J.P. Moreland

J.P. Moreland and the Charge of Overcommitting to Scripture

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 good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon just reading a Fascinating article and man, I'm really warm for some reason today. I'm not sure why it's yeah, we're all real real loud.

Not sure why. Reading a very interesting article dated to yesterday postcard from San Diego fighting bibliology at the Evangelical Theological Society Talbot's JP Moreland warns that evangelicals are overcommitted to the Bible.

Yeah, this is yeah. I this is by Ted Olson. Let's let's let's read this together because. Yeah, anyway. While the ballroom sessions the first day of the Evangelical Theological Society meeting had more attendees.

No session was as packed as JP Moreland's. How evangelicals became over committed to the Bible and what can be done about it? While the average breakout session seems to be attended by fewer than 50 people easily more than 200 packed the room to hear Moreland's talk with Dozens standing and more listening outside the door.

It's little wonder why so many people attended. ETS membership has only two doctrinal requirements. You must affirm the Trinity and the inerrancy of Scripture. The first part has not been controversial of late.

But the second was the focus of the society's recent fight over open theism and was named as a reason why Francis Beckwith Could not remain as ETS president after his conversion to Roman Catholicism. In short to accuse Evangelicals of over commitment to the Bible at ETS would be like accusing environmentalists of talking too much about climate change at a Sierra Club meeting.

But Moreland who has gained some prominence as a philosopher and apologist wasn't pulling any punches quote in The actual practices the evangelical community in North America. There is an over commitment to Scripture in a way that is false irrational and harmful to the cause of Christ He said and it has produced a mean Spiritedness among the over committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship under the Lord Jesus.

The problem he said is the idea the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God morality and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.

Let me stop right there. I Personally don't know anyone Who believes that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God? Morality and a host of related important items. I don't know anybody like that.

I've not met anyone like that, but Let's say that that's the case. They would be wrong because the Bible would contradict them. The Bible says that God has revealed himself in many ways. He is seen in the creation around us and so.

That that simply wouldn't make any sense to say that this is the sole source of knowledge of God. But I don't see any logical connection between accordingly and this is a direct quote. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.

Faith and practice is not the same thing as knowledge of God morality and a host related important items. It's faith and practice and. And so it is taken to be the sole infallible authority for faith and practice, yeah but Where the word infallible go?

I think we're gonna find out once again that theology matters and that's always been an area of Discretion anyways. Continuing on with the article suppose an Archaeologist discovered a portion of the ancient city of Jerusalem that was specifically described in the Old Testament.

Moreland said quote could the archaeologist have discovered the site without the use of the Old Testament. Once discovered could the archaeologist learn things about the site that went beyond what was in the Old Testament.

Clearly the answer is yes to both Questions. Why. Because the site actually exists in the real world as it does not exist in the Bible. It is only described the Bible and the biblical description is partial.

And quote. Well, I can't see how anyone could possibly argue with any of that. I also struggled to see exactly why that's overly relevant. But that's the assertion being made likewise. Moreland argued because the human soul Spirit and demons angels are real it is possible in fact actual that extra biblical knowledge can be gained about these Spiritual entities.

Demons not exist in the Bible they exist in reality. Now I see a fundamental Confusion here between such things as an archaeological site, which is evidence of history and if it has interface with scripture, then it's evidence from history of God's activities in history past and hence can be examined and Frequently when it is examined is very enlightening to us and useful to us and anyone who studied old and New Testament backgrounds knows How useful these things can be?

But I see a major difference between an archaeological dig and such things as demons and spirits. Because demons and spirits are theological constructs and entities that we learn about from scripture and while a person encountering such things might have personal experience I Hope what's not being suggested is that personal experience is equal to that which is given to us in scripture.

The scriptures give us the framework into which our personal experience should be fitted because of the nature of the scriptures being that which is God breathed and The fact that I as a human being experience things in a fallen world and with limited perception.

So I continue on With the article by not researching how demons work how to fight them and other such issues by for example working with exorcists. Christian scholars are harming the church. Moreland argued in a similar vein.

He thinks evangelical scholars and the movement as a whole are rejecting quote guidance Revelation and so forth from God through impressions dreams visions prophetic words words of knowledge and wisdom and quote Let that one sink in for just a moment.

