C. Michael Patton

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight, seven Seven seven five three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white. And welcome to the dividing line today as we have announced on the blog today. We are going to be continuing the discussion. We began on Tuesday in reference to well a host of issues all Centering around apologetic methodology, but not just so much apologetic methodology because I honestly believe that what we're actually Discussing is much more important than just a method methodological issue.

Instead I I really think what we're discussing is has God Revealed his truth with sufficient clarity for it to be known defined and Undefended even in a postmodern context where people do not like absolute truth claims and About halfway through the program We will be joined by one of the two gentlemen that we have been Discussing we were discussing on the last program see Michael Patton will be calling in and joining Me at that time.

We'll be able to discuss these things. I would imagine he would be listening now because I'm going to be responding to his response to me. He responded to the last dividing line on his blog the parchment and pen theology blog and So I have flagged various statements in that I'm going to have to rush a little bit to make sure we have enough time.

We are going long this evening. If you are a regular listener, we know, you know, we normally go an hour. We're going to go to 20 minutes past So 80 minutes on the program this evening. So get a deep seat in the saddle and let's let's get to it.

The Clarity of Scripture and the Authority of the Gospel

I actually want to skip down Toward the end of the response because I believe this truly is the fundamental difference that exists Between myself and I should mention that the reason that I have taken the time.

It's not that I didn't have other things to be doing at this point in time and I'm certain that's the the case with everyone involved, but If what is being said is true if we need to have some of some level of epistemic humility in regards to the very core issues of the gospel.

If we cannot for example identify the difference between the gospel of grace and the gospel of Roman Catholicism and say That these are separate gospels that they are not the same thing if if if the scriptures are not sufficient to define those things for us, then basically everything I have ever done in my ministry is Irrelevant and completely worthless because everything we have done has been based upon The idea that God has revealed his truth that we are called not only to a proclamation of it But to show discernment in regards to it that on a pastoral level We are called to exhort in sound doctrine all of these things assume that sound doctrine exists that we can know what it is that we can tell the difference between truth and error if that's not the Case then everything that I have done in my life and and I would suggest a large number of people we go back in history Was a grand mistake.

In fact, I would say that the entire Reformation was a grand mistake. If in point of fact, we cannot know That the Roman Catholic gospel is a false gospel That the denial of solo scriptura is is is an error if we can't know these things then Really?

I would say all is lost. We we don't have a message for the world. We we have an opinion for the world, but we do not have an authoritative proclamation for the world. So These things are very very important.

I think this comes out in the a comment from mr Patton where he says we live in a postmodern world where people are suspicious of all absolute truth claims. I just don't think polemics and claims to absolute certainty about these issues is the way to go about it and So it is said a number of times in mr. Patton's Article blog entry that this is just a difference between us.

It's not so much that we believe different things, but it's a methodological difference well I would like to submit that the reason we have a method Methodological difference is it goes down to the foundational things about what we actually believe especially in regards to the perspicuity of scripture the unity of scripture and the ability of scripture to communicate a a singular truth a transcendent transcendental true the truth that is that is true in all contexts and in all in all places and so if we are Not to proclaim absolute certainty about these issues.

Are we to proclaim? Uncertainty about the gospel. How do you do that? How do you go about that in any context whether it's in the pulpit? I as an elder in a church, I preach I preached last Sunday. I'll probably preaching this Sunday preached last night and What am I supposed to do?

Am I supposed to say well When it comes to the key issues of the gospel when it comes to who God is who Christ is what what God has done in? Christ the the entire self glorification of the Trinity in the gospel.

Here are the various opinions. Is that what the proclamation is that what the Apostles did. I would suggest you that it is not. Even even in Mars Hill and and and folks like to go to Mars Hill and say see, you know Paul didn't you know, look look at Paul does there he tries to use you know the language of individuals and things like that in the context they're in to to do these things and and So Even at Mars Hill, he he doesn't do this this, you know strong proclamation something and I would disagree even though he refers to The unknown God Utilizing example like that that he is not doing the bridge one plank at a time thing.

He is not standing on Mars Hill saying you know what? I'd like to get you to be a little bit less idolatrous than you are. This is gonna come out in other things. This is a definite disagreement between us.

I do believe that there needs to be a radical Denial of idolatry and a turning from idolatry and embracing Christ for regeneration. I do not believe that it is our role to seek to make idolatrous a little bit less Idolatrous per generation until they finally get close enough to maybe be in the kingdom.

