Responding to Frank Turek’s Defense of Andy Stanley

Hey, there we go, I don't know what he was saying, but I know something wasn't working so Lost your pointer.

Okay. Well good welcome. I see it running around the screen in here if you want to grab it real quick Anyway, welcome to the dividing line.

We have much to do today on a sort of rainy Thursday High of like 86 today.

Yes. I'm wearing long sleeves. It's like oh, let's get warm it's not gonna really 86 for us after three months of Hundred plus degrees is that's nippy.

It's great. In fact the load and I have 63 Might mean that I'm going to you know, let some air into the house and stuff like that.

It's Almost feel like playing Christmas carols. Anyway, not not yet yet, but feeling that way feeling that way

We got it. We got to cram it into a very short period of time before it's hot again So you got to enjoy every day

Even if you have to sweat to enjoy that day. It's sort of how it is. Anyway, I am

I Want to get I'm going to get to Frank Turek today.

I'm gonna read his article Been saying that and I just don't get to it and I apologize for that I was a pretty

Very briefly. Oh, yeah, very briefly. How many times have I said that I I Turned on the news this morning for a while.

And then I simply had to turn it off. I I have very little hope for a culture that cannot tell a difference between thought and emotion when wild -eyed

Irrational Thinking and behavior is Honored because it's sincere.

We're done. We're done my dear little granddaughter Who's not quite four years old yet has very sincere emotions

But we would all be exceptionally foolish to act Upon the sincerity of her emotions

Adults can control their emotions and adults Well, that's that's really what adulthood is all about and it just seems that the children have taken over the culture

You know, I was listening to a rather Conservative news source.

There aren't many of them sets or it tells you which one had been turned on and A clip was played of someone who was highly emotional and The allegedly conservative commentator

The the big thing that she wanted to focus on was the depth and sincerity of the emotion expressed and I guess anymore if you go

Excuse me time time out I'm gonna honor someone based upon the depth and sincerity of the consistency of their thought and self -discipline

Not on the basis their emotion remember back in June the the memes that showed up with the

Pictures of the men about to storm Normandy in the landing crafts and then you know, that's 1944 and then the comparison to the

Badly dressed wimpy guys on the campus today asking for safe spaces and things like that The reason that that makes sense is because it's it's true and it says something about what maturity is and What we honor

Today we have to honor people's feelings Rather than honoring people

Their accomplishments their discipline their their their being able to think through Issues and come to meaningful conclusions even when it causes them to have to Sacrifice what they want to accomplish a greater good.

I mean those men those men on those boats had sincere feelings and they had to suppress them and Run out into the killing fields to fight evil.

So What's happened what happened? Well the the hippies the 60s took over and Maturity has been banished.

I mean, it's gonna be made illegal before long to act like an adult Because we don't even know what an adult is.

I I I Don't know what even what to say what I'm watching it's

It's shocking. It really is speaking of abject immaturity I Was directed

I didn't bring it up. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna play these things a Couple of them yet.

There's one I might Respond to because it's on the issue of the gospel But the problem is

I have to if you play anything by GMS Hebrew Israelites gospel millstone

These people Gentlemen you you are the the biggest glowing hypocrites on the planet

You know why you carry a Bible around? that talks to you about Well, you've got the section

Deuteronomy not to despise Nehemiah you don't y 'all totally ignore that one but That Bible Old and New Testament Over and over again speaks about the purity of speech the purity of the tongue and how it represents what fills your heart and The reason it's hard to respond to your videos is because I have to go through and bleep out half of what you say

Because you're filthy mouth people What is wrong with you? How can you not see that?

How can you not see that you are absolutely? Making the greatest argument for your own hypocrisy when you cannot control your tongues

You you are expressing hatred and racism and and every kind of vile

God dishonoring thought and you sit there with a Bible in your hand You will be judged someday by a

God that is not impressed with your bravado Like I said, there's one of them because it's on the gospel

But I don't know I guess I'll just have to get really good at inserting sound files into the

Into the videos, you know peep peep peep, you know with just to bleep everything out But I I just ran into just I don't know.

I downloaded about eight and there were more Videos that had my name in it and not just the horns and the one of them had six six six on my forehead which you know a number of people in channel saw that and had began a discussion of the early papyri readings of Revelation 13 a which is really weird when you think about it

If that doesn't tell you how weird channel is that the first thought in responding to video of someone

Identifying me with six six six was that There's textual very

I Some of them have been listening to my a new test of reliability presentation where that is one of my central Issues that I that I talked about and have normally have a lot of fun with Because I'll pick like the pastor the church or on the cruise.

I picked Michael Fallon Said if you have any questions about this, they will Stay up till three o 'clock in the morning talking with you about this.

