Ecumenism

2nd Timothy 2 15. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God. A worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly. Dividing the word of truth. Alpha and Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast.

The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is dr. James white director of Alpha and Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602 274 1360. That's 602 274 1360 or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's one eight eight eight five five zero thirteen sixty.

That's one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. And now with today's topic. Here's James white.

Ecumenism and the Question of Christian Unity

And welcome to the dividing line today, my name is James white. It's good to be with you. And the question we're gonna be handling today is How shall we all get together? What is the subject of ecumenism?

Jesus prayed in John chapter 17 that we would all be one. The question is what does that mean? There's a tremendous amount of emphasis and push Upon being able to be one in the faith to be one in the body of Christ.

So, how are we to understand that we are to be one in the body of Christ, how does that work? Well, there's a tremendous push these days to Compromise various sundry issues. There's a tremendous desire on the part of people to get us together.

But to do so at the cost of truth This coming Thursday evening on the straight talk live program with Marty Minto right now. It is scheduled anyways, and I hope that the scheduling remains firm and everything works out to where this is going to be able to Take place.

I am going to be on the air as a guest in the program Along with two individuals at least one of which is involved with the Arizona Ecumenical Council and we are going to be discussing the upcoming event January 15th at Bank one ballpark.

There we will be discussing how it is that people can get together to lift up Jesus even when The issues of the gospel are left aside. In fact, how is it that people can get together and lift up Jesus?

When they do not believe the same things concerning who he is. They do not believe the same things concerning what he has done. They do not believe the same things concerning His atoning work concerning how one is saved concerning the mission of the church.

Concerning the inspiration of the Bible the foundation of the faith the resurrection of Christ. Pretty much you name it how can there be a Raising up a lifting up of Jesus when there is no unity of faith.

That's going to be the subject this Thursday evening and I hope you will have the opportunity To tune in to that program between 5 and 7 p .m. And if you're listening to us today on the Internet That's 5 to 7 p .m. Mountain time right now 5 to 7 p .m. Arizona time.

I Hope you will mark your calendars right now set an alarm on your on your computer on your watch. However, you need to do it set an alarm so that you can be with us This coming Thursday evening for this program.

It was my thesis when one of the guests that will be on with me was on earlier and I called in and made some Comments it was my thesis that if we follow the apostolic example The example provided to us in the pages of Scripture itself.

We will discover Exactly how we're supposed to handle this situation. The apostolic example is provided to us in the book of Galatians. And if that book was not in the Bible and in fact if most of Paul's books were not in the Bible I suppose that we could we could find some way of just all getting together and not worrying about what anybody believes.

But it's there and we see the fact that the Apostle Paul Looked at the situation in Galatia. He saw the Judaizers who certainly in Today's realm would have been considered prime candidates for ecumenical dialogue.

We are given no indication that the Galatians in any way shape or form compromised on important issues. For example, they would have been considered conservatives just like we are. They would have been considered to be fellow believers in for example the authority of Scripture the authority of the Bible the inspiration of the Bible.

They would have been right there with us on many of these issues. We are given no indication in the book of Galatians that they did not believe in the resurrection of Christ. That they did not believe in the deity of Christ.

There would have they probably very very moral people. We could have considered them some co agitators. Co-combatants against the moral evils of the Roman Empire and oh did they have moral evils and yet Paul is so.

Well in today's language short-sighted Paul is so narrow and unloving as to write an entire book and Send to the churches in Galatia and say these people are false brethren. Can such a term even be used in today's ecumenical Church?

Can we refer who is a false brother from the discussion that I heard. I'm going to ask this question Thursday the discussion I heard before is there is no standard upon which to make that decision as long as someone says They're our brother.

Then we have to accept that statement at face value and simply say all right brother as long as you say You're my brother. You're my brother. No content to that confession can be asked for or demanded.

And yet if we look at the apostolic example Paul well knew. He well knew that individuals would Call themselves our brothers as he said in Acts chapter 20 Man would rise up from the very leadership of the church who are ravenous wolves not sparing the flock.

Paul knew that this was the case and Obviously there had to be an objective standard by which individuals could determine Who was and who was not a true brother over against a false brother? Paul wrote this letter.

He called people false brethren and what's worse is he? Anathematized he placed under the very curse of God. Those who preached a gospel different than his own well if that isn't narrow-minded bigotry.