I see no evidence. That's how the Apostles functioned. That's certainly not how Paul functioned on Mars Hill because you will notice what he says in Acts 17 29 being then God's offspring. We ought not to think the divine being is like gold or silver or stone an image formed by the art and imagination of man.

The times of ignorance it sounds very polemic to me God overlooked. But now he commands all people everywhere to repent commands. That's pretty much polemic as well because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in Righteousness by a man whom he has appointed and of this he has given Assurance to all by raising him from the dead now.

I'm gonna try to keep from preaching today. But not only is that polemical it is presenting? Absolute certainty he does not say that. I think that it's a good possibility That God may have fixed a day on which he will judge the world.

And I hope it will be in righteousness by a man whom he is appointed and of this he has given a really good level Of assurance maybe if you're willing to think about it To all or to most all by raising him from the dead.

That's not Paul's proclamation. This is very cut-and-dry. It's very absolute and it's very certain. Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead some mocked now Paul knew that they would mock.

Paul knew their beliefs he knew their worldview and he knew that they would mock, but he still presented that which they would mock about and He did so because it is central to the gospel itself. But others said we will hear you again about this so Paul went out from their midst.

But some men joined him some men joined him and believed some. Among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them the point being as acts 13 told us already as many as were appointed to eternal life believed it is a proclamation of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit that brings people to faith in Christ and Paul recognized that and he does so in acts 17 may I point out that suspicion of absolute truth claims is morally sinful.

We are creating the image of God we are created to hear our Creator's voice and Postmodernism is a sinful worldview. It is not morally neutral. It is sinful. It is sinful for man to question the existence of his Creator.

The that which is formed when it questions the existence of the one who formed it. That is not a morally neutral thing. It is a sinful thing it is an example of the rebelling of the heart of man and to therefore give in to man's demands and To adopt a methodology that is has no foundation and no warrant in inspired scripture is to in essence Demonstrate a lack of faith in the Spirit of God who uses the proclamation of the word which the Apostle Paul said would be foolishness More than us.

To the Greeks a stumbling block to the Jews. He knows Paul knows that the world is going to find the proclamation of the cross to be foolishness and yet He recognizes this is the means that God has ordained because in God's wisdom.

The world through its wisdom will not come to know him. God has not deemed it proper to use the Philosophies and wisdom of man to be the means by which he draws his people and to himself. It is a proclamation of a message that the world finds offensive.

And if you don't trust the Spirit of God to utilize that message, well, then you're going to look for something else. And we live in a society that under the wrath of God does not value truth now. Our society does not live consistently with itself at that point.

But that's part of the very judgment of God that the darkening of the heart of man. We are not called to alter the message in Such a way as to as to compromise with the world now, don't get me wrong Paul utilized for example the language that people would understand in his proclamation to other people.

That's fine but there's a vast difference between that and Compromise on the fact that God has revealed the truth the gospel and it abides with us. And if you compromise on that I suggest to you you really do not have anything else to to say to anyone.

False Gospels, Rome, and Galatians 1

This comes out in the second thing that I want to address. This is in one of the comments Micah Burke had commented on the on the thread and Had raised the issue of the fundamental errors of the Roman Catholic Gospel.

For example the Marian dogmas and their belief in her centrality. In for example as the the only conduit through which grace comes to men he mentioned the mass where Christ is sacrificed again, or obviously the term they use is the Representation of the one sacrifice of Christ, which does not perfect anyone.

He raised the issues of the gospel and Mr. Patton's response was quote. I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive to the saving grace the gospel. I totally disagree with these doctrines, but at the same time I am not trying to say that we are the same.

I have just made the statements that on many things we are closer than we thought even so close as some interposed and denominations. Well, I I don't believe that to be the case at all. And when it says then we thought I'm not sure what that means, but most importantly I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive the saving grace the gospel if we can't look at what Rome has added to the gospel and Subtracted from the gospel and say that's a false gospel.

Then there is no such thing as a false gospel. Galatians 1 becomes irrelevant. We cannot tell the difference between a heteros you on Galeon and an alas you on Galeon all of that becomes stuff that well.

It sure would be nice to live in a day when there were Apostles. Because then we could make heads or tails of that. But since we don't have Apostles today, we don't know what another gospel is. We can't tell because if you can turn the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on its head and turned into something that is Represented over and over again.