I'm sort of wondering if the cannon is open or closed or you know just what's going on here. Continuing quote we shut that down because of charismatic excesses. He said because of abuses we fear teaching people how to use it we think it's all going to be Benny Hinn or something like that and quote a third area where a Moreland critiqued evangelical over commitment to the Bible was in the scarcity of Evangelical appear appeals to natural theology and moral law in their political and cultural discussions now.

Here is where we encounter the great divide the vast and I think fully appropriate divide between natural law theologians. That's primarily Rome and those who see the scripture as the ultimate Authority in these issues which are mostly reformed folks and JP Moreland if he's anything is not reformed.

Again, as I mentioned theology matters and so quote the sparse landscape of evangelical political thought stands in stark contrast to the overflowing garden both of evangelical biblical scholarship and Catholic reflection on reason general revelation and Cultural and political engagement.

He said we evangelicals could learn a lesson or two from our Catholic friends and quota. Remember what? Frank Beckwith has said numerous times where he Entered into the discussion of his Why he wasn't a Catholic was in exactly that context was in the context of speaking about John Paul the seconds Viewpoints regarding the issue of Natural law and things like that.

He delivered a paper on the subject and then when he Was asked that started him thinking. Well, why am I not a Catholic etc, etc. So we see the connection going on here. That wasn't as provocative a statement coming a few months after the Let's see, that wasn't as yeah.

That wasn't as provocative a statement coming a few months after the ETS president became one of those Catholic friends. Catholicism is on the agenda here and Catholics are both implicitly and explicitly discussed in the meetings many discussions of justification.

But Catholicism doesn't seem to be the note new open theism at ETS. No more provocative was Moreland's argument about why evangelicals became over committed to the Bible. Rather than developing a robust epistemology in response to secularism.

He said evangelicals reacted and retreated. Now evangelical theologians aren't allowed to come to any new conclusions about the truths in Scripture and They're not allowed to find truths outside of Scripture as a result.

He said they're engaged in private language games and increasingly detailed minutiae and we're not seeking work on broad cultural themes. There are quite frankly a number of papers here that reflect private language games and increasingly detailed minutiae.

There will be in a in a few days to at the joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion in the Society of Biblical Literature and there are at just about every other major academic conference I've ever attended, but I think Moreland's critique stung here perhaps more than it might elsewhere.

This is a group torn between his desire to do respectable Scholarship and its desire to serve the church. Moreland's Jeremy odd hit them on both fronts again. This is from Christianity Today and that was an article by Ted Olson it.

It truly strikes me that the last thing that is actually the problem for Evangelicalism today is in fact anything whatsoever to do with over commitment to Scripture if anything there is Significantly less commitment to Scripture than there needs to be but this was an epistemological Argument on Moreland's Westmoreland's part and JP Moreland's Westmoreland it was really comes from his theology and his background more than it comes from anything else and.

So what do you think eight seven seven seven five three three three four one the Catholics are chuckling? About this because there's some very loose language found in in this particular Terminology than this particular Jeremy odd to use the terminology used by Ted Olson if you don't include such terms as infallible sources of authority to differentiate between fallible and infallible.

There just seems to be a lot of confusion on JP Moreland's comments that point he does mention that the paper is not online, but that he had struck these themes and other works and It would be interesting to see the paper when it says put online though some of those quotes sounded more like just a talk than it did any formal paper that was that was being presented, so quite the interesting Commentary coming from JP Moreland and ETSI as I've mentioned many times before it was nine years ago right about now that I attended the sole ETS meeting that I have attended presented a paper on Gregory Stafford and Have said that you know I will have to be dragged kicking and screaming Back to such a meeting.

I I did not find it. I had some some good experiences there in the sense that You know I met some some good folks friends of mine. We had some good conversations I've told you about Roger Nicole's shuffling up to the Microphone after being ever so it was the 50th anniversary of the founding of it and so They some person in the in the audience asked.

