the argument is keying in on the word enmity and I understand that now.

I don't think it helps at all trying to make an implicit argument for Mary being preemptively saved from the stain of original sin, but we can better engage with the argument now.

So when Matthew makes a dogmatic case that the word enmity means to be at complete radical odds, we want to hold the brakes because that's actually not an accurate representation of what at least

Peter's Greek lexicon talks about. The word enmity means to be hostile against and hostility or a hatred towards.

So when Matthew says that it means to be at complete odds, I'm saying okay, well you got to explain that because that's ambiguous.

Are you saying that Mary and Satan are at complete ontological ends, meaning that they possess different natures?

How far are you going to stretch the word enmity? Now to give

Matthew a little bit of credit, he did say Jesus was sinless by very nature and he just said Mary was sinless.

But the argument is look, Jesus and Mary are on this end of the spectrum and they are at complete radical odds than Satan.

Okay, well you got to explain what that enmity is. And so we're talking about there's a spiritual warfare.

This is the enmity, the complete hostility that Satan has against the saints, which would include

Mary, against the holy angels and namely God. Nothing, the word enmity carries a different type of radical nature distinction between Mary and Satan.

So like I said, I think the point is ambiguous and it doesn't rightly reflect an accurate understanding of hostility and hatred.

That's what enmity to be at war with one another means. And so I've looked at other Roman Catholic articles and they say, well in order for Mary to be completely at enmity with Satan, then she couldn't have been under the stain of original sin because in some way she would be under the kingdom of darkness.

And I'm saying, time out. That's not what we see in the scripture. We see how the children of God or at once children of wrath and they're saved by grace and now turn to the

Savior in faith. And now they, according to John chapter 1, they are now called the children of God.

So it's very easy to understand that the unregenerate man, according to Romans 8, is at enmity with the creator, right?

And now by God's redemption, they are counted as a child of God through adoption.

So I don't even think, Arturo, we have to make a super technical case.

Now, I have to, when a Roman Catholic is saying the word enmity means to be a complete radical and almost ontologically

Mary and Satan have different natures. But, even with knowing the Greek and the

Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew, even though that helps our case to say, no, you can't use the definition, all you need is a familiarity with the

Old and New Testament to see that this enmity is talking about a spiritual warfare.

There is a war against the saints, God's people, and the kingdom of darkness.

That is the enmity that is being talked about in the Proto -Evangelium. Yeah, good, man.

Good, yeah. It's interesting, bro, because I think even in the discussion we had before,

I asked you what are some of the arguments from Catholics that may trip up a

Protestant? And sometimes it's stuff like that that happens. There's a word there that's used and we understand it differently.

And it helps to really explain and really define our terminology. It's kind of really what

William is telling you to do with that Greek word that you're focused on. In a way, we want to tell

William, let's keep the same energy here, be consistent on both sides. Let's also apply that to Matthew as well in that debate because he obviously did the same thing.

Yeah. Go ahead. Well, I was going to say, and once again,

William didn't watch the whole debate. He doesn't know me personally. And he kind of accused me of steering away from Genesis 3 -15 to Ephesians 1 -6 as kind of a rescuing device.

That's not true. What I've learned now, in our last video, we talked about things that could trip up Protestants.

There's kind of three big points that Roman Catholics will do to prove the Marian dogma from Scripture. Luke 1 -28, a favored one.

And then we'll get into that. And then Genesis 3 -15, we understand better their point now. And then they will look to the parallels of the

Ark of the Covenant, Eve, the cosmos, and talk about how Mary is a greater type.

So we're starting to get a better feel of their best arguments from Scripture.

Right? And we're starting to see the gaping holes of how if you understand the context at all, there's no way you can glean that from Scripture.

It has to be imported from an outside source. And so when he brings up Ephesians 1 -6, do you care if I talk about that for just a moment?

Yeah, yeah. But before you do, let me just let people know who are coming in and watching this. We're doing a response video to a

Catholic apologist online on YouTube. His name is William... What's his last name? Jeremiah? William Albridge.

Albridge. Okay. Because I'm very literal, man. I see a word, and I want to pronounce it how I see it. So I don't want to offend anyone.

So we're responding to him. You can find his video in the description below. I linked it.

You can go ahead and just right -click it and open a new tab and watch it later. But we're mainly responding to his main points.

And this is from a... This all started from a debate on Marlon's channel, The Gospel Truth.

Shout out to that brother there. He's a hard worker. He's doing a great job. And also, he just had a baby.

Congratulations, bro. So yeah, this is a response video for those of you who are just now tuning in.

Feel free to ask questions. I don't know if we'll have time to answer them at the end, but we're definitely going to answer

William here. So yeah, man. So if you want to go ahead and just talk about being consistent when you interpret the text, go for it.

Ephesians 1 .6, right? Yeah. Yeah, because once again, William's point is it's apparent that Jeremiah is avoiding

Genesis 3 .15 and running to Ephesians 1 .6. And at least, granted,

I could have dealt way better with Genesis 3 .15, but you can't redefine the word enmity to be at complete radical ontological ends.

And that in no way implies that Mary was saved preemptively from the same original sin.

And the point of Ephesians 1 .6, William, was I was imploring a test of consistency.

So I at least want to share with everybody my train of thought. I almost see debate like a chess match.

If I move here, what are they going to do? How am I going to do this? And so I had a test of consistency in my mind of how

I wanted to push the Roman Catholic on how they understand Luke 1 .28,

which says, now the angel's talking to Mary, and the angel says, Greetings, O favored one, the

Lord is with you. So this is how it goes down. We look at, O favored one, and we can grant that it could be translated,

Hail Mary, full of grace. Okay? That's typically in the Roman Catholic Bible's translation that they see

Mary being full of grace. So we can come back and say, okay, full of grace.

They're meaning to mean sinlessness. Now I have an argument for that. I'm granting that. But then we can come back and say, what about Acts 6 .8,

which says, Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.

We can say, are we going to look at Stephen as being sinless? And the

Roman Catholic is going to say, no, no. It uses a different kind of root word.

It's the same root word that's used in Luke 1 .28, but it has a different form of grace there.

So it's not the same Greek word. And Matthew in his debate said, well, this was

Stephen after his baptism. Like, that matters. It really does it when you really press that, and people go listen to the debate.

We went back and forth on that. But when someone says, no, it's not technically the same

Greek construction as Luke 1 .28, we can almost say fair. Well, what about Ephesians 1 .6?

The same word, karyato, I'm not pronouncing that right, I'm sure. But the same Greek word is used in Ephesians 1 .6

the same way that it's used in Luke 1 .28. So Ephesians 1 .6 says, to the praise of his glorious grace with which he has blessed us, that's the

Greek word that's the same in Luke 1 .28, in the beloved. Now this should, anybody that's doing cross references and studying the context, this poses a huge problem because from God's perspective,

God sees all believers of all time who is going to receive Jesus by faith and have redemption covering their account by the blood of the

Lamb. They are full of grace. Now this poses a problem within Sola Scriptura to try to recognize

Mary differently than all saints to ever exist from God's perspective.

We are all saved by grace through faith the same way. But the Roman Catholic may say, ah, but it's not the perfect passive participle in the

Greek verb tenses. And so their point is back in Luke 1 .28, Mary, oh favored one, they could say full of grace.

Okay, now one of the questions I asked Matthew was in the Greek word karyoto, however you say that, in the syntactic domain, is there anything there that would let us think that that means she is sinless?

And he said yes because of the perfect passive participle. So they're saying she's so full of grace that there is no room for any moral defect.

And so that's where we're comparing Luke 1 .28 and Ephesians 1 .6.

It's like, okay, if the Protestants are concluding wrongly on Sola Scriptura, that there's no distinguishing factor between all saints of all times to ever exist from God's perspective, and Mary back in Luke 1 .28,

why is it the perfect passive participle is the distinguishing factor?

So we can say, well, let's test that one. If we go to Matthew 25, verse 34, the verse says this,

Come you who are blessed by my Father inherit the kingdom prepared before you from the foundation of the world.

Well, there's a Greek word that's translated into an English phrase, you who are blessed.

Okay, now that Greek word doesn't mean sinlessness, but it has the perfect passive participle.

So we're saying, okay, if the perfect passive participle means sinlessness, then why can we not conclude that we are so blessed by the

Father before the foundation of the world that that blessing contains no moral defect?

Now, a lot of people say, well, Jeremiah, that's absurd. And that's exactly right. The perfect passive participle does not give you, does not give the

Roman Catholic what they want when it's applied to Mary. So that's one test of consistency that I believe

Roman Catholics fail. So, as we continue to do this test of consistency, number two, we can hypothetically grant the

Roman Catholic canon. So then, this is what's amazing. They have another word, kerato, in the

Greek, with the same structure, the perfect passive participle in the book of Sirach.

And so I want to read you this verse, Sirach 18, chapter 18, verse 17.

It says, Indeed, does not a word surpass a good gift?

Both are to be found in a gracious person. So this is the same word, same

Greek verb tense being applied to Mary here in Sirach 18, verse 17.

And on this graphic that we have on the screen, this is the same structure that's being used.

And yet, we would not look at Sirach 18 in its surrounding context that it's talking about a sinless person.

It's talking about a generic person that is being called to give alms and good gifts to other people.

And so, this is a point of inconsistency on Roman Catholics' part.

They are committing what's called special pleading for Mary. Oh, Genesis 3 .15 and Luke 1 .28

are implicitly saying that Mary was preemptively saved from the stain of original sin.

Absolutely not. If Scripture is your highest authority, there's no way to conclude that from the text,

Arturo. So, I believe I was ready to go the distance here with Matthew, and I don't think he was following my train of thought, and I tried a number of times, and he was just not getting it.

