Road Trip Dividing Line: Insane World Stuff, BishopJaxi's Self-Refuting Question

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White coming to you live from the road, I guess.

Road trip Dividing Line here on the program today. I'm in Pryor, Oklahoma.

Well, close to Pryor, Oklahoma. I'll be speaking in two and a half hours here in Pryor.

Not that anyone's going to go rushing over here just for that. I had gotten a hold of Derek Melton, pastor of Grace Life Church here in Pryor, spoken here many times.

Normally try to stop when coming through is, you know, sometimes I can't do it, but we're doing it this time. And I saw that I'd have the opportunity to be in this area around Christmastime.

And this is my last trip to St. Charles for our every year journey, the first weekend of December.

It wasn't always first. The first time was in June. I do recall that. But we've been doing the first weekend in December once, thanks to the kidney stones,

I recall, we had to do January. It's really cold for that one.

But normally for 25 years, 25 years, and I've just told the folks there, you need to get somebody younger, smarter, better looking, which is not difficult to do.

And because I've taught them everything I can teach, we've repeated the same subjects, you know, three, four times each now.

And I'm actually looking forward to being home the day after Thanksgiving for once.

I haven't had turkey and dressing leftovers in a long, long time. So there you go.

Though my wife did make excellent dressing and I stole all of it and took it on the trip.

And of course, the turkey is that stuff you buy in the grocery stores, you know, the lunch meat. Better than nothing, better than nothing.

So here we are. So I got to admit, I had a few things that showed up on my feed today that just this afternoon that just, well, let me put it this way.

I asked Grok to verify, because I mean, you just, if you see it on the internet anymore, you just have to question whether it's real.

A couple of weeks ago, I got taken by a fake news story. It was astonishingly well done.

It had video of a court situation, a judge, timestamps, reporters.

I mean, there would just be no way, you know, just by looking at it, that it was all completely fake.

So, you know, it's one thing when you've got real obvious stuff, you know, the kitten, the cat video where the cat's out on the porch at midnight, playing all sorts of different instruments and stuff like that.

And then, and it finishes up with all the cats doing kitty aerobics at 3 a .m. or something like that. That's pretty obvious.

If you get taken by that one, what can I say? But when they create a story and they give names, places, dates, you know, pictures of, with the names of judges and individuals and all this stuff, which we have been accustomed to our entire lives seeing as a news source, and it's all fake.

How do you know? So I asked Grok about these, and of course

Grok could mislead me, but Grok's my go -to AI. And by the way, there's a lot of AI out there now.

The reason I have only, I had a chat GPT account for a little while, just didn't use it.

And I had the Leo AI in the Brave browser for a little while. And that was right at the beginning and stuff.

Grok is, you know, ex -AI and, you know,

Twitter ex -Elon Musk. You know, there's lots of reasons to be concerned about Elon and transhumanism and digital interfaces with the brain and stuff like that.

But there's at least generally some kind of, there seems to be in talking with Grok, some level of a recognition of the need for some kind of morality.

And, you know, we end up arguing about stuff and foundations of that type of stuff.

And I saw a, I heard a webcast yesterday or the day before yesterday, of a well -respected

Christian man talking about AI chatbots. And there's lots of things to be concerned about in regards to people that don't have good grounding and foundation in their lives, getting absorbed into this kind of stuff.

I've actually been doing a little research, a little study in that area. I don't know if it's going to ever turn into anything, but it is very easy to see how, especially young people, especially young people who don't have a good home, a family situation, stuff like that, could become just addicted to these chatbots, which are just so human.

You know, some of them are really scripted and so you can tell, but they're getting to the point where the voices and the interaction, it's just, there's a lot to be thinking about, a lot to be thinking about, no twist.

But anyways, all I was gonna say was, the only thing that concerned me in the webcast was it was very clear to me that the

Christian man who was expressing proper concerns had never even tried to talk to a chatbot or understood, you know, we've had

Siri forever, right? Well, what's Siri? Very, very basic chatbot that obviously could become far more advanced very, very quickly.

But, you know, AI is out of the, it's out of the barn. There's no putting it back.

Half the economy is being run by it now. And, you know, the real big question is, who's going to provide the worldview?

And Silicon Valley is not the best place to be finding meaningful worldview. That's the issue.

But anyway, that's another topic we can talk about at another point in time. I saw something on on X and so I threw it at Grok and said, can you verify this post?

And he said, it's accurate and verifiable. So here's what the post said. A Switzerland man was sentenced to 10 days in jail for this transphobic comment he made on Facebook.

So actually, and what Grok pointed out was he chose the 10 -day imprisonment over paying 500

Swiss francs in hopes that people would, this story would get out. But here's what he was, he was convicted for.