What is at least that's what we're told today. But you see the Apostle Paul knew something I'm sure he knew of what the Lord Jesus had said in Mark chapter 8 when he said if anyone is ashamed of me or of My gospel that in the parallel accounts the same of the same discussion of the part of the Lord Jesus.

He connects his gospel to himself. You cannot say that you are lifting up Jesus Christ. When you show no concern for the purity of his gospel. And yet we live in a day where people tell us well. All you need to do is exalt Jesus all this theology stuff.

It really doesn't matter. Well. The Lord Jesus didn't see quote-unquote theology is something that was separate from a relationship with himself. He didn't see it as some separate concern that did not matter.

Instead the Lord Jesus said anyone who is ashamed of me or my gospel, and it would seem to me That many in our world are ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Because they won't call people sinners. They won't call sin sin.

They will not use words like repentance. They will not identify the lifestyles that are now becoming accepted within liberalism. What they are sinful lifestyles activities that reek of rebellion against God.

And so they're ashamed of the gospel. So why in the world even be concerned? About quote-unquote lifting up Jesus if you don't care about what he did. He's the one who preached this message. As soon as he comes upon the public scene.

What does he do? Does he say I just want everybody to love one another and To just get together and hold hands and sing warm songs and make everyone feel good. Is that what he did? What did Jesus do when he first appears on the scene?

Repent. For the kingdom of God is at hand. Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees you will perish in hellfire. Oh Wow. I'll bet those particular passages of the gospel do not Receive a tremendous amount of emphasis in various and sundry ecumenical gatherings.

Do they? No, they do not you cannot lift up Jesus Christ while ignoring his gospel and When you stretch your hand across the gulf of false teaching to embrace that which is untrue. You are doing despite to the gospel itself.

I'm tired of hearing people say well, you know, you just need to be you just need to be more loving. You all are just too narrow. You all are just too mean spirited. Let me tell you something it is not showing love to God and love to his truth to take the easy way out and shave off the rough corners and Edit the gospel down to something that will not cause the world to react negatively to it.

The gospel of Jesus Christ will always bring about a reaction and it's never an action of neutrality. If you're preaching the gospel and the world could care less you better check what gospel you're preaching.

If you're preaching the gospel and the lost person can sit there week in and week out and hear it and Not see anything whatsoever in what you're saying not see anything in the message. You're delivering that challenges them in their sin.

Then I'd say you have a major problem in regards to what you're preaching a Humanism, let's all just get together. Let's all just hold hands. Can we do it and still love God? The message that I'm going to bring Thursday evening is Compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a loving thing to do and any person who holds a Bible in their hand and claims to be a herald a proclaimer of the gospel of Christ and Yet shows a willingness To compromise on the very important issues is is he truly God?

Ecumenically minded folks don't mind what you believe. The Arizona ecumenical council has Unitarian Universalists on it who don't believe that Jesus Christ was God come in the flesh. Don't believe that he rose physically from the dead.

So I guess you can Disbelieve the entirety of the Christian message, but as long as you call yourself religious and Maybe repeat a couple of the commandments just not really apply them very consistently then everything's okay.

That is a compromise of the gospel. We can see that type of compromise we can see that type of an issue when it comes up. At least I hope we can. I realize there are many many many in our society today who though members of?

Nominally evangelical churches are never challenged to really give deep considerate thought to what their faith really means and so when individuals come along who Can speak well and can talk a good line.

Many individuals are subject to becoming very confused and even embracing heretical and false beliefs. Because they have not been prepared through the teaching of the church to know the difference between right and wrong.

But there's another kind of problem that I'd like to bring to your attention today. And if you'd like to join the program you can at area code 602 274 1360 602 274 1360 or one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty.

That's one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. And if you'd like to join us on the program you can do so today if you'd like to get on the air we always have those folks who wait until we have five minutes left to go and then they Then they decide to call in and then we have those really fast conversations.

That's a Really are so much difficult for everybody to follow so if you'd like to get online today Why don't you give us a call right now at 602 274 1360 or one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty.

Norman Geisler, Roman Catholicism, and the Meaning of Substitutionary Atonement

Now I know that this is going to appear to some people as if I'm I'm trying to pick on somebody and really honestly I am NOT. But this past week, I believe on Thursday afternoon yes, it was Thursday afternoon I know it was because it was I was getting ready to go down and teach the last Greek class of the semester.