So, I hope in this video, if Matthew watches it, I hope he understands. I hope he doesn't take offense. But you need to be able to demonstrate from the text these doctrines.

Anybody can say, well, the Scripture implicitly says this, and we get this full -orb doctrine later in church history.

No, we need to do exegesis. We need to do hermeneutics and let God define His own terms for us.

Yeah, right on, bro. That was good, man. That was really good. So, let me see.

I'm going to go ahead and continue on with this video. All right.

So, I'm going to put it back on the screen here. All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and let it play on for about a minute or two.

What he says next, he's definitely going to start getting into it, and obviously, he's going to try to touch on your argument, the one that he got angry about.

So, let's go ahead and play it. Oh, and by the way, if you guys can't see, this is about nine minutes, 30 seconds in.

If you guys want to just take notes and check it out on his original video. It's probably more laughable than that.

So, we're going to play the clip. We're going to hear if there's any merit to the Magnificat.

Wrap your mind around it. To the Magnificat, proving that Mary was a person.

Can you pause it real quick? I want to admit something to William here.

William, you converted me. You converted me from saying Magnificat to Magnificat.

Magnificat. I just want to thank you for that. Magnificat. All right.

Let's go. Wrap your mind around it.

To the Magnificat, proving that Mary was a sinful person.

It's going to get good. The Adam's original sin? Or was Mary praising

God who saved her by His grace? By the way, people, so you hear Jeremiah's voice because this is where William is playing

Jeremiah's clip. Just give me some context here. Let me rewind it a little bit.

The Adam's original sin? Or was Mary praising God who saved her by His grace from her corrupted nature and personal sin, just like the rest of humanity?

Now, like always, I think the surrounding context always informs this type of answer.

Mary goes on to say in her Magnificat that God looked on her humble estate.

Now, this Greek word is very interesting because it means to be spiritually abased before God.

Whoa! Hey, bro. Before we go on, I want to rewind a little bit. You said something so important.

I just want to make sure that people caught it. Let me go back a few seconds here. This type of answer.

Mary goes on to say in her Magnificat that God looked on her humble estate.

Now, this Greek word informs who saved her by His grace from her corrupted nature and personal sin, just like the rest of humanity.

Now, like always, I think the surrounding context always informs this type of answer.

Okay, right there. You said something so important there. It's the reason why you're interpreting that Greek word the way you are.

Not because that word itself literally means what you say, but the context is what drives us to that conclusion.

I just want to really emphasize that part. I was kind of hoping that William would touch on that, but I'll let it keep on playing.

The answer. Mary goes on to say in her Magnificat that God looked on her humble estate.

Now, this Greek word is very interesting because it means to be spiritually abased before God because of moral guilt.

Wow! Wow! The guy has rewritten the

Greek dictionary, the biblical Greek dictionary. He's rewritten it. He's done incredible work to where Bauer, Donker, Gingrich, any of the standard lexicons, analytical ones, they're done for.

Jeremiah and Orie has found the true meaning of the

Greek word here. Mary's humble estate doesn't mean that Mary was humble.

It doesn't mean she was of lowly standing. Okay. Go for it, man.

There was a lot said there, so just go for it, Jeremiah. I'll review what he said.

People can play it back. I love what you said, Arturo. I encourage people to go listen to William's original video.

We're totally transparent here. I don't want to try to deceive anybody. That's why

I messaged William personally and said, hey, I did not try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

It's all good. We really want good dialogue and discussion on these things. First thing

I want to point out is when I talked about Mary's humble estate and her magnificat, this was a very minor, minor point that I was making.

It surprised me in a good way. I started getting so much feedback. William made this video.

I didn't think. I was just analyzing the context. I even talked about verses before her magnificat.

My broader argument, I just want to emphasize this. I know we said it a couple times. In my debate, please go back, listen to the debate on Marlon's channel,

The Gospel Truth, is that I'm saying we need to assume the soul of scripture as God's word is the highest authority in our lives.

If we assume that, then there is no way to distinguish Mary as being categorically different than the rest of simple humanity.

William has missed that. That's the big argument that I'm making. If you really bypass that, it's going to be a misrepresentation at every point.

It's okay. If you don't listen to the whole thing, that's going to happen. It's going to hurt my feelings. The other part of what

I was arguing for is that from the Hebrew scriptures into Paul's argument in Romans chapter 1 through 5, we see the universality of sin.

All of Adam's offspring, all of Adam's posterity, sinful before God. No one is righteous.

That's the point. All men are condemned before God, being born in this world, being cursed by original sin.

There is only one human, meaning Jesus Christ. Paul makes that case.

That's the big part of the argument that I was making. Not putting all my eggs in one basket of Mary saying humble estate.

However, I do think when she says humble estate, she is talking about in the context of her being a sinner.

She is full of grace like all Christians. She had faith in the person right before her.

Magnificat. She praised God her

Savior like all sinners who are saved by grace. This is that immediate context.

I want Roman Catholics to really hear. We're not running from the immediate context.

We're saying it's because of the immediate context. We love Mary as being the mother of our

Lord. I will say that. Arturo, you convinced me to say it's okay that she's the mother of God.

I think I was combating extreme with the view of saying, mother of God carries this greater connotation of her being without sin.

We can say she is the mother of God the Son when he took on human flesh.

As long as we understand that Jesus is the one to be elevated in her being the mother of Lord and not

Mary like all the creeds talk about. I'm all for that. We're going to get more into Thayer's understanding of what the

Greek words mean. Spiritual abasement. The crazy thing is, William, I don't think I would have had to appeal to a lexicon to make virtually the same argument.

I will talk about how that she does use the word humility in a general sense.

I guess it's as good a time as any to say that we need to capitalize on that. Right before I do,

Arturo, I want to encourage William to go back and look at the whole debate so he'll understand my main arguments better.

I grounded my argument in a syllogism. This is huge because I had a necessary deductive conclusion.

You're not going to get that by replaying one minor, minor point over and over again. That's fine if you want to dispute that.

I am willing to refine that minor, minor point. At least understand it in the broader context.

Arturo, I want to talk about I did not reinvent the Greek here.

I went to Thayer's Greek lexicon. This is public domain. The worst that anybody could say is,

Hey, Jeremiah, this is a little bit outdated. I'm saying, Yeah, it probably is. It's common domain.

When you look at the updated, precise scholarship, all the ones that he was looking at, which

I appreciate him doing, these don't contradict. Everybody can see that it says here in Thayer's Greek lexicon, you can see it says lowliness, low estate, humiliation.

It gives a lot of good verses that, to William's surprise, I looked at every single one of those, and we're going to unpack a lot of those, too.

Notice it says metaphorically. Some context could definitely mean that. Also, spiritual abasement.

That's not original with me, Arturo. I did not make it. You as my witness, everybody could see that I have a resource where Blue Letter Bible utilizes the

Thayer's Greek lexicon, and they are the ones defining these Greek terms. Spiritual abasement, leading to perceive and lament his, parenthesis, moral littleness and guilt.

I want everybody to see I am not just making up stuff. I'm appealing to a source outside of myself, and that's important.

I think William's primarily doing a rally cry. That's fine, but when you emphatically say, ah, he's rewritten the

Greek, it's just not true. None offense taken, but I do want people to see that I'm appealing to a free public resource.

William said that I'm changing this word not to mean humble or humility.

That's not at all the point that I was making. Really, I'm saying, in what way was

Mary lowly in showing humility? This is a good point. I want people to understand there's an etymology to this word.

There's a syntactic domain. Later in Mary's Magnificat, she actually uses the general broader sense of humility.

We need to understand that she's admitting to there's a humility on her part, but it's also more than that.

She uses two different Greek words that are related, but also distinct in some profound way as well.

I don't know if you can pull this up on your screen. I want people to be familiar with the two different Greek words for lowliness and humility that she uses.

If you see on the left, that is the humble estate where you can see the spiritual basement highlighted in black there and highlighted in purple just so people can see it in the

Greek. On the right, this is the word for more of a generic humility.

Why do I keep saying that? Because if you look down, you can see it says lowly in spirit, humble, opposed to, and it references

James 4 .6, 1 Peter 5 .5, which is quoting from Proverbs 3.

Now, I want to be transparent with William and Roman Catholics. When I was researching all of Luke chapter 1, getting familiar with her prayer,

I was anticipating making an argument that she is being humble in the way that the

Scriptures say God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. I was prepared to make an identical argument.

See? Mary is being humble the same way that all believers are called to.

Now, William, I'm not saying just because someone's humble, therefore, they're a sinner, which we're going to get into.

But what I'm saying is there's no distinction between Mary and all saints of all time.

You don't get any hint of the text saying that she was preemptively saved from falling into the ditch of moral guilt and sin.

I'm saying it's nowhere to be found in the Bible. So, once again, am

I redefining Greek words? Absolutely not. People can go look at the common domain source that there's

Greek on, which everybody is open to. But I do want to thank William, at least from the standpoint of saying,

Jeremiah, there's more precise, updated resources out there that you need to be familiar with.

And I'm saying, yes, as a brother, in the sense of we can refer to each other as brothers in a broad sense, even if it's under Adam.

Thank you, friend, for pointing that out. And I definitely will be investing the necessary money in this updated scholarship.

I want to be familiar with that. And the more I do, I'm seeing that Thayer's is getting it right. God has equipped the saints for every good work, for understanding his word.

So, I do have a caution, Arturo, for William and any Roman Catholic apologists.

Be careful about putting all of your eggs in the basket and saying, you have to know this expensive research of scholarship that's not available to the public.