Quote, if you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you'll only find men and women based on their skeletons.

Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum. So we live in a day now where you can say something that is transparently true.

Absolutely transparently true. Remember the olden days? Truth is the best defense. Not anymore.

It's transparently true that if you bury a person and they're, and they have a skeleton that they weren't burned or blown up or something.

If you dig up a human body, they can always tell whether this is a male or female.

The pelvises are different because we're designed to be different. There might be a few places where because of decay or something you might be not be 100 % certain, but it's normally very, very easy to go, this is a male, this is a female.

So that statement is true. Obviously, what was transphobic, everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.

Well, that's transparently true too. I mean, that's just patently obvious.

Just look at the number of people identifying as transgender in 2020 in comparison to 2000.

What happened? YouTube, all the social media, and now that has become the worldview of the university.

If you're educated, that's your worldview. That's what you believe. So this guy's going to be in jail for 10 days for saying the simple, obvious truth.

I think there was a quote in here. The guy's name is Emanuel Bruneschultz, 57 -year -old wind instrument repairman from Bergdorf, Switzerland.

And in December of 2022, now look, most of the time with all this stuff, especially in the

UK, the process is the punishment. They send cops out to arrest you for having offended somebody on Facebook, and you're booked, and they drop the charges four months later after you've bankrupted yourself with legal fees.

So the punishment is the process. And they'll always say, oh, well, but we didn't, he didn't get convicted.

But they know how to control speech. And that's what this is all about, is controlling speech.

The worldview behind the LGBTQI movement is completely authoritarian and completely tyrannical.

There is no room for disagreement. There is no room for debate. They don't debate these things. They've lost every debate they've ever done.

And they know that. So this is how they handle that kind of stuff. And so I think he said, let me see here.

Yeah, he says, it says, the stories have been widely shared on X, including by figures such as Graham Linehan, who received a direct statement from Bruneschultz affirming his intent to serve the time to highlight, quote, the absurdity and authoritarianism of the trans ideology, end quote.

Well, give the guy, give the guy some credit for that, that he's going to do the 10 days.

And I suppose if you're a wind instrument repairman, you can probably take 10 days.

Doesn't make a lot of money. Right after this, in my feed, comes a

X statement about a man who raped a three -month -old baby, drowned a three -year -old, was in prison.

And I looked at the rest of the story. This is, to say this was a troubled kid is understatement, because he did all these things as a minor, clearly violent.

He's been imprisoned without a release date because even the system recognizes this guy cannot be rehabilitated.

Well, then what should be done with him? He should be executed. I mean, a just society would execute him.

You don't ask the society to house and feed and provide medicine for someone who is clearly criminally insane.

Not insane in the sense of they don't know what they're doing, they're just evil. And he's been guilty of all sorts of stuff in prison too.

But here's the point. This is Canada. And Canada, I was just seeing a thing from, of course

I won't be able to find it now, from Joe Boot about what is going on in Canada with the

C9, the legislation that was passed. And as always, they pass it with a religious exemption, then they wait, and then they take the religious exemption away.

Any type of thing that's going to silence free speech, they'll put the religious exemption in first, get it passed, get people used to the overall concept, and then they take the religious exemption away.

It's just how it is. It's happened over and over and over again. Anybody who falls for it is just a fool.

But there's a lot of fools in the world, unfortunately. And so in Canada, they're taking the religious exemption away, which is literally going to make it possible to imprison ministers for quoting from the

Bible. Because, you know, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, all the passages in the

Holiness Code, whatever, will now be illegal in Canada. And they're pretty much already there in the

European Union. How many Christian ministers have we seen brought up on charges for quoting a

Bible verse in a social media post? It's been going on for ages. And if you don't think the people in the

United States want to do the same thing, they do. And here's what you all got to think about. We may be sitting here going, you know, yay regime for doing this and that.

We're rolling things back. I haven't gotten tired of winning yet. All that kind of stuff. Let there be an economic downturn.

Let there be almost anything. And the nutcases that were running the asylum from 2020 onward will be back in charge.

I do not believe the United States has a functional government anymore. We really don't.

And if the House of Representatives goes back to the communists, let's just call them what they are.

Can we stop with all the Democrat stuff? They're communists. I mean, they're all behind Mamdani and everything else.

They will set a new record for the number of impeachments that they will file against Donald Trump.

Just watch. Within a week or less, within two days of the new house, if the

Democrats take over, you will see articles of impeachment filed.

And probably three or four sets on different things. It's just inevitable. And the government will grind to a halt.

It's always in a... There's no cooperation between Republicans and Democrats anymore anyways.

