Conclusion of Response to Trent Horn, A Little Rosaria Butterfield

Well greetings and welcome to the dividing line we are back here in the regular studio and Boy, it's the next trips coming up pretty quick.

I'm wearing my World War two fighter aircraft shirt today, but You know rich got chined recently and That's when you you buy something online that looks, you know, they make it look just great

You know this some this Pad right here. I got chided big -time.

Oh, did I get chided? I mean the the video presenting this made it look like it was the coolest thing ever and you get it and it's a cheap piece of garbage and there's a huge difference between what you saw and what you get and I didn't even realize until Last week, honestly,

I was looking at this thing, you know, because it at least has worth nothing the vast majority of the words on this well, not the vast majority

What oh they can't see it no they can't stop it the vast majority of words on this are

Misspelled so Engineering en gi n n e e

Casualties caught casualties. Yeah, it was it's Engrich and so Rich got chided.

I got chided and I don't know if I got chided on this shirt. It fits nicely. It's nice and cool That's the important part, but I thought for sure

When I ordered this thing that prominently on it was my favorite World War two fighter and It's nowhere to be found on it once I got it

Now it's not that there aren't good some good planes on it There's a p -51 down there.

I won't bother Pointing these things out, but there's p -51 down lower on the shirt that of course

Was the best fighter we produced propeller driven fighter we produced in World War two It actually has the

Messerschmitt 262 I mean the jet fighter that did see action.

So it qualifies But and it also has

I think one of the most Beautiful of the World War two fighters was the p -38 lightning

I mean that thing was just and our top ace in the entire war

With 42 confirmed kills Had all those in a p -38. So that was a an amazing

Plane, I mean when it first came out it killed pilots right and left because it had Talk about rushing stuff into production

You basically learned from how many people it killed But the one that I wanted

That's nowhere on it and I used to have one in here, I think it's now in my office was of course the

Vought f4u Corsair the Screaming death is what the Japanese called it

Because not only was it an excellent air to air fighter as Pappy Boyington demonstrated in the

South Pacific But it was also a tough rugged plane that could be equipped with rocket

Sleds and bombs and and the the Marines just depended on it for close air support like on Iwo Jima and When it would dive it would make this screaming noise and it was so accurate.

They called it screaming death But it's a beautiful plane had the gull wings, you know the ones

I'm talking about And I thought for sure that was gonna be on their shirt, but I got

I got chided You Noticed right off there wasn't a there's no

Corsairs. No, no, no Corsairs. I'm I'm a little bit sad about that. But oh Well, that's that's life.

I had I made a model Corsair as a young person That was just really really cool.

Wish I still had that because that was just that was just a gorgeous plane and it's just so sad that the vast majority of Young people today have no earth the idea

What that war was about how in the world we won it in literally four years

All they know about is, you know drones and stuff like that it's It was different world different world.

Anyway, so We need to finish up the response to Trenthorne We have promised it and been working on it

I Am Really excited. I will we should be able to get this done with a little time left at the end of the hour

To be able to talk about this, but I'm really excited and I I'm gonna I need to write back and invite her on the program but I Was just You know that I have a debate coming up on September 16th in Mannheim, Pennsylvania With dr.

Gregory Cole's who is the author of? Single gay

Christian and so he is along with Preston Sprinkle a part of the movement that Is presenting the idea of homosexuality as an inalterable?

Definitional aspect of a person's being and I guess evidently

Transgenderism as well, at least from what I'm seeing and So one person that I wanted to reach out to in my preparation, of course was

Rosario Butterfield and So I did and she very graciously Responded despite the fact that I even included in my email a picture of my kitten

Which she thought was great because she has she's a cat person, too So we're discovering who the cat people are and who the cat haters are.

It's a it's a sad thing and You know blocking is going away on Twitter soon.

That's gonna be I don't know It's gonna be gonna be rough. But I was thinking about just you know, everybody who starts doing the anti cat stuff just use the block feature while we've got it and We'll see what we'll see what happens with with Twitter down the road

Anyway, I got in touch with her and lo and behold I didn't know this

But Summer already had her new book and had written an endorsement for it And she has a new book called five lies that I is either out or is about to come out and So I was able to get hold of the review

File on that and Obviously it incredibly relevant to the subject of my debate on In September, so I need to get a hold of her and see if we can have her on to talk prior to Prior to that debate.