This past Thursday afternoon on the Bible Answer Man program Dr.. Norman Geisler was on. And some of you remember three weeks ago, we addressed a statement made by dr. Geisler way back in. That would be April of this year.

Where in response to a particular caller? Dr. Geisler had indicated that the Roman Catholic Church is a true church With serious error rather than being a false church with a great amount of truth. And in the process he had indicated That you cannot use Reformation standards the standards of the Reformation and specifically a belief in Forensic justification is how he put it to place Roman Catholicism outside the pale of orthodoxy.

Well, it just so happened to this past Thursday I was listening since I noticed that he was on the program and and I had just returned to my home to get ready to Go teach and I had the radio on I just turned it on.

When John from st. Louis, Missouri called in and I want to thank the Stephen Geisler for transcribing these Calls for me off of the internet, and this is what John's question was quote I heard you I think on the program a couple of weeks ago or maybe a week or so ago and you made a statement About the fact that either the Catholic Church is a true church with error or a false church with truth.

My real question here is how do you answer people who really think they believe what we do? And as I recall the caller had said something along the lines of he shares a lot of with there in the St. Louis area with people who are Catholics and neighbor they say well, we just believe what you believe.

And so he asked dr. Geisler. How do you answer people who really think they believe what we do? Dr. Geisler's answer went as follows. Well, first of all, my statement is that the Roman Catholic Church is a true church with significant error.

Rather than a false church with significant truth in it after all the fundamentals of the faith the deity of Christ the virgin birth the Substitutionary atonement the bodily resurrection salvation by grace are found in the Roman Catholic Church.

Including the total sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for us. Where we differ with them is we believe that it's by faith alone through Christ alone based on the Bible alone. Through grace alone to the glory of God alone.

It's that word alone that they miss on five different areas and the Roman Catholic Church has significant error in it and it's on all of these things I just mentioned and then Hank Hanegraaff said and Significant issues that we would all have to agree have to do in many cases the very bedrock of our faith.

One of the things I think we need to point out norm is the fact that so often we are looking at the errors of Roman Catholicism and there's a place for that. But we sometimes forget that liberal Protestant denominations have virtually done away with the essentials the historic Christian faith.

Dr. Geisel responded. Yeah, those five soul as I mentioned faith alone Christ alone Bible alone grace alone glory of God alone. You can find those violated in Protestant churches, too. Well. Is it not the the case that there are many Protestant churches today liberal Protestant churches that no longer believe any of that.

Yes yes, and Many of those are the ecumenical churches we were just talking about that no longer believe in the deity of Christ or the virgin birth or the existence of the miraculous or The inspiration of Scripture and my friends and if you've never heard anyone say this Let me say it loudly and clearly so that you can hear it.

They are not Christian churches. Did you hear that? They are not Christian churches. Oh, they may have steeples and crosses and talk about Jesus and have pretty Christmas programs, but if you don't believe That the Bible is a revelation from God that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh.

You don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You don't believe that he upon the cross bore the sins of his people you if you don't believe any of that. You're not a Christian. In fact, I'm not really sure why you're playing at religion.

But that isn't Christianity. So it's quite obvious That these are not even Protestant churches. Because you cannot be a Protestant and not believe these things. You may want to be called a Protestant you may want to be called a Christian.

But there are certain definitions that define what a faith is. So there's everything right to say. Yes, we need to be consistent and recognize that Liberal Protestants and liberal Catholics who no longer believe anything of the gospel message Need to be evangelized because they're not Christians.

Fine. But what caused me to to Be absolutely positively amazed that's that's that's somewhat somewhat of a Understatement was the state was those two of them. First of all, dr. Geisler says that we and the Catholics agree About the substitutionary atonement.

The substitutionary atonement. We agree on the substitutionary atonement with Rome. No, my friends we do not the very term Substitutionary atonement. The concept that Jesus Christ takes the place as a sacrifice and Bears the penalty due to our sins in his body in our place that concept is Not only not what Rome teaches.

That is not what Arminianism historically has taught either. The Arminians who developed shortly after the Reformation recognized that if they accepted the idea that Jesus Christ died in the place of all men.

That this meant that the punishment due to all men had already been paid and that therefore all men must be saved. Therefore since most Arminians recognized the Bible's teaching concerning punishment.