So it doesn't really function right. And it's all run by the executive branch now and the judicial branch.

The legislative branch is just an appendage, sadly. The one place you're supposed to be represented is now just an appendage.

But that's what you can see happening. And so that's happening up in Canada.

And right around the same time, I see this thing. And it says, a man who raped a three -month -old baby and drowned a three -year -old was given breast implants by the

B .C. government and is serving time in the women's penitentiary.

And so I selected that text. And I said to Grok, I said, um, how about this one?

Please, all caps, tell me that this one isn't true. Grok's response, unfortunately, this one is true with only minor clarifications.

And starts telling about this individual in British Columbia who is in the

Fraser Valley Institution for Women. He's a male. He was born a male.

And there's some confusion as to who paid for the breast implants, but it was some government agency.

Of course, in Canada, that's pretty much a given. But this is part of the gender -affirming care.

While in prison, the guy's got history of violence, prostitution to inmates, drug use, stabbing a fellow inmate, threatening a guard, and assaults on women after transfer to the women prison.

Really? And you look at this stuff.

And here, I said, Grok gave me this stuff.

And all I responded with was, please stop the world. I want to get off. And Grok responded to what

I said. This is, I hear you. These stories are so grotesque that stop the world. I want to get off feels like the only sane reaction.

When the AI is going, yeah, can I get off with you? No, things are in a bad state, a really, really bad state.

It's amazing. So yeah, there you go.

The insanity is only seemingly getting worse, getting worse.

Now, let me look at here at what I had here. Let me see.

Oh, oh, since we're on the topic. Wow. Since we're on the topic, a

British man posted a photo of himself holding a shotgun.

He clearly is an amateur. He's never done this before.

It's not in the proper place. He must have about broken his collarbone if that was a 12 gauge. I've seen pics of Brits.

They come over here and they finally have the freedom to shoot a gun. And most wanted to do it their entire lives.

But of course, the British populace has been completely neutered. And so they get over here and they go to the shooting range.

They're visiting friends. And of course, their friends have guns. And so they take them out and they just look so uncomfortable.

You know, if you've ever gotten skeet shooting or something like that, you know, I've had shotguns my whole life and you know where to put the butt of the gun and you know how to aim it.

And this guy clearly, I mean, it's way up here some places.

It's literally on his collarbone. You know, it's that must've hurt. So he posts a picture of himself holding a shotgun while on holiday vacation in Florida.

You can tell it's British if it says holiday. When he returned home, UK police arrested him, seized his devices, jailed him overnight for violating the 1986

Public Order Act. So you leave the country, you engage in a perfectly legal activity overseas.

Might've been skeet shooting. There's a, I can see, cause

I can see the picture here. He's got hearing protection on, that's good. There's a body of water behind him.

So, you know, I'm not sure what he was doing. Maybe just out in the, out in the boonies and shooting a tin cans.

I mean, that's fun too. John Richelieu Booth is the guy.

Oh, it says, yeah, holding a shotgun in a Florida shooting range and UK police treated it like a crime scene.

He was arrested, jailed overnight, warned to think about how posts make people feel. Think about how posts make people feel.

Same people in my generation just sit here and go, what happened? What on earth happened?

I don't understand. I, I don't know. I don't know. So anyway, all right, let's move on here.

I had the opportunity to engage with Bishop Jacksy.

Now Bishop Jacksy is not a Bishop, I'm sure. And Bishop Jacksy uses a helmeted crusader as his thing on, on X.

I'm pretty certain this guy has said that I was responsible for his conversion to Catholicism. I love when people do that.

You helped me to convert to, then fill in the blank. You helped me to become a Muslim. You helped me to become a Jehovah's Witness.

You helped me to become a Mormon, a Roman Catholic, East, North, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And, you know,

I just, I keep saying, look, guys, grow up.

You're demonstrating you're still in the convert stage and you're, you're really not stable yet and may never be stable.

But, you know, I started hearing this stuff when I was 20 years old and we'd go out to Mesa and we'd go to the

LDS Easter pageant and pray for our outreach. We're, Apology at Church would be out there during the

Christmas lights. And I don't get to attend the first few, but I'm going to try to get out there after I get back from this trip for at least a couple of the nights that they're out there.

But we'd go out to the Easter pageant of the church and we'd pass out tracts and witness to people.

And back in the old days, and once recently actually, you'd have long conversations with people and we'd have extended conversations with the missionaries.

Man, these days you start, you start talking to one of the missionaries and boy, do they jump on them fast, rebuke them, get them out of there.

Don't let them talk with us at all. And they just know that's not good for their side.