I think it'll be very very very helpful and it is interesting As I've gotten others

I've been digging into it The the impact of one's theology is

Very very clear very very clear. We'll we'll talk more about that a little bit later on but anyways back to Trenthorne we need to get this done before I Start talking about other things

I don't I Don't know if I had

Played this part or skipped it, but we're gonna start with it and we'll we'll press on from there

I'll try to be I'll try to be short Even if the word should not be translated in the active sense like God breathing

White and other Protestant apologists assume that the word connotes a unique authority to Scripture alone

But I've showed that this is not how the word was used in the early church. Here's how

I framed their argument Okay, and I did play that and again

There is no such thing as used in the early church as if there is some kind of encyclopedic way of Being able to say well, this is this is how this person used in this how this person used it

There again the material we have from the early church is extremely fragmentary and So to try to pretend that there was a

Early church meaning what's gonna be funny here. Is it Trent's going to preemptively try to Answer one of the more obvious objections to his new theory his utilization of the vivification translation of the

Augusta He's gonna try to answer the reality that Rome has never rendered it that way

Because it would seem to be a rather obvious Objection that the

Roman Catholic Church has never come out and said this is the proper way of translating this word

That's why it's not relevant to Sola scriptura, etc, etc. They just haven't done anything like that.

So To to say well, I've proven this the best you can say is

I've asserted this or I've I've quoted McDonald and The reality is that there was a wide

Utilization of the term but I have completely failed to even try to demonstrate that that's contextually

Paul's usage and I have so far kept completely mum about the fact

That the man who's actually promoting the vivification translation doesn't believe Paul wrote it in the first place

Just You know, that's why I said this was spin spin damage control because it's not it's not actually dealing with the with the reality at at that point

So But to continue, okay, I that's where I skipped something there that that's where I miss something.

This was where I Had when when he made reference, sorry when he made reference to That's where I was supposed to play it.

I'll just do this quickly He made reference to an ontological uniqueness

To scripture and I said that that's me. That's that's what I've always been teaching is no No, I was talking about Gavin Ortlund not talking about you and you sort of got this little grin on his face there

He has there. Well, that's nice. But you know, and I don't I don't care whether Trent has actually read my book on scripture alone or anything like that but the fact the matter is and I Rich is busy with something else.

So I'll read it from the book because I can't bring it up. Well, that's up Um, I had said this a long time ago.

It doesn't matter. I've got it here now The nice thing is

I had this book in accordance that's why I was gonna pull that up but I mentioned that The title this work of scripture alone just the phrase faith alone sola fide the great cry of the

Reformation though No longer the great cry of many who are once considered children. The Reformation is often misrepresented

So to so to scripture alone could be misunderstood when we say that faith alone brings justification

We're not saying that faith should be considered in a vacuum separated from everything else. God does in the work of salvation

Instead sola fide means that faith apart from any concept of merit or works actually in opposition There too is the sole means of justification in the same way scripture alone does not mean that God zoomed by planet earth

Dropped off the scriptures and left us on our own as we will know when we define solo scriptura

This is not a claim for instance that there is no church or that there is no spirit The title does not suggest that scripture apart from the spirit outside The church is

God's only means of leading his people. It is however saying that the scripture is utterly unique in its nature

That's the exact same assertion and this from 2000 -2004 so almost 20 years ago

It is however saying that scripture is utterly utterly unique in its nature as God breathed revelation

Nothing else is God breathed. It is unparalleled and absolute in its authority

It is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church it is both a positive statement asserting the supremacy and uniqueness of the word and a negative one denying the existence of any other rule of Authority on the same level one would be dreadfully misunderstanding this book's title to think it supports the idea of a

Christian absenting himself in the body of Christ Rejecting biblical teaching about elders and leaders and perpetually sitting under a tree somewhere alone with the

Bible While an individual believer may derive great benefit from solitary contemplation of God's truth in such a context it will always lead one back to service to his or her fellow believers in the church and to minister within the context of being salt and light in the world, so It was my assertion

Many many years ago decades ago That scripture is ontologically unique And we need to keep in mind that the

Trenthorne is saying no, it's not Unlike all of his predecessors in all the debates we've done on this subject he is saying no, it's not and Then he'll say yes it is

But on a different level or something as we'll get into here So so there you go back to Right here but to continue

One other argument white raises is that if they up new stones has an active meaning of God breathing

And so it refers to scripture giving divine life to readers rather than being breathed out by God Then why doesn't the church say this by the way?

He's he's conflating the idea of an active translation

Of God breathing as in an ongoing process which would make no sense whatsoever in Paul's usage of it

Which doesn't matter to Poirier and the other people because Paul didn't write it. Anyways But wouldn't make any sense in Paul's utilization of it

Because of the context of his exhortation to Timothy It is a known body that he is being referred to Not You know, there's gonna be

Timothy is there's gonna be more coming down the road so, you know You're gonna have what the

Popes are gonna say and and the successors of Peter and none of this kind of stuff is even slightly in in the context of 2nd

Timothy chapter 3 But he's conflating two things because you can have a

Vivification idea giving life Without even using the term

God breathed so it's almost like He's trying to sort of connect part of it with another part, which isn't really what's being done

Even the literature that he's citing. It's it's a little confusing as to exactly

Where that's coming from and this again all this goes back to Do we start with?

meaningful methodologies of exegesis or do we Start with external traditions that then determine the methodologies we use to come up with whatever meaning we need to come up with Out of the text that that is very problematic.

