The Unity of God's Word: Responding to @TheCounselofTrent

Hello everybody. You can't hear the music I'm listening to, but it's good. If, uh, as I preamble, if everyone's new here, hello. I'm Joshua Crystal. This is practical question lesson. I remember introduced myself in these. I'm pretty bad about it.

Um, I'm listening to "Autumn Leaves" by Cannibal Ladder. This is some, some, uh, good old Blue Note Jazz, 1920s and 30s. Straw's like all the way up top. Let me do this over here so no one has to hear it. But we're going to be responding to Trent Horn tonight. I'm also going to just be yapping about some other things. I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone.

While we give everyone a minute here, feel free to clip this and send it to all your Unitarian buddies. Tell them to show up here and listen to us talk about the Trinity. Time if they disagree. So, there not only was there a recent debate with Trent Horn, um, when we're basically responding to a statement he made in there, as well as his follow-up video, uh, the, what is it, the Protestant Word of God Fallacy, what he called it, not working. I'm just going to put this right here. And he basically is saying that scripture itself never says it is the Word of God, which is full, full of flaws, shall we say? Full is, uh, an understatement here. An understatement here.

Um, I've never seen an argumentation that has so many flaws. Uh, now I'm wondering when I see the chat here on my screen. I know on YouTube it automatically sets to top chat only. Full of bologna is an accurate way, accurate way to phrase that. Uh, am I only seeing the top chats, or am I seeing live chat? I don't know. We'll find out.

Um, but another debate that happened this same weekend or last weekend, whenever it was, everything's blended together, is the James White Dustin Smith debate. And the Unitarians are, are trumpeting, "Dustin Smith won! Dustin Smith won!" He even had his own scoreboard there. Um, we're going to talk about that probably more in-depth some other time, but I'm going to use it for some preamble time here. Point out some obvious flaws. One, Smith has a pre-written closing statement. I don't know if anyone spotted that. That's, that's a move straight out of Dale Tuggy's book. He pre-writes closing statements. Dale Tuggy was caught in a scandal where he is, he and others were pre-writing response videos to debates that hadn't happened yet, and they got caught in it. So, this is, and this is unfortunate. I had high hopes for Dustin Smith as a Unitarian proponent, and maybe we'll actually get someone who's going to try and go past a lot of the surface-level arguments that everyone constantly champions in these debates. And unfortunately, I was very wrong. He just stuck in the surface and didn't want to go any deeper.

Um, we'll get into that a little bit here in a second. But he's moving into those same tactics as Dale, unfortunately. And I suspect there's other stuff going on behind the scenes, much in line with what's happened in the past. And one of the things they, they both said, Dustin Smith brought this up in his closing statement, that the two natures of Christ was never defended from James White. The issue is Dustin Smith never attacked it. The only thing he did in the entire debate, 90% of his argument was, "The Son is distinct from the Father," which we already agree with. If, if you want to argue about the distinction of within the persons of the Godhead, that's the entire topic of the debate. So by arguing for the divinity of Jesus, you, James White is de facto arguing for that divine-human distinction. And to, to quote Dustin Smith himself here, "175," uh, which wasn't brought up in the opening statement, so I didn't have to respond to it. These Jewish wisdom traditions and portraying Jesus embodying wisdom in over 40 different ways. So, in John 17:5, uh, which wasn't brought up in the opening statement, so I didn't have to respond to it.

"Since it wasn't brought up in the opening statement, I didn't have to respond to it." Well, there you go. According to Dustin Smith, James White had no obligation to respond to something that wasn't brought up in the opening statement. This is actually not how debates work if it's brought up in rebuttal and cross-exam. But anyway, anyway.

Um, but yes, this, this, there were, how many people were commenting on the, on the Trent Horn video and debate, including Roman Catholics who were saying, "He's arguing like an atheist." I'm just, I'm just pointing it out. Swan Sona, oh, he didn't send me this link. I'll see if I can, uh, but he didn't send on the computer. Someone, someone text me the link. Um, Swan Sona's, you know, off getting his degree. Is this the video Peter versus Paul? Uh, okay. I can't find it on here. Swan Sona recently put out an article. I thought it was up on Catholic Answers, but I'm not seeing it on his profile. Anyway, um, where he's just like, "Oh, there, there's these serious challenges to calling authorship authorship, and that's a problem for Protestants." I'm like, "Okay, I didn't realize we were arguing like atheists." I'm sure he's going to nuance it more than that at a later point. But yeah, that's, that's where they're going. John C. Poirier's book, which he appeals to for his points already. First Timothy 3 says, "Ancy is wrong, and Second Timothy is unanimous." Yeah. Yeah.

I, I remember when Trent Horn was making that big rhetorical deal about Protestants arguing like atheists. Also, I just want to point out, and we're not talking about the entire debate. We're going to be very focused tonight. I'll be done with this preamble soon. Trent Horn did the classic pop-slop arguments that everyone, at least everyone I talk with, is so tired of. If, here's just a few works from the Reformation. If you read these, and then you go, if you just read one of these, probably, and go back and listen to Trent Horn's debate, you'll realize that he's just using these same crappy arguments that have been used for 500 years. This is the Catholic Answers mantra. I think using tired arguments that have been defeated. I, I know I'm not going to say names, but I know that there are talks behind the scenes of Roman Catholic apologists who are tired of these types of argumentation and call them terrible because they know they've been answered, even if they disagree with everything from some of these sources. But like William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture, Trent Horn's argument would not even stand up to that at all. Not a single facet of his argument. Johan Gerhard's Loci Theologici, I think it's the second volume. Not cheap, unfortunately. William Whitaker's dissertation you can get online for free. I don't know about Gerhard's Theologica. I think that's locked behind a, a certain printing company in the Lutheran world that likes to charge way too much, even though everyone calls them out for it. Um, Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, also available free online. It's the second locus there. B.B. Warfield's Inspiration and Authority of Scripture also addresses it. And something else, uh, we won't be delving into it here, but I will be, go ahead and share this here. And I have some notifications I didn't check, just to show if, if say you want to just a, a really good article to have, and some people because I know sometimes people are, um, source-primist about where they're getting their material from. This is by Dr. Christopher Clouse from the Protestant Review. "Trent Horn's Fatal Flaw Has a Fatal Flaw." He's absolutely correct here.

Um, he does a lot of stuff here. He goes into the grammar. Uh, can I find this quickly? Oh, yes. Here we go. Um, so this is the passage Trent can't afford to address. This is just the one thing I want to highlight quickly from this article regarding *phōnē*. I really need to work on my Greek pronunciation. It does something. The phrase "Word of God" identifies the source of communication. It comes from God. That matters because Trent Horn's entire argument relies on saying "Word of God" is only the oral proclamation. And if the source is from God, this is something I will talk about, um, whether it's the written source or the oral source, it's still the same content, which is, funnily enough, one of the sources he brought up and Anthony Rogers pointed out in the debate. I've pointed it out elsewhere. Irenaeus makes that exact same point repeatedly in his book. He defines tradition in his book *Against Heresies*, which he does for us. He explicitly defines tradition as that which is the content of scripture, that they have the same content. Now, he's talking about a specific type of tradition. That's also something Trent Horn tried to conflate often in the debate. What are types of tradition? Read, um, oh, *Examination of the Council of Trent* by Martin Chemnitz, volume one, which is available for free online. The, the other three volumes are, the first one is where he addresses eight types of tradition. Trent Horn did not want to address eight types of tradition. He wanted to conflate them, unfortunately. Here we are.

Um, and I do have, I do just want to point out, even though we're not talking about those things here, uh, if this will work, if, um, if you, if you go read all those things, then, then this will be you. This is, this is from our own, this is from our own Javier Perdomo. If you read these, this will be you. That, that will be you. That will be you. And I just got a notification. Someone replied to a comment on a video that we'll get to here in a minute. So, go read those sources that I mentioned at the start of this. If you didn't catch them at the beginning, go back to the beginning and listen to them again, and you'll, you'll have everything you need. Turn on *Blue Train* by John Coltrane. It's a good one.

So, to anyone who doesn't know, as we're going to get into it a little bit here, the, there are two things I'm going to be addressing from Trent Horn's debate and then his follow-up video. The first one is his objection. His objection to noting that people's disagreements comes from spiritual blindness. Casey Chalk brings up the same objection in his book, *The Obscurity of Obscurity of Scripture*. The great irony is that Trent, in his debate, when he was pressed on Jehovah's Witnesses, though he didn't want to talk about their supposedly infallible vegetarian by their own teachings, he, Anthony Rogers and others pointed out, he, he needs to do some study on the Jehovah's Witnesses here. Um, he said it was the noetic effects of sin, quote, "basically makes them stupid or makes us stupid." This is quote. So, so he said it was an uncharitable interpretation of debates that happened this weekend to say that there were disagreements because of spiritual blindness. Actually, I, I have this quote right here. "Do those who disagreed with each other here on stage talking about the debate, was one correct and the other just spiritually blind and can't see what the scripture clearly says, or were the people of goodwill, or were they people of goodwill who disagree about a document that's not entirely clear on those issues? I think the latter is a more charitable interpretation of all the great guests who joined us at this conference." He said that at the 31-minute mark of that video or of the debate. So, he is doing something sneaky here that will actually, yeah, we'll just go and get into.

So, the first problem is, is just because Trent Horn wants to intentionally use inflammatory language, right? He's intentionally making an emotional appeal, right? Notice what that, all of that is emotionalism. There's no evidence actually put forth. There's no scripture recited. There's no argumentation of how good or bad arguments were. There was no addressing of motives. It, it's just using emotionally charged language to make you think, "Oh, it wouldn't be nice of you. It wouldn't be very kind of you if you were to say that these people, like say, uh, Jake the Muslim metaphysician and these others who were there debating and disagreeing on essential Christian truths, that they're just not in good faith. They're clearly trying. They have good faith here. They have good faith here." The statement, so he's trying to make this seem offensive to your ears. It doesn't actually impact the truth of the statement. We should be clear, and I'm going to be very clear. Trent is using rhetoric to intentionally make this idea seem less appealing, and it is, at best, unintentionally underhanded emotionalism. That's the best-case scenario. Best-case scenario.

Um, and the second issue, scripture itself actually does in fact say that it says people are blind. They are darkened. Just because there can be genuine disagreements among faithful Christians, notice the faithful Christians who have the Holy Spirit, doesn't change. There are people who twist scripture because they are darkened themselves, as he admitted when he said that the noetic effects of sin, which in other words, make us stupid. That was his own words, his own words there. We see that in Romans 1, right? They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. We see that in Ephesians where, and also again in Romans 1, where they're turned over to their own darkness. The Psalmist and Isaiah both talk about those who worship idols become like the thing they're worshiping. They have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear. Right? That's what the prophets say. And Trent Horn would look at that idea, according to his own words here, and say, "That's just not a charitable interpretation of all the great guests who joined us at this conference." Man, I wish, I wish Isaiah and David and these others had known that. And then also again in the Psalms, who is it that doesn't, who says there is no God? The fool. You want to know what scripture says about the fool? Go read Proverbs. It's not very kind words, I can assure you. So, he's just making emotionalism here. I just wanted to bring that up because that's an objection I hear a lot of Roman Catholics raise. We're not going to get into anthropology or the study of human nature here tonight. Rome has a much higher opinion of man's human nature, at least in a lot of their official documents and apologetics, than we do, and than the church has historically had. So, do with that information what you will.