Why did you put the Bible alone in? In the statement of faith and Roger Nicole goes shuffling up to the to the microphone and just very simply says because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group and then shuffled back to the seat and I Got a kick out of that, but so there are a couple of things like that, but in general the the attitude of of the of the Academy Gently seeking to guide the benighted Church Was just repulsive to me, and I just didn't have any any desire whatsoever to go back, but That that I bet you it's quite interesting over there this year after the Beckwith fiasco and things along those lines.

Frank Beckwith, Apostasy, and the Gospel

Speaking of the the Beckwith fiasco, and I think it's a good way to to put it I was fairly taken aback by the Comments left by dr. Michael Bauman of Hillsdale College on a certain blog earlier today. I provided those comments in my response on my blog Posted just a couple of hours ago his specific statements were.

Number one. I don't see the wisdom or utility of continued engagement on the subject of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from Christianity. With folks who do not know the definition of apostasy. And I'm not sure who that would be about it certainly wasn't about me.

Number two. I don't see the wisdom or utility of continued engagement on the subject of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from Christianity. With folks who cannot distinguish between first century Judaizers and modern Roman Catholics.

Now I think that I was the only person who mentioned First century Judaizers and I I mentioned them in the context of seeking some kind of biblical and apostolic understanding of What is a Christian confession and how do we deal with those who claim to follow Christ?

But by apostolic decree are anathema are Are not was Paul put it are false Pseudo Adelphi false brothers their confession is not true. They they claim to be brothers. But they are not and the fact that the foundation of Paul's Condemnation of the Judaizers is not Christological.

That is it's not specifically about the person of Christ there's no evidence whatsoever that they denied the incarnation or or that they were opposed to the Trinity or Anything like that instead the foundation of Paul's assertions Clearly soteriologically clearly have to do with the gospel as we see in Galatians 1 when he says That they were preaching another gospel, which is not another it's not another the same kind it's a it's a different kind of gospel a gospel that brings the anathema of God because it does not save and so with that I thought fairly obviously that That's an extremely relevant Question to raise and I was actually sort of looking forward to seeing What kind of response dr. Baumann would would offer but evidently?

He does not want to talk to people who cannot distinguish between first century Judaizers and modern Roman Catholics. Now, of course. Since I'm the one that brought that up. I guess that's aimed at me and I clearly did Distinguish between them and as I point out in my blog response the Judaizers were significantly more Orthodox than Roman Catholics.

They were not promoting as dogmas of the Christian faith the idea that Mary had been bodily assumed in the heaven. Or that you must believe in the immaculate conception or the perpetual virginity of Mary.

They knew nothing of such things as infallible human popes Called the vicar of Christ and Holy Father. They did not have priests who were called an altar Christos another Christ. They did not have satis pastia.

They don't have purgatory. They did not have seven sacraments by which they channeled God's grace. They were much much more Orthodox Than Roman Catholicism is and so I made a rather clear distinction between them.

And and so I'm not sure how dr. Baumann could so completely miss the essence of my comments unless of course He doesn't have an answer to those comments and hence is ducking out by throwing stink bombs and Trying to just avoid the issue entirely which we would Like to not think is the case.

But as the comments go on that does seem to suggest itself as the only logical conclusion. Because number three I do not see the wisdom or utility of continued engagement the subject of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from the faith.

With folks who cannot distinguish between the gospel parentheses faith in Christ, which Frank clearly affirms parentheses closed and assent to sola fide ism Quote parentheses a theory of justification which Frank does not affirm.

Parentheses closed failure to distinguish between them means you do not know the gospel. Now at this point I was again Fairly amazed at The assertion that was that was being made and the reason being that.

There this seems to be incredibly muddled thinking. Certainly every Roman Catholic proclaims faith in Christ and Evidently from dr. Baumann's perspective that Means all Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.

I thought he had at once identified himself as being reformed and you know historically that really hasn't been the reformed understanding. So I'm not really sure why I'd use that terminology of himself when clearly it's not really descriptive of what he actually believes.

But anyway, that was you know, just a misunderstanding on my part, I guess reading way way way too much into the use the term reformed but Still I Have to think that dr. Baumann would I wonder what dr. Baumann would say about the conversations going on with Robert Millett the Mormon professor from Brigham Young University who likewise cannot be questioned as to his assertion of faith in Christ.