It never perfects anyone you can approach it 10 ,000 times 20 ,000 times in your life and still die impure and in fact still go to hell having done so all those times if you can can add in the the sacerdotal priesthood and penances and Purgatory and indulgences and sada spacio and all these things if you can you can throw all of that stuff in there throw Justification by faith by by grace alone through faith alone out and still call it the gospel then I can't possibly imagine where you can come up with a false gospel and Does it follow that the Judaizers had done more than that?

There's there's no way to establish. It's on an exegetical basis. It's just not possible. So if If it is at all possible To look at the Roman Catholic gospel say well, you know I don't know if those are necessarily destructive the saving grace of the gospel then I would like to know what is a false gospel.

The what what what could possibly be a false gospel in this context? I don't think you can identify one. Given that kind of that kind of a statement. So I go back to the beginning of The response that was given having laid that rather important foundation.

Apologetic Method, Polemics, and the Example of Paul

And Mr. Patton says I think where we part ways is referring to me. I think where he part ways is in methodology. We are reclaiming in my ministries see more value in an erratic peaceful approach to theology and his is more of a polemic Confrontational approach now, I wouldn't say theology.

I'd say apologetics because obviously You know, I teach Doctrine and theology all the time and I it doesn't have to be confrontational. Confrontation assumes apologetics. So I would say an ironic peaceful approach to apologetics.

Well apologetics is of course a defense the faith. There is a battle going on. There is a Confrontation, so I'm not sure how you can have a confrontation without a confrontation. Maybe it's an ironic Confrontation or a peaceful confrontation or something along those lines now.

Obviously anyone who has watched my debates with Mitchell Paquin knows that you can 100 disagree with someone on issue and you can do so respectfully but without Compromising on the fundamental statement that either you're right or I'm right.

But we both can't be right and I think that really comes down to the issue here is. At least Mitch Pack when I both agree that we both can't be right it almost sounds like this perspective is saying well.

Maybe we are. Maybe we've maybe are in history our forefathers. Just thought that the revelation of God was a whole lot clearer than it really is and we just don't know. We can't know for certainty on these topics.

Maybe maybe that's where it's going. I don't know. It says as I said in my blog advice to Christian apologists last night There is a definite place for polemics. I appreciate James's passion. Even if I disagree with him that has been that methodology.

We are both apologists. We just part ways when it comes to our methodology is is is Believing that the scriptures are clear enough to define Rome as a false. Are is that a method all methodological issue or Is that a theological issue?

I think it's theological issue that gives rise to a different in methodology. That that's that's what I think it is to me anyways at that particular point going on James said at one point that we were parting ways with historic conservative Protestant evangelicalism.

I disagree what I had said was they are parting ways with historic Protestant Evangelicalism's view of Roman Catholicism and the issues that separate us and I stand by that statement. This has not been the historic way that Evangelicals have viewed Roman Catholicism and the issues of the gospel and the very emphasis on the term Evangelical in regards to the gospel is evidence thereof.

But I don't think we need to go back in history. Do we to demonstrate that preceding generations did not adopt this Idea that well, you know, maybe Rome's changing and and you know We should take the individual opinions of liberal Catholics as being more representative than the dogmatic statements of the actual Roman Catholic Church.

That's not what evangelical Protestants have done in the past. He says I disagree. Look at our theology go through the courses in the theology program. You'll see that this is far from the truth. I myself and Dan as well.

So we're referring to Dan Wallace are both evangelical Calvinistic Protestants. I'm not ashamed of this title. I don't think Dan is either simply because we are not as anti-catholic as James is and he has Apologized for the use of the term anti-catholic and don't interpret Catholicism the way he does does not mean that we are leaving our evangelical heritage in any way and at this point once again, I Would point out it's not a matter of how I interpret it or they interpret it.

It's a matter of how Rome interprets it and the very fact that that right after I did the program last time I get all these emails where people are linking to the statement that came from the Vatican and really it actually came from The the same office that Ratzinger had been ahead of which is the modern incarnation of something called the Inquisition.

That's that this this document comes out and what does it do it just reaffirms. Everything that had been said before. I believe that you interpret Roman Catholic dogmatic Statements in the light of the intentions of their original authors.

Just as I interpret the Bible and I interpret the Constitution and stuff like that and so when we look at the Council of Florence you go to the context of the Council of Florence and you go to the People who wrote it and how did they apply it?

And how did Rome interpret it over the years that came thereafter. When you look at Trent you go to there's a whole there's a whole Catechism that was produced after the Council of Trent meaning that was meant to communicate to the Catholic people.