Isn't it the magisterians job to determine what the Bible means? Others have said in comments to my previous episode that theopneustos means inspired in a unique sense for Scripture Because that's how the church uses the word in its biblical translations or magisterial documents first The church rarely officially defines what a word in Scripture means it officially teaches doctrine

But it rarely says this word in Scripture means X It does that for Presbyteroy and James 5 to say this refers to priests and not merely to elders in the community for example, but it doesn't

Officially define many of the words that are used in biblical translations scholars have freedom to figure that out now this is fascinating I I would like to know the specific reference that he has in mind in regards to Presbyteroy because Certainly that was part of what

Mitch Paco and I discussed when we debated the priesthood But the reality is that's

Rome's error that's that's If there has been some infallible definition that term they're just wrong and I would like to know where this infallible error is because I'll add it to the other areas where Rome is infallibly wrong about a lot of things but Again if you derive the meaning of Presbyteroy from its uses in the

New Testament and If you allow the New Testament to stand as a unit and not chop it up into pieces and say well

This wasn't written by an apostle and that wasn't written by an apostle and so on and so forth The meaning of Presbyteroy is clear and it's not it's not priest.

It doesn't mean priest There's a perfectly good term for priest in the Greek Testament And it is not used there.

There are no qualifications for priests in the New Testament But there are for bishops elders teachers pastors

Because they are used interchangeably with one another in the two offices the the elders and the deacons and so I'd like to know where that specifically is.

But again The question that all the rest of us want have is wait a minute we're told that the only way to read scripture is within the bosom of the church

That Scripture is simply the written tradition Joined together with the oral tradition to make sacred tradition

We're told that Rome defines Doctrine and dogma How do you define

Dogma without defining the words in which it was revealed. How do you do that?

I Don't I don't even begin to understand You know, we keep being told you need the church for these things and then we go, okay show us well

You know the church doesn't normally do You know, it's the have have your cake and eat it to type of type of thing

It's it's got to be one or the other And if you're gonna say well, you need to have the church to define these things

Well, first of all, you're not letting the church to find these things. You're letting a non Catholic Scholar from last year to find these things

That's highly problematic But at the same time you all are the ones making the claims that Rome has this ultimate authority and if It is true that For example in the last dogmatic definition of the bodily assumption of Mary there was all sorts of Covering your trail covering your ankles

Basically, you know did Mary die did Mary not die. Well, we don't know

Well, there is lots of discussion of Mary's death in the early church. And so We're not really you can't even know what it means

How is it even relevant It's it's truly amazing when you really start pushing for consistency

It all just comes back to you Well, just believe we tell you to believe don't worry about where we got it from or anything else Just just leave what we we tell you to leave so Really what we're gonna see here in this

Interesting attempt to say well, yeah, you know, we haven't Rome hasn't defined these these words

What that means is you don't have an infallible definition so you can't argue anything You can all you can say is well, we don't know my ultimate authority won't tell me

And you have to go. Well, does that mean you don't have an apostolic tradition? accurately understanding what this means

Because you gotta understand the scripture was revealed in a world that did not have what we would call secularism in it

So this is now a vitally important question. This is a vitally important subject. What is the nature of scripture and so How does

Rome deal with that we deal with that by plumbing the depths of scripture and making application of Christian worldview to any kind of even highly perverted perspectives such as secularism that can arise in God's world and Hold men accountable to that But when you have this super secret oral tradition that you never have to you never have to go.

Here's where it is We're gonna put our cards on the table, here's the entire content of oral traditions never been done never will be done

Can't be done that's that is obvious beyond question

That there is no oral tradition That has been passed down separately from scripture

But that's fundamental to the Roman Catholic position Can't possibly avoid it and the irony is

Rome has told us in the past remember Sixtus's infallible

Vulgate Remember when a Pope said here is the final edition use this and He dies and within a few years they're collecting them all up and hiding them because it was so badly done

Remember when Rome remember when you could die a gruesome death at the stake

For promoting the Greek over the Latin Remember that one all that long ago so Now Rome has changed

Rome recognizes the primacy of the biblical languages and the secondary nature of Latin But that wasn't the case at the

Reformation and for a long period of time after the Reformation. So if you're defining

The Vulgate as the final word. Are you not? Defining meanings of words thereby if Sixtus said this is it then this is what the text is supposed to be.

This is this the final word Not the final word anymore How could you have known that the day after Sixtus?