They abandoned the idea which is a reformed idea of the Substitutionary atonement and replaced it with the governmental theory of the atonement. If you'd like to read some more on that I'd suggest you look at the discussion in Robert Raymond's new systematic theology or in Elwell's Dictionary of theology under Arminianism.

There is a discussion there I believe it's by Kenneth Greider if I'm just quoting off the top of my head here an Arminian scholar who specifically says The idea of Jesus dying in my place is a is a spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism.

But certainly that's not Rome's position then. After saying this after saying the substitutionary atonement salvation by grace Are found in the Roman Catholic Church, and of course that that's like drawing fingernails across a chalkboard.

Salvation by grace. You mean salvation by sacrament? Grace Channeled through sacraments, but not salvation by grace. I Mean that means something so completely different in a biblical context. Remember a few weeks ago when we talked about indulge NTR I'm doctrina Indulgences and these these gifts of grace that one must earn.

I Mean we're using Terminology here in a way that absolutely destroys the meaning of the words. But after saying that Substitutionary atonement salvation by grace are found the Roman Catholic Church here is the statement where quite literally I cried out so loudly that my daughter summer came running across the house to see what was wrong and That was this line including the total Sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for us.

I don't even know where to start. Folks just think with me just for a moment. The mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice. Rome teaches the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice it is the representation of this totally sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Represented on the Roman altar a person can go to mass 15 ,000 20 ,000 times in their life and Still die impure in fact technically still die and go to hell through the commission of a mortal sin. And this is believing the total sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.

You only obtain the merits of the sacrifice Through the good works done in a state of grace and yet Christ's sacrifice is totally sufficient. You have to go to purgatory to undergo sada spacio the suffering of atonement and Christ's sacrifice is sufficient.

You can receive Indulgences to receive the remission of the temporal punishment of sins and Christ's sacrifice is sufficient. Where why are we? Redefining language here. There is no sufficient sacrifice in Roman Catholicism.

That's the whole point. The reason they don't believe in justification by faith is Because they have no ground in a completed sacrifice of Christ to no Justification by faith so that they can have peace with God as a finished work by Christ Jesus.

The whole system is rotten to its core biblically speaking. So I don't understand how anyone knowing what Rome teaches listening to this applied by Roman Catholic apologists could say Including the total sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice in the cross for us that makes absolutely positively no sense to me.

I Have with me I have a number of things, but I have with me the the universal catechism of the Catholic Church and just briefly. Here on section 617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as the source of eternal salvation and teaches that His most holy passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.

You know what that means folks. Christ's death Merits the grace whereby we do good works in a state of grace to earn eternal life. The grace that flows to us through Mary only through Mary and then only through the sacraments of the church.

To bring about our salvation was merited by the death of Christ. Is that substitutionary atonement? No. Is that the total sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross. No. But that's what the universal catechism the Catholic Church says Ludwig Ott fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

Under a denial that Christ dies for the predestined only a denial that Christ dies for the faithful only. Says the universality of Christ vicarious atonement refers to the objective redemption only Christ made sufficient atonement for all men without exception.

The subjective appropriation Of the fruits of redemption is however dependent on the fulfillment of certain conditions on faith and on the observation of the commandments. So Christ merits salvation. He earns it through his vicarious death.

But then we have to appropriate through what we do folks. That's denial of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. And it's right on the very surface of the most basic resources that you can obtain for determining what Rome teaches dogmatically and Officially and of course, that's what you have to first.

Determine, we have only one phone line open right now 602 two seven four thirteen sixty one triple eight five five zero 1360 we're gonna take a break and be right back 27 minutes before the hour of three o 'clock.

You're listening to the dividing line on KPX Q and we'd like to get you involved. We have only one line open right now. We've got folks lined up. We lost one caller. I hope George calls back if you'd like to but till then let's talk to Martin in Birmingham, England.

Hi Martin. Hi James, how are you doing? I'm very well. How are you doing? All right, what you think about the topic today? Interesting.

Where to Draw the Line in Ecumenical Cooperation

Along the lines of ecumenism the question always pops into my mind is well, where do you draw the line? You know, if you're an excited Yeah, a certain group is Christian because they you know, they mentioned that like you mentioned the Universalist.