This is what the council was all about. You go to things like that. You don't go to a liberal Catholic in the 21st century. Who is applying postmodern categories the Council of Trent go? Ah, well, there it is.

No, that's irrational that words have meaning they have to be interpreted in the context in which they're originally written. And so that's how I interpret it and and you know, one of the things have been said as well, there's a.

There's a we need to be humble in this idea of knowing what the truth is knowing what Rome's teaching or knowing what the Bible says. A pastor sent me a Quote interestingly enough from Roman Catholic GK Chesterton.

Well, he said something very truthful here and I want to make sure to get it in here before I move on to something else. GK Chesterton said something I think is very relevant this he says what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.

Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty is settled upon the organ of conviction. Where it was never meant to be a man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but in doubting about the truth.

This has been exactly reversed nowadays. The part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part He ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt the divine reason.

We're on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. And he's exactly right. That's right on the nose now. You know there's a Catholic I can debate because he's gonna believe that what he believes is true.

I believe what I believe is true, and so we can actually come to the table and Discern where the differences are and debate them. I can't debate somebody who doesn't believe that you can know the truth.

If the truth is is unknowable. It's just this vague. It's experiential or whatever else it might be. Then we really can't have a debate anyways, I'll be perfectly honest with you in reference to the papal statement.

Mr.. Patton said this perceived disagreement and change the Catholic Church is the exact reason why the Pope felt it necessary to sign this document yesterday. Yes, that's right. There are lots of liberals in the Catholic Church, too.

He is more hardline than John Paul II was and demonstrated this yesterday now. I'm sorry Brother Patton you you just you don't know Roman Catholicism very well to state that. Because if you've read What unum since if you've read Dominus Yesus both? Promulgated during the time of John Paul the second pontificate, then you know there was nothing in the statement that came out From the Vatican actually two days ago now.

That in any way shape or form goes beyond or was not contained in the encyclicals of John Paul the second. And so it is not true that he is more of a hardliner than John Paul II on these things because all the document was Addressing was the very definitional nature of the church.

Rome hasn't changed her view on that. Yes. There are all sorts of liberal Catholics running around the West. Who will come up with other viewpoints? But that's not what defines the teachings the dogmatic teachings the Roman Catholic Church.

And if anyone was surprised or shocked what the Pope did all I can say is well. You're living on cloud nine you are living you are trying to project an image of what you want Rome to be that doesn't really have a whole lot of connection to what Rome actually is and If you were to engage Roman believing Roman Catholics who actually believe that Rome is true.

Then you would recognize that In in the context now he likewise says, but James must recognize that Semper Reformanda does allow us to advance advance in what Certainly allows us to advance to advance.

Semper Reformanda means always reforming reforming in light of what the Word of God. So we are always to be taking our traditions and examining them in the light of the Word of God. We don't just simply take the previous generations and say ah so is this an assertion that are those preceding generations were wrong.

If it is then it becomes incumbent upon mr. Patton and others to demonstrate that they were wrong and that for example their interpretation of Rome, which is my interpretation of Rome Does not match up with Rome.

Well How are you gonna do that if if there is no official Roman Catholic teaching if the dogmatic? Canons and decrees the Council of Trent Vatican one Vatican two if that stuff is is actually irrelevant.

Then there's no way that we can even begin to say well This is Roman Catholicism, and this isn't you there's no way to know one way or the other. And so advance in what? Is it an advance to have a view of the Word of God that it's not as clear as we thought it was that it's Not as perspicuous as we thought it was it's not as consistent with itself as we thought it was.

I don't consider that an advancement personally if that's what the advancement is. But I I don't you know it goes on to say as hard as it is to admit the Reformers are not an infallible Magisterial authority who said that they were who has even acted as if they are.

I certainly haven't. Where have I said anything or done anything that would suggest anything even along those lines they did encourage us to continue to progress. Yes in ever deeper knowledge of the Word of God which would not mean Compromising on the very essentials the gospel.

In fact it would it would mean that we would progress in ever greater recognition of what the gospel is. Not a regression to where well the gospel is just this really really really small core that can have a huge massive You know Amount of variation so that you can have the Orthodox over here and Rome over here and us over here, and you've got all this pluriform Interpretation, but it's all just the same gospel anyways.

I don't consider that progress. I would consider that a regression at that point. I just don't think we should get upset when progress might possibly be taking place. Isn't progression what we want. Do we really have to have the Pope stand on his balcony and say he he was wrong as James suggested?