Put out his version as the infallible Vicar of Christ Oh because No one outside of Rome believed he was infallible

Vicar of Christ at the time That's why you have to be all anachronistic and read stuff backwards and do things like that But how would you have known

I Guess in the same way that you would have known on Norius was wrong about monothelitism

No, you had no way of knowing That's that's the problem with this kind of this kind of stuff it's um

Yeah, so we we press forward Second the meaning of theological terms changes over time the church currently uses theopneustos in a narrow sense like Translating it inspired or saying it only properly applies to Scripture Now did he just say?

that theopneustos only applies to Scripture But that that's just today

Is that an admission that the modern Roman understanding is

Not apostolic it goes against the apostolic church the early church He's gonna try to argue.

This is some kind of evolution But doesn't give us any evidence as to why we should believe that I mean, where does the church say?

Well, you know, we've known about the vivification understanding

Um, but we've developed a more narrow meaning of inspired the problem is

Inspired a Latin term Which I can understand why? Rome likes

Latin terms but as such it is not

Nearly exhaustive of the depth of theopneustos itself

Because you can you can you can have inspired mean Breathing into something and that's not what is being that's not this is again, if you allow the

New Testament to be the New Testament and again, see someone like Poirier is not gonna believe this because He's not gonna believe that Peter wrote

That no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own will own interpretation own activity

So if you let the

New Testament speak for itself as a body of revelation

Then that meaning would not follow Because it's not just Human words that are being breathed into By the

Spirit of God, that's not Peter's description He said men spoke from God as they were being carried along by the

Holy Spirit Not that their words are the first thing and then there is a breathing into them that makes them special It's God speaking that his first comes through those men as they're carried along by the

Holy Spirit Can Peter's description be relevant to the meaning of Paul not in modern progressivism

Not in modern progressivism, which is again the question that Progressivism never produces apologetics.

There's nothing for it to defend. There's nothing for it to It has no interest in engaging in a defense of the faith

Because that assumes an objectivity a historical reality that Progressivism just doesn't even believe it so Where's where's all that gonna gonna come from?

I? Don't know I Don't know but I Stopped it before I needed to Dave Urban speaks of the apostolic preaching

Which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers

Until the end of time sacred scripture contains the inspired Word of God in a particular written form

Sacred tradition contains the Word of God in an unwritten form that the church lives out in its practice of the faith

So it's not inspired like scripture because so there's something unique About the nature of scripture now where this definition of Oral tradition comes from certain doesn't come from the

Apostles Doesn't come from the early church You have to look over you have to ignore

Augustine and Athanasius and and all these other Statements about sufficiency of scripture and stuff like that.

You have to ignore all that. So again, we're engaging in then this the necessary from the

Roman Catholic perspective and Anachronistic reading of early church

But still you have the assertion here. It sounds like that.

There's still something About inspiration That's unique to scripture, but if Oral tradition is

Apostolic and is meant to and has somehow been preserved without any

Historical record and against the witness of historical record for 2 ,000 year

I Mean again was the last dogma defined on the basis of oral tradition bodily assumption

Unknown in early church, and that's not just an argument for silence Gavin Ortlund put out a

Video just last week And I guess he'd been working on prior to Trent horns video where he identified arguments against bodily assumptions arguments from silence.

Well, they're not just arguments in silence at all at all It's not just well, you know, no one ever mentioned.

Well, that's just an argument from silence. There were so many Different theories and speculations later on and the point is

That if you're going to say something was delivered by the Apostles to the church It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that to give some

Stinkin basis from the writings of the early church unless you can sit there and go. Well, you know, like you said, they're fragmentary

So there were a lot there were lots of references to our dogmas, but they were all in the parts that got lost

I Okay, if that's the best you got When you're when you're making up fantasies

That's the best that's the best you've got So anyway There is a

Awaitment, I'm supposed to Play through that the text has begotten.

It's very small for me there For another minute here. So we we we press forward

Second the meaning of theological terms changes over time The church currently uses the apneustos in a narrow sense like translating it inspired or saying it only

Properly applies to scripture Dave Urban speaks of that start all over again the apostolic preaching

Which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers

Until the end of time sacred scripture contains the inspired Word of God in a particular written form

Sacred tradition contains the Word of God in an unwritten form that the church lives out and its practice of the faith

So it's not inspired like scripture because it's an unwritten form But that doesn't mean sacred tradition is not as authoritative as scripture or that the magisterium is not infallible

The teachings of the Council of Jerusalem were just as binding on Christians in the first century when they existed in an unwritten form

Before they were written down in scripture years later. Okay, so let's just point that out.

He's talking about of course acts 15 Which is during the apostolic period so revelation continues okay, that that that is not relevant to a

Period after the last of the Apostles died because we all agree that revelation ceased at that at that point

And so the quote -unquote Council of Jerusalem acts chapter 15 Is part of that apostolic period and there's still divine revelation that was being given through the

Apostles at that particular point in time the issue is Was there a body of Oral traditions delivered outside of scripture.