I'll go ahead and, uh, read my, actually, I'll finish this and I'll go back to what I was going to actually open with because I, uh, I'm jumping around here. This is very loose. There's a very, very loose script for this tonight, if anyone hadn't gathered that. Is, I probably should have talked about this before, but it's been a busy year, so I haven't had as much time to do things as I wanted to. Now, this, this statement from him, "the noetic effect of sin makes stupid," though he admitted it was probably a loose statement, but it's showing underneath the surface of his appeals, he actually probably agrees with what was said and either mentally didn't want to give that ground or subconsciously didn't want to concede that ground to Rogers, knew what was happening and didn't want to give that ground to Rogers, or is just having dissonance in his head and he's not aware that he actually is seemingly agreeing with the position and just doesn't want to agree with it, or he didn't want to, um, make the distinction of genuine disagreement and ungenuine disagreement. He didn't seem very interested in making that, uh, distinction here. Didn't seem very interested in making the distinction here.

In fact, um, Javier Perdomo has this excellent article. So, one of the examples Trent Horn brought up was the Arians, right? Oh, the Arians. They were unclear on the divinity of the, of the, of the Son and how it worked. Right? It's just, it's just this difficult issue. Just this difficult issue. Well, as you can see here, an extensive list of 70-plus quotations from Church Fathers on the Arians' motives and the persecution of scripture on the divinity of Christ. So, so to Trent Horn and any other Roman Catholic who claims to be following the traditions of the Church Fathers, as we ward children, as you are, here is a great article for you to read and go through all these quotes from those who defended the Trinity against the Arians, who said that they were bad-faith interpreters. They were bringing outside presuppositions into the text, which is why they misread it. They didn't want to acknowledge what the text was saying, and that the Trinity is clear in scripture. There's four points for you to go through this article and read all these wonderful, extensive quotes for. This is Athanasius of Alexandria and his *Discourse Against the Arians*, quoted some of their notes there. Who else? I believe Hippolytus was in here as well. There's a lot of Athanasius. See this, Hilary of Poitiers. Uh, Donatus, I think's in here somewhere. Epiphanius of Salamis. Wonderful, great sources. So, according to your own church tradition that you claim to be following, they're not good-faith interpreters. They are spiritually blind and they're bringing outside presumptions into the text, which is why they don't see that which is clear, obvious, plain, the primary meaning of the text, however the Church Fathers phrase it, which they phrased it in many ways. They're kind of missing it there in the text. Very charitable of you, Paul. This is very true. This is very true. "I have delivered unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." This is something I really, I understand we're not as polemical as the society as we've had in the past with writings, but people have gotten so, uh, upset about un-nice things. I want to point out scripture calls us to be kind, not nice. Kindness involves niceness when possible. Doesn't mean we're always nice, especially when it comes to telling people the truth. But that was, that was the first point. I wanted to get that out of the way the quickest. Hey, look at that. It's even clickable. It only took about, what, nine minutes to get through spiritual blindness. And just referencing a few spots in scripture where you can go find it and see it's obviously there.

Um, for anyone who hasn't been wondering, we normally do live streams Thursday nights. Most Thursday nights we're live. There's just been a lot going on. My grandma was in the hospital and then got moved into hospice. We've had, and then she unfortunately passed away. Well, unfortunately for us, she's having a great time now, and I'll see her again one day. I'm, I'm confident of that. But, you know, we're dealing with her death, and of course, all the hospital things. This is the second death in the family already this year. Um, I'm incredibly busy with school, ministry stuff, in addition to working a day job and school and doing all these things. So, uh, I understand some of those words, magno, but me hablo español, eso me da. So please, uh, please say, please.

Um, so I just had a bunch of stuff going on. Not all bad. There's plenty of good stuff. I've recently submitted my first article with Asbury Theological Journal, and it's in the hands of the editor right now. I actually probably wonder if he emailed me back today. Let me go look real quick while I'm talking here and see if he said anything. He is not. So, I will bug him again. We'll bug him again. So, expect at Asbury Seminary's Theological Journal to see something from me there soon. That'll be up. And I've been, of course, working on my book that I've been working on a long time, which is where a decent amount of my response to Trent Horn is going to be coming from tonight. Um, because I was actually already writing a section already writing a section on my book addressing this idea. So, this, the second point that we're going to be talking about here. So, um, there, so there is already plenty of stuff sort of there.

Uh, I go to Asbury Theological Seminary. So, the seminary I'm writing at is also the seminary I'm going to. Um, and then I'll be getting my Master's from there hopefully next year in Biblical Studies, and then pursuing a PhD. I wouldn't mind some, um, some other educations outside of Asbury that are very, very good, have a good reputation for their quality of education, even if I disagree with a lot of their theological takes. But I'm more interested in the quality of the education. Uh, but it also has to be within a budget. PhDs are not cheap. So, we'll see how this goes. Hopefully, I'll be, um, an adjunct professor soon or a full-on professor, uh, just depending on on where, how things shape up in the near future.

Um, anyway, just on a quick side note on the Trinity, even well into the medieval ages, we see on the Incarnation of the Word, chapters one and two, Anselm talks about the clarity of the Trinity and the obscurity of those who are bringing these things into the text. It's not really until the Counter-Reformation that we start getting all these people charging scripture with being unclear on, on the Trinity. In fact, I've got a presentation on H. Javier Perdomo's channel on the Trinity and Roman Catholicism and their, uh, their charges of obscurity of it within scripture. You'd be surprised the amount of Roman, maybe you wouldn't be surprised, the amount of Roman Catholics in the past he said, "Without our magisterium, you don't have the Trinity. Just look at the Anabaptists." I repeat that. "Look at the Anabaptists." Yet, you know, those people who weren't Protestants, the Anabaptists. It's this video right here, "The Old Testament Unitarian," Joshua Pearl. And there's, there's, there's my, uh, sometimes handsome, sometimes ugly mug. Did he know the Trinity? Go watch that video, and you, you'll find ample documentation of Rome's varied opinions on the Trinity. Also note that they don't agree on how it's obscure or how obscure it is. I also hope you get to start your Master's.

Um, anyway, on to our second point of this presentation. So, the second point of this presentation is addressing Trent Horn's claim that scripture itself never calls itself the Word of God. Ample problems here. I suspect one of the primary reasons for doing this, he says, "Defeat our souls for Torah." I suspect there's another reason, and this is why people like Robert Bellerin sort of tried to undermine this point with places like Psalm 19 and Psalm 119. Bellerin's specific response was that those places like Psalm 119 are talking about the Deuteronomic law only, not all of scripture. I'm not addressing these things. So, I want to be crystal clear that people like Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Catholic Christian, who he's, he's Eric, this, his channel Catholic Christian, who copies a lot of arguments from Catholic Answers, looks up to them. Um, and everyone else defending these sort of ideas, whether they know it or not, though I suspect Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin are aware of this, and that their appeal is at best sophistry built in a long tradition of sharing truth. The only reason that they fight so hard on scripture being called the Word of God, even though Trent has said explicitly, "He accepts that title because his magisterium teaches it infallibly," might I add, according to them. Anyway, he doesn't think scripture itself applies that statement. So, because the magisterium tells us and scripture doesn't, and we're relying on tradition to get this statement, then *sola scriptura* is false. I suspect the other reason is so that when people like myself or Anthony Rogers and William Whitaker make appeals to places like Psalm 19, 119, which speak of not only the clarity of God's Word but the character of God's Word, how it's a light to believers, including the simple, the unlearned, to use the intention of the word "simple" to pop up in the Psalms as it's intended, idiots, it's a light instruction for idiots, be the white, or as Trent Horn himself put it, people who are made stupid by sin. Light is still a light regardless of if the blind can see it or not. And he knows the force of that argument, I would argue. So, he does everything he can to avoid the power of scripture testimony here.

So, in turn, if I get fired up, this is one of those topics that'll do it. He is denigrating the Word of God, using loaded emotional appeals to make his arguments and to make our arguments seem less appealing, and just rejecting plain biblical teaching and the teaching of the Church Fathers. So, a lot is going on there when they, when Trent Horn comes out and makes a video that says, "Scripture's not the Word of God, according to scripture. Not the Word of God, according to scripture." And there's a lot of things that go into this. So, the first thing I'm going to address is actually discussing his, his New Testament objection. So, he has, I want to address this because he has said this very true. Um, he has said this many times before, and that is that the Church Fathers did not think the New Testament scripture, or I, I repeat that, he does not think the earliest Church Fathers thought the New Testament was scripture was the Word of God, and he claims it wasn't until Justin Martyr that any of the Church Fathers called the New Testament scripture, and I think he specifically says as well, is the, the Word of God applied to the Old Testament only.

So, my first note, it doesn't matter what the Church Fathers said because scripture says it, right? It, it testifies to the canonicity of various New Testament texts. So, it really is irrelevant what men who came after it did or didn't say in regards to what the Bible itself is clearly saying. I'm, I'm not dismissing the testimony of the Fathers before someone makes such a statement. But someone that early, as early as Justin Martyr, early to middle century, knew it is very relevant. Especially as for him, Justin Martyr, it was being treated as something passed down. Justin Martyr didn't think he was saying anything new when he talked about scripture as the Word of God. And he explicitly mentions the Gospels repeatedly. And he seems to think they are so abundantly present, the pagans can have access to them, which is also something he makes in his address, not only in his *Dialogue with Trypho* but in his *Oratio ad Graecos*. He talks about the pagans being able to access scripture. So, make of that information what you will, that in Justin Martyr's time, he's under the impression scripture is so present, the pagans can go and access it.

The second point I want to make to Trent Horn here, and unfortunately enough time to make slides. He's simply wrong on the Church Fathers and on the New Testament. But even if he was right, it doesn't matter because the New Testament itself shows us they were accepted in scripture within the first century church. So, Paul's words were called scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Paul quotes Luke as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 when he quotes from Luke 10:7. And then Jude speaks of the apostles' teachings as scripture in Jude 17 through 19. So, the New Testament itself is already being clear. Scripture is circulating and being put around, and there is a canon being formed. Luke, the Gospel of Luke itself, even speaks of other accounts already in circulation. So, further evidence shows this as well, as we have the Gospels in multiple languages. If we're looking at external evidence, the Gospels are not just in Greek existing in the early ages of the church. They're also in Aramaic and floating around in other places, not just in Rome or in other places within its empire. It's floating around outside the empire as well. You don't have in the ancient world something circulating in multiple languages with such wide access unless it had very strong pedigree to be doing so. It wasn't cheap to make books. This is something they actually love to harp on. There wasn't a lot of a lot of scripture written scripture running around because it was so expensive. Well, the historical testimony actually seems to say there was a lot of scripture running around in multiple languages in multiple places. Not so abundant it was just in everyone's homes, but abundant enough that everyone was under the impression you could access it if you needed to or knew the right people. Just a little bit more of history undermining some of the claims they've made.