Right? This sounds very reminiscent of what's happened in church history. It's what, been 500 years where Roman, the

Church of Rome would not allow people to read the Bible in their own language. They were not allowed to check to see if what was being said and the argument was, well, the church has been given the final say of what the right interpretation is.

And so, what I'm saying, and rather than hiding that from the people, and I'm not reading into William's motives here, this is just a gentle caution.

You don't need to be able to make your strong case from expensive resources where people can't go and check.

What I'm arguing for is at least be willing to make a point where people can go investigate and research, like I am, to this resource of the

Thayer's Greek Lexicon that everybody can go look at. But it's okay to also include the

Beedag and some of these really awesome, precise works that have going depth of why words mean what they say.

But I'm going back, Arturo, to a basic principle of being like the noble Bereans. The Apostle Paul was explaining the resurrection from Scripture.

And if we could have almost took anybody at their word without testing them, it would have been the

Apostle Paul. But Scripture calls the people at Berea, calls them noble, commends them for going back to the

Scripture to see if these things are true, what the Apostle Paul was saying. This is a wonderful point that all

Christians should test what they are hearing, whether it be teaching from whatever type of spirit, with the

Word of God and hold fast to that which is good. That's my very gentle caution to William is, hey, we don't need to run away from the resources that are available to everybody.

Yeah, man, yeah, for sure. And just for the people that are watching my channel who have been here for a while, for the most part, you're used to studying and there are sources out there online for free that you can check out.

Blue Letter Bible is one of them. There's Bible Hub as well. And another one is like ccel .org

and I think earlychristianwritings .com I think, but you can find like writings from church fathers for free online and get to know what the early church believed in and everything.

So that way you're not left in the dark completely. But yeah, there are resources out there that are just more costly and we shouldn't, even as Protestants, we shouldn't hinge our arguments on those things where people can't verify.

And this is why, one of the reasons why I love Sola Scriptura and that God's Word is available everywhere.

It's been preserved all these years and we have confidence in it. So it's something that we can always rely on and point to the scriptures.

So hopefully Catholics don't get mad that are watching, but you can't prove the Immaculate Conception off the scriptures.

You can't. It's not there. You have to look at early church fathers and say, oh look, they believed

Mary didn't experience pain when she gave birth, therefore Immaculate Conception. So it's like you have to do those kind of weird things to prove that.

And really in the first three centuries of the church you don't see that doctrine being taught the way how it's taught today.

You just don't see it. And for it to be a dogma, I don't know, but yeah, let's be like the

Beroeans and both Catholic and Christian let's go ahead and test out these things and make sure that it's in the scriptures first.

And if it's not then we can reject it. Let me just go back to the video now.

We're 12 minutes in and we're already over an hour. So we're 12 minutes in and so this is going to be a long night, so it's okay though.

Hopefully you guys had your coffee. But at this point I'm at, let me see, I want to go to this video here.

Whoops. Oh, I gotta, there we go. At this point we're at the 12, 30, about the 12 minute, 30 second mark and I'm going to hit play right now.

So let's go. Because I did, I looked up every usage of the Greek word for humble estate, lowly estate.

Everyone I looked at I read them all in the Greek last night, went through the context and what the person did he popped up a

Bible software or he went to Google put the Greek word there either in the

Bible software. You know this is a problem when you don't know Greek or your grasp of it is pitiful you're going to open up a

Bible software and think I'm the man. I'm about to knock a home run out of the park, baby.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way. When you don't know a language, you don't know a language.

So you either went to Google or opened up a Bible software you know, tapped that Greek word, I'm going to find something.

Looked up every usage of that Greek word found one passage in the book of Psalms where after the person talks about their lowly state or affliction and then a verse later the

Greek word for sin is placed there. Boom! There you go! That Greek word must then be in relevance of sin but that is not how

Greek works. That isn't how it works. Number one, why talk about context when you abuse the context?

Where on earth is the context of her talking about having moral guilt or being in a sinful state if she's exalting the

Lord? What are you talking about? Alright, I'll stop it there. So, I mean man, it's so tempting not to pause early on, you know.

Especially, I can imagine how you feel about it. Just, you know, the fact that he's talking about you.

And, you know, anyone who watched the debate, they know that you looked at the context, you proved, you demonstrated why you believe that to be a correct interpretation.

But anyways, let's go ahead and just have you respond to that. Yeah, so he said a number of things, but we're wanting to model how we want to understand the context of what somebody's talking about.

And we encourage people to go listen to what he's saying. So, you can see how we're being very charitable in letting him get a complete thought out there.

And it's all good. So, a few things to William is this is a simple Bible study from Anudix.

We look at syntactic domains of Greek words, and we look at immediate context, and we see how this term is utilized in other contexts.

Now, something that the hearers need to be familiar with, I know William understands this, and this is a point of agreement that we share.

But, in order to look at New Testament terms and see how they were used in the Hebrew Scriptures, we need to also be familiar with the

Greek Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. A lot of times in the

New Testament, we see quotations, like from the Gospel writer Matthew. He quotes from the Greek Septuagint.

So, this is vital in our Bible study and understanding definitions and see how words are used.

So, another website that I would recommend people going to check out is called GotQuestions.

I've learned so much from their website. Really good articles, almost like running commentary. You can just ask the question, what is the

Greek Septuagint? It's going to give you a good article just explaining you the history and the importance of that. So, I want you to think about this,

William. Can I say something real quick? Yeah, go ahead. And I'm sure you would actually agree with this as well. GotQuestions, they have solid things, but even then, we still verify what they say.

You know, like we do everywhere else. So, we're not saying, because I have a feeling someone's going to say, oh, look, no wonder why they believe what they believe.

Nah, like, we look, I've disagreed with that website quite a bit. However, you can't question the fact that they research and they provide their resources.

It's a really good resource tool. Let me just make that clear before anyone tries to...

It's kind of like when you quote Wikipedia and like, oh, well, no wonder. You know what I mean?

It's a thing where, yeah, Wikipedia may not be a reliable source because anyone can go in there and type in stuff. But GotQuestions, I think it's been proven that you can use that as a tool and it can definitely take you places and it can help you grow.

I just wanted to say that. Yeah, and to just piggyback on that just a little bit, something

I respect about GotQuestions is they will say, hey, here's a view. Right?

And here's what the view teaches. And they'll say, here's a different view in relation to the same subject.

And they say people on their staff have differing views and they have articles arguing for different sides. And you're like, hey, that's all

I could ask for is just kind of the facts and a really good presentation of it. And like you said, I have disagreed with a ton of those articles too, but they're very clear in how they present things.

So that's awesome. Yeah. So something

I want to point out back to William is it's no mystery of how

I was utilizing the term humble estate. So firstly, I've utilized the

Thayer's Greek lexicon. We see in the syntactic domain lowly, humility.

I would actually press back and say but I don't think it's general humility like she says later in her Magnificat.

But something that denotes something a little bit deeper and stronger here. And Thayer's right points out spiritual abasement, usually denoting moral guilt because it's usually in the context of people, right?

And we're going to get into the passages that do connect it to Christ and how the Bible does a wonderful job qualifying in what context that is.

And so this is very typical Bible study principles. And when

I looked at Mary using humble estate, I thought, I'm curious how that's used in the

Greek Septuagint in the Old Testament. A little bit of context with Mary as she's praying, exalting

God. So as I was looking at the uses in the Greek Septuagint, I was just combing through, seeing what was out there, and I came across two really great examples.

One is with Hannah in 1 Samuel chapter 2, her prayer. Mary definitely seems to be hearkening back to a lot of the terminology that she was using.

We're going to talk about that in a second. And Psalm 25, King David is praying, exalting

God, lifting up his soul in a very very similar manner to Mary.

So that's huge, right? We're finding a similar context in which another saint is praying utilizing the same terminology.

So no matter how many zingers William brings out in his dismissing what

I'm saying, it doesn't change the fact that we want to compare apples to apples. You know, you might find some obscure way in Genesis to see how humble estate or affliction is being used in a narrative, right?

But I'm talking about what about another saint praying to God in a similar manner and using the same type of terminology?

It's not a slam dunk by any means. I wasn't trying to just hit a home run on this pitch.

This was a minor minor point that I was making, and I don't think William quite grasped the strength of the argument that I was truly making.

So, I don't know if you can cue this up, Arturo. I wanted people to see on Blue Letter Bible, it's so easy.

William made it seem like a whole other aspect. I was just on Google trying to figure out, you know, grasping for straws and anything

I could. No. Blue Letter Bible has made it super easy to see how words are utilized in all the different contexts in the

Old Testament, New Testament, Greek Septuagint. And right there you see that in the LXX, the Greek Septuagint, this word is used 28 times, and six of those are used in a very unique form.

So, I want this to be absolutely clear to William and all the

Roman Catholics. In my debate, I never made the statement or was trying to make the case that humble estate always means moral guilt.

Now, Matthew Broderick, I remember his last name finally, this was something, we used to have a really good dialogue back and forth, and he started to change on me after our debate, and I get,

I understand things get heated, and I still hope that he listens to this and realizes that I don't have any ill intent towards him, but you've got to properly quote somebody before you can properly understand their stance in order to critique it.

If you misquote me at the very beginning, then you've lost any meaningful way of properly representing someone else's position.

And the reason I even bring that up is because William and Matthew seem to be saying that what

I'm saying is humble estate in every circumstance always means moral guilt.

Never said that. But, I do think that's the context in which Mary is utilizing, but there's a distinction.

I'm not doubling down and saying it always means that. But I'm saying, Mary's using that. Look at what she said right before it.