It's not going to, not going to go well. And so we'd go out there and I'd be talking to a bunch of missionaries and the conversation would not go well for their side and they didn't provide any responses or any type of challenge or anything like that at all.

And then at the end, and they were taught to do this, by the way, that at the end they would say, well, you've increased my testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Well, that means your testimony is based upon you getting trashed on every single point you brought up and not having a response to anything.

So great. Wonderful. That tells you something about where you're coming from. And so I'm used,

I've been used to hearing this. It's an old ploy. And when I push back to these folks, a few of them will respond.

But the vast majority just shrink into the shrubbery and disappear. So this

Bishop Jacksey guy wrote a post and it said, it said this, and again, this is stuff that I think all of us need to be prepared to respond to, whether we respond to it directly to them or if we have people in our churches asking these questions, you know, that's why

I bring this stuff up. It's hopefully somewhat representative. In the

Protestant world, you can find Arians, Modalists, Martianites, Gnostics, Pelagians and endless hybrids.

Every one of them holds up a Bible and says scripture clearly teaches our view and accuses the others of rejecting the

Bible. The problem is not just these groups exist. The problem is that under Sola Scriptura, there is no visible binding authority that can actually settle the dispute.

Functionally, each person or each pulpit becomes the final court of appeal. So tell me again how

Sola Scriptura does not create chaos when this is the reality. Now, Sola Scriptura, blueprint for anarchy, you know,

Patrick Madrid decades ago, nothing has changed. And, you know,

I pointed out, I immediately responded to this by saying, well, just look at the people you listed.

You listed Gnostics as Protestants. But Arians, Modalists, Martianites as Protestants?

Oh, okay. So in other words, it's the old 32 ,000 denominations thing, even though I think it's now,

I've seen massively inflated numbers, but at least 64, 68 ,000, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That number they love throwing around that if you actually look it up, says there's, you know, hundreds of Roman Catholic denominations and includes

Gnostics and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and people that aren't even close to being even nominally

Protestant. So immediately, it's hard to take anyone seriously that throws that out there.

They're clearly just meme driven. They haven't done any research of their own.

They haven't done any study of their own. Just doing their thing. And then the other thing is the

Protestant world. And everyone needs, you need to think this through. Don't tune out on me here.

The Protestant world, what is that? You see, Roman Catholics like to compare and contrast

Roman Catholicism with Protestantism. The problem is, that's apples and oranges. Roman Catholicism has a visible head and organization and official defining documents.

Protestantism does not, because Protestantism isn't a church. I mean,

I've explained many times where Protestantism came from, that it was a technical term that was, had to do with the diets in the

Holy Roman Empire and a minority protesting the action of the majority. And that's where it came from.

It wasn't even that they were protesting Roman Catholicism. That's not even where it came from. It has come to mean those types of things, but anyway.

So there is no Protestant church. I imagine there's a church someplace that calls it its own

Protestant church. But there is no head of, there is no head of the

Protestant church, or a group of people that are the head, or a council of bishops, or anything like that.

It's far more useful and logical to compare and contrast those groups that believe and practice

Sola Scriptura, that believe that the Christian scriptures are the sole and fallible rule of faith of the church, and seek to practice that.

Actually know what it means. If you've got a group that is so disconnected with history that they wouldn't know what

Sola Scriptura actually meant or means, they're not going to be trying to apply it.

So in many instances, unfortunately, a large number of charismatics do not believe in Sola Scriptura.

First of all, a large majority don't know about it. They don't, they're not concerned about history or their connection to the

Reformation. But they're constantly saying, the Lord said this, the

Lord said that, and the Lord said this, and the Lord said that, and you've got a functional continuing revelation.

You know, people like Kenneth Copeland, I mean, you can't convince me that Kenneth Copeland believes in Sola Scriptura, or maybe has even never heard of it.

If you put all the things that Kevin Copeland has said the Lord told me into a book, they'd be as long as the

Bible, easily. So what you should do, if you want to have a meaningful comparison, is you should compare those groups that believe in Sola Scriptura, practice

Sola Scriptura, seek to be consistent with it, with those groups that have an external infallible authority to define doctrine.

So compare them. Now they won't do it. Why? Easy. Groups that claim to be

Christian and have external infallible authorities would include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the

Mormon Church. See, oops, there's all sorts of churches that claim to have a prophet, an apostle, a group of them, all sorts of them.

And so they can't even agree on whether there's one God or not. The groups that practice

Sola Scriptura have great unity on a vast majority of issues.

We're all monotheists, we're all Trinitarians, we all believe in the resurrection. I mean, we disagree on baptism, on certain aspects of sacramentology.

And when we debate, we debate on the basis of Scripture. And Roman Catholics go, well, let's see, you still have disagreements.