But if you simply read the Apostolic Writings or the, what, what is called the Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius, you'll see how often they quote things like Paul's epistles. Believe it was Polycarp. I can't remember who made the video, but they said he was quoting the New Testament like a machine gun. He's just dropping quotes left and right. Quotes left and right. And even the Catholic Encyclopedia, Trent Horn's own source that has official magisterial approval, says that by the end of the Apostles' lives, as the last apostles were still alive and nearing the end of their lives, the Gospels were in circulation. Paul's writings were in circulation and recognized as scripture, which is the core of the New Testament. So, even if Trent Horn wanted to modify his statement, right, his statement is that they didn't know the New Testament scripture, he's already going against his own t, his own sources and their binding statements. That's the, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not just something a random Roman Catholic can easily dismiss. I'll leave it there.

Um, so at the very minimum, he's already forced to concede that his position is wrong if he's being honest, anyway, and that he's misrepresented the data, and at least the core of the New Testament is in circulation. Or maybe he's just using polemical language and overselling his case intentionally for online rhetoric, which is, uh, I'd argue, breaking the Ten Commandments and bearing false witness, but I understand not everyone in the online world agrees with that. There's also incredibly strong witness. I also don't know the answer to this question. I also don't know the answer to this question. It could have been. There were several Latin translations running around by the time Jerome writes his, in what, the 4th century, and he was to write his because there were so many Latin translations running around, and some of them are not so good. But we have witness, a witness from within the first century who gives us a canon list with New Testament books in it. Papias of Hierapolis, who lived from roughly 60 to 130 AD, cited by Eusebius, is a first-century source speaking about the New Testament canon. We have a first-century source talking about the New Testament canon. Just pointing that out.

So, so Trent Horn's claim that no Church Fathers thought the New Testament was scripture is blatantly, laughably, objectively false from both internal evidence of the, of the New Testament itself and external evidence that we have. If, if Trent Horn wants to continue on this, it is a historically untenable position for him to argue for, unless he's going to argue like an atheist and imply an incredibly unbalanced level of skepticism and hermeneutical hermeneutical backflips to history and biblical texts. But he already does that when he's arguing like an atheist. So, I'm not sure that's going to be much of a problem for him.

But moving on towards the end of his recent video, uh, that he released after his debate, "The Protestant Word of God Fallacy," he says that the Word of God is a message about the faith, not the written text. So, what he says, so now as we move into this, the first obvious problem with this, the written text is the same substance of that message. Repeat. It's the same substance as the oral message. So, if it applies to the oral proclamation because of what it is, the substance, it applies equally to the written thing. This was something Trent Horn got, was just so adamant about in his debate with Anthony. "There's no explicit any," double down on in his video. "There's no explicit passage in scripture that says this. There's no explicit passage." Well, I have bad news for the Roman Catholics. There's no explicit explicit passage that teaches Vatican I Roman or Vatican I papacy. The end. There's, you don't have papal infallibility explicitly stated in scripture. You don't have "only infallible when speaking from the chair on matters of faith and morals" explicitly in scripture. You don't even have the papacy explicit in scripture. There's, you know, what's not in scripture? The word "pope." Not in scripture. You won't find it. The first people to use the pope wasn't even the Romans. That's not where the word comes from. They took it from someone else who, who was also claiming titled Christian. Just pointing that out there. So, live by the sword, die by the sword. If, if we're looking for an explicit statement, it is a two-edged sword there for our Roman friends. I say that to point out implicit teachings out of scripture are equally valid. So, that the teachings that I, as a Methodist or or Presbyterian, would would argue for have sort of the same underlying principle. That which is explicit in scripture, or that which is necessary by good and logical, by good and necessary consequences, aka implicit. It doesn't have to be explicit in scripture. Otherwise, we wouldn't be going around saying "Trinity." And I know Trent Horn knows this, and I know he'll probably try and nuance this a bit more if he ever hears this or cares, or if someone else brings this up. Implicit statements are just as valid as explicit statements if they're a good and necessary consequence. And it is a good and necessary consequence that if it applies to the oral statement, it doesn't matter if that oral statement then gets written down, it still applies. Which is also how God operates.

Just to talk about *sola scriptura* for a second. Trent Horn made a very big deal about, "Oh, there's no explicit statement from Jesus in his earthly ministry for the apostles to write down scripture and pass it on. Is no indication that these written words are going to then be binding on people throughout the entire Old Testament?" As we're going to look there, is the clear move of God repeatedly, emphatically, where he speaks orally to a prophet, that prophet speaks orally to the people, and then it is written down to be used in perpetuity, to be used after that prophet's gone, or even in the prophet's own lifetime at times. So, God speaks to a prophet who then speaks, and it's written down. That is how God operates throughout the entire Old Testament. So, show me, Trent Horn, where it's explicit or implicit in the New Testament that God's not going to keep acting like that with his apostles who are appointed as prophets after Jesus. Show me. I'd be interested to hear. Yeah.

Also, this, yeah. Perspicuity magically returns when it comes to papacy. It also magically returns to showing that Rome is the, uh, the valid one true church, right? It also magically returns there. Trent Horn did say, actually, you know what? We're going to do a, just a quick. This is a trick you can do. Go find this debate. Trent Horn versus Anthony Rogers. Go to the video. This is, um, this is a trick for everybody. This is a trick for everybody. Open up the description. If you're on a laptop, this will work. If you're on your phone, this won't, this won't be very handy. Hit "Show transcript." Of course, it's the, it's an AI transcript, so it's not so great. It's not so great at all times, but you hit control F, and then you can type in the words you're looking for. And you can, I'm looking up "clear" here. Is this Anthony talking? Of course it is. Uh, that's not a digit. Anthony here. Let's see. "The people of goodwill disagree not about a document not entirely clear." Again, knocking here the scripture instead of, you know, talking about other things. "The Bible is very clear." "The Word of God exists in the unwritten word." Oh, not it's suddenly so clear now that it's on print side arguing, or they're saying that it's not the written, written Word of God here. It's not the written Word of God here. Let's see where else this pops up here. I'm trying to find out where it's not Anthony. He says "clear" quite a few times, which makes sense. Um, that might have might have been it where it's clear on his interpretation being the the right Word of God here. I'll look through the rest of this in a minute. That was an unnecessary pause.

"It is written" mentioned 70 times, 76 times in scripture. That's, that's accurate. And, uh, there's also quite a few other, uh, important sayings we'll actually get to related to that same testimony there. Um, but right, so sometimes it's clear when it's helping them out. It's not clear when it's on these other issues, and that makes it, makes it necessary for the infallible magisterium. Also, someone, someone else pointed this out. They, they say it's necessary to have that infallible authority to give you an infallible canon list. Otherwise, you can't be certain of it. But if you push them, Roman Catholics, on how you know the scripture, or on how you know the papacy, it's from the scripture. But you can only know the scripture from the papacy. So, when they say that, you know, Roman Catholic Church is true, it's because you can use the New Testament scriptures as a reliable historical document. Okay. Well, then I have a question for them. Then I can't know infallibly about the papacy or anything else because it's only through a reliable, not an infallible historical source in that, that version of the argument. So, why, if it's okay to do, use it there to have a fallible source that leads me to the infallible truths, why can I not do that with the canon? I'm just curious. Not, not including all the other arguments we have about the self-attesting nature of scripture, the witness of church history, the fact that only 25 bishops out of Rome, 25 were at the Council of Trent and voted on the canon matter. So, they didn't have a dogmatic canon list for 1500 years. And if they want to appeal to the Council of Chalcedon, well, or not Chalcedon, Carthage, Third Carthage, uh, where it says that there can be no, no priest above all the others, no prince of the bishops, aka no pope. Well, now, now they have issues. If you're, if you're interested for more on that, watch my recent video on, or both watch my, uh, recent videos on William Whitaker's *Disputation on Holy Scripture*, and you'll, you'll see, you'll see some issues they have with, uh, with the Council of Carthage and why they're inconsistent in their appeal to it.

Anyway, back to this. So, uh, we already talked about this here. We already talked about Justin Martyr. So, one thing I want to point out with Justin Martyr, if the Word of God applies to the Old Testament, right? If, if, if Justin Martyr is the only one who said this, guess what? That's good enough for us. Uh, because he's assuming it's true. So, it's being passed down to him already. It's not developing like Trent Horn thought it was or argues it is. Um, if it applies to the Old Testament, it applies to the whole of scripture. So, this is something Trent Horn I think gets wrong because of an important presupposition he has about the text of scripture. So, in his book *Hard Sayings*, and I'll see if I can't just hotkey this because I didn't note the page down. He says twice that scripture is not one book but 73. Setting aside the issue of the canon here, um, the second point he brings up in this book is, "This is not working." Um, I don't remember the page number here. When he, he discusses that some people object to scripture and say it's false because there are multiple ways to salvation. His answer to that, that hard saying, is to say, "This fundamentally misunderstands that scripture is not one book but 73." I can't find a quote. I must not remember the exact quote here. "Not one book but 73." That's why it teaches, it appears to teach multiple ways of salvation. Maybe that's how he'd nuance it. Right? I would be interested to hear how he'd clarify that statement. Does he just mean "appears" or does he mean it actually teaches multiple ways to salvation? If Trent Horn ever sees this, I'd like to know the answer to that question. But notice his answer there. It misunderstands that scripture is not one book but 73. He, he is denying the unity of scripture to make this point. To make this point, he's saying scripture is fundamentally not one book. It is 73 distinct books. That is not the case. Not only from the church's own viewpoint historically, uh, we're going to walk through how scripture itself points out that that is not the case. And not, not even Robert Bellerin necessarily made such cases. Um, I'm, I'm not saying he agrees with me on everything. I'm not saying there's not a lot of points he wouldn't agree with Trent Horn on. But when it comes to the Word of God is scripture, um, he affirms that. When it comes to appeals to places like Psalm 119, he says, "Oh, yeah, that's talking about that Old Testament, right?" He sort of undermines how Psalm 119 applies to all of scripture, which will matter a lot as we'll see, but he's not denying it's applying to, to scripture as a fundamentally unified portion.