She's praising God as Savior. What does that mean under sola scriptura? That all saints recognize their sinfulness before God Almighty and praise

Him for saving them from their sin. So I can't overemphasize that enough, Arturo.

And so, William says, where on Earth is the context? This is important.

Where on Earth is the context of her talking about having moral guilt or being in a sinful state if she's exalting the

Lord? What are you talking about, Jeremiah? Now, when I heard this,

William make this point, I thought, okay, he's not understanding the breadth of my bigger argument.

I thought this was interesting because William said that it's really easy to understand to see how a person

My point is, it's really easy to recognize that a person recognizes their sinfulness and therefore their need of a

Savior. Saints continue to do this, even in the moments of our temptation and spiritual warfare and losing to sin or falling in that.

We recognize our depravity. We recognize that we still need sanctification. So we think very lowly of ourselves and we magnify

God as holy, righteous, and perfect. Now, I'm not saying anything new. This is how Jesus taught us to pray.

He said, pray in this way, Holy Father, Father, hallowed be your name.

And then in the same prayer, he says, forgive us of our debts, a reference to sin as we forgive other people.

Now, Jesus, it's 100 % clear he was without sin, and yet he is modeling for us to pray in this way, revere

God as holy and recognize that we continually need forgiveness.

Once again, William seems to be confused on how a person could possibly be in a state of moral guilt while praising

God. Now, I think if William goes back to think through this, makes sense, but he didn't listen to the whole debate, probably didn't understand the major points

I was making. It's all good. Happens to all of us. And I'm even open to refining my position and thinking back through it.

But when I go back to Psalm 25, you got to examine the chapter as a whole to really understand what we're talking about.

This is how King David begins this psalm. To you, O Lord, I lift up my soul.

O my God, in you I trust. I could almost say, William, oh no,

David is glorifying God as holy and righteous, and he's giving him praise and glory.

David, you cannot possibly begin to express your sinfulness in this context.

But, it's a little ridiculous. And as you see more in David's prayer here, he says, remember your mercy,

O Lord, and your steadfast love. They have been of old. Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions.

And we'll continue to analyze this throughout our interaction with William. But it's clear that when you are, it's the perfect time, as you're praising

God and worshiping Him, to be in the context of recognizing your moral guiltiness and your sinfulness before God, and how you are dependent on His grace.

And so, you're right, William. I did focus on verse 18, which is the stinger. And it almost stands alone to make the case that we're arguing for.

I'm saying even if you examine the context, it only strengthens it. Because King David says in verse 18, consider my affliction or humble estate, it's the same

Greek word, and my trouble, and forgive all of my sins.

Now, by no means did I think that this was a home run, like William said.

I just wanted people to see that on Sola Scriptura, Mary is using identical terms that other sinful people who are redeemed saints, how they are worshiping and magnifying the

Lord, and recognizing their affliction, their lowliness, and their wretchedness before God.

There's no distinction between Mary and King David and Hannah. But as we see,

Arturo, as we begin to talk about Jesus Christ, Scripture is absolutely clear that He was without sin.

Amen, bro. And it's also good to emphasize, too, that your point, even though it's strong, it was a minor point to a bigger argument.

And hopefully, people are catching on to that as they go through this. Really quick, for those of you who are just tuning in right now, my buddy here, his name is

Jeremiah Nortier, but if you're from the south, it's Nortier. And we're responding to a

Catholic apologist who responded to one of his minor points that he made in a debate on Marlon Wilson's channel,

The Gospel Truth. The topic was, was Mary sinless?

And obviously, as Protestants, we say no, and Catholics say that she was sinless.

I think earlier in the discussion or in my video, I said I had that switched up, but you guys know what

I mean. And plus, if you guys know, if you guys follow me, you guys know I mess up a lot when I talk, so hopefully, I'm clear now.

But yeah, so we're now about 16 minutes into this video. The man that we are responding to, his name is

William Albrecht. Albrecht. He's, again, a

Catholic apologist. Links are in the description. We're not trying to hide anyone or hide anything. We're directly responding to his video and points.

We're about 16 minutes in, and as you can see, we'll be here for a while. We may do a part two.

We'll see what we do. If you can get through all this tonight, I'd like to hear what you guys say.

Hey, by the way, Jeremiah, can you go ahead and share, people, that mug that you have, that beautiful mug?

What's wrong with you, people? Like that,

Arturo? That's a shout -out to my boy, RC Sproul. He's now in heaven.

He now understands that he should have been a Reformed Baptist. Oh, man. Don't say that.

Let's just end it now. Obviously, hey, for those...

I have a lot of Baptist friends, and one of them gave me a hard time because I kept quoting the Westminster and all these

Reformed Baptist guys. But look, if you look at my channel, I think the majority of my guests have been

Reformed Baptists. So no bias here. I love you guys. You guys are wrong on some issues, but it's all right.

You know? But you know what? So today, we're responding to William here.

And one thing that he says that we haven't touched on yet, and I don't know if Jeremiah's going to touch on this, but one thing that he said was, look,

I read all the arguments. I shared them all. If you're human, you can't say that.

You can make mistakes. We have to, even as a Reformed guy myself, and talking to my brother here,

Jeremiah, I could become a Baptist. And my brother here could become Presbyterian.

We could switch completely. And we read as much as we read. It doesn't matter if you read all the arguments.

You've got to be humble. You've got to be humble. You've got to be in a low estate. And you have to approach the

Word of God with humility. And that's what we're trying to do now. And hopefully, I don't know if we're going to convince

William. Probably not. But maybe those who are following along could be encouraged by this discussion.

We encourage back and forth. In fact, Jeremiah said earlier that he's willing to even debate

William on Modernist Channel on the topic of Sola Scriptura, right? Is that what you said? So, there you have it.

We're definitely wanting to do this. And if it's about God's Word, why not? We want to use our time on this earth wisely.

Let's continue, bro. We're at 60 minutes in. So, I'm at the 60 -minute mark now.

And we're just skipping through this because we can't answer to every single minute, every second of this video.

But let's go ahead and play it. Let me put it on the screen. Let's go. His hero is

James White. He wouldn't be ripping the arguments from James White. Oh, the apostles. The Church Fathers denied it.

He didn't do any real homework. He piggybacked off of James White. Why doesn't

James White use that horrific argument? Think about it, Jeremiah. If your hero didn't use that argument, who knows

Greek better than you probably know and whoever helped you? Because I don't think James White would ever come up with that horrific argument.

You should have been careful and said, well, if my hero, if my true hero, if my catechism, the catechism of White, if the catechism of White doesn't have that argument, why am

I going to utilize it? Jeremiah, wake up, my friend. James White doesn't have anything good that hasn't been buried already.

He doesn't, my friend. So if you don't find it in the catechism of White, it'd be a good indication you're in trouble if you're going to utilize it.

Okay. This is the part where he touched on what I said earlier. Again, there's a lot to be said here.

I'll zip it up. I'll let you talk. Go ahead. I actually really love this part because I'm like,

William, I guess you know me well enough to know that James White is my hero. And to be honest,

I do thank the Lord for James White's ministry. Once again, William Albridge is doing a rally cry for the troops.

I get it. But you notice what William is saying is that, Jeremiah, why don't you use the catechism of James White?

He wouldn't use this bad argument, why would you? But if you do use it, we've shredded those to pieces.

In William's mind, I can only fail. I'm darned if I use arguments by James White, and I'm darned if I don't.

And I'm like, William, come on, man. So, you know, I thought that was interesting that he said it.

It's all good. I will say this too. I utilized a lot of James White's previous debates against Roman Catholics.

Why would I not? And if he's saying I'm piggybacking off him, yeah. I used a lot of,

I learned a lot of things from James White in his books and resources is also like Tony Costa. Right?

And one of my favorite points that James White used against Jerry Madetik is he proved that Luke 128, when you look at the

Greek word, there is no way, shape, or form that this word means sinlessness.

Apparently James White's my hero, Arturo. Yeah. I just want to say this one thing, and it won't be too long.

I'll try to keep it short. You know, James White being a Baptist, right?

I read his arguments against my position, and I'm not convinced of them. Will I ever say that I ripped up his arguments?

I'm not going to say that about James White, man. And the same thing with Catholic apologists like Trent Horn and others. I'm not going to sit back and be like,

I ripped up your arguments already. Go check out my blog. Go check out my YouTube channel. No, man. Again, it's going back to that humility.

Yeah, we all have heroes, theologians that we turn to. There's nothing wrong with that, people. Don't let something like that deter you away from learning from guys.

Hey, what's wrong with you? It's perfect. Anyways, I want to keep going with this.

This is now at the 18 -minute mark, 1840 -ish mark. I'll play it, man, and I'll just let you respond, okay?

Sinners before God Almighty confessing their sin and praising Him. Whoa! Mary is utilizing terminology that sinful people use.

Huh. If Christ or anyone utilizes particular terminology for themselves that were used by sinful people, it must then be indicative of them being under moral guilt.

Right? I have got to really tell you,

I am blown away by the level of argumentation utilized here.

All right, man, let's go for it. This was probably the most cringiest part.

This was the most cringiest part to listen to because it completely misrepresented my argument.

My argument was never since Mary used sinful terminology that other people use, therefore, she's a sinner.

William would have known that if he listened to everything that I said. My overall arching point is that on Sola Scriptura, we cannot distinguish

Mary from being saved differently than all the other saints who ever exist.

We are all sinners saved by grace through faith, Mary included.

So really, William would be attacking Sola Scriptura, my underlining authority on the matter.

But if you grant Sola Scriptura, there's no way to distinguish Mary from anybody else.