Well, so do you, and you shouldn't. If your system is specifically capable of providing an apostolic answer for all the questions, there should be no disagreements, but there are all sorts of them.

So, you know, I said, I responded to that. And then he then responded.

Well, what happened was I responded to that before, I think, before I left on the trip. And he then responded to me, and I saw a text someplace where he was saying crickets or something like, he was saying that I could not answer his questions.

And the fact of the matter is, I was traveling, and I don't read

Twitter posts while I'm on the road. Well, normally not, anyway.

And certainly don't respond to them. And so I responded to him with a fairly lengthy discussion about all the stuff that I just talked to you about.

I guess I could have just read that. If you don't follow me on Twitter, then

I just sort of gave you the summary of that. And one of the things I pointed out in my response was just recent papal statements that have created a firestorm of disagreement within Roman Catholicism.

So the change on capital punishment, I think that's an extremely clear and cogent example of how what was considered apostolic tradition and belief, defined in the

Catechism of the Council of Trent, hundreds of years later, is all of a sudden always sinful.

If you had asked someone the year 1600 about capital punishment, they would have said, the church says this.

Now the church says the opposite of that. So which one's true? Well, it's all based on, you know, it's all based on apostolic tradition, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It's not. Obviously it isn't. But then we talked about fiducia supplicants, and the firestorm that that brought out.

And then the statement on Mary, just a few weeks ago, and the number of people that continue to reject what the

Pope said there. And then, we haven't covered this yet, and we need to.

I ought to see if Jason would like to, Jason Wallace would like to come on the program and talk about this, because Jason Wallace put out a video about the

Filioque Clause in the later Nicene Creed, in opposition to Eastern Orthodox polemics about it.

Well, it's really interesting. It really seems like there is a planned ecumenical movement between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because it really seems that the

Marian document, which addressed one of the key divisions, stumbling blocks in ecumenism between Rome and the

Eastern Orthodox churches, and now this statement about the

Nicene Creed, where the version used in the document does not contain the

Filioque Clause, because it's the Nicene Constantinoplean version, and that wasn't there.

It was added later. And people are saying, oh, that's no big deal. No, there were statements in the document itself about disagreements over issues that are not definitional.

Well, believe you me, the Filioque Clause has been definitional for both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

I mean, the amount of vitriol and condemnation and anathemas that have flown back and forth across the

Bosporus over whether you have and the sun in your version of the Nicene Creed is epic, and now we're being told it's something to be discussed?

Well, again, history, it was all signaled at the beginning, folks.

It was all signaled at the beginning of Leo's papacy, when one of the first things he does is he says that John Henry Cardinal Newman is going to be made a doctor of the church.

That was the big signal. We're seeing that now. Vatican II could not have taken place without John Henry Cardinal Newman and the development hypothesis, which he himself created.

There are people that talked about development before that, but not the way that Newman did. I've been criticized for that.

It's like, oh, come on, get serious. There are lots of Roman Catholics that fully recognize the validity of this point, and so when one of the first things that Leo does is to say we're going to make

John Henry Cardinal Newman one of the doctors of the church, that is a signal that there's going to be more development coming, and that would open the door to allow for the kind of ecumenical rethinking of the deposit of faith.

It's wonderful, how Rome comes up with these phrases to get around stuff.

In other words, it's doctrinal development away from what was once believed, but they don't want to say that.

They don't want to say we're changing our theology, because we can't. It's apostolic. No, it just demonstrates that apostolic within Roman Catholicism has no objective meaning.

There is no objective oral apostolic tradition. There just isn't.

They get to make it up as they go along. That's what the bodily assumption was. That's what the Immaculate Conception was.

That's how they're functioning. They can functionally have new revelation. Now, they don't want to admit that, but they just use these buzzwords to get around it, and so there would have to be things that Rome is going to go, you know, going to have to put on the table as discussable.

Not necessarily negotiable, but discussable, and the

Eastern Orthodox churches have to do the same thing. Well, for centuries, that simply wasn't even possible to conceive of having that happen, and it is true.

Rome has Newman, so Rome can do doctrinal development, but Eastern Orthodoxy, I've said many times,

I think is just too brittle. When I say brittle, what I'm saying is

Eastern Orthodoxy, as I see it, and this is only being confirmed by my continuing studies in Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy historically is frozen in time.

Eastern Orthodox theology is the theology of the Byzantine political empire in the year 800.

Okay, that's what it is, and from their perspective, that's good.

Unchanging the ancient church standing in the midst of time. No, 800 is a whole lot younger than 100.

Older than, younger than 100. That doesn't make it apostolic, but from their perspective, hey, we're, you know, it's been 1200 years, we believe the exact same things.