Now if Immediately dr. Baumann says well, we know what Mormons believe about Jesus then you're saying well, so What one believes about who Christ is really does matter. And so I guess Extending as much charity far more charity that was extended toward myself.

Extending charity. Maybe the idea here is well, yes, you've got to be truly Trinitarian. You can have all the soteriological heresy you want. You can you can teach people that their loved ones are burning in boiling sulfur and purgatory.

But they're gonna make it to heaven if you you know, buy your indulgences, but it's okay. Because you still have faith in Christ. But if you believe Jesus the spirit brother of Lucifer while you're toast or if you believe Jesus Michael the Archangel so what this leads me to Conclude is that for dr. Baumann?

When Jesus said if anyone is ashamed of me and my gospel he cuts those two right down the middle. Because you can have faith in Jesus. But deny his gospel and still be a Christian evidently. Because really when you say the gospel is faith in Christ and Then you contrast that with solafidism a theory of Justification is that what solafidism is just a theory of justification that you can agree with or not agree with you know I Said that doesn't sound to me like someone who has any passion for a sola fide.

You know, I really wonder about folks who can who can limit it in that way and and not see the interrelatedness of the various aspects of the gospel and. That sola fide obviously goes with sola gratia and solos Christus and and what that means and the freedom of God and salvation.

Self-glorification all that stuff. It's sort of all all goes together. But it seems that you can have faith in Jesus but Not in his gospel that you can split him up so you can have faith in the person of Christ but have completely divergent views the work of Christ just just totally totally contradictory views of The work of Christ and that's okay.

That's how you can slide all of Rome's massive additions in there is as well, they're Orthodox on the person of Christ and that's all that really matters. But then how then do you turn around? Having Divorced the work of Christ from the person of Christ and now the gospel is defined outside the work of Christ.

No more cross no more resurrection. No more law works grace. Basically everything all the arguments of Galatians and Romans are wasted papyri. Because those were irrelevant. I don't know what Paul was thinking about this stuff.

It makes no sense whatsoever. What he was doing in Galatia. Why argue about this stuff because it just doesn't matter. This is all just side issues. But then how do you turn around having totally and radically redefined all of these things and then say that?

Failure to distinguish between them. Means you do not know the gospel. It Sounds to me Like he is asserting that I I don't know the gospel. Frank Beckwith does. Frank Beckwith can can affirm papal infallibility and bodily assumption Mary Magdalene conception perpetual virginity and and Purgatory and the massive material tax and sacrifice and all that stuff.

But if I say that he has committed an act of apostasy. If he wants actually confess the truth in the first place, which I kept bringing up, but no one ever mentions those things. Then I'm the one who doesn't know the gospel.

Hmm. That's an amazing leap. That that that sort of leaves you sitting back going. Wow, what what's going on here? Hmm. Number four. I do not say the wisdom or utility of continuing engagement on the topic of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from faith in Christ if Frank is not allowed to affirm in his own words whether or not he has faith in Christ.

His personal testimony to faith in Christ is every bit as full and compelling as any Such confession of faith record for us in the Gospels or in Acts. At least the Inquisitors let the accused speak for himself before condemning him not here.

Well once again. Evidently when dr. Baumann would log into this blog he'd get a completely different set of Comments and discussions than the rest of the world does when they log into the same blog because this is just simply connect.

Disconnected from reality. I mean this is just like what are you talking about? No one shut Frank Beckwith down from making his profession of faith. He's he was allowed to say all sorts of stuff on stand to reason and he's been on the Catholic answers and and the coming home network and Who's who's shut him down?

Who's? Who's allowed him to not say I believe in Christ we all accept that we all accept that he says that so does. So did Joseph Smith. So is every Jehovah's Witness? Good grief, so does every Muslim folks.

Hello. But what does what do those words mean? What is the context? What is do these words carry meaning or are we just now reduced down to well as long as they have faith in Christ. Boom. You're a Christian.

Is that how you get the The the Christian Muslims, you know up in the Northwest or something that lady up there We think she's a Christian Muslim and put them all together because words don't have meaning anymore and So I have to wonder what what is this supposed to mean?