That has always been my big point. I've had guys like Matthew message me and say this verbatim, quoting him directly from his messages, how can you,

Jeremiah, believe that humble estate always means moral guilt? Never said that.

But I do think that's being used in Mary's Magnificat. I've demonstrated why

I think that. Absolutely, yes. The immediate context, and I think it's really strong when you connect it to the previous verse, that Mary is praising

God as Savior. When you look at this context in the Old Testament and the

New Testament, it's always sinners saved by grace from the Savior looking to Him.

Arturo, I keep mentioning that point over and over again because I want people to hear that he's not dealing with my argument.

He's saying something that I, too, disagree with. You see how we pass each other and we're not even getting to the real meat of the issue.

Here's how we know Matthew, not Matthew, I think it was Matthew and William here, did not understand my argument.

What he's going to get into is if Christ uses terminology that sinners use, then that means that Jesus is a sinner, too.

Well, of course not. We have explicit Scripture, not tradition, but we have explicit teaching in Scripture that Christ knew no sin.

2 Corinthians 5 .21, Jesus in every respect has been tempted as we are yet without sin.

Hebrews 4 .15. It'd be nice to have some clear teaching that Mary was without sin, if that were true, but on Sola Scriptura, it's just nowhere found in the words of God's Word.

Jesus can use terminology that sinners use, not because he's sinful, but because he is truly man and came to fulfill all righteousness as our human substitute.

How do we know that? Because God's Word clearly teaches us this. And so, those are just some things

I want to throw out there, Arturo. This was, like I said, a little cringy to listen to because of the big misrepresentation of what

I was really getting. Yeah, man. Yeah, definitely. You said it. Again, it's kind of echoing what

William said. You ought to do your homework if you're going to critique someone and present some arguments.

When I got to that part of the audio or of this video, I was like, come on, man.

You went off eight minutes or so just saying how bad of an apologist

Jeremiah was, and then here you are. You're creating a strong man. If someone's position was so bad, you don't have to create a strong man.

You don't have to. You could actually treat them nicely and be kind and even still man their argument and still refute it if your position is that strong.

I'm glad you said all that. I'm going to fast forward a little bit to the 24 -minute mark, 24 .08,

and then you can respond to that part, okay? Sure. This is

Dr. Brownring. Luke has reapplied all these sentiments to Mary, and the focus of her praise is the fulfillment of the

Davidic covenant through the conception of the Messiah. As he composed verse 48 in Luke, Luke reused vocabulary he had already employed of Mary in 38, which we cover in our book, and 45, vocabulary that fitted well into the picture of women, canticle singers, patterned upon Hannah and Judith.

We cover that as well. By the way, talking about Judith, very important, we will be doing a show on Mariology with my dear friend

Dr. Scott Hahn, Gary, and myself over at the Apocryphal Apocalypse. If you haven't subbed yet, go over there and do it now.

I need a few good moderators, so sub over there, email me, tell me, I want to be a moderator over there.

The channel's blowing up. As it blows up, I do need a few moderators. That's going to be a great show. Anyway, the picture of patriarchal mothers responding to salvific conceptions.

The stereotyped character of the description of Mary in verse 48 explains the use of low estate, a term more obviously appropriate to the

Old Testament barren woman than to the New Testament young woman. Sure. Dr.

Brown, what are you doing? Why do you go examining all the usages? Why don't you tell the audience it's about somebody with moral guilt?

Come on, Dr. Brown. The liberal Dr. Brown. But we should not follow the examples of scholars who destroy the

Old Testament echoes by translating the term as humility. Or those who use it as a decisive argument for attributing the canonical to Elizabeth rather than Mary, of course.

None of the fathers would have taught that. Good job there, Dr. Brown. Tip of the hat. When you agree with the fathers in the ancient teaching, we'll give you a tip of the hat.

For Luke, Mary's virginity was like the barrenness of the Old Testament woman. Both constituted a human impossibility which only the might of God could overcome.

In using low estate and handmaid, i .e. female slave, of Mary, Luke is associating her with all the memories of the poor ones.

Evoked by those terms. Evoked by those terms. Evoked by those terms. Jeremiah, what are you talking about?

Poor ones whom God had helped by his might, whether they were women who yearned for children or Israel reduced by oppression to the status of a handmaid.

1 Maccabees 2 .11 1 Samuel 9 .3 is an example. Okay. Alright, so go ahead.

Yeah, and I'm glad you played that length of the clip because I want people to know that I'm not trying to misrepresent

William. I want him to get his full big argument out there and try to engage with it best we can.

I'm glad you're encouraging people to go listen back to the original video and you'll hear more zingers that he was hurling my way which is all good.

But I want William to know I'm open to learning more of the breadth of humble estate and all of its uses and the scholarship involved.

He's quoting this one scholar, Brown, not really familiar with his work. He mentioned him as liberal.

So I imagine that means William disagrees with this scholar. So let everybody understand you can about find a scholar for any given position and that's okay.

We just got to deal with the arguments rather than quoting people. Well, so -and -so said this, so he must be right.

Well, that's totally an understatement or an overstatement. We absolutely do need to have a scholarship of mine, but we got to understand the argumentation.

So I want to deal with some of the points that William was bringing up here. He brought up 2

Samuel chapter 2 where Hannah is praying her prayer.

I agree with William and the scholarship of Brown that yes,

I do think in Mary's mind she has someone like Hannah, right? And I think this is an excellent prayer to go to to help us understand the state of Mary.

So Mary's prayer begins with my heart exalts in the Lord, my horn is exalted in the

Lord. This immediately sounds like Mary's magnificat, right? And there's no doubt that we're going to see similarities of how

God is actually working in Hannah's life because she has a barren womb, right?

And now she's going to be able to have a child with her husband, right? We see in a very similar way God is working in Mary's life, right?

Conceiving within her womb the Son of God. So there's definitely similarities here.

I'm not arguing that and I'm saying that definitely strong similarities between Mary and Hannah.

But listen to how Mary continues to go on in her prayer because I'm over here saying, look at the context,

William. The context is always key and it's going to tell us how to understand humble estate.

Hannah goes on to say, my mouth derides my enemies because I rejoice in your salvation.

There is none holy like Yahweh, for there is none beside you. There is no rock like our

God. Now, William, are you suggesting that Hannah rejoiced in salvation only from her barren womb?

Because she definitely had that in mind. She's being saved out of this lowly predicament and wanting to have children and she's barren.

Are you saying that's the only thing that she means when she praises God for salvation?

We know that in the context she is also praising God from salvation for her sin.

How do we know that? She goes on to talk about the only God, Yahweh, who alone is holy.

Well, in what context does it make sense that God is holy? We understand that compared to man, we are not holy.

There is none good. There is none righteous for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Hannah gives too much context to inform us that salvation here includes how

Yahweh will judge the ends of the earth and he brings low and exalts.

Was she being saved from her lowly circumstances of barren womb? Yes. But she also appeals to a much more foundation of being a sinner before God almighty and she praises him for his salvation that he provides.

So, in that long thing that William was going on about on a more proper understanding that Mary's lowly estate is not attached to moral guilt, he brings up 1

Samuel 9, verse 16. And I've thought about this because, once again,

I know to William's surprise, I did my homework and I looked at all these uses. There's a reason why

I didn't bring up these verses because I don't think it's comparing apples to apples with Mary's prayer.

Let me read to you very quickly this verse in 1 Samuel 9, 16. It says, Tomorrow, about this time,

I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over all my people,

Israel. That's the context. I'm talking about Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the

Philistines, for I have seen my people, because their cry has come to me.

Now, this is one of those unique forms because we don't really get an English translation talking about affliction, humility, low estate, but in the

Greek Septuagint, you do see that word in there, but all it comes out as is, for I have seen my people.

Now, once again, there's a reason why I didn't appeal to this verse, and William can't get mad at me for disagreeing with this scholar

Brown, because William already appeals to him as being liberal, and he said, A tip of the hat to you, sir, when you agree with the father.

So that's telling us that William's very quick to disagree with this guy. So don't be mad at me if I simply disagree too, because I don't think that's a proper verse that matches

Mary's prayer utilizing this term. Now, even though he's talking about Israel, I almost used another verse, rather than going back to King David in Psalm 25,

I almost went with the verse talking about Israel that utilized this word like affliction, or warfare, or humble estate, and I wanted to share that with you really quick, and I want to remind people this is a minor, minor point, and I can't believe it's gotten this much feedback, but hey, confidence,

I trust it. I almost went to Isaiah chapter 40, in the opening verses, that says this,

Comfort, comfort my people, says your God, speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare, the

Greek word we're looking at, warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned.

Or, it could be rendered like this, comfort her for her humiliation is accomplished, her sin is put away, that she has received from the

Lord's hand, double for all of her sins. So, my point,

Arturo, is that Israel was a spiritually debased people, constantly sinning, constantly needing the hand of God to save them.

And I almost made that point, but time is limited, so I really went for, I was going to say the jugular,

I went to a very explicit verse to show how this word humble estate usually, key word, usually is in the context of sinful people crying out to God.

So, yeah, I agree, there are times where that's not, moral guilt is not the explicit thing to be gleaned from the context.

But if you build a Hannah in her prayer, oh my goodness, she's praising God for salvation, ultimate salvation from her sinfulness, her lowliness in that context, and yeah, earlier in 1

Samuel chapter 1, you do see that word. And primarily, she's just crying out to God.

She's in a very tough, predicament circumstance. So, anyway, we'll continue to roll on, but I just wanted to get that out there.

That's good, that's good. Yeah, so I'm going to skip ahead a little bit. Let me see, let's go to 29, 32nd

Mark here. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and put this on the screen.