So, before we get into this, I'm going to note some objections that won't work for any Roman Catholics who actually, or Eastern Orthodox, or anyone who objects to the obscurity of scripture, or the clarity of scripture, the character of scripture, and scripture is the Word of God. Scripture doesn't explicitly say X is not a valid objection. I already talked about and demonstrated why implicit arguments are just as valid. Um, again, if we're looking for explicit, we're going to have some big problems here, especially because the, the Newman style of the doctrine of development explicitly relies on seeds being present that then develop into later things. This to me seems like a big, big, big double standard here. Another objection is, "That's just a Protestant saying." It's just a Protestant saying. Also not true. I will, I'll have several sources. Um, this is a, a work in progress. So, you guys are only going to get a little bit here. Again, I haven't had as much time as I've wanted. Um, but there's a lot to unpack that I just haven't gotten to yet.

So, scripture itself testifies that it is the written Word of God, and that it is unified. To, to talk to the written testimony part first. I'm going to look at the Old Testament and some Second Temple Jewish sources, including books that are canonical in the world of Roman Catholicism. So, to start here, we're going to go with Jubilees 3, and we'll have a video coming up on why it's not scripture soon from William Whitaker's *Disputation*. Be on the lookout for that. This is 3:10 and 3:14 says, "And for this reason the commandment is written on the heavenly tablets in regard to her that gives birth. If she bears a male, she will remain in uncleanness seven days according to the first weeks of the day." Right? The written commandment. In 3:14, "This is the law and testimony which was written down for Israel in order that they should observe it all the days." Where do they get the idea that the law and the testimony is written? It comes straight out of scripture itself. This, this language of the law and testimony being written. It's out of Exodus. It's out of Deuteronomy. It's out of the Psalms. We'll get to Psalm 119 when we're, um, going to be going through the character of scripture.

So, in Exodus 31:18, for example, it says, "And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written with the finger of God." And I want to point out something in Leviticus here. This is one of the, uh, things that point out. I'm only doing this now because I remembered it as I was reading here. "The Lord spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai." That pops up at Leviticus 25, and then again in Leviticus, the start of Leviticus or the end of Leviticus 26, sort of marks it. It's an inclusio. It's a specific phrasing in Leviticus that doesn't pop up in a ton of places. He spoke to Moses, and that's where we get this written by God on the tablets. So, he spoke it to Moses, and wrote it on the tablets. Again, same content regardless of form. That means both things are the Word of God if it's the oral proclamation. God spoke it. Moses spoke it. God also wrote it down. And then the people later wrote it down. Same content still. So, it's all the Word of God. The tablets were the work of God. Exodus 32:16, "And the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets." That's, that's an important phrase there. "The writing was the writing of God." Exodus 34:1 says, "The Lord says to Moses, cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first," this is after he broke them, "and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke." Then again, later in the New Testament, or not the New Testament, the Old Testament, we see written writings again confirmed. Joshua 8:31, it says, "Just as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses." That's an important remember, remember that out of Joshua 8:31, as it is.

written in the book of the law of Moses, then it describes the the altar. And then in Nehemiah 8:1, "And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Watergate, and they told Ezra the scribe, to bring the book of the law of Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel." It's Nehemiah 8:1, the book of the law of the Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel.

So if it is from God, it is by necessary logical consequence the word of God whether in written or oral form as testified to by Old Testament and intertestamental literature. Point unless Trent Horn wants to continue to double down on this preposterous claim and say that in places like Deuteronomy 31, the written words which the people were to read aren't the word of God, only the oral version of those words proclaimed by the people reading the text. So the people read Deuteronomy 31 over the years. They're charged to do that. It is to be read in the hearing of the people. It's likely what King Josiah hears from his secretary. And notice Josiah as a boy read to read the scriptures by his secretary, not a priest, not a bishop, not a pope, understands that he's broken the law of God and the people of all of Israel have broken the law of God and says, "Oh no, that's not good."

Um, talk about persecution. There is a reason Bellerin argued though wrong that Psalm 119's about the Pentetuk. He didn't reject using these texts to speak about scripture. He simply restricted tried to restrict the scripture one could appeal to Rome today at least some of them are going further than one of the doctors of their own church did and all without Rome giving as far as I know an infallible interpretation of these texts to settle the matter. So, not only are they going past where their own doctors of the church have gone, they're also doing so without an actual infallibly binding statement from their magisterium on what these passages mean. So, do with that what you will.

Um, now we can uh go through Bellerin selling the case short here. So, Anthony Rogers has talked about this several times. Ow, that was my wrist. When we go through the Old Testament, we see quite a few things that matter. Remember that phrase that popped up earlier, the the book of the law of Moses. The book of the law of Moses. We see a similar phrase appearing well before that. Well before that.

So, in Exodus 17:14, if you have if you have a Bible or if you have a phone, feel free to just be flipping through and trying to to keep up with these. Actually, I guess I'll do that in my own here because the net the net Bible actually translate this correctly. So, in Exodus 7:14, it says, "Then the Lord said to Moses, write this as a memorial in the book and recite it in the ears of Joshua." It is the correct translation there to be the book. That's that's the proper translation of the law of Moses here or not the law of Moses as of of here. It is, if I can get this to work, it is the the Hebrew word lema, I believe. Yeah, don't worry. We're going to we're getting into it.

Um, so this is the net Bible. If you don't know what this is, and they're also citing a Greek or a Hebrew grammar here on this verse, they say, "In the presence of this, the article does not mean that he was to write in a book that was existing." So Moses is not writing into something that's already there in Exodus 7:14. Rather he is writing in one dedicated to this purpose dedicated to this purpose to write in and then recite in the ears of Joshua that matters a lot he writes in the book you might be saying thinking what's the book don't worry we'll get through this in Deuteronomy 31.

Deuteronomy 31. I probably should have had this pre-written. But here we are. Here we see two things pop up in Deuteronomy 31:9. It says, "Then Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the Levitical priest who carried the ark of the Lord's covenant and to all Israelite elders." Right? So this law and jump to verse 24. When Moses finished writing on a scroll the words of this law in their entirety, right? What is this law? It's many people will say here it's the the either the book of Deuteronomy like the the law codes or the entire five books or at least Moses's contrib contribution to those five books. And he commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the Lord's covenant take this scroll of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. It will remain there as a witness against you. for I know about your rebellion and your stubbornness.

So, there is a scroll written by Moses placed by the ark and it's called the scroll of the law. I'm still like 10 minutes behind. Well, he'll uh he'll be keeping catching up. Um so, by Moses's own testimony, there is a written scroll of the law of this law that's being passed down through the people. Then when you get to Joshua, go to Joshua 24. Joshua 24 verse 26. And I need to turn over one more page here. Joshua 24:26, which says, "Joshua wrote these words in the law scroll of God." He then took a large stone and set it up under the oak tree near the Lord's sanctuary. That oak tree pops up quite a few many times in scripture. All right.

So Joshua wrote these words into the law scroll of God. That is and many scholars note this. We'll get to them in a minute. A clear reference to what has been going on in Exodus and Deuteronomy. It is a clear reference to the writings that Moses was putting into scrolls and then passing on. And it's not just Protestant scholars that know this. Um, it's worth noting the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible when I went through it on these, with the exception of the Deuteronomy 31 where it mentions it's the book of Deuteronomy, it talks about some of the other writings of Moses, is is silent on each of these passages about the book that's being written into or the scroll, however, however one might translate it here.

And then I thought this was the right verse. Am I uh missing my own verse here? 1st Samuel 10:24-25. Then Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see the one whom the Lord has chosen? Indeed, there is no one like him." And the people shouted, "Long live the king." Then Samuel talked to the people about how the kingship should work. Yeah. So this is 1st Samuel 10:25. Then Samuel talked to the people about how the kingship would work. He wrote it all down on a scroll and set it before the Lord. Notice that extremely similar phrasing to what's been said. He wrote it all down on a scroll and said it before the Lord. This is something that pops up again and again and again throughout the Old Testament. And that's that's stopping short.

There are places like Exodus 24:7, Deuteronom, where it talks about the book of the covenant, which is a phrase that pops up again and again and again throughout the Old Testament, and is also spoken of as being put before the Lord and laid up in the temple, placed by the ark or in the ark. Right? This book of the covenant is spoken of like the book of the law, like the book of Moses's law that God gave him. Deuteronomy 17:18 speaks of kings having to write out the word of God for themselves. And then Joshua does that in Joshua 1. It's picked up again at the beginning of the psalter. Um, there are lots of places that talk about this theme that runs through, right? Joshua does, 2 Kings does, 2 Chronicles, uh Nehemiah, it's all throughout the alter, Isaiah, Jeremiah, right? There's a lot of places we could talk about. And they all bring this up. They all bring this up.

And it's not just me saying this. This is Old Testament scholar um Charles Wallers. So he says we have here a clue to the authorship of the Old Testament and the view of the writers who succeeded Moses in what they did. So not only Moses but those who came after him. They did not look upon themselves as writers of distinct books but as authorized to add their part to the book already written. Right? Joshua wrote into the book to add their part to the book already written to write what was assigned to them noting these same passages and in the book of the law of God. The unity of holy scriptures is thus seen to have been an essential feature of the Bible from the very first.

And that's the upshot. That's the important part of all these different passages being written into the book, right? It's Moses first, then Joshua picked up in Samuel. They're not saying we're writing into these 73 distinct books, assuming the their canon number is correct. I'm going to push 66 here. and saying, "We're making these separate books." They're writing into the book. So, they are understanding themselves to be writing it into the law of God. That's what Waller is saying here.

And it's not just me saying this. It's not just Waller. Jewish scholar Robert Alter notes the same thing on Joshua 24:26. And he says unless it's an appendix that Joshua is adding to the book of the law that he's either talking about Deuteronomy or the five books of Moses and Joshua's writing into that. So whether it's Deuteronomy or the five books of Moses, Joshua is adding his own penmanship to the same book. Jay Vernon McGee notes this among many others. This isn't just this fringe opinion. If and I I I emphasize the if part. There are a fair amount of commentaries that make no comment about this when they comment on the passage. But the ones that do make this note that as we're going through this Old Testament or going through the Old Testament, there is this understanding that what's being written is being written into a singular book. It's one unified work. It's not distinct books. They are books written together having the same central teachings and we see that picked up in the intertestamental literature.

So to to quote just say from a few things here, right? In the prologue of the book of Sirak, um it lifts up the series of praise that there should be praise given to Israel for the instruction and wisdom that have come through the teachings of the law and the prophets and those who came after them. Others that followed them is is how the NRSB translates it, I believe. So that have come through the prophets and the law. How did it come through them? Written instruction is what the prologue of Sarak opens up with. And it speaks of it as necessary not only for readers to go through the prophets, the law, and the others who came after them. And notice there that three-part division of scripture. They are also to help outsiders by speaking and writing. Speaking and writing. So there's this understanding of literacy going on.