No one's arguing that Frank Beckwith has denied that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah or The deity of Christ any of those things that has never been the point don't know how anybody could possibly read Anything that has been said and come to that conclusion unless again, this is just rhetorical flourish to try to sort of get around actually answering the rather tough questions of Dr. Baumann's position of divorcing the gospel from the definition of the Christian faith but Frank Beckwith has been allowed to affirm in his own words whether or not he has faith in Christ.

The question is whether affirming faith in Christ while affirming faith and the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome and while affirming belief in the perpetuatory nature of the sacrifice of the mass and the existence of purgatory and satis Pacio and priests or called an altar Christus and ordination vows and the Marian dogmas is the same thing as confessing faith in Christ in a biblical sense.

Which of course did not include any of those additions during the apostolic period and in the inspired scriptures. So when someone says that his personal testimony to faith in Christ is every bit as full and compelling as any such confessions of faith accord for us the gospel and acts.

I it's hard for me not to laugh at the absurdity of Such a statement because that is just as true of any Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or any other number of cults and false religions. It is it is fallacious argument argumentation on its surface.

And It's clearly intended to just avoid the reality of the situation and that is he has divorced the gospel from the Christ. It's not be ashamed of me in my gospel. It's just be ashamed of me or be ashamed of my gospel, but the two aren't the same thing anymore.

They don't go together anymore. They can be cut in half and you can you can get rid of the gospel part and all as well and that's what he's trying to get around and It does seem to me that in every single one of those confessions of faith in the Gospels or in the acts you have when it is even mentioned the Proclamation of apostolic doctrine to these individuals so that they might be rooted and grounded in the faith.

They do seem to go together and if they are not willing to submit to that apostolic doctrine. Then they are removed from the fellowship of the church of which they are not truly members. And then the final comment Fairly short says enough no more pearl casting for me and no more dusty sandals now obviously we have a fairly biblically literate audience and So you fully know exactly what both of those phrases say Pearl Casting is casting pearls before swine and if I am in fact the primary person being addressed in these comments.

Then we know what dr. Baumann considers me to be and no more dusty sandals. You are to shake the dust off of your sandals as a sign of judgment upon any village that would not receive your testimony and receive your teaching and Both are signs of judgment upon those who have refused a clear and compelling Presentation of God's truth.

I will leave it to the audience to determine who has undertaken to actually discuss God's truth on the basis of the scriptures and Who has not but I was I was really taken aback. I truly was. The initial statements that I had seen from dr. Baumann gave me no reason to believe that this kind of Dismissive in-your-face type thing was going to Be coming my direction, but it's not the first time That something like this has taken place.

It probably won't be the last time. What can I say we live in a day where I mean right here Baumann's at Hillsdale College J. P. Moreland's at Talbot and What have we heard so far? We've heard about over commitment to the scriptures.

We've heard about Looking for revelations and dreams and visions. We have heard about how we need to learn from our Catholic friends to make appeals to natural law. And we have likewise then heard from dr. Baumann that the gospel.

The gospel is not a part of what defines the Christian faith now, that's not anything new. If you haven't been listening back in the 1990s I remember a dividing line where we were actually on the air and I mean radio air and local station and the Bible answer man broadcasts on right before ours and Norman Geisler was on and He was in essence saying that if you believe that justification by faith is a part of the gospel.

And you'll believe there any Christians prior to the Reformation. So there's nothing new about this this is this is. This is not anything new at all the pragmatic well you look at church history, and you take very simplistic viewpoints of things and and Determined that well that just must mean this is just a theory of justification.

But if that's what's being taught to folks you shouldn't be too shocked when this is the kind of response you get it's. It's a sad thing, but Anyway, I actually went back a little bit past my break time eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

I know I've been on a bit of a roll and These are pretty amazing things, but would like to hear what you have to say maybe hey, maybe you agree I'd like to hear from you. We haven't set up our sky thing by the way though rich someone did grab the a name for us, and it's just a matter of giving us the the password and It'll it'll be accessible to us so that may be something we may want to be thinking about in the not-too-distant future to have Have Skype set up so that those who are listening Can get hold of us except for poor Carla in the extreme?