Well, okay, that doesn't mean the apostles taught that, and that's the problem, but because they are so, there's no room for development, not in the old style

Orthodoxy. Now, the current Patriarch of Constantinople might be open to some of that, though from my perspective, that's, that may be exactly how you create schism, and, you know, will some of those patriarchates divide off if there's any type of major compromise on something?

I don't know. Good questions, but it does seem to me that there's probably a move toward ecumenism taking place in all of that.

Anyways, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to spend all that time talking about that stuff. So, this

Bishop Jaxiga, I responded, I talked about this stuff, I talked about those documents, that's how

I got into this now that I remember it, you know, the stuff on Mary, and the ecumenism, and the filioque, you know, just last week that document was released, and what that may or may not mean.

All these things have caused tremendous debate and division within Roman Catholicism that Rome does not have the ability to end.

You can pretend, well, we have a source that will tell us, blah, blah, blah.

No, you don't. No, you don't. It doesn't work that way. You know, when he made that statement, part of my response was,

Pelosi, Biden. What do I mean by that? Biggest promoters of the murder of unborn children in the world, and Pope Francis gives them the

Eucharist. Rome's position isn't clear. When does

Rome discipline people for their theology and their actions?

As long as they're politicians, they don't. What does that tell you about what they actually believe?

Seems pretty obvious to me. Seems pretty obvious to me. So, what I'm going to do here is, he's responded to me.

I'm going to let you know what his response is, and I'm going to respond to it live on the air. So, here was his initial question.

Under sola scriptura, sola scriptura isn't something you get under, by the way. Who has

God -given authority to say you are outside the apostolic faith in a way that binds anyone beyond your own followers?

Now, once again, this is a question for which he has no answer from his own position, so it's invalid to begin with.

So, it would be rhetorical or theoretical, but the point is, he is making a claim that he has a

God -given authority, or his church has a God -given authority to say you are outside the apostolic faith.

And certainly, Rome has said that. Problem is, Rome has said that to people that today she's no longer saying it to.

And she might say it today to someone, and 10 years from now say, oh, we were wrong. They'd never say we were wrong.

We have further meditated upon the content of the depositive faith.

It's how Rome says, ah, we're going to change that, okay? So, if I'm correct in remembering that he is himself a convert, then this is the convert syndrome.

It is, I'm going to accept the claims, the authority claims of the group that I've joined.

And when it's pointed out to me that, for example, my choice to accept those claims was a fallible choice, and therefore it's my ultimate authority stands upon a fallible foundation,

I'm just going to walk right past it.

And that's what they do. So, he wrote, you wrote a lot about your travel schedule.

No, I mentioned the fact that I had one paragraph that said, you shouldn't be complaining that I can't respond to your question when

I'm on a 3 ,000 mile road trip, and responding to you on X is not my highest priority.

You know, bad Catholic schools, well, who are you to say they're bad Catholic schools? You call yourself

Bishop Jackson, I don't think you're a bishop, are you? Well, where do you serve? What church do you serve?

What's your real name, if you're going to claim to be a bishop? How do you get to determine they're bad Catholic schools? And how come the

Pope keeps taking people from bad Catholic schools and putting them on the Papal Biblical Commission? Why'd Francis do that?

Why is Leo doing that? Who do you get to determine bad Catholic schools? Rome seems to think they're good

Catholic schools, because they use their scholars and make them bishops, real bishops.

Liberal theologians, again, you mean like Francis, like Leo, like the head of the congregation for the faith, who himself identified himself as being more liberal than Pope Francis, a liberation theologian?

This is convert syndrome on steroids. This is a

Protestant bringing his Protestantism into Catholicism and saying,

I get to choose what flavor of Catholicism I'm going to say is the one true flavor, while the leadership of the church says otherwise.

Think about that, that's pretty amazing. Francis, yeah, you think

I'm the only person that brought up Francis as an example of tremendous change? Pelosi, her bishop forbade her to take the

Eucharist because of her promotion of sinful acts, and Francis gave her the

Eucharist in Rome, undercutting the bishop. Yeah, I brought that up because it's extremely relevant.

Fiducia supplicans, Marian dogmas, and more. Yep, all of which demonstrated that you don't have an answer to the question you are actually pretending to ask, the objection you're making.

The objection you're making, your own system is contradicted by it, because you don't have what you think you have.

This is the essence of Roman Catholic apologetics. We have what you don't have.

Just don't look at the man behind the curtain. Just don't look at the state of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

Don't look at the current pope. Don't look at the people that he puts in positions of authority. Ignore all that and just listen to us.