In fact, Robert Alter, again, Jewish scholar, not a Protestant. He not a Christian, not a Kerite Jew, as far as I know. Um, also speaks of literacy being an odd feature of ancient Jerusalem, pointing out that in places like Judges 8, Gideon just seems to assume the people he's running to and on the road will be able to write down what he's telling them. There's this seeming assumption of literacy. That's its own side tangent. Just worth pointing out there. So there there is this value of Torah as interaction is found all throughout second temple literature. Again looking to Rome and their books they accept as canonical. Their own scholars note that on the wisdom of Solomon it shows the greatest respect for Israel's scriptural heritage and reaffirms its central teaching in the Tarums second different second temple literature sort of interpretations of the the Hebrew scriptures. I've talked about them a lot on the channel. On the psalm, Psalm 198, they say, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul." Right? So, they attribute it to the Torah of the Lord. No, the instruction of the Lord, the law of the Lord. Interesting phrasing that references perhaps, I'm not saying perhaps, does reference back to what we've been talking about. The testimony of the Lord is reliable, making wise the fool. And again, the fool there, not a not a kind thing, not a not a stellar representation of the original. It is on the Torah. One meditates in Psalm 12. And again, it says, "How happy are the perfect of way who walk in the Torah of the Lord. How happy those who keep his testimony with a whole heart. They will seek his instruction." That's in Tarum Psalm 119:es 1-2.

So in the psalter, when we get to the palter and it speaks of God's commandments and testimonies, the same phrasing Moses uses to describe his commands in Deuteronomy 4 5-6 where God himself writes on the tablets. Moses calls those the testimonies and the commandments. We can be confident and is speaking about the written word as part of God's word. So the oral proclamation that comes from God and from his prophets is the word of God just as the written form of it is. So when the psalter, this is the this is the big upshot of it all. If you want a a nice breakdown of this, Anthony Rogers has been talking about this as well on his channel. Therefore, when the psalter talks about the law of God, the testimonies of God, the commandments of God, because scripture is fundamentally one book, and that is painted as the picture of in the Old Testament itself, and we'll get to it in the New Testament as well. That means when the psalter says that the law of God brings life, that means the word of God brings life, the whole of scripture.

Back to these Deuteronic books in Sirak, the book of Sierak, which um Scott Han and others, actually, I have them written down here. Um, Andre Villinu, Scott Han, and Mitch Curtis all note this when they're they're talking about Sarak. I'm gonna quote Sarak 24 23 through 29 here first where it says, "All this is the book of the covenant of the most high God, the law that Moses commanded us." So they in s equate the book of the covenant with the law that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob. It became full like the Pon with wisdom and like the Tigris at the time of the spring harvest. It fills up like Euphrates with understanding, like the Jordan in harvest time. It pours forth instruction like the Nile, like the Githon at the time of vintage. The first man did not know wisdom fully, nor will the last one fathom her, for her thoughts are more abundant than the sea, and her counsel deeper than the great abyss. Now they point out that in sirk it identifies this book with wisdom itself but as they also note in second temple literature wisdom came to inhabit the Torah the Torah is a written wisdom so it doesn't exclude the written form does not exclude the written form if you're wondering where that comes from I'm quoting from or not quoting pulling from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible again there and they identify that this law was given for Jacob with the same divinely given heritage of Deuteronomy 33:4. So we see it in the Old Testament, we see the intertestamental literature. And again, I'm only quoting from a few sections. Only quoting from a few sections there. There are a lot more places that we could be pulling from here.

Um, where did I get from here? So, we see this happening in the Old Testament. What about the New Testament there? What about the New Testament there? We're actually going to open back up our Bibles here because I don't have all these right now. So, turn to John 10:34. To John 10:34 here. I know it's weird to see someone physically flipping through a Bible Bible on camera in the modern day, but honestly, I think we should get back to this because it will help me prepare for teaching teaching again because when I'm teaching, I guarantee you, I mean, I'll have slides um but I also flip through my Bible a lot. Not just when I'm teaching, when I have taught in the past as well, but I am I am teaching again in in churches again. That's exciting. That's also something that's been happening. Oh, we can get to that after we're done this conversation here. So, John 10:34, that's 11:34. No wonder it sounded very wrong there. It's aware if you laid him up talking about Lazarus, I was like, uh, this isn't the Lazarus scene. So John 10:34 says he's he's addressing the Pharisees here who have charged him with blasphemy for saying he's God. So to the Unitarians who maybe came here from the beginning of the stream, notice what happens here against the charge of being called Yahweh and claiming to be that Jesus is claiming equality with Yahweh. He says Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law?" Notice that designation your law. What's he quote from? Quotes from Psalm when he says, "I said you are God's. If those people to whom the word of God came were called gods and the scripture cannot be broken, do you say about the one the father sent set apart and sent into the world, you are blaspheing because I said I am the son of God. So not only is Jesus clearly affirming his divinity, he's doing so by appealing to the law, which is a specific designation normally for the pentetuk, the law of Moses. And he applies it to the psalms. Why? Because they're fundamentally one book. So he if he quotes the Psalms, he is quoting from the law of God even though he's quoting from a distinct section within it. Even though he's quoting from a distinct section within it.

Um but then again in John 15:25, hopefully I put these in order so I don't have to flip back and forth here. If not, when I come back and re-edit this part of the book, uh I will be changing that. Now this happened, John 10:25. This happened to fulfill the word that is written in their law. They hated me without reason. Anyone know what that's quoting from? Anybody know what that's quoting from? I'll give you a hint. It's not the law as we traditionally think of it. It's Psalm 69. Psalm 69. And there's echoes of that elsewhere in this altar as well. So Jesus is doing this. He is doing that which he by his spirit had already done in the inspiration and shaping of the Old Testament.

And we see a similar principle at play with Paul in 1 Corinthians 14. I won't turn to these. We we'll cut it short here. 14:21 and 14:34 which Paul again uses this phrase the law and then quotes Isaiah exactly why quattro Psalm 69. He quotes Isaiah not the Pentetuk. Romans 3. Actually this Bible won't have what I need there. Romans 3, right? This is where Paul is laying out charge after charge of of sin, right? We'll read through this here. So, what then are my are are we Jews any better off talking about, you know, they've received the law of God, right? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all both Jews and Greeks are under sin as it is written. And then the next eight verses are all quotes from the Old Testament here. No one is righteous. No, not one. No one understands. No one seeks for God. All have turned aside. Together they have become worthless. No one does good. Not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom ofp is under their lisp lips. Their I have a list, not them. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. In their paths are ruined and misery. and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Notice notice two things. Paul is quoting from a long series of texts without introducing in his commentary on Romans. Oo Johnum. I forgot that in his commentary on Romans. In his commentary on Romans, he calls the Psalms the law. I forgot that. That's a good very good point. Um Paul not only is not separating these texts from each other. He's not saying it says in one place and then in another place and then another place. He's he's speaking of these as if it's fundamentally one as it is written and then makes one long composite citation. This is an ancient Jewish practice. I've talked about this in the past. I'll probably have an article out on it at some point. He's making a one big composite citation and treating it as if it's fundamentally one book. That's why it's not a problem when Mark does that in Mark in the opening of his gospel quoting from Isaiah, Malachi, and probably Exodus as well where he's treating it as one citation. It's not a problem when we do it with the 12 prophets. He is quoting from a variety of places here. Just to list them out, starting at verse 11 here. Does it skip verse 11. Them dirty dogs. Them dirty dogs. Uh Psalm 14 and 53, 59, Jeremiah 15 or 5:6, Psalm 144, 10:7, Proverbs 116, Isaiah 59:8. Uh it looks like there may even be a quote from Luke in here. I'll have to check into that one. And then Psalm 36, right? And he quotes all of them as if they're one one one citation and treats them all as if they're one unified piece of scripture there. And then after all of that, after he's listed this litany of sins, he ends it with the law. The law, right? He's quoting the Psalms. He's quoting Proverbs and the prophets. And I I'll actually uh make that known in my writing as well later.