Outer reaches of Canada someplace where Where she has a string and a tin can and it is attached to her computer. And when the wind blows that causes all of her files to become corrupted because it shakes the string and and messes everything for Carla.

Carla is the one that designed all of our shirts and stuff like that and the. You know theology matters shirts and stuff like that so we like to pick on her because she has a almost terminal case of die lup syndrome and.

So We'll pick on her again, so anyway Let's go ahead and take our break and you can dial eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We'll be right back right after this.

Commercial Break: The Potter's Freedom, Pulpit Crimes, and The God Who Justifies

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free. A new cult. Secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James white replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the protestant reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James white masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org. Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James white's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town.

Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org. The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the God who justifies Theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. Jay Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words The God who justifies by dr. James White.

Get your copy today at a omen org.

Banter, Calls, and Closing Remarks

Airbase going real well there, you know. Yes Bartimaeus comes back in jail who keeps kicking me. That's me Bartimaeus. You're a whiner. We need new commercials. Well, then you come up with some bother it takes a while for genius to come up with stuff like that pulpit crimes commercial right rich.

He's still recovering from the effort. That was what about a year ago, I think so. Oh Yes, yes get out the get out the paddles you. Yep. There you go. There you go. Sometimes I had to turn the camera toward the Control room so you can see rich in there.

It's at least we have fun. But anyway, hey, by the way Steve Ray good old Steve Ray. I just you know, you gotta like Steve because he's such a caricature of himself. He really is. Yeah. Yeah this guy with his with his funny hat and Gallivanting around the world and after a while, you just got a sort of chuckle and He puts this his article up, let's see, what's the what's the date on this thing is yesterday.

The eagle and the noisy crows thoughts on dr. Beckwith and his critics and you can imagine Who the noisy crows are and he has pictures of eagles and crows and stuff about his ranch and stuff. The end of the article says.

By the way, a few people notice the crows but many love the eagles and like most Christians I find it best to ignore the noisy crows myself. They are a waste of time now. We've we've read Steve Ray's Loving and kind.

I mean I just you know, I'm just about ready to dive into the Tiber. Because Steve Ray and it's just the just the most glowing picture of the Catholic I just I just am so attracted to Rome.

I can't resist because on that website the water is pretty shallow in that Tiber right on the rock.

Trust me I've I've actually crossed the Tiber. It's a stinky Green River and there's just nothing overly exciting about it. Been there done that aided McDonald's about a mile away. It was great but anyway.

What's really funny to me is you know, you have this you have this statement, you know. It's it's it's they're a waste of time and you know where this article is. It's So ironic it is directly above Baptist at Council of Nicaea where he links for some unknown reason to a Decade old oft refuted the example of why pop Catholic apologists should be absolutely should hang their heads in shame.

Hit piece that Patrick Madrid did on my what happened at the Council of Nicaea article in the CRI journal. So is he really just ignoring me? No, he's not but when he gets challenged and Documentations provided that he does not know what he's talking about.

All of a sudden. He wants to soar with the Eagles Rather than respond to the crows. It is it is truly rather Funny to to observe all Steve and I will get back to taking Steve's PDF apart. I mean it just takes time it took doesn't take it doesn't take long to cobble together.

You know sort of like Phil Provoznik. I mentioned Provoznik on the blog. He he tried to go into that comm box and do his normal. Well, I viewed him on this and I viewed him on that and of course, you know.

At least Steve Ray goes out and does something, you know Phil Provoznik just runs around repeating the same URLs all the time a little bit like Dave Armstrong and. And I've lost all all respect for Provoznik whatsoever.

You know, we tried to talk to him once many moons ago and tried to be nice to him but I just find him extremely annoying any longer and And I you know, once again challenged him to call into this program and defend himself, but he won't he can't he knows it.

You know. He makes these claims and then runs and hides behind a keyboard and and it's just it's sad to see folks I'm not sure how they how they look themselves in the mirror in the morning. I could not possibly live that way but I did make a comment about Two two and a half.

When was when was Robertson Janice on the White Horse Inn is Algo and Shannon and channel because if I'll go now goes not in channel. Well, see if I was in channel. Or is he is he opt is that? Yep. No, he's not there.