You can see that, right? Yes. Alright, so, I'll hit play.

You would have, the way Greek analysis goes, is you would look at, how does the author use that term elsewhere?

And that very same term is also utilized in Acts 8, 33.

In humiliation, his judgment was taken away. Who shall relate his generation?

For his life is removed from the earth. Let's look at Acts 8.

I hope everyone is having a wonderful evening. I know I am. I am.

Let us look at Acts 8. And before we look at Acts 8, let's rewind and let's hear

Jeremiah again. I'm having fun hearing him. It's the same

Greek word. And my trouble, and forgive me of all of magnificat, that God looked on her humble estate.

Now, this Greek word is very interesting because it means to be spiritually abased before God because of moral guilt.

You heard that. Acts 8. The place in the

Scripture which he read was this. He was led as a sheep to the slot. Actually, let's read the whole context.

So Philip ran to him and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah and said, do you understand what you're reading? And he said, how can

I unless someone guides me? And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. The place in the Scripture which he read was he was led as a sheep to the slaughter and as a lamb before Shearer is silent so he opened not his mouth.

In his humiliation his justice was taken away and who will declare his generation?

For his life was taken from the earth. So, are we to then conclude that the lamb let's hear it again.

Let's hear the definition again. One moment. Magnificat.

That God looked on her humble estate. Now, this Greek word is very interesting because it means to be spiritually abased before God because of moral guilt.

In his spiritual abasement before God because of moral guilt, his justice was taken away.

Are you kidding me? Really? Are we to read are we to look at prophecies this prophecy are we to look at that prophecy and then read it the way

Jeremiah intends us to read it? That would be blasphemous.

Jeremiah, I had no idea that you were arguing that, bro. Come on. You know,

I have so many things to say here, but to keep it brief, I was actually prepared to argue this point in the debate itself because again, it's real easy to get on software and see where all the words are used and William's right.

You got to do your homework, right? Now, this is actually a small point where I agree with William.

It's important to see how the author of Luke, Luke himself, uses that same word elsewhere.

That's kind of a part of the media context. You look at Mary's Magnificat, and then you look and see how

Luke uses that word elsewhere, and I think that was great. He went to Acts chapter 8.

That's honestly one of my favorite chapters with Ethiopian Enoch and Philip for so many other reasons. So, I was actually pleased to see that this word was used again.

Now, according to William, I committed blasphemy, but once again, remember my argument was never that humble state always means moral guilt.

So, he's already doesn't understand my argument, and I think

William said something that he's actually going to have to go back to the drawing board because this was probably my favorite point in the whole response video.

I thought, man, I would have liked to talk about this in the debate that I had with Matthew, but it was pretty apparent

Matthew was not prepared to go into any depth with the Greek, and it happens. We all have our different strong suits, but I was definitely prepared to talk about this.

So, I'm glad that William brought this up because there's a lot going on here.

So, once again, my argument was never that humble state always means moral guilt. That's really important because it has a bigger syntactic domain, and so the context is always going to inform how we understand it.

So, in Acts 8, 33, we need to know something that not only is this being applied to Jesus with, you know, remember the whole dialogue with the

Ethiopian eunuch, and Philip met him where he was at, and the eunuch was reading a scroll. Guess where he was reading from,

Arturo? He was reading from Isaiah 53. Now, this is going to inform us in what way

Acts 8, 33 is meeting the word humble estate. What type of spiritual abasement was connected with Jesus Christ?

Now, what William is saying, no, no, no. There can't possibly be any connection of moral guilt to Jesus Christ.

That would be blasphemous. Wait a second. Let's go to Isaiah 53.

Let's examine this whole context thing out and see where we get. So, if we do go to Isaiah 53, starting in verse 8, it's going to help us understand what

Philip was explaining to the eunuch. So, by oppression, this is the

Greek word for humble estate. This is the lowliness. This is a type of spiritual abasement, but in what context?

By oppression. In judgment, he, the suffering servant, was taken away. And as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living.

That's the quote in Acts 8, 33, but let's continue on for this context. Stricken for the transgression of my people.

Uh -oh. We're starting to see spiritual abasement here. We're starting to see humble estate connected with sin, but the question is, in what way?

A minor point, we have enough information to determine for Mary how her humble estate was connected with praising

God as Savior. I digress there. Isaiah 53. So, what

I want to emphasize is William, at this point, and his misrepresentation of me, he is basically coming at me saying, you mean

Jesus could have been the sinless lamb bearing moral guilt of others?

No, Jeremiah! That would be blasphemous. And so,

I'll repeat that. The point is, Jesus can be in a context of spiritual abasement, moral guilt, and not be his own personal moral guilt.

But it can be in that context, and that's exactly what we see as we continue on here in Isaiah 53.

The text goes on to say, And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, there was no deceit found in his mouth.

Now, obviously, the testimony of all of Scripture is telling us that Jesus had no violence and had no deceit in his mouth, which means he did no wrong, and he did not deserve punishment.

In fact, he is the righteous one, the only one who is without sin. So, Jesus possessed no moral guilt of his own.

But Isaiah 53 continues, Yet it was the will of Yahweh to crush him. He has put to him, to grief, when his soul makes an offering for guilt.

Now, that qualifies what type of connection the sinless

Son of God was connected to moral guilt. He was bearing the guilt of humanity.

Now, in an Arminian synergistic sense, but he was bearing the full punishment for sin.

He is the guilt bearer. So, what kind of oppression, affliction, lowliness did

Jesus experience on the cross? He was bearing the guilt of humanity.

So, that's crucial. That's what Philippians 2 goes into, how Jesus is the prime example of humiliation.

God the Son sat down from his throne of glory, took on the form of man, and was perfectly obedient even to the death on a cross.

Yes, Jesus was connected to spiritual abasement and moral guilt. It was not his own personal moral guilt.

So, it's a huge leap. It doesn't logically follow. It's a huge leap to say, oh Mary's doing something very similar.

Ah, it'd be nice to read that actually in the text, but the Bible does a very good job of showing us that she's praising

God from her humble estate, just like everybody else that we read when it's in a simple context.

So, it's just interesting to hear William say that this is blasphemous to try to connect

Jesus to moral guilt in any fashion. And so, it just goes back to kind of the fundamental misrepresentation of Arturo.

I never said humble estate is a proof always denoting personal moral guilt.

It's obvious with Mary. Obviously, there's a context when it's applied to the suffering servant,

Jesus Christ himself. Yeah, that's good, man. That's really good. So, let me see.

I'm going to skip a little bit ahead on this video to the 34 minute mark.

The 34, 35. Let me see. I'm right there. Okay, so I'm going to hit play now, okay?

Okay. And the people are wondering why I'm not saying anything else because I realize that you guys have been watching this for a while now and we can easily make this into a four hour video, but for your sake,

I'm being quiet. So, let's play this. James 110.

Hold on. One moment. Take your time.

Made some of that fire, William. Context always informs this type of answer.

Mary goes on to say in her Magnificat, that God looked on her humble estate.

Now, this Greek word is very interesting because it means to be spiritually abased before God because of moral guilt.

Hey, let me just pause it really quick. I just want to say, man, right now, after we're already, you know, about two hours into this and I feel that much more confident about your argument after just, you know, going through this.

You know what I mean? And so, probably not what William wants to hear. Well, to be fair,

William has a way of speaking that's just very convincing on its own. So, I want to give the man props.

He has a way of carrying himself that I can tell people to just perk up and listen. Hopefully, one day,

I can develop a tone and voice like that. Yeah, for sure, man.

So, okay. I'll continue on. And let the rich man glory in his spiritual abasement before God because of his moral guilt.

Let him glory in his spiritual abasement before God because of his moral guilt.

Okay. All right. So, want to respond to that? Yeah, because he mentioned

James 1 .10. It's not like I'm like, oh, no, he's looking at all the verses that expose how it virtually never means spiritual abasement.

And I thought it was strange he made this point. How can a rich man glory in his moral guilt?

It's obvious, William. This is a rich man that's recognizing his sinfulness before God Almighty and seeing his need of a

Savior. All you need to do is, surprise, surprise, look at the context of James chapter 1.

We're talking about God's people going through trials, engaging temptation.

And all this is for their good, for their sanctification. That's why we can count it joy as we go through any trials.

Now, I want to help William out here. In what way can a rich person glory?

Praise God for understanding their sinfulness, their moral guilt. Well, this is something that I try to teach my students and want us to understand.

When you look at the story of the rich young ruler, he encountered Christ. And Jesus took him to the law, exposing his sinfulness.

And yet, the rich young ruler concluded, Oh, I've done all of those since my youth. Right? And so when Jesus put his finger on the problem and said,

Go sell all of your possessions and come and follow me, what happened to the rich young ruler? He left sad.

He counted the cost and he was not willing to forsake all and follow after Christ. And so in that dialogue,

Jesus turns to the disciples and they're saying, Who then can be saved if even a rich person? Remember, Jesus says it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man, a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus is talking about that it's difficult. In fact, on man's own effort, it's impossible for a rich person to see his sinfulness before God Almighty turned to him.

So in what way can a rich man glory in his spiritual abasement? One that has experienced the grace of God and recognize it doesn't matter all the stuff you accumulate.

It doesn't matter how big you fill your vats, your barns, all these things. What matters is having your soul cleansed and your sin forgiven before God Almighty.

Right? So is it easy, Arturo? Or am I just overlooking something? How it's easy to see the context of James 1 10 about how a rich person can totally exalt

God in context of understanding his sinfulness. Yeah. I definitely follow.