So he in the words of not only in the words of the Old Testament but in the words of Jesus and I'm not even you know we could talk about the Emmas road. We could talk about Jesus quoting from uh Moses saying starting with Moses and all the prophets. We can say talk about where Jesus himself talks about the three-part division and talks about the law. Right? There's so many places that do this but we see it with Jesus. We see it with Paul. We see it through the Old Testament. Scripture is fundamentally one book. So what's true of one is then true of the whole. And why is it fundamentally one book? Because it is the law of God. Because it has one primary author. Yes, there are many distinct co-authors in the Bible. But they are co-authors. They are fundamentally one because their main author is God, not the humans who wrote them. So we've come full circle back to Exodus 17 here. What is the book? It is the law of God, the word of God. So there may be two forms of book in view. He was being Moses was being instructed to write God's word into our particular book that was part of the book that God was writing over time. The canon we have today, the canon we have today. And that's that's the uh the long and short of it there. That's the long and short of it to answer Trent Horn on his word of God and point out because he's missing this importance of the fundamental unity of God. It actually has has huge problems here. It actually has huge problems here. And how long do we got? We're at an hour and 12 minutes. So before I get into Psalm 119, before I get into Psalm 119 to talk about the character of scripture, does anyone have any questions? also true. Even even contemporary rabbitical approach. I've had this drink for five hours and haven't finished it. Anyone have any questions before we go on? I know there was a lot, but I think it flowed pretty easily. I do. I do have at least two. So, I have Oh, no. Maybe I lost it. So, I have two on my desk right now, but they're the same version. This is the 19 is this the 1978 Book of Common Prayer with Bible and Apocrypha in the back for anyone wondering. That's why I got this one is because when I do the Common Office or the Daily Office, not the Common Office, uh I get really tired of flipping between multiple books. So, I got them in one book. I didn't care which translation it was. I didn't I wanted it in one book. I got it one book. I have the um I got this before, no after, no before they came out with the uh the updated office book, which is somewhere in here. It's somewhere in this office. I'm pretty sure maybe I moved maybe it moved rooms. Maybe that's why I can't find it. Um that's the KJV. Then I've also got this. This is the one-year Catholic Bible that has the NRSV um or that is using the NRSV that has the Apocrypha in the back as part of the reading plan. Also, I don't know why I I'm choosing to do a one-year with the Apocrypha because I wanted to go through the Apocrypha again. Someone tell me why like this is how you set it up, right? You have, right? You're going through your days. Here's February 11th. You got Exodus 32 on February 11th. Then it goes into Matthew and then there's a psalm and proverb. Why is your apocrypha in the back? Like it's the same days. Why is it there in the back? Why is it there in the back? Um, so if you look up the 1978 Book of Common Prayer with Bible, that should pull this up. And you'll probably be able to find this for cheaper. Well, I hope. It wasn't It wasn't incredibly expensive, but it wasn't very cheap when I ordered it. And then there is if you went to KJV and then everything you would need for an order of service. And I'm still trying to find this book. Oh, there it is. This is the Anglican office footn, as you can see, it has many more ribbons. This was a birthday gift. Someone asked several well my wife asked me what I wanted for my birthday one year and she had a budget and I said hey can you go in with my parents and get me this and the answer was yes. So I got this. Um, it's structured in my opinion strangely. You have the Old Testament in the front and then once you get through the Old Testament, then you have like your Psalms and lessons of the Christian year, your your lectionary. Then you have lities like you then you start getting the things for offices the daily office for different services occasional prayers the collects then you have the there in the middle that actually kind of makes sense putting the salt in the middle then then actually this was super neat there is a sultra reading plan in here and it's also structured like within the sultra itself you'll see there like day 30 mattens there's 30-day salter built into it and then there's a psalter lectionary plan in the back if that's that's too much. But then it's not until you get to towards the back of the book roughly this far in then you have the New Testament. So it's Old Testament, some other like lectionary stuff, Psalms, offices, orders, and then you have the Old Testament. And then after the Old Testament, and this one makes more sense, you have the Apocrypha there in the back. And I mean, this is nice. This is And like again, look at both these. These are both roughly the same size. Rough. Not They're not quite the same size, but roughly the same size. These are both very light. These are very portable. These are easy to carry around. Like when I'm traveling, like if I know I'm going to be going around or I need to carry a bunch of stuff, I'll grab this. Even though it's not my favorite translation, just because of how easy and convenient it is to carry this thing around. I don't know what they made this with. This is just really light. So, I like it. I've also got a pocket New Testament as well. I recommend I recommend that we will single-handedly return to the practice of daily offices in the GMC. Um my my hope of course I intend to be bcational so this might not work out like I want is when I'm um hopefully teaching at a university or a Bible college or something somewhere or even at a secular university if I get to teach the Bible at a secular university I'm also okay with that. They have a religious course. Um, I was going with that. I also want to be doing daily offices. So, that's a church. That'd be nice. That that's a that's a if the Lord wills it type of thing. We're not there yet. Um, since we've already gone on for quite a while, I'll make this I'll walk through what I've written here and then see how far we get with Psalm 119. Um, I have quite a bit written on it that's going to be heavily edited down the line. So when my book comes out, I don't know how much of this is going to be actually in it as this was for a presentation that I decided to redo because I've included way too much here. Included way too much here, you know. Let's use it. Let's bust it out. I don't think this is in the Psalms. It's not. So I'm actually going to open up Psalm 119 here. You don't have to do this because we will be blazing through it pretty quickly. You'll also, this is just a heads up, quattro, if you get this, you're going to have two psalms in it, two sultures in it. You're so there's the NRSV in the back and then roughly right before the center, maybe I'm crazy, there's actually a ster in it. So, like roughly in the middle of the first half of the book, there is a psalter in it as well. So, they have two psalters in it. I uh I don't know why. I can't tell you why. This also won't work. Um I'll keep this open just in case, but I don't know why they they did that. Um this is it. Well, this one just says the book of common prayer, the holy bible apocrypha. um in RSV. I believe it's exact title. They didn't put the one that I found when I found it. I believe I looked up Book of Common Prayer Plus Apocus Bible. Book of Common Prayer Plus Bible. And this popped up. It was the 1978 BCP with Holy Bible and Apocrypha. Um maybe they've made more editions since then with different translations in it. You can also go to a custom binder and and get your own. That's going to be really expensive though. So Psalm 119 here. So we've already talked about and established, right? If scripture is fundamentally one and the apostles, Jesus, Moses, Joshua, Samuel all talk about it as such. The prophets talk about it as such. So a necessary consequence of this is if we talk about something being true of the law of God. Actually, this I didn't uh write down, did I? Just to go through. And if no, you never heard about Psalm 9. It's the longest chapter in the Bible. It's got 22 distinct sections following the Hebrew alphabet. And this is this is part of how it's trying to express the breadth of the word of God, how it's greater than anything we have to express about the law of God, the testimony of God. And by extension, it also is speaking to the character of God himself by speaking about the character of his word that he's given. And it opens up referencing back to someone. Happy are those who are blameless who walk in the law of the Lord. But it has these series of titles for the word of God here, right? Who keep its his precepts who talk about his law, his statutes in verse eight, his testimonies, right? in verse seven or no verse n how can a young people keep their way pure by guarding it according to your word notice notice that there how they've translated according to your word this is why I think trends are so adamant about trying to say that this stuff like this is not talking about the written word is because if they do as we're about to walk through everything the word of god does it written form would be brutally devastating to any argument for the necessity of the magist um or the obscurity of scripture.

So, we're going to walk through a few phrases out of Psalm or a few principles out of Psalm 119 here. My my conviction and this is why I was writing this long before this debate ever happened. I wasn't intending for this to come out until the book was ready. If you just meditate on Psalm 119 on a regular basis, even if it's just once a month, these claims from Rome or from Eastern Orthodox or from Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or anyone else who says you need their infallible magisterium to give you their answers that these are the ones who guard the scriptures, who give you the proper interpretation, yada yada yada yada yada. If you just meditate on Psalm 119, you will see how quickly this falls apart. Psalm 119 says that the word of God, the testimonies of God, the commandments of God, the law of God guards us in verse 9. It is a delight in a counselor in verses 24 and 27. It enlightens us to his ways in verses 26-7, 29-30, 32, 102, and 130. By his word, wisdom is brought to us in verses 97-98 and verses 104. And you can see that in places like Proverbs 1 1-7 as well. The wisdom of God's word is greater than wicked and worldly wisdom. Verses 98 through 100. See also James 3:15-17. It provides an answer to the wicked in verse 42. In it we can hope in its promises and find comfort in verses 439 and 52. It gives us honor in verse 45. It gives us life and salvation in verses 41, 93-4, 116 and other places. It is enduring beyond perfection or without a limit in verse uh in verse 96 140 152 and 160 and as is said in Psalm 126 Roman Catholic scholars note this too right on verse 96 Kessleman and bear to Roman Catholic scholars not Protestants say all that is called perfect in our experience has its limitations but not God's commandments but not God's commandments That's from the New Jerome Bible commentary. Certainly not a conservative Roman Catholic source either. I would just like to note that including the limit of language and normal understanding, right? The spirit teaches and speaks through the scriptures despite the places of of I put most obvious clarity here. I assume I meant obscurity. It should also be clear that the book is not understood as mere text. This is important especially for a a proper understanding of how scripture works as a light before the feet before your feet. Psalm 19 or a light that enlightens the simple here in Psalm 119. It is by the spirit speaking to believers through this text. As Steven says, they are living oracles. That's how he describes the word of God. Living oracles. And as we see elsewhere throughout scripture, they talk about Moses speaks to you. Present tense, right? How is he speaking? Through the written word that's carrying on his testimony to the people. And as a Methodist, I of course must plug a thoroughly Wesleyan approach to this. I I encourage the Wesleyan sermons, the original nature, properties, and use of the law. That's his sermon. The original nature, properties, and use of the law as an excellent treatment on this idea. doesn't directly talk about this, but it's very, very closely related here. Very, very closely related here.

And again, to pull from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, which has ecclesiastical approval, it's it's officially approved by the Magisterium. This is this is a a gold star book. It's got the stamp of approval. I'm going to quote selectively from them here because I um just to just to save a little bit of time here. No. And no, they won't agree with me necessarily on what is fully entailed in the word of God. They do agree it it does include the written scripture as per their own ministerial teachings. And this is their commentary on Psalm 119. So they're saying this is what Psalm 119 teaches that the law of the Lord is more valuable than riches because it makes God's people wise. Psalm 119 is the longest psalm in the Bible and breathes the same spirit as Psalm 1 and Psalm 19. Psalm 19 having a two-part division where the natural revelation speaks to God and then the word of God acts as a light to the people. Of course, they'll argue this is primarily speaking about the Torah. As I've pointed out, that means it applies to everything. And they'll note that many do when they come to these passage apply it more broadly. Because Torah simply means instruction, not specifically restricted to a particular set of text. And this seems to be the approach they at least favor in their note on verse 9. Right? And again, notice this is what they're attributing to scripture itself here. How can a young man keep his way pure by guarding it according to your word? The scripture sets boundaries to safeguard the chastity and moral uprightness of the of the young. That's their words. The scriptures set boundaries to safeguard the chastity and moral uprightness of the young. These come in the form of stories. Genesis 396-12 laws in Deuteronomy 22:22-9 and wise counsel in Proverbs 6 23-9. As they speak of Psalm 1 and 19, right, they start noting these same ideas on Psalm 12. They say this theme of divine instruction is taking up at length in Psalm 19 and 119, right? Divine instruction is what the word of God is according to them. The written word as much as the oral word where the psalmist sings the praises of the Mosaic law as a guide for life and faith in God. Also notice then how that undermines many objections that have been made to the teaching of perspu is they're acknowledging scriptures as a guide for life. Here they also tie in Joshua 1:8 where they and Michael Barber note that meditating on the law, reflection on the Torah and taking its lessons to heart are a means of spiritual formation for an obscure book. It's certainly doing a whole lot of things according to these own according to these Roman Catholic scholars. And if you look at Psalm 1 1-3, right, in their own thoughts what it means to be like a tree in this verse, right? When Psalm 13 says this is what it one who meditates on the law of God, I'd say it's speaking primarily about Christ, but extension it flows to us. The righteous flourish because their lives are rooted in God and watered by his blessings. Psalm 92:12-14 and Jeremiah 17:7-8. The soul watered by scripture bears fruit in its season and is adorned with leaves that are always green. That is with works that are pleasing to God. We are thus disposed to virtue and undistributed meditation by sacred scripture. And they cite John of Damascus. So let's what what does he say here? He says all scripture then is given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable. 2 Timothy 3:16. You know who's who's been making a big deal that 2 Timothy 3:16 isn't talking about all of scripture and is only talking about certain parts of scripture. You have Trent Horn in his debate and also Kevin Fernandez with since 32. Well, here's John of Damascus saying 2 Timothy 3:16 is in fact talking about all of scripture here. Wherefore to search the scriptures, he says, is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of water, so also the soul watered by divine scripture is enriched and given fruit or gives fruit in its due season via the orthodox belief and it's adorned with evergreen leafage. I mean actions pleasing to God. For through the holy scriptures we are trained to action that is ple pleasing to God and unable confrontation. For in these we find both exhortation to every virtue and dissuasion from everybody. John of Damascus here seems to think that scripture does in fact speak clearly enough for moral formation here. If therefore we are lovers of learning, we shall also be learned in many things. For by care and toil and the grace of God the giver, all things are accomplished. For everyone that asks receives, and he that seeks finds, and to him that knocks it shall be opened. Luke 11:10. Wherefore let us knock at the very fair garden of the scriptures, so fragrant and sweet and blooming with its varied sounds of spiritual and divinely inspired birds ringing all around our ears, laying hold, laying hold of our hearts, comforting the mourner, pacifying the angry, and filling him with joy everlasting. That is from On the Orthodox Faith for verse 17. Hey, you're you're good, Eddie. If you're if you're late because of dad's stuff, that is um far more important than what I'm doing here. Yeah, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is big. I bet hiding a it's it's buried back there. I'm not going to mess with it. Some catching up to do. John of Yeah, John of Damascus. Um, I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but he's got some very, very good insights. Many church fathers do. You know what else is slapping? This blue note Jazz that's been playing in the background this entire time. Look up. This isn't my favorite. My favorite song is still Autumn Leaves by Cannonball Adderly. Summertime by Sydney Beck. It's a close second. Sorry. Um, Tim Mackey, Blue Train does not not meet my number one. Don't Don't tell Tim Mackey that that I disagreed with him on on blueot jazz. That's that's a joke. I don't think he'll care. I think he'd actually be excited. There's a fellow Bible nerd who likes Blue Nodes Jazz. Um, actually, I think I think we're good. If does anyone have any questions related to anything there? Otherwise, I'm just going to start talking about random things and we'll we'll enter our Q&A now. And my back's hurting. And my hair is just This is my hair. I keep pushing it over. My hair will do that. Uh, if my if I hadn't showered right before I hopped on here, I wonder if my hair is doing it yet. When my hair dries, it's so incredibly curly. It's so incredibly curly. My wife actually really likes it. I think it looks good, too. I just didn't have time to let it dry because I got got home, did some chores, and showered and then we started the live stream that I uh definitely remembered to prepare ahead of time. I had enough prepared. I think I think the point has been made. Mountain books more. No, you're not kidding. I need to finish retocking the other um bookshelves that my parents gave me. I've I've put in a a bit in there. I need to also figure out where I'm putting my heresy because I've got it was originally going to be contained to like my closet. Then I got too many books. So, other books made their way into the closet with the heresy and I need to to figure that out. There's a lot of books there. These are a lot of books. Um, it's all worth it though. I will say since I've been dogging on the Roman Catholics, I'm I'm gonna give them I'm gonna give him a W here. I'm gonna give him a W here. This book, New Testament Theology, Exploring Diversity and Unity by Frank J. Matra. Frank J. Matera. This book's really good. I really enjoyed this book. I've really enjoyed this book. It's been really really good. Uh it's talking about the unity of New Testament teaching with it within itself and diversity within notice not disunityity but areas where they are still there still of course teaching the same core things but there seems to be differences in the way they're either talking about them or maybe they'll different emphasis they'll use different language stuff like that. I've really enjoyed this book. Of course I don't agree with everything he says but Frank J Matera is like someone that seems pretty well respected across the board. He's he's yeah the professor of biblical studies at the Catholic University of America which is actually kind of I wouldn't mind getting my PhD from there. It's a Jesuit education. If you know anything about Jesuits, as much as I disagree heavily with them, I would definitely be challenged there because there's a lot of disagreement. So I'd have to I'd be formed very strongly as sort of how Michael Heiser went to uh more liberal universities because he believed and trusted in the word of God and knew it stood up 2,000 years of testing. So he went where he knew he would be challenged because he wanted to be challenged to grow more. But a Jesuit education is also actually just phenomenal. As as off base as they are on a lot of things, the Jesuit education is one of the best educations you can get. It's it's extremely good. A close second, I'd say, is uh The Great Ideas. It's a 58 volume set. It used to be the the hallmark of liberal arts education. One of my old professors put me onto it recently and I've just been enjoying it. You can you can actually find a fair amount of old TV lectures that were put up from the 20s I want to say by Mortimer Adler. They're available in a YouTube playlist by a