This is normally when you'd find people going to second Thessalonians 2 15 Had a guy in Twitter go there today, and I used our new transcript function

I Better be using it because I can guarantee you my enemies are using it

I used our transcript function to pull up a number of different places over the years

Where we have walked through st. Thessalonians 2 15 and Demonstrated that what is being referred to there is not some separate body of oral tradition

But it is simply the gospel which has been delivered to the Thessalonians in Written form and an oral form that is orally when

Paul was in Thessalonica and in written form and what's called for Thessalonians that's all it's referring to and If Rome is going to try to use that text to say ah, there's then it is incumbent upon them

To demonstrate the existence of this tradition and the content of this tradition

From the first century. I mean because it was delivered to the Thessalonians not just to the bishop or Bishops or elders in the church at Thessalonica Because that's not who it's addressed to it was delivered to all the

Thessalonians So you could tell me the Thessalonians knew about Everything that's in oral tradition

When did the bodily assumption of Mary enter into that was Mary already dead at that point? Who knows?

but it's it's all just pure speculation Or when it comes to Rome pure assertion without evidence

Is what you're really talking about in this in this type of a context So, all right

We're getting close to the end here now this is You this is what you've got to give

Trent props because he's thought this through and He's got to come up with an example

It can't be driving early church because there's nothing there for them to drive from as far as you know

Oral tradition and stuff like that. So how do you explain? that They honest us

Was understood this way in early church, but we've we've come up in 2023

We've come up with the proper understanding without having actually asked the Pope about it because I get

I'm sorry That I I'm not really sure what you'd come up with if you asked

Francis about anything like this and I think most Roman Catholic apologists would be very fearful of Asking Pope Francis about any of this as well but And and and no matter what response he gave would it matter?

Who is he to judge? Right. That's the way he said on homosexuality a long time ago. Who am

I to judge? So What would happen that I don't know but my point is that the way the church uses the word now

Does not mean that was how the word was used in the first few centuries of church history Hebrews 1 3 for example says

Christ is the exact representation of God's nature or substance in Greek apostasies

But by the 4th century the word Apostasies was no longer the common

Greek word for nature or substance It had been replaced with the word ouzia.

All right, so that was the word that meant substance So theologians in the 4th century said the Trinity was three apostasies

Persons that share one ouzia Substance if you read this 4th century understanding of apostasies back into Hebrews 1 3

It would say that Christ is the exact representation of God's Person the person of the father which could lead to the heresy that the son and the father are the same person or modalism

Now other words like sacrament or mysterion in Greek heresy dogma

These words have changed meaning over time So we can't read the modern definition of those terms back into their uses in Scripture and ancient documents so fascinating Give the man give the man props

Here's the problem There is no question that in the

Christological controversies specifically after the Council of Nicaea One of the one of the real issues that was struggled with was how to Understand Terms related to the nature and being of God and what terminology to use to refer to the divine persons and Nicaea was resisted initially in the east

By some anyways because in the east they they had already struggled with modalism dynamic monarchism

What we would call today Jesus only ism you PCI stuff obviously all sorts different theories but they had already rejected that stuff and Using homoousius

Sounded to them like what their opponents from the preceding century were saying Or at least it could be understood in that way then the other thing you've got going on is

You have the confusion of the primary language in the East being Greek and the primary language in the

West being Latin and So how to render those

Terms and make them understandable across the linguistic divide to be honest with you

Was never fully accomplished. And in fact, I would say that some of the

Tension and problems All the way to Chalcedon Can be traced to that To Suspicions let's put this way suspicions in the

East as To what the people from the West were meaning with Latin and vice versa

It didn't help So There is no question that hypostasis is used in Scripture and by the time they're trying to hammer out

What terms to use? 400 years later it has been decided to distinguish to make a

Hope you got to be careful that term distinguishes. Don't we? We distinguish To to make a distinction that is not biblical

Now part of that is just simply you're seeking to answer questions that are not necessarily

Being asked by the Apostles But there is a it's very important to recognize that there has been a development at that point and that the biblical meaning of Hypostasis and the related terms is

Different than the developed meaning later on but again

While that is a true observation. What does that have to do with taking a one -off progressivist non -roman

Catholic 2022 speculative definition of Thyanoustos and Reading it back into the text

Because what we're saying is in its context and that context includes

Pauline authorship its apostolic It came from the

Apostles not from a group of followers at a later point in time

That the apostolic meaning in 2nd Timothy 316

Speaks to The nature of Scripture and its ability

To thoroughly equip the man of God in the church To communicate the truth of God to the people in the church

To exhort them to correct them to train them and that there is nothing like that That is presented to Timothy So just as in Acts 20

I commit you to God and the word of his grace and 2nd Timothy 3 6 and this is in light of heresies

This is in light of the falsehoods that are coming to Paul's warning about And he says to Timothy Timothy you remain convinced of that which you've known from youth those scriptures which are able to make you wise into salvation and Why are they able to do this?