So I'm going to go ahead and just move along here. Oops. I removed you.

There you are. Okay. So I'm at the 37 mark now. We're almost done.

We're almost done. So for those of you that are still tuning in, hopefully you guys are enjoying this.

Maybe I don't think we'll do questions, but maybe we will probably in a part 2 video. We'll see. So I'm going to go ahead and play this really quick.

So I came up with a new song. There you go. But we're here, Psalm 25,

Psalm 24 in the Greek Septuagint where Jeremiah came up to the plate and said,

I got a home run and pointed. I'm going to hit a home run with this argument.

And I got to give it to Jeremiah. He hit a home run. The problem is it's very easy to hit a home run in T -ball when you're playing

T -ball. Very easy to hit a home run. Oh man. Okay. So I want to pause it there for you.

You can go ahead and respond to that. That might have been my favorite singer. I told people about this.

I was like, this dude was roasting me hardcore. He's like, Jeremiah, you stood up to the plate and you hit a home run in T -ball.

Come on, son. And I was like, oh, how does he come up with these? I actually was thinking, man, how many more does he have in the tank?

And it's all good. I want us to have a good conversation back to back.

It cracks me up on a very minor, minor point that it caused this much feedback.

Arturo, I'm being honest. I wasn't thinking, oh, I got something brand new that someone's never heard of.

I'm over here like, this is a repeat of what the reformers were crying out 500 years ago.

I'm proving that soul scripture is consistent within itself. And like you said, scripture confirms itself and interprets itself.

We want to employ this grammatical historical method of interpretation consistently. And that's the key.

We do it consistently and we see God's truth shining forth. Yeah. Amen, bro.

Amen. And just for the record too, man, the whole idea of scripture interpreting scripture, the analogy of faith, we see that from scripture.

We see Jesus going to scripture. We see the apostles. So it's not a

Protestant thing that just came up 500 years ago. It's something that we see in the Bible. We take these principles and apply them.

And that's where we get it from. So let me go ahead and move on.

And here's the thing, bro, about his little, again, like I said earlier in the beginning, he didn't insult you directly, but he might as well have.

You know what I mean? It's like, okay. And then, you know, mid -conversation, he'll pause and be like,

Lord, help me be charitable. I'm like, bro, no, it's too late for that. You already went on. You already listed at least 10 different insults here.

Again, they're funny. And I'm thankful that, Jeremiah, that you don't take it too hard.

My wife took it harder than anybody. I'm like, it's all good. Yeah, I know.

And the funny thing about it, man, like I have a couple buddies who are like this. You know, it's just, you know, everything is a joke and everything comes out as funny.

But when it's someone you don't know very much, it's like, is it disrespect or are you just, is that just how you are, you know?

So your wife probably felt like he was disrespecting you. And knowing that you put study, you know, you put a lot of homework and study and time into this.

So, yeah, your wife is good for feeling that way, bro. I think apart from your wife, then it was me second.

Like, what? You said what? My buddy called me asking me if I was okay.

I'm like, yeah. Jeremiah, are you okay, bro?

Oh, man. That's funny, man. Okay, so let me go ahead and go back to the video.

I'm going to scoot forward at 39. 39 minute mark. We're going to look at the context.

Does Psalm 25 and the usage of that Greek word we've been talking about, tapenosen, does it indicate that Mary is a sinner?

Because we have forgive all my sins. Does it indicate that? Psalm 25.

We're going to look at it. And we'll look at the Greek right now. Turn yourself to me and have mercy on me for I am desolate and afflicted.

I am alone. I am alone and I am afflicted. I'm lonely.

The troubles of my heart have been large. Bring me out of my distresses.

Look on my affliction and my pain and forgive all my sins and forgive all my sins.

And forgive all my sins. Where on earth is it implied that the loneliness that loneliness that that affliction is the sin that the person has?

Okay. I'll stop it there. Go for it, man. So, thank you,

William. You asked where on earth is it implied that loneliness affliction is tied to sin?

Very perceptive question. I'm glad you asked. So, I want to first begin. Artur, we're going to spend just a few minutes trying to unpack this because this is a

Psalm that I appeal to. We're trying to get a little bit of context, but let's help him out with that.

Let's broaden the scope here to really get everything what King David is saying here.

No doubt, William, I agree that King David is suffering affliction due to his enemies in the current situation.

I grant that. But you really do need to look at the whole Psalm because William is asking where on earth is the affliction or humble estate spiritual abasement tied to moral guilt?

Even though verse 18, I believe, does a great job of showing this. I want to remind

William the broad argument of my debate. I was saying on Sola Scriptura, Mary's prayer is about God her

Savior and her humble estate that cannot be distinguished from all the other saints who were saved by grace through faith.

That's a big argument here. So, the context of Psalm 25 is one of many places that demonstrates sinners praising

God in their lowliness. Just because that's one facet of their lowliness doesn't mean that there's other factors.

This is the underlining factor that even King David, not only Hannah that we talked about earlier, but King David is very much aware of.

He talks about this lowliness that he's being afflicted by his enemies, but he appeals to the broader foundation of how he got there to begin with.

So, William, let's start back at verse 1. So, he says, To you,

O Lord, I lift up my soul. O my God and you I trust. Let me not be put to shame.

Let not my enemies exult over me. I'll point out a few things here because King David is praying in a very similar manner to Mary's Magnificat.

They begin their prayer the same way. We're going to see similar principles. They're praising

God in a lowly manner. The question is, what is the lowly manner? Mary says,

My soul magnifies the Lord. My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.

David says it this way, To you, O Lord, I lift up my soul. O my God and you I trust. And just a verse or two later he says,

You are God of my salvation. It should not surprise us that many prayers of the saints sound very familiar with how they praise

God from saving them. Saving them from what? I don't know. Maybe sin?

And I know Roman Catholics say that she was preemptively saved from sin, but that's found nowhere.

In fact, David is explicit and I think Mary is very specific well in her prayer.

But when you look in Mary's prayer, you just find nothing.

Not a jot or tittle or hint that she's being saved differently than all saints of all time.

And it doesn't matter how many spurious parallels that you try to find in the

Old Testament like the Ark of the Covenant, Eve, or the Cosmos to say, Oh, but Mary is a greater type of all those things.

You can make the Scripture say anything on that standard. And we have already looked at Genesis 3 .15.

You can't abuse the word enmity to stretch that to mean that you're at polar radical ends ontologically or different nature.

And you definitely can't get that word to mean that she is somehow preemptively saved from grace.

And then we looked at Luke 1 .28 earlier. Oh, favored one does not get you sinlessness no matter how hard you try.

But I digress. King David says back in verse two, let not my enemies exult over me.

Now, someone may stop me here and say, See, the salvation David is talking about is salvation from his enemies, not sin.

And I want to say that, well, that's true to an extent. Even David goes on in his prayer to get to this deeper issue of sin that has brought him to this affliction.

So, William, let's continue on in the context here in verse six of Psalm 25.

Remember your mercy, O Lord, and your steadfast love for they have been from of old. Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions.

Verse eight says, Good and upright is the Lord, therefore he instructs sinners of the way.

Verse nine, he says, He leads the humble in what is right and teaches the humble his way.

Now, I just want to point out here, not only have we seen talking about sinners and transgression, and it's starting to lay this context, but King David talks about a humbleness, a generic broad humility where God gives grace to the humble.

And so this is very reminiscent of what Jesus taught in the Beatitudes. Someone who is poor in spirit.

William, what's the next Beatitude? Blessed are those who mourn. What are they mourning about?

Well, obviously the Bible teaches that saints, God's people mourn over their sin and they desire to be like Christ.

That's what Jesus famously taught in the Beatitudes. So King David goes back and says in verse 11,

For your namesake, O Lord, pardon my guilt, for it is great. And I think you'll appreciate this,

William. I'm not the first reformer to start seeing these points about how sinners pray to God in this fashion.

In fact, R .C. Sproul, shout out to my mug once again here, he said, and he was the main editor of the

Reformation Study Bible, this was his observation of Psalm 25. He said the central line in the poem, which focuses the attention on this central concept, the forgiveness of sin.

That's the main point, according to R .C. Sproul, about what King David is focusing on.

He's not only praising God, but the main point is because he's a sinner. Oh man, they're starting to lay this foundation of what type of affliction he is currently suffering in.

Yes, the enemies are warring against him, but his sin has ultimately brought him to this place.

And so I also looked at, I'm sorry, William, I'm going to look at the context of how these words are used and I'm going to let

Scripture interpret itself because it's God's Word. I looked at this word when it says pardon.

This is very interesting because I was connected back to how the New Testament utilizes this word and it's the same word as merciful as the tax collector used it in Luke chapter 18, which kind of denotes reconciliation.

And guess what the tax collector said? He said, God, be merciful, or pardon, or make reconciliation.

God, be merciful to me, a sinner. We're starting to see a common theme throughout the whole

Bible. We see how affliction, lowliness, humble estate is used by the saints.

It's typically used to demote moral guilt. The context always does a good job of showing this.

And then once again, verse 18, King David says, consider my affliction to sound like the video that he's repeating over and over and over again.

This is the same Greek word where we read humble estate or moral guilt.

He uses the same word there. I tried to reenact that, Arturo, from the video he played over and over again.

Consider my affliction and my trouble and forgive all of my sins.

Now King David explained exactly what kind of affliction, sorrow, lowliness, and trouble he is in.

It's the result of his sinfulness and the sin of his enemies.

William, you're not going to escape the context that's talking about moral guilt.

You might appreciate this. I looked up your boy, John Calvin. For the people watching this,

I'm being facetious a little bit. John Calvin is one of the forerunners of the Reformation. This is what he said about David in Psalm 25.