small channel called Common Scholar. But yeah, are we arguing complete persp? I'm I'm arguing persput salvation and righteous living. That's what I think scriptures clear on. That's what I think think scripture scar because you are correct. People do bait and switch that point as in happened in debate. Actually, Joe Heshmire did this in in the same video. So where's my footnote on this? Where's my footnote on this?

So in one of Joe Heshmire's old videos where I don't see the footnote here. This must be in a different document. So, it's back when he was uh I think it's his his um Protestant apologist, the best Protestant apologist can't answer this point or Protestants can't agree on the essentials. I don't remember what it is. It's about that topic. And in it, he says that Luther at at when he started, right, when the reformation started, according to Joe Heshmire, Luther in uh said that scripture is is crystal clear, super clear. It's so clear any peasant can pick it up and understand it. That is a statement from Luther. I'm not trying to water that. Well, I'm paraphrasing. I'm paraphrasing Luther. That is a sentiment said by Luther in bondage of the will. Joe Heshmire then says later Luther watered down that teaching. If you read bondage of the will later in that book that Joe Heshmire quoted from later in that same book Luther talks about the obscurity of scripture. Luther was prone to exaggerated statements. It was rhetorical move of his that he loved better and for better and for worse. If Joe Heshmire had actually read Bondage of the will and understood it and grasped it and followed along with what Luther was saying, he would have known that this wasn't a development in Luther's thought, it was what Luther was saying from the very beginning because it's in the same book that has the quote he pulled from. So either Joe Heshmire was quote mining or he was reading to respond and not reading to understand.

You have a good one as well. Don't pray too hard out there. Yes, the Fathers of the Church series is very good. I do really like this. Oh, Duke. Yeah. Yeah, Duke. Duke would be a place to get challenged. Um, as well you can reconista Duke University for us. Actually, if you go to Duke um I'll put you in touch with someone about is um about he's he's trying to bring back Orthodox Christianity more more in on more campuses. Yes. Yes. This is what I think happened. I think he read the passage quoted. I think he quote mined. And even if he didn't, he clearly didn't grasp what was being said. Yeah, I think Joe is quote mining. Joe Meer is has constantly doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on obvious errors he's been caught in. And it is what it is. That's how he that's how that's how he's chosen to argue. And that's really unfortunate. It's really unfortunate.

I mean, this isn't a problem specific to Joe Heshmire or Roman Catholic apologists. I think this is just a feature of modern apologetics. But we see of course in I mean I say modern of apologetics in general, right? The counterreformation is a perfect example as well as well as some apologists from the reformation era to today. A lot of people get so caught up in oh I got to win. Oh, I got to I got to make the case. I got to show how that other guy's wrong that they just start like breaking the commandment do not bear false witness. And they're like oh I it's okay if I lie because I'm I'm owning those those opponents. I'm showing how they're wrong. It doesn't matter if I'm if I'm lying to do it. It's fine. It's okay. And unfortunately that a lot of people are so so caught up in winning that they do that. I don't even know if Joe Hesh is aware he's doing that. He has to be unless he's just so blind what he's doing. I think I think there are times it's intentional with some apologists and then times where like it's almost just like it's instant formed by the habit of doing it.

I think that happened with Trent Horn in his debate quite a few times with Anthony Rogers where he could tell where something was going and then would be obtuse and not answer something like he wouldn't answer about the oral Torah when he was talking about the word of God being the oral word and then the tradition of the Pharisees. Is it just an interpretation of scripture or is it the oral Torah? He wouldn't directly answer the question. He never answered if he thought there was an oral Torah. And I'm just like, well, that's the tradition they claim. If if he had been more interested in pursuing down the actual argumentation and moving towards truth rather than winning the debate, I think you would have seen what was going on. I really seen what was going on there. Is unfortunate. My throat is very sore. Unrelated. Probably this drink I'm drinking. No. No one got any questions. Oh, that tasted really bad. He did. He very much meant it. I love it as well when he gets offended that people bring up he's a lawyer from our side to to note that he argues like a lawyer when several people on his side and then he agreed with them and then he agreed with them was them talking about he's a lawyer which is why he's a good apologist. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's very true. It's very true. there.

So there are very few people that can that can like shotgun answers but even when you're like say he you know I'll take the Dustin Smith actually he he did a gish gallop for his debate with James White. Funny he went second not first. So normally with debate the person who goes first is the one who sets the framework for the debate because they're going first. That's the bene one of the benefits of going first. And James White set the framework of I want to talk about our presuppositions and how we interpret interpret scripture. Dustin Smith's approach was here's 10 points. Here's this gish gallop of points. He's just throwing out so many points. This is one of my least favorite debate tactics. Someone throws out a bunch of points and the intention is your opponent can't possibly answer all of them. So when you get to your closing statements and stuff, you go, "Oh, he didn't answer these points. Therefore, I won the debate." The issue is what this is treating debate as if the entire point is oh look at these points I scored that went unanswered is is rhetoric and persuasion an important part of debate absolutely it's also supposed to be about furthering discussions debate isn't just about winning the debate though if you're debating you should have the goal of winning that otherwise you should just like have a dialogue informally or something but when you're just like here's a scattershot of 10 points 10 points from Dustin Smith that were mostly unimpressive or very surface level. Actually, I can talk about one of those here in a second. And then he just proceeded to entirely ignore what James White was talking about. He didn't want to delve into presuppositions. He didn't want to delve into the hermeneutics. He just wanted to stay at that surface level. Here's my 10-point shotgun. Let's let's deal with this. And I didn't try to move deeper in the conversation. And if you're in a live debate like answering all 10 of those points succinctly, you're either not going to be delving into them in depth or as Anthony Rogers has pointed out um when he does debates, you know, he'll try and go to some of the non-go verses that people use to talk about the same idea because if you use the go-to verses, there's normally a canned response for them. I guarantee you if James White had brought had addressed the 10 points that Dustin Smith had, he had 10 canned responses ready and the debate would have been basically pointless. You would have been able to find that from any number of videos or debates that have already happened. There's nothing you were going to get from them. And so you either try and address them shallowly, in which case when your opponent has a rebuttal, they're just going to then say, "Here's why these addressments are wrong. Here's their canned responses." Again, underhanded debate tactic. Not a lot actually gets accomplished this way. The normally people will make response videos following up on the Gish Gallops and and point out all these things. Um or you can do what James White did in that debate and be like 90% of what he said was just that there's a distinction between the father and the son, which we already grant. It was funny. Um but but yeah, it's just how yeah, this wasn't great when he publicly defamed scholarship.

And this is one of the things that actually is really underhanded from Joe. He'll often make a statement and it intentionally paints a certain picture and then he's like, "Oh, that's not what I meant. You're misconring what I said." Like he did this with Javier when Javier said that Joe was calling Unitarians Protestants. And then Joe says, "I never said Unitarians or Protestants." in the start of his video about the Protestant problem that we can't agree on the essentials or he doesn't define what the essentials are by the way. He has a list of potential options. He doesn't actually make it clear. He's not he's not clear on what the essentials are. Odd from someone arguing against clarity. Anyway, the first example he cites about why Protestants can't agree is a Unitarian saying Christmas is pagan. Joe, you don't have to use the phrase unarian Protestant, even though he basically did. You are clearly painting this Unitarian in light of why Protestants can't agree. The in implicit statement you might as well be shouting from the rooftop is here's a Protestant Unitarian. That that's the impression it gives. And he's like, I didn't say that. Joe, you Joe's a lawyer. He knows what he's doing. That is intentional rhetoric persuasion. There's no way Joe didn't know what that was the signal that was giving to people. There's no way. Or he's literally in incapable and incompetent in his job. That's the only other alternative there. He's either intentionally being underhanded and using rhetoric in a dishonest way. Rhetoric's fine when used in an honest way, not in a dishonest way, or he's incompetent. It's one of those two things. Yeah. Yeah.