I mean, you know, what about you know, what about the the Hindus when they believe in Jesus provided an avatar? What about the Muslims? Well, I believe in Jesus provided. He's only a prophet.

Well, I don't see that there is any standard that ecumenism and those who are ecumenically minded can in point of fact point to. It is my understanding that many of these ecumenical movements will embrace For example the Metropolitan Church, they'll embrace Mormonism frequently, it's the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't want to get involved because they believe something too strongly to compromise in that way, which is an incredibly sad statement to make but There there is no standard.

Any longer and so it would seem to me that if a a Hindu came along to these folks and said well You know, I want to honor Jesus too. I think that he was he was a great man and that he spoke much truth.

I don't see there being any basis upon which someone could say no and in point of fact I think the most liberals would would embrace that you see this of course right there in your own land in the Church of England I mean If that's Christianity, I I'm sorry, you know when you have the the Buddhists and the Hindus and everybody else getting together and Saying well, let's just all let's just all get together.

There's no longer any distinctive Claim that Jesus Christ is truly Savior from anything. That's really real like sin. So well, there's how can a line be drawn and if it is drawn it's drawn utterly on an arbitrary basis.

We also made me I mean someone's only got to sit down and listen to I mean say one of your debates with the Roman Catholic, I mean even if they disagree with you, they've still got to admit. Hold on a minute.

There are some differences. Yeah. If you just listen to a half-hour debate hot one person saying one thing one person saying the other Agree or disagree in one side of the other you've got to admit these people are coming from a completely different angle.

That's right. That's how I mean, it always just be the documents of the Roman Catholic Church, for example. You know, you've got to admit but most.

But most people don't function on that level any longer. It's a matter of well, wouldn't we all just feel so much better if we could all just agree. Let's just all agree with one another it would feel so good.

And you know the people on the other side they seem so nice and they seem So honest and so kind. And and how can anyone who's kind and and speaks nicely ever really be a false teacher? Well, you know I get the feeling from many things that Paul said that his opponents were actually very smooth of speech.

And we're very able to take in the weak-minded person who is susceptible To looking only at mannerisms rather than at the substance of what is being said. And the entire mindset any many more of Western civilization is Away from critical thought and towards subjective feeling.

I mean, I've heard on the show people of people around it in last week. There was a woman who rang in and displayed. He said well, why don't you concentrate on the nice things on the good things? You know, I value the Mormon.

Yes family value here. I mean, I can point you wonderful atheist. You've got fantastic family value. They love their family and they're very active in the community.

But that doesn't make you it doesn't actually she she called in. When you ring in you're on a game show. I'm sorry. We just love having you call. We get our little Work, you know, you're gonna. You're helping everyone here in Phoenix learn proper English.

We're gonna make proper English because the English define proper English. Do they not? Well, thank you for calling today Martin, I appreciate all right. And let's keep up our theme of staying out of the city of Phoenix for the moment.

And let's talk with Michael in New York City. Hi Michael. Hello, sir. How are you? Very good, sir.

False Teaching, Judgment, and the Need to Reject Heresy

First off I'd like to say that I'm a little sick of this ecumenical hand-holding with Roman Catholics or with Mormons or These other churches that refuse to stick directly on the Word of God. One example is when one perverts the meaning of salvation biblically they're destroying the purpose of Jesus on the cross.

When they pervert the Meaning of Christ dying on the cross with their ceremonies. They take people's mind off. Of course, then I'm sick of it.

But it happens all around you especially in your area, I mean if you're in the New York City area. It's a very very heavily Roman Catholic area, but it's also very liberal. So there's a tremendous amount of liberal Catholicism all around you there and.

That kind of thing is going to. I'm sure you have a New York ecumenical council or something similar to it. I I don't know the specifics though. I probably should I go out there often enough. In fact, we'll be there again in a few weeks.

But I'm sure you've got it all around you and do you see. Do you see formally.

Conservative churches in your area beginning to buckle on these issues. Well, actually, I'm not in the city. I'm actually quite a ways away. I'm closer to the Starting point for the Mormons near Palmyra.

Okay, but we do have a lot of Mormons in our area and there are so many churches locally that are bending to Mormons. So many churches that are accepting some of their doctrine or even accepting their ideas into their churches and it's ridiculous.

Hmm, and when you bring these issues up to these people these liberals out there, they'll say you're being judgmental. Mm-hmm, and that's the first thing they'll say and They're missing the point. So the Bible never said ignore false teaching.