That's how it works. But you still do not answer that question. You never name a concrete person, office, or body in your system that can give such a judgment with real

God -given authority for the whole church. In a word, Dr. White, you dodged, which was predicted and sadly very unfortunate.

And again, I point out that his question is invalid. He is clearly assuming something that's untrue and has been disproven.

He's assuming he has it and he doesn't have it. So that makes the question invalid, first of all.

I have answered this question in many, many, many different contexts. He says he's listened to all these debates, all this stuff.

Okay, fine. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I don't know. But what is being asked for is something that God has not given us.

So he's demanding something. And religions for years have given us people who will stand up and I'll give you something that God never gave the church.

And I've given examples of this. And I've preached about this and I've taught about this. And again,

I'm fairly certain, if I'm wrong about this, I apologize. But I'm fairly certain this guy had said that you helped convert me to Catholicism, all the rest of the stuff.

If that's the case, then he is well aware of the fact that I have repeatedly pointed to the parallel between Acts chapter 20 and 2

Timothy chapter 3, where in writing to Timothy, in his last letter to Timothy, Paul, warning of the rise of apostates and heretics within the church and the difficult times that were to come, directed

Timothy not to the Bishop of Rome, not to the successors of Peter, not to a magisterium, none of which even existed in that time, but to a source.

Man of God, go to that which is Theogistos. Go to that which is God -breathed. Go to that which can equip you for every good work you've been called to do in the church.

That's what you do, man of God. And when Paul met with the Ephesian elders in Acts chapter 20, what does he do?

He says, I know that men are going to arise from your very ranks. Yes, the very ranks of elders trained for three years by the

Apostle Paul. Three years he trained these men. And he said, I know that men will arise from your own ranks, that will not spare the flock, they'll draw disciples after themselves.

And in the midst of that dire prediction, what does he say?

I command you to God and the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give you the inheritance amongst us. He doesn't say, we're establishing a magisterium.

It's going to be centered in Rome. It's going to be the successors of Peter. Nothing, even hinting at such an idea.

And so what this man wants is what is more than what God has provided. It's not

God's intention that there be this group that can go stamp here, bad stamp there, reject here, accept there, because we've seen what that does.

We've seen that happen in history. And we've seen what it's done with Roman Catholicism.

We've seen the blood on the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, when its magisterium says, you're outside the apostolic faith, you're going to die now.

Ask Jan Hus as he's burned at the Council of Constance, the very same council that healed the papacy, the papacy could not heal itself.

The Babylonian captivity of the church, that great papal schism, the papacy was helpless to heal itself.

The Council of Constance had to heal that schism. And that's the same council that burned

Jan Hus for believing what Paul taught in the Book of Romans. So we know what happens.

We've seen what happens when you have people who decide that they're going to give us more than what

God has given us in his word and his spirit. And that's what this man wants. Saying there is no

Protestant world actually proves my point. There may be no single Protestant church, but there is obviously a Protestant ecosystem.

Ecosystem, people, churches, seminaries, ministries, conferences, all claiming the Reformation is the Holy Scripture. No they do not.

No they do not. That's false. And you should know that it's false. The vast majority of quote -unquote

Protestant churches today, they don't know anything about the Reformation. And they do not understand or practice

Sola Scriptura. You're just wrong. You just don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what church you came from or whatever it else is, or maybe you're just reading

Jimmy Akin all the time. I don't know. Inside that world, you have Arians, Unitarians, Oneist Pentecostals, Classic Trinitarians, Calvinists, Armenians, etc.,

all holding up the same Bible and saying it clearly teaches our view. Okay, at this point, you just put your hands up and you go, okay.

So what you're insisting on doing, the only way your argument works, because it's a bad argument, it's refuted by your own experience, it's refuted by your own church, you recognize that you can't answer the questions you're asking from your side in any meaningful fashion.

Because if you say, well, we just listen to what Pope Leo says, then you now have him contradicting all these popes and councils that came before, and now you got to try to answer that, and you can't, and you know it.

Okay, so that's what you're doing. So what you've got to do is you've got to force your opponent into a position that is not his.

Arians are not Protestants. Unitarians are not Protestants. Oneist Pentecostals are not

Protestants. They're not even, you know, they're not Trinitarians.

So they're not Protestants. So to demand that we have to be accountable, and in fact to demand that sola scriptura is what gives rise to this, is simply absurd.

And everybody needs to understand why that is. Now look, you can't make people online honest.

You can't make them people who have ears to hear. But for yourself, you need to be able to recognize this kind of horrific type of non -reasoning and be able to explain it to others.

Because there may be people in your church that just are a little weak on church history, or very weak on church history, and maybe a little weak on their history of the

Reformation or whatever else. And so people who listen to this program regularly know that we deal a lot with church history.