Because they are God -breathed Not because they give life They do give life

That is not an untrue Definition it's just extremely partial and insufficient in the context that Paul uses

Once you dismiss that you can make it mean whatever you want to me Which is what progressivists do so there's two different contexts here.

I I When I heard this I was I was like kudos to Trent This is as good a cover as you're gonna come up with until someone comes along and says yeah

But that's not actually what's going on here and in reality He would have to be arguing that his definition

He's actually arguing that the traditional definition is the

Evolved definition, but that he's found the immediately post -apostolic forgery definition maybe

And that what that means is He can continue to allow Rome to use inspired and to use the language.

It's always used But then turn this new thing upon us because you don't you can't have that evolution thing you see

We can have that evolution Under the authority of the magisterium, but you can't do that.

And so we'll hold you accountable for what we're saying now is the meaning in the early church that we don't have any official word on but We're gonna argue it from McDonald and or yay, even though they're actually sort of arguing different things anyway

Well done But it doesn't actually fly Unfortunately almost there

Three little ones left to go just because the church recognizes scripture is unique because it's inspired

Does not prove 2nd Timothy 3 16 is saying that about scripture so the church

Recognizes that scripture is unique because it's inspired but that's not what somebody else

Said to Timothy or it wasn't to Timothy because Timothy wouldn't have been around either but some forger

Made it look like Paul said something to Timothy. So evidently the unique so now so now the idea is the the uniqueness that you can find in Roman Catholic statements and doctrines

Documents, sorry, they can teach doctrines That that's the evolutionary understanding

But that the original understanding is this vivification broader

Scripture isn't unique because he's arguing against he's arguing that in the early church.

They didn't believe scripture was unique That's what he's arguing. I think that's absurd But he's arguing the base of well, they would refer to think they didn't use his specific terminology as we're using later on Okay Which is why the early church should be corrected by scripture, which is why the medieval church should be corrected by scripture

Which is why the modern church should be corrected by scripture But you don't have any ability to correct anything by scripture once you're a

Roman Catholic You can't correct anything by scripture because scripture is subject to higher authorities and to higher

Powers of interpretation, I guess we should say So So again, the question is so scripture is unique but Only because Rome says that it is now but Rome doesn't say that it is in the way

We're arguing this so that's how you get rid of soul scripture. I think We also need to study how the word theopneustos was used in the ancient church and in the the ancient

Context in which these documents were written to find out what it meant in that Context so we have to do a word study

That's what I did in the previous episode drawing on Macdonald and Poirier scholarship and it's something white

Just does not do in his reply to me to show what that his meaning of the word is.

Correct He simply doesn't do that. So we have done that I have pointed out that my whole focus was something else, but we've done that now we've provided the contextual from the

New Testament You don't define this term by going a hundred and fifty years later go look at how somebody used it over here

So what how did Paul use it? And what was the context within that?

Within that context People doing odd things to We're all fine here now.

Yeah, okay. I Trying to do a program and he's running off to some other place

I'm like, what's what's going on here is the volume up for this next clip or what? I don't know We'll find out as we're going along So a lot of people are getting lost by about now

But the key thing that keeps all of this somewhat silly to be honest with you is that on The one hand we're being told is well scripture is unique because it's inspired because Rome says so but the early church didn't have that clear a definition and So we're willing to utilize scholarship that actually removes the use of the honest us from being

Pauline So you'd have to worry about whether Paul wrote this or not But we will give you that definition from outside of the

New Testament From fragmentary documents, but we will not actually worry about whether Paul wrote it or not because It's it's clear to me

That modern Roman Catholic scholarship is quite amenable to progressivist understandings of the authorship of the

Gospels And I've pointed out the irony of this in the past That one of the big arguments that Roman Catholics used for years and years was well

How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? And the reality is Rome doesn't know that Matthew wrote Matthew So every time they've used that argument it's been a it's been a bogus argument all the way along Okay Just two more real quick here says it's the only infallible rule of faith and Protestant arguments to try to show this often engage in Circular reasoning like saying scripture is the only infallible rule of faith because there's nothing beyond scripture that has the same level of authority

That's saying the same thing twice Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and no evidence is presented to prove that it's a circular argument.

And here's White's response and When he talks about circularity Let's remember something when it comes to a discussion of ultimate authorities they have to be certain they have to be circular because you see an

Ultimate authority cannot appeal to an authority above it to verify its authority because they're not no longer the ultimate authority

Scripture never says it's the only foul rule of faith. Of course, it never says anything about Popes Cardinals or Rome is the head of the church papal infallibility

But it does tell us that scripture is unique and beyond Any use the term tradition

So keep your eye on the ball always keep your eye on the ball when listening to Trenthorne and Catholic answers and talking about solo scriptura

Because they will use one set of standards for solo scriptura and another set of standards for the infallibility church

I do use two different standards. I use the correct standard of scripture tradition

And the teaching authority of Christ Church to determine doctrine and I judge your system

James by your standard solo scriptura if you demand that the papacy and other doctrines be found explicitly in scripture

Solo scriptura must be found there as well. And okay, so one of the things is fascinating.