Now, this is has always been a feature of debate. If you even read ancient manuals on debates, entertainment is sort of a necessary part of debate. Um, but yeah, when when they're geared so much on entertainment that truth doesn't become important in it, now we have an issue. Now we have an issue. But debates historically in practice have always been more about persuasion than than the actual case being made. Which means that like there are a bunch of scholars who aren't great at debates. And I don't know if I'd be good at debates or not. We we'll maybe find out one day if I ever have time. Um there are plenty of people who are great scholars and will never be a good debater because they're a different skill set. They just are. Even if they have better arguments and can can argue persuasively in general, arguing persuasively in a live debate is very different. This needs to stop turning me red. I don't know what's going on here. I don't know who Bo Branson is. Sam Shimoon started name calling the Unitarian guy. Yeah. Yeah. It's unfortunate from them. Jay was supposed to be the moderator. Oh no. Yeah. Yeah. Like that when that was his opening when this was his opening example, I was like, "Dog, you can't be serious right now."

But I mean, ever since the the reformation, the pamphleteers and others, and I brought this up in my presentation on Javier Shun I was talking about have said like, "Oh yeah, those Anabaptists reject the trinity. This is what's going to happen if you don't have our magisterium." So they were like, "Yeah, you're youarian Protestants are they show that solos scriptor can't work." I'm like, "They're not even Christian, let alone Protestant." Casey Chin in his book, The Obscurity of Scripture calls Quakers and Unitarians Protestants. Because Quakers literally have a different way of epistemology of of how they know things. Therefore, Protestants don't agree. Scripture is not clear. Blah blah blah. So, the scripture are false. He doubles down on that in video interviews later. Um, he still calls Unitarians under the Protestant umbrella. And I still issue the same challenge. I don't know if I ever actually put this out. I'm issuing the challenge now if I haven't issued it in the past. What is the difference then from if what is the difference of a set of aantist to a Roman Catholic of a unitarian to Protestantism? One they're already treating us like one institution which we're not right. A Methodist is not a Baptist is not a Lutheran is not an Anglican. Just like a Roman Catholic is not a Eastern Orthodox. Just like a Roman Catholic is not a oriental Orthodox. Right? If we want to if we want to loop Oh no, there's a hole in my pants. Um, sorry. One of the seams on my pants literally just broke. And man, that's unfortunate. These are nice pants. Um, it's just like, yeah, lumping people up when they're not. If I re, if we really wanted to, a bunch of us apologists could start making videos about how the Eastern Orthodox don't agree with the papacy, therefore magisterium false. And the correct response from them would be like, well, that's obviously nonsense. At which point we go, "Yes, that's the point. And you keep doing that with us. That's the point you keep doing with us." Said the Methodist Baptist. Yeah. Yeah. Presbyterian ministers out to lunch. Um, only Methodist and Baptist are the the Winry Church. It's not true, by the way. Only Methodist. Only Methodist.

Does anyone have any other uh questions before I go in more tier here? not I'll close talking about some stuff I'm planning on writing. Of course, I'm in the middle of class and about to take on another class, so I don't know when that will get done. My hope my hope is to have an article published in the journal once every two months or I I want to submit an article once every two months. Whether or not it gets published or every two months, I that's not up to me, but that's how I want to do it. I do have to do homework as soon as this live stream's done though. So, if no one's got any questions, I'll just discuss some things before hopping off of here. Um, while I'm here, let me ask a question. I want to make sure I can talk about this before I I say it on on live. I'd be able to talk about it at some point, but there's just, you know, those things where it's like sometimes you're not supposed to talk about it yet. It's my my announcement of my conversion to Eastern Catholicism because it couldn't be Roman Catholicism. And and the Eastern uh Catholics are very emphatic. We're not Roman or Eastern. Not Roman or Eastern. Well, at least the online ones I've seen. They're not a very big group. Okay, I do have permission.

So, one thing I'm working on is I'm preparing a series of lectures on Unitarianism to for the Anelm Guild. Uh I will pull up I will find and pull up their channel really quick. And they've got a few lectures up right now on reformed theology. Go and share the screen here. and the the goal for this. Here's their channel. Go subscribe to them. I don't even know who some of these subscriptions on this channel are. I think one of them is a Kite Jew. I don't remember why. I I mean I I'm interested Jews. For anyone who doesn't know, there was the basically a split within Judaism in the uh 1300s. I'm probably getting that date awfully wrong. Um, the basically the same split we have on solos script Torah versus the infallible magisterium, they have on the Hebrew scriptures versus the oral Torah and interpretations of the rabbis. It's an interesting interesting fact that in Judaism and Christianity, we basically have the same argument. Um, but this is the Ansim Guild. Go and check them out. They're they have a really good gill gill goal here. Uh where's my glasses? The Anom Guild is a society of Christians dedicated to reclaiming and reforming the universities and seminaries. So they're wanting to push for a return to the education of Christians on these universities and that's a very good goal. and I'll be preparing a series of lectures with them on Unitarianism, discussing the history of Unitarianism and you know it spread into America and how it spread here and their epistemic foundations. I'll probably talk about some of the ancient unitarian heresies that still continue to this day. Um like monarchialism, you know, as modalism, uh how did Tertullian call it? Patri Patriotside, father killed the father. It was we'll get into that some other time. Um I'm also working on several articles. These will all come out at different times just because I can only work on one at a time. As much as I I tend to snail along on on many at the one time, I'm working on an article that's called They Meditate Against the Lord. It's going to not just be looking at Psalm 22, but Psalms 233 and some others where there's this theme, the story throughout the altar and uh how to read the Psalms as scripture talks about this as well. Great book. I highly recommend it. And one of the themes throughout the altar, if you and you'll see this in Psalm 192, it's a messianic psalm where there is this plot against the Messiah to kill him. And that we see then played out in the New Testament. Of course, we see it foretold in Isaiah. I've got my video on the did Christians invent the suffering Messiah. I talk about this idea there. or at least the basis of this idea that's then going to be expanded in this article but with it focusing on other text and like Anthony Rogers pointed this out so credit to him um this is not an idea original to me it's also not an idea original to him either he and I are both do a lot of work but are also working off of the work of other saints um but in Matthew 26 through 27 and really the passion narrative Psalm 22 is often the backbone but we seemed many illusions to other things in Psalm 26 6 and other places in Matthew 26 and in other places right where you see sort of related imagery is Mark 3:6 and Psalm 33 especially verse4 Psalm 119:23 um Ezekiel 33 we see some uses of Nefal Dvar and Bet those are Hebrew terms we get into those um you see it pop up in Isaiah Psalm 41 56 59 140 Isaiah 54 another thing I also want to write an article on related to this and I spotted the a connection of Isaiah 53 and and surrounding passages with Psalm 41 during a random day where I was just reading through it and then was like noticed connections started doing a a brief study and was like is Psalm 41 foretelling the the incarnation that's basically the idea and the suffering and death by extension with its interconnections to Isaiah different. And lo and behold, one of my favorite resource books, the Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy, has an article in it on a body prepared for death. Basically, uh I can't remember the exact name of the article title, essay title in there, but it's on Psalm 41 and a body prepared for death of the Messiah. I'm like, huh, I'm not the first one to notice this. I was I was a little sad and also very happy. like, okay, if I'm the first person to ever notice this and point it out, it's probably not good. Um, I vaguely remember other church fathers possibly talking about this. I'll have to go back through. So, that's one thing I want to write on. I'm calling it they meditate against the Lord. Of course, I need to finish up my Jude commentary, but that's probably a postbook one project. Um, the same with William Whitaker's annotation uh or my annotation of William Whitaker's dissertation on Holy Scripture. That's just going to be a project that takes a long time because I'm I'm working through it slowly because I have other things to take more priority. Was there Oh, and then the other article I'm working on right now, I'm calling it the high christologology of of the Holy Family. It's going to be an article on James and Jude and the christologology of James and Jude. I've already made, of course, my video on the christologology of Jude. that will largely be a majority of the content for that. There's a few things I might tease out further in that as well. We'll see. But then also the christologology of James. I think those those are greatly underlooked. Greatly underlooked. My apologies. Um, the Romans invented Christianity pacify the Jews. Well, that worked out really well, huh? Worked out really well. Um, I don't think I don't think whoever made that theory understands Roman ancient Grecoman society. I'll uh I'll leave it there. But these are also generally the same type of people who who thinknosticism is their best friend. Nostism is one of the most sectarian movements that's ever been. Neopagan larpers arguing that Christianity was created by the Jews to subvert pagan culture. Well, I've got a spoiler alert for them. The Jews were doing that long before Christianity was given its name. So, I think that's everything.

Um, if anyone I should have said this when I finished the presentation, but here we are. If anyone wants to respond to anything I've said, I understand I get passionate. Um, that's no excuse for anything. I also think I was pretty tame. All all considered, um, if you're going to respond, actually engage the argument. Don't don't listen to this video listening to respond. Listen to understand. Understand my points. Ask clarifying questions. Make sure you understand it. And then once you've understood it, make a response. Which means don't, at least on the first watch through, if you're taking notes, do it to understand. Don't be writing out responses before it's done. Right? That's not going to that's not going to help anyone. You're going to miss a lot of things because you're busy responding to what's already been said while the conversation is still going on. You also might miss, as rambly as this video was, points of connection. Um, unrelated to that, if you want to join us here in ministry on the channel, if you've enjoyed what we do, we're live a fair amount of Thursday nights. We've been gone the past few weeks just because of personal life things going on, and that will probably happen decently often over this next year. There's just a lot going on. It it's it's just one of those seasons. Um and it's a good busy. I'm doing a lot of work in the churches I'm at and serving them and you it's it's good busy. It's just it's just busy. Um so things some things have to come, some things have to go. And of course my work in the physical churches I'm at where I'm apprenticing and then attending those things take priority. that's that's where I'm having I think the most important impact. So that's where where it gets a lot of the focus and that's where the Lord has placed me to be doing work. Uh but if you want to partner with us here in the ministry we do online. Everything's for free and Lord willing that's how it will be to continue with a at least a majority of the work I put out whether that's books, articles, whatever. You can of course subscribe here and hit that bell button. It helps out a lot. Hit the like button, comment on videos, share with your friends. It helps out a lot. It really does. You can follow us on Substack. You can subscribe there either for free or you can subscribe for money if you would like to join us in a financial way. And whether or not you do, everything there will still be available for free for your use or your benefit or for you to get mad at and posting your comments on. Whatever you want to do, whatever floats your boat there. But that's it for tonight. Thank you guys. everyone who watches this, who did watch it. And that's it. You guys have a wonderful night. God bless.