We talk a lot about church history. We have for decades, absolutely decades. And so we want to be able to give people a foundation to be able to recognize the fallacious reasoning, refute the fallacious reasoning, and give a solid response.

Let's go to the scriptures. Now will that satisfy this guy? No, he's a convert. As long as he's in the honeymoon stage, he's not listening to almost anything

I'm saying anyways. So you say, well, why did you spend all the time responding to him? Because other people read it.

Other people read it. And I will probably link, I'll probably time index. If I have time to,

I've got to speak every night, five out of the next six nights. And so you travel during the day, you get set up, you get changed, you run to your speaking thing, you get back, you're tired, may not have time to do it.

Maybe somebody else will do it for me. Maybe we have a young man who is doing dividing line clips right now for us.

Very thankful that he's doing that. I've already linked to them and be looking for that. I'll try to remember to link in.

I just need to get that link and put it in each blog entry for the dividing line.

That's what I need to start doing. Maybe he'll clip this whole discussion. That's a long, that'd be a long segment, but at least most of it.

But try to respond because I'm just not going to sit here and keep typing longer and longer and longer stuff.

But hearing a response, providing a response, people hear that and they can see it and then they can repeat that to others.

Maybe they'll copy and paste it. Maybe they'll cut it and save it, whatever. So yeah,

I don't expect this guy to be listening. He's in the honeymoon stage. But other people who maybe are coming out of the honeymoon stage and are starting to realize, you know, all the stuff that I was told just isn't panning out.

It's really not true. You know, all this unity stuff,

I'm actually starting to see that doesn't really exist. People in that condition may not be nearly as vocal as this guy is.

He's very vocal. But they're listening and you can provide them with, you know, maybe the beginnings that they're being able to go, yeah, you know, these claims that this is all apostolic and rest of it, it just doesn't pan out.

It's just, where did I go wrong? And you can direct them back to the sufficiency of scripture and to that.

That could be the way to do it. So that's why you do it. So anyway, your criticism,

Catholic failures are a change of subject. No, it's a demonstration that you don't have answers to the questions you're asking. In your model, everything ultimately collapses into those who have complete fidelity to scripture possess true authority.

Yes, scripture is God -breathed and you ain't. Neither is Leo and neither is the magisterium of the church.

So the church has been given Christ's voice in his word and God's voice has ultimate authority.

You got it. That's the difference. You've abandoned that. You don't have God's voice anymore in scripture.

That's the point. Ding, ding, ding, ding, glad you got it. It's a shame that you traded it for a cheap imitation that is so obviously self -contradictory if you would just step back long enough to see it, but you won't.

So anyways, so okay, so tomorrow night, oh,

I should have had this up. I'm sorry. I may not have time to pull this properly.

Um, did it, did it, did it, did it inbox? Okay, there it is. Uh, I'm speaking somewhere tomorrow.

Oh, wait a minute. Here we go. Um, well, this is, this is just my trip planner. So that's, that's not going to do me a lot of good.

I'm afraid. Um, but I was speaking somewhere. I may wait to, uh,

I know that on the way home, I know I'm going to be in Sedalia. I'm going to be in the

Ozarks at some point. Um, but just off the top of my head, looking at it here,

I'm, I'm going to be in tomorrow, tomorrow night. I'm going to at least tell you where I'm going to be here.

I'm going to be in, uh, yeah, yeah.

Sedalia, Sedalia, Missouri, happy acres RV park. Okay. That's where I'm going to be tomorrow night. And then

I'm going up to, I'm getting a ding, ding.

Maybe, maybe that was rich. Nope. Nope. Um, anyways,

I think we have some stuff on the website about it. Look, when you're, when you're traveling as much as I am right now, and you're, it's, it's like, okay, what's tomorrow?

And I look at it and you, you, you put the stuff in your, in your navigator to get you to where you're going.

And you try to get there early enough to rush to the church and do your thing. So anyway, so there's, aside from being in St.

Charles, there are three other churches that I'll be at before I get home, but they're all just one night real quick.

One of them is on Mormonism. I know that, um, I was sending the link for the presentation for that.

And, um, so yeah, we'll be, we'll be doing our thing. Uh, let me see here.

Oh yeah. Rich says behind on the calendar too, which means he doesn't know either.

So, oh, well I'll be somewhere you can pray for that. And, um, we'll go from there.

So, all right. Well, thanks for watching the program today. I actually went a minute late because I was trying to find that information and I still couldn't find it.

That's how it works. Thanks for listening to the program today. Uh, we are on the road, pray for our, um, our safety as we're driving along out there with all those big semis and all the rest of that fun stuff.