I Was never able to track it back down a couple years ago

I was driving around I happened to tune in To Catholic radio terrestrial radio while I was driving around I was over in Scottsdale, I recall and Catholic answers was on they were taking phone calls.

They had an atheist calling and I had really Wanted to track that program down to play parts of it to illustrate the reality that Rome's apologetic methodology is very much wedded to the same form of synergistic

Honoring of the autonomy of mankind and a lot of that goes back to the concept of reason and to the horrible anthropology that Thomas Aquinas had

In contrast to a presuppositional Response to the same atheist. So what

I do is I wanted to play what had been said and it might have been trend it might have been somebody else but This issue of epistemology and What ultimate authorities look like is

Vitally important and The pontificate of Francis demonstrates

That Since he is the definition of apostolic succession apostolic authority.

That's the last point we're looking at Then The fact that he is so fundamentally different in The entirety of his theology and worldview

Then that which gave birth to the papal syllabus of errors go read the papal syllabus of errors. Okay Here is what

Rome said were errors Not very long ago recently in church history, what was it 1850s?

I Don't remember the exact date. I'd have to look it up. I don't have it in front of me But as far as church history is concerned that's yesterday

Read the papal syllabus of errors compare it with where Francis is and the result is you do not have a

Consistent unchanging objective foundation for Roman Catholic epistemology. You just don't and Rome Always is reaching out to natural law arguments

Again Thomas deeply infected that system with unbiblical thinking on key issues and The result of that is is seen in how things have changed and The question

I have is how much are more will things be changing You already have a lot of Roman Catholics who are

Red -pilled, you know, they've woken up How many more Francis's will it take?

Before you can't avoid finally swallowing that red pill. That's really the question

And this all goes back to hate with if Scripture is not Unique as God speaking as seems to be his argument by its own nature

Then you have nothing that's going to be unchanging in the future and The Roman Catholicism of a hundred years from now is going to be so so so Very different last one here let's

Get to it quick. Now. I offered to actually defend apostolic succession. Okay, this is where he's talking about the upcoming debates

In February where we're doing sola scriptura and purgatory and he's saying well, hey

I offered to do this And here's what he says, you know to positively defend an authority claim

Encounter to him to positively defending an authority claim, but White said he didn't like the topic of apostolic succession

Which is interesting because Gavin Ortlund has no problem with that topic. He's debated it before He said he'd be happy to debate me on it.

So we'll see but we're in talks. Hopefully sometime in February We will do a doubleheader debate one night.

We will do is sola scriptura true The next night we'll do something like is purgatory the doctor, right?

So what about the apostolic succession thing you've got to have a meaningful definition to be able to debate and in Orthodox Historic Roman Catholicism the very embodiment and definition of Apostolic succession is found the papacy

And so I might say well, it's just in the bishops as a whole but who is How do you identify

With what's going on in Germany right now with the schism in Germany Who defines who the bishops are when?

the Council of Constance Healed the papal schism and then immediately thereafter the papacy crushed conciliarism

Any meaningful definition for apostolic succession was ended is ended it becomes a if If you won't defend

Francis Then you're trying to defend a far more nebulous

Concept that no one will ever be able to identify. It's all there is to it And there's been no interest in defending

Francis By anybody, like I said, we had a debate set up for 2019 in Australia with Tim Staples and He said no, he backed out of it.

So Look, I fully understand. I wouldn't want to defend Francis either

But it's where you are. It's what you have committed yourself to And it's highly highly problematic so we can bring that down And Hopefully that was helpful to you

Spent a fair amount of time on it real quickly because we're actually are out of time, but I Just wanted to read you just As I said earlier in the program

I am reading Rosario Butterfield's five lies of our anti -christian

Five lies of our anti -christian age. Is that what it is? I can't see it on the page right here. But anyway Let me just read you just a section from the introduction and you'll see why

I'd like to try to get her on when the evangelical church embraced

LGBTQ plus vocabulary and it has the true gospel is exchanged for a false one ironically this made the world much less safe for people who experience homosexual desires or Gender confusion than it ever was before a genuine

Christian who experiences the indwelling sin of homosexual desire or Transgenderism will find both the world that says do what feels good and a church that says you're a sexual minority

And need a voice and platform the church as equally dangerous Where is it safe to just repent of sin and be built up in the promises of God?