I quote, "...but in order to obtain any alleviation of these miseries,

David again prays that his sins may be pardoned, recalling to his recollection what he has already stated, that he could not expect to enjoy the divine favor unless he was first reconciled to God by receiving a free pardon."

John Calvin goes on to say, "...yet we ought to hold fast to this principle, that as often as God afflicts us, we are called to examine our hearts and humbly to seek reconciliation with Him."

Kind of wrapping this in a nice package, Arturo, with a nice bow on top.

This is exactly what Mary is getting at in Luke chapter 1, when

Mary says that God has looked on her humble estate of his servant.

There's no doubt in my mind that Mary recognized her utter spiritual bankruptcy before God Almighty as Jesus taught to be poor in spirit.

As she sounds like the tax collector in all the saints of all time, God be merciful to me, the sinner.

So, I know that was a mouthful, Arturo. Oh, no, it was good, bro. I enjoyed every minute of it, every second of it.

I enjoyed it. That's good, man. You know, I probably want to ask you about your takeaways from this whole thing.

But before that, I think for the most part, this video, I'm remembering now that the last 15 minutes or so of William's video was kind of repetitive and nothing really new that he was saying.

Kind of just rambling a little bit. He went live, he wasn't prepared for it, although he studied the night before like crazy, apparently.

So, there's not really any point of going on with this video. Again, it's in the description. You guys can check it out yourself.

Obviously, I think a good part of this video tonight was William talking.

We gave him at least quite a few minutes. And not only that, but we highlighted his arguments almost in full.

But yeah, man, is there any takeaways overall, man, that you have from this? Yeah, and I want people to know,

I always want to give credit where credit is due. And William is a sharp dude. He made some good points.

And I want to reflect on that. And I even commented on his video live. And I told him, I'm going to listen to what you said.

Think about it. And I want to learn. I think it's Proverbs chapter 9 that says, you give instruction to a wise man, and he becomes wiser still.

And so, I appreciate William's feedback. I really do. And I think it's going to sharpen me in the process.

Hopefully this will sharpen him. And I get his heart and his passion. And I get even the rally cries, right?

Rallying the troops. It's going to happen. I do that. But I do want to be charitable in that.

So, I really want to be careful not to misrepresent somebody. But it's going to happen. So, all that being said,

I do have a few takeaways. William made some good points when he emphasized that humble estate doesn't always entail moral guilt.

You're right, William. You are. And I recognize that. And looking back at the debate, I wish

I could have made that a little more clear. I think that might have helped dialogue a little bit. But obviously,

God had a purpose for it. And so, I think that's a good point, though, he made. It doesn't always mean that.

And I thought of two good examples to let people kind of hear of, okay, well, where does it not mean that explicitly?

One good example is referring to Hannah in 1 Samuel chapter 1, specifically verse 11.

It was mainly highlighting her distress in wanting a son. I thought of that.

Like, to me, my argument was never humble estate equals moral guilt.

I get that. And then probably the best one to really highlight, like I said,

I was prepared to defend this point in the debate. But Jesus, when humble estate is applied to him, that explicitly is not referring to him having personal moral guilt.

Now, is there a context in which his lowliness is connected to sin? Absolutely. As the sin bearer, the guilt bearer as described in Isaiah 53.

So, I actually, the reason why I didn't come out blazing in the debate with that is because I was aware of it, and I thought people would think, ooh, that's a good critique, right?

If Matthew was there, it was going to be easy just to turn the tables and say, no, no, it's all over the context, but you've got to let the context determine the meaning of what kind of moral guilt and how the suffering servant is connected with that.

But at the end of it all, I thank William for at least pointing out how we don't need to get twisted that moral guilt is always, or humble estate always means moral guilt.

Context determines how that is utilized. Jesus did not have any personal sin. Another good point that William made was we need to be familiar with the updated scholarship like Feinberg, Gingrich, Danker, and they emphasize, and rightly so, the word being used is lowly and humble when it talks about humble estate.

And so I think that's good, but I've got a few notes here that I listened to that I was trying to just recall back to memory.

I ran out of coffee, Arturo, so I think my mind is escaping me. But even in light of William's feedback, it just is apparent to me he didn't understand my major point, my major argument.

I gave a syllogism. So at least attack the premise of me. But that's okay.

I never tried to argue that humble estate always means moral guilt. We've wore that out. And William, believe me when

I say that I was not reinventing the Greek. I wasn't coming with that out of thin air.

I was going to theirs. Take it up with them. It doesn't contradict the updated scholarship.

That's where I got the term spiritual abasement and moral guilt. Didn't come up with it myself.

It's a little laughable that that was one of his major criticisms towards me. After I got through some of the zingers,

I'm like, oh, come on, man. You gotta have more in the tank than that.

But we agree. Now, this is key, Arturo. Even if I did not have the pointed words from Thayer's Greek Lexicon like spiritual abasement and moral guilt, check this out, my argument would be the same.

We can all agree that Mary was lowly. Here's the question. In what way was she lowly?

Was she uniquely lowly like Jesus Christ, whose scripture explicitly tells us was without sin?

Or was Mary lowly like Hannah, King David, and Israel who recognized their lowliness, their spiritual abasement, their sinfulness before God and praised him for his grace, mercy, and salvation?

Now, it's very easy to see what the right answer is. And if she falls into that second category, then there's no way to distinguish her being saved differently than anybody else.

And she was not lowly, ultimately, differently than anybody else. The scripture is very clear when you look at the whole counsel of God and let scripture interpret itself like you rightly said earlier.

Mary was praising God for salvation for her personal sin just like the rest of the saints.

But when you have, now this is a review towards Rome, but it comes from a heart of love.

And I appreciate all the humor and everything that was brought out from William, but when you have a governing body claiming to possess the ability to have infallible interpretation and does not implore the grammatical historical method of interpretation consistently, it's easy to read whatever you want into the text.

That's why the underlining issue is is the scripture, the sole infallible rule of faith in the life of the saints, or is it not?

Or is it whatever else? Whatever else is going to allow you to import certain teaching and doctrine into the text.

When you start saying, well, we possess the infallible interpretation, that has the marks of cult language.

We need to be able to, and I don't say that to be mean, and I love William, I would love to continue to talk about these things, would love to debate the deeper underlining issue.

The reason why you have to grant sola scriptura when you're interacting with Protestants is because we have different world views.

We have different paradigms. So for the sake of argument, you must illustrate an internal critique by granting our most basic presuppositions.

That's why Arturo, I did the debate like I did. I wanted to first show internal contradictions on Rome's own terms and then vindicate my own position because I guarantee you if William and I ever get to debate and hash out the underlining issues is we're going to have to go to the main passages and see if the

Bible, which we're already having sola scriptura principles here. We have to go to the

Bible first to see if it teaches that there's going to be this ongoing governing body to give us the right interpretation.

It's not there, Arturo. Exactly. Exactly, man. Yeah, it's good stuff, bro. Yeah, it's good stuff, and hopefully you all enjoyed that.

We went about a little over two and a half hours, and I think it was good. I think it was great.

So, just final thoughts for me and just about all this. Some of you might be wondering, man, it was

Jeremiah who had most to say. Why is he going to be incentivized? Honestly, man, it's because it all started off when

I heard that debate on Marlon's channel, and I love the fact that this guy,

Jeremiah, it's his character. As you guys have seen in this video, he's been gracious and charitable, and I try to be that way in general, and at times

I fail quite often, and I'm sure he'll say the same thing about himself, but it's guys like this that I really want to push out there.

I interviewed Eli Ayala, and he's another guy I want to get behind, and if I could support him in any kind of way.

This ministry, Saint Cedified, and I know I'm sure some of you are now taking it off because you guys know it's the end, but if you guys are sticking around,

Saint Cedified, it's a ministry that's meant to do that. It's meant to give you guys resources. Eventually, whenever Jeremiah has his own channel, and he starts pushing content,

I'm going to be supporting him in that as well. I do the same thing for Eli and others, and this is what we're about here.

We want to provide the local resources and content for you guys to enjoy and to be edified.

If you guys haven't already, follow the Instagram page, the YouTube page, the Facebook page. I think

I'm on every platform. Follow and support if you guys can. If you guys are into Christian hip -hop, check out

Redeem Project Radio. On there, occasionally we have debates. Our most recent debate was on critical race theory and race and social issue stuff.

We had six pastors, and it was kind of a discussion debate type of thing. It's on the

YouTube channel, on the Redeem Project Radio channel. You can check it out there. Hopefully you guys enjoyed this.

I have so much to say about the video, but I know if I say something,

Jeremiah's going to say something, we're going to go back and forth for another hour. I'm not going to do that to you guys. Hopefully you guys enjoyed it.

Jeremiah, bro, thank you so much, man, for taking time out of your week.

I know you had to study for this. You had to prepare. Those couple times where you and I called each other and went back and forth.

I do appreciate the effort you put into this, man. Even if Jeremiah, I'm sorry, doesn't want to debate and he just brushes us off like he did the first time,

I'm sure there's people out here listening and Catholics and Protestants that hopefully learn something from this, which

I'm pretty confident they will. Thank you, man. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me on.

I'd just like to encourage people, if you want to find more content about me, you can

YouTube my name. I have a YouTube channel, but I'm looking to launch a new apologetics ministry in the near future, so be on the lookout.

Obviously, somewhere up here, you can find me at 12fivechurch .com and support the ministry.

Once again, Arturo, thanks for having me on. I'll be sure to link everything in the description, so if you guys want to check it out, everything we talked about in this video will be in the description.