I I'm just not sure about this. Well what I had said was that we need to recognize the organic Unity that exists in Roman Catholic theology history Ecclesiology between her overarching claims to be the one true church again pointed out by the Pope and her infallibility as A church and the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome they go together.

The denial of sola scriptura the assertion of the authority of tradition in its myriads of different forms. We have to recognize the the connection between that and the teachings that mr. Patton says.

I completely disagree with these things. The problem is from Roman perspective. You don't have the right to. You don't have the right to disagree with these things. You are disagreeing with the infallible Church.

You're disagreeing with God himself and. So when I talk about the Pope standing on his balcony saying he was wrong what I'm saying is for there to be progression. Rome has to admit that she can be reformed.

But when you're infallible you can't be reformed. Reformation is impossible on matters of infallibly defined dogma. So for there to be quote-unquote progression with Rome. Yes, there the first step has to be the recognition that Rome has infallibly defined false teachings and.

Therefore to repent of false teachings must first and foremost begin with Repentance of the claim of infallibility. So yeah. How else can you start. I would like I'll ask you know I'm I'm certain that.

The mr. Patton's listening how could there be progress as long as Rome claims be infallible if she's infallible how can she move? The only movement has to be from whose part ours. Toward what toward mother church, and that's what the ecumenical movement has been about from the beginning.

That's what it's been about from the beginning at least from Rome's perspective. So I don't know how that that really can be can be argued. Then quote. I think change is the goal. Not a proclamation of defeat from an enemy, but this is the difference in our emphasis.

How can an infallible church change. Without first admitting that she's not infallible in the first place. How does how does that work, I'm just asking for a Straightforward practical answer. How does that work?

What what how can that how can that be. That's that's what I understand. Then here's very something very very very important, and I'll try to make this last thing and We'll try to work toward having a dialogue here when we get mr. Patton on the line number two.

Galatians, Colossians, and the Example of Apostolic Polemics

James justifies his approach to apologetics. By referencing Paul's polemical approach primarily seen in the book of Galatians. Well sort of. In regards to identifying false gospels as false gospels that are not another gospel the same kind.

But are another gospel of a different kind. Yes, Galatians is very important there because there's a whole bunch of discussion of it. And you can't interpret Galatians without recognizing that there can be something as that is a false gospel.

Proclaimed by false brethren who claim to be believers. Who claim to follow Christ and yet according to Galatians chapter 5 Christ will be of no benefit to them. Now why would Paul say that if they were not already claiming that Christ was of benefit to them and they were.

But Paul says Christ will be of no benefit to you. So in regards to Gospels and things like that you better believe it. Glacier is important, but so is Colossians all the pastoral epistles refer to exhortation in sound doctrine.

Acts demonstrates us the entire Johannine corpus is constantly warning us against docetism protostatism. All of them present my quote-unquote polemical Approach so It's not just Galatians now. Mr.. Patton says I believe this is a somewhat.

This is a somewhat misunderstanding on how we were to use Paul as our example for three primary reasons. This is important. Here's the three reasons. Paul was an apostle who carried the authority of an apostle.

This included infallibility in certain areas both of these you and I don't have. Therefore we cannot approach these issues with the degree of certainty that Paul had. Even if we can have a high degree of certainty about certain passages and theological issues.

This does not mean that we are infallible and authoritative as an apostle. Now I think that's probably the most important one. I'll address all three of them. It does not require infallibility. To apply the message of the Word of God.

That's what's infallible not us first of all. This is the key issue if the Apostles have not communicated the gospel to us. So that we can follow their example in defining it and defending it. Then how is it that the truth of the gospel abides with us in the first place Galatians 2 5.

And how then did Peter violate his own alleged infallibility in Galatians 2 14 so that Paul had to rebuke him if. This infallibility is just sort of an apostolic thing. Paul Pointed out that Peter and Barnabas were not walking in accordance with the truth of the gospel.

How did that happen, how can we ep agonize am I how can we contend? Vigorously for the faith once for all delivered to the Saints if in fact we need Apostles to know. That faith was sufficient certainty to define it over against error.

We can't Let me repeat that how can we contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered the Saints that's Jude. If in fact we need Apostles to know it was sufficient certainty to define it over against error.

How could Paul exhort Timothy to watch his doctrine and maintain a healthy doctrine if this was in fact beyond Timothy's capacity after? Paul was gone. How does this thinking not lead to the very concept of apostolic succession seen in Rome and Eventually to the overthrow of the ability of scripture to function as a sole infallible rule of faith of the church.