Where is it safe to repent and flee from your sin and no longer be gay or trans? Gay Christians tell you that they must navigate their homosexuality, but God equips you to overcome your sin

Why did it become wise for Christians to come out of the closet about their sin? To tell the whole world about their sin instead of repenting of it and seeking accountability from a pastor or elders and a few close friends

Coming out of the closet and describing yourself by sin will never help you to repent from it flee from it and be delivered from it

Coming out of the closet is a political act of celebration Pride and solidarity with a cause that shares no substance with Jesus Christ The idea that you should always come out and share with everyone your sinful desires happened because homosexual desire was transformed from sin which demands repentance to a morally neutral category of personhood

LGBTQ plus which demands affirmation and celebration there it is If you want to know what the debates gonna be about there it is because in reading dr.

Cole's material in listening to a press's Sprinkle and the

Center for faith Sexuality and gender

I think it's terminology That's where they start is that Homosexuality is a given state

It is not sin It's not a disordered desire Now what confuses

Christians is that they will say? But we do not believe That marriage can be between two men or two women there is a

Gender binary that is fundamental to that definition and they're right even though they will use terms like wife of Two married women or husband of two married men.

I don't see how that's consistent, but yes, it may So they say you know and dr.

Cole says so I'm committed to celibacy I Will not act on my desires, but at the same time they will say there is no such thing as an ex -gay

It is definitional of who you are so that last

Paragraph the idea that you should always come out and share with everyone your sinful desires

Happened because homosexual desire was transformed from sin Which demands repentance to a morally neutral category of personhood?

LGBTQ plus which demands affirmation celebration there is the issue how do you define what a human being is and How do you how do you and can you

Define What is a disordered desire and so if you have

Constant disordered desire is that? sinful and If you say no

Then everything else your message and everything else changes and So as always in these debates 1st

Corinthians 6 9 through 11 I will want to know because there's some ambiguity in his published materials whether dr.

Coles Where the things that he has said and what

I've heard there was a lecture that he did I guess it was a sermon at a church fairly recently in California left me wondering exactly what he believes regarding arson equates and How clear our understanding of its meaning actually is?

So there's gonna have to be some discussion About what is found there

Because I don't believe is any question that Paul includes in his list of sins

Not only ours can do it arson coaches, but in the plurals going to arson koi tie, but Malakoi ESV understands that as the act active and passive partners in a male homosexual relationship and Then says and such were some of you

Such were some of you if it's an inalterable fact of reality

There could not be a were There could not be a past tense maybe such are some of you but that's the exact opposite of what his point is and The cleansing and the justifying and the sanctifying

That's the transition Into where they are now, which is not where they were before So five lies

Rosario Butterfield Already enjoying it not done with it yet But are you enjoying it and?

Will be helpful in What's coming up here fairly soon in in Pennsylvania, please pray for that Please visit the travel fund at ailment org.

That's how we I don't know if you've been noticing It's been interesting to me. I've never owned a diesel before in my life until last

Was it November? I went and got doggy. I'm sorry Was it

October? I'd never owned a diesel and so to be honest with you

You see those you see the signs on the side of the road, but I just ignored the you know green number

Because that's the diesel number and when I got the truck diesel was more expensive than unleaded and Then for a number of months, it's been less expensive than unleaded

Now a lot of places unleaded and diesel are the same about 449 here in Phoenix And but in other places it's gone above unleaded again

So the point is we're gonna have five thousand one hundred miles to cover next month and When the when the fifth wheel is attached to the back depending on weather

Going east for the first few days You have to climb a little bit the first day to get up to the continental divide

Then you get to go downhill all the way to the Mississippi and you get about 10 miles to the gallon

Pulling a 10 ,000 pound Fifth wheel behind you and Then you start going up on the other side, but you normally have a tailwind as well when you're going east

Come back the other direction Eight point nine to nine miles to the gallon depending on again the weather the wind stuff like that and so yeah,

I Got 32 a 32 gallon tank so I can go You know 300 miles or so before filling up, but you got to pull into those those diesel stations and and good junk a junk a junk a junk a

That I I honestly had never in my life had a fill up Where it went to three digits?

But that's pretty regular experience now when you when you've got 32 gallon tank you

Yeah, it takes a little money to fill it up. So the travel fund needs your assistance your support obviously, we'll be doing the dividing line on the road as we're going and back into the

Into the studio and again, I'm really interested should find out within the next couple days

I have a feeling we'll get the call call here in the next couple days to go pick up the unit Haven't been in it since we dropped it off for the repairs that are being done.

The temporary repairs are being done and It's been hot so I'm really really wondering what the backgrounds gonna look like and If it if it looks like it did before we will need to do the dystopian dividing line

I Was gonna say we can't if it does that again, we can't miss that opportunity.

Yeah well, we'll we'll muddy you up a little bit get you in there and doing the dystopian dividing line

Rich wants to we could do a lot. We could have some fun with it. We really could We can come up with a whole scenario as to what happened

How the world ended Who I'm running from what do zombies look like in And why can

I still find diesel fuel? I don't know but that you could find some way of explaining it

I suppose but Anyhow, anyhow, that is that is yet to come.