The Bible on the other hand says reject false teaching.

That's right. So that they judge you as being judgmental. It's not a matter of being too judgmental. It's the idea of exercising any type of judgment at all because the assumption of the modern society is is there is no Right or wrong in religious matters.

Religion is a matter of them of of each person determining what's right for themselves. And therefore if you say there is an objective standard, there's a right or wrong. Then you are being closed-minded then you're being bigoted then you're causing problems.

And that's really you need to understand that that's the beginning starting point of their thinking. And therefore if we can find someone who will Actually engage us in rational dialogue You have to go to that issue first challenge that and then then having successfully challenged that begin to Really present to them the fact that God as our Creator can define what is right and wrong in all areas.

Including the area of our religious faith. That's absolutely right. The Bible says in Isaiah chapter 5 in verse 20 I can't quote the verse verbatim, but it says one to them that call evil good and good evil.

That's right. That's the very point people today are doing what is right in their own minds not according to God's Word. They're setting up their doctrine according to their own minds not according to God's Word.

They are being rebellious. They're being rebellious against God's teaching and when they're accepting heretics literal heretics into their camps. They are disobeying a Titus chapter 3 in verse 10, which says reject the heretic.

Well, you know, you can't even call people heretics any longer that Terminology and believe me abused by so many people, of course, and and it has been abused. I mean, I I tried to have a conversation in a chat channel This past week and there were about three or four King James only advocates in there and you would not believe The kind of infantile behavior that we saw and of course the term heretic was thrown about right and left.

So certainly because people have observed have abused it then then people say well You can no longer use this type of terminology properly. That's obviously not logical either and yet for most people the hesitance is not because of that.

It's because they no longer believe that God's Word is clear enough to be able to identify a belief as being utterly and completely wrong,. I'll give you an example on the very same Bible answer man program that I just quoted from.

Another caller called in and this this this bothered me greatly and asked about the teaching of Gregory Boyd. Are you familiar with him?

Yes, I've heard the name. I don't believe you. Robinson was seventh-day Adventist, but Boyd was. He was a oneness.

Pentecostal as I as I recall right now converted, right? Well, the problem is Gregory Boyd Presents and teaches the concept of open theism the idea that God has all knowledge that is Knowable, but since the future does not exist either to men or to God then God does not know what is in the future and God in essence.

I don't see how this system can avoid going directly into process theology and the idea that God is growing and Progressing and learning and becoming better and so on and so forth. Well, there are those that are hesitant to call that view heresy.

I'm not one of them. I think you deny to God the attribute of omniscience. When you say that the future is as blank to God as it is to you and I who are time bound creatures you end Up limiting God to time.

Prophecy becomes a good guess. Not something that's certain and God's promises about what's going to happen in the future Become empty and yet there are those who will say oh, that's not a heresy. It may be unbiblical, but it's not a heresy and I say no you cannot go that you cannot go that direction.

It makes no sense. But again this whole issue of what is and what is not truth Takes us back to a willingness to speak the truth and to take the lumps when they come because we will take them.

When we take these stands, that's absolutely right. I'm enjoying your program today and I'll continue. All right.

Thank you very much for listening. God. Thank you. That opens up two phone lines right now at 602. Two seven four thirteen sixty or one triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. Dennis. Jennifer. We'll get back to you right after this break.

Welcome back the dividing line. We have about 12 minutes left and we have one line open now. It's six. Oh two two, seven four thirteen sixty. One triple eight five five zero thirteen sixty. Dennis your comment today.

How are you sir. Didn't have to use a acronym of pseudonym or anything else. Rich remind me we need to renew Dennis's Prozac prescription. Okay. All right, Dennis. Go ahead.

Issue has a short interview with Gregory Boyd. It's the professor of theology Bethel Seminary. It is referred to it is.

What is the what does he have to say? Oh. What you would expect? Okay. Yeah. Well, I should subscribe but I there are lots of things I should subscribe to that I don't so thank you for noting that. I know that John Piper has been fighting for years to To have Boyd removed from that denomination and sadly, I believe the last time it came for a vote Not only was he not removed but it obviously is is to the point where in that denomination you can deny the omniscience of God or redefine it so radically as to make it meaningless and The official position of domination is you're okay.