Folks that argument number one under mr. Patton's presentation that argument is the same argument I have refuted from Roman Catholic apologists since August of 1990. It's the same argument. I don't think mr. Patton's aware of that.

I Don't think he's read many Roman Catholic works on this subject, but it's the same argument. Just coming from a non Roman Catholic. Number two. Paul did not always handle things polemically. In other words I would not make his descriptive encounters prescriptive with the way that with the way we should go about our apologetics especially since he gives us prescriptive advice that should set our attitude and tone now.

I Don't even begin to understand how anyone can understand that that I say you should always do things polemically. I've I don't understand that. Obviously, I don't my books don't do that. I I don't understand it, but then he quotes from Colossians chapter 4 about devoting yourselves to prayer.

Conduct yourself with wisdom toward outsiders. Let your speech always be with grace. This isn't an argument about whether your speech should be with grace. Unless someone is saying that you cannot state the truth in a certain fashion and do so graciously I would argue that The most gracious thing you can do for someone who's been given a false gospel is to warn them about their soul's danger.

That takes grace to do that. I Think there we're in danger of redefining speaking with grace as if somehow what Paul did to the Galatians isn't speaking graciously. But if you allow For the inspiration of Scripture then that would define for you what speaking graciously actually is.

So he says notice the purpose. Have a number of texts. I was gonna go to and I was could go through a number of texts about doctrine and exhortations of that just just read first second Timothy in Titus and I think you'll see.

Exactly exactly what I mean there. Notice he says quote notice a purpose clause so that if you do not speak with grace Paul seems to suggest that you are not qualified to know how to respond to each situation.

I hope that mr. Patton is not suggesting That to follow the apostolic example and identify a false gospel as a false gospel is not speaking with grace. If it's a false gospel, then it is to speak ungraciously not to identify it truthfully.

Yes, I continue on the quotation. Grace gives us clarity of mind. It is not unlike Christ admonishment to remove the log from our own eyes so that we'll be able to see clearly enough to correct. Another the basic idea here is that without grace we cannot understand the issues.

Emotions will rule and harsh polemics will be counterproductive. I don't think this has anything to do with my position. I am NOT saying that you should be polemical for the sake of being a polemical.

I Am NOT saying that you should be ungracious. That has nothing to do with whether you actually believe that the scriptures have revealed the gospel with enough clarity. To be able to define a true gospel against the false gospel or that it is if someone's saying it's ungracious to identify a false Gospel, then that's where we would most definitely disagree with one another.

Finally number three. Remember, this is all under why Paul's example and Galatians shouldn't be an example for us. Number three. We also must recognize this when Paul was polemical from what I can tell it was to those who were under his authority.

In other words, it was pastoral. He did so with the Galatian and Galatian and Corinthians. I imagine it's the Galatians and the Corinthians precisely because he had expressed authority as their leader.

Well, let me just stop right there. He was an apostle. So therefore Everybody all Christians were under his authority. And again, what's I guess lead to the necessity of having apostles today to be able to address in a polemical fashion Any matter of the gospel at all you'd have to have apostles today, and I don't think that necessarily follows at all.

Most of the people with whom apologists engage are not under their authority. Therefore a better models how Paul handled the Athenians on Mars Hill in Acts 17. It was gracious understanding and intent on building bridges.

He could not approach them the same way he did the others. Therefore we need to employ discernment and tact. Well, I have already read from Acts chapter 17. Where this is not Paul was not trying to quote-unquote build bridges.

If he wanted to build bridges, he would not have finished his presentation in the way that he finished his presentation. He would not have presented them that which he knew would cause them a stumbling block and that which he knew would cause them to mock.

He would not have presented to them. He would not have said to them the strong words that he said to them in regards to Saying we should not think that God is this he was not doing a one plank at a time.

Bridge building experiment with the Athenians. That's that's a misreading of Acts chapter 17 and so I Would a assert that this kind of argument means we'd have to have apostles today. There would have to be apostolic authority.

For most of the New Testament to make any sense if this is actually a proper reading of it. And secondly, it's an improper reading of Acts chapter 17 that there was there's nothing in Acts chapter 17.

That would lead us to believe this is some sort of a bridge building one plank at a time. Move you a little bit closer away from idolatry to the truth type of a type of situation. That's not what the Apostle was doing.