But anyway, I Was just amazed at the number of I mean there was one of these guys

You know, they're dressed and it wasn't the IU I see guys either it wasn't the the purple gold power ranger thing it was these guys wearing these like tunic type things as if somehow that's makes you spiritual and They're sitting on a beach.

Hey, what do we could talk about? Let's talk about how James White's a profane ungodly man

What's for an hour and like an hour and six minutes it's like wow You Guys need to come up with something better to be doing in life.

I just that's just sad that someone would would do that Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,

I know they do not consider cursing the fence it just the blindness is amazing Try reading the book of James Try try reading

Jesus's own words You know It's hard to even even know what to say sometimes but I did run across a bunch of Videos like that and and download a few of them,

I guess just simply to have some some documentation Looking something up here real quick.

I'm using the channel to do it, which is sort of nice. It's sort of fast that way What so someone mentions

They even have a verse that justifies it But even if I am unskilled in speech that I am not so in knowledge

In fact in every way we have made this evident to you in all things. I Realize that for the

Hebrew Israelite movement, the Bible is just a grab bag of verses to be used

I Get it. It's it's herald camping. It's it's it's all these groups

The idea of actually honoring the intention of the original author and doing serious exegesis doing where I realized that's

Has nothing to it what Paul was talking about and unskilled in speech has nothing to do with being profane in speech dropping f -bombs

That has absolutely positively Nothing. Oh, no use use the

KJV. Well, of course So sorry that I would use an actual You know modern translation so 2nd

Corinthians 11 6 Oh Look at that I day

Kai idiot a stow logo Idiot a s what does that sound like?

idiot and so the idea being and the

King James rude Idiot a s does not mean profane by any stretch of the imagination

For but though I'd be rude in speech yet not a knowledge Yeah, I know these guys are really concerned about well, maybe if I found the

Strong's number It means unlearned untrained ignorance it has nothing to do with with the utilization of Profanity on the on their part, but hey, you know, what can

I say? I've anyway.

All right. Let's get to it. Let's get to Frank Turek Russell Moore did a podcast after the

ERLC thing and talked about some of his issues with Andy Stanley's approach and On set this says

September 9th, so it's been a while. Well, I was right It was right before the right before he left on the cruise

Frank Turek of cross -examined org a Christian apologist I've only met

Frank once that was at SES if you watch the Impromptu debate on apologetic methodology during the

Q &A. He's sitting there. We talked a little about solo scriptura, which was Almost well, it wasn't prophetic because it had already started obviously, but was relevant to the number of SES students that were

Converting to Roman Catholicism. So we we talked about that But He posted an article

Entitled why Andy Stanley is right about the foundation of Christianity and how to defend it remember

Andy Stanley says that the Bible is not the foundation of Christianity the resurrection is and We have simply pointed out this is an incoherent statement because you can okay, what is the resurrection and don't use the

Bible You're you know It's sort of like in channel.

I I'm the I Have the feather of power. I have the ultimate authority in channel.

And so I can Mute people I can shut them up. We call it giving them a channel sock stuck sticking a stock in their mouth

So one of the funny things do once in a while is to ask somebody a question Say hey,

I challenge you to You know, let's say they're uh, well we got good old red goatee and he's a

He's a Cubs fan and So We'll say

I give you 10 seconds to list all the great things about the Cubs and then as soon as I do that it

Stick a sock in his mouth, so he can't talk so he can be typing away all he wants and Nothing happens, you know, and that's what that's that's the meaning of that that statement

It's not the Bible's resurrection. Okay Tell me why the resurrection is important, but you can't use scripture

The Apostles didn't do that Show me a sermon where the Apostles referred the resurrection of Christ where they did not base

Where they did not cite Scripture or base their entire understanding of it upon the teachings of Scripture And of course,

I'm talking about the Tanakh There was never a time when the

Bible did not have the voice of God in Scripture to her not not once and Andy Stanley has never debated a

Roman Catholic apologist and the subject of soul scriptura, and I hope he never does it because it does because he'll collapse but he doesn't seem to realize and Obviously a whole section of Christian apologists also have not debated that issue

Because they don't seem to realize they are fundamentally compromising what freed Europe from the bondage of Rome Well, we don't have to worry about that now so we can go ahead and go back right, okay.

All right So Dr. Turek Has a section about what?

Dr. Moore gets right, which is good. I suppose it's What you want to do? He says dr

Moore is certainly correct when he states that churches have to strike the right balance between evangelism discipleship unlike some in his reformed camp now there is

There it's very plain the only way to really understand what dr Turk is saying is to understand he is not reformed and he has some serious reservations about Reformed theology and reform practice and this is this is fundamental.

This is basic this is Your theology determines your apologetic how many times we said it we stand by it

Unlike some in his reform camp. He admits the church is not solely for believers and that unbelievers will attend.

Well, wait a minute Are you saying that Russell Moore believes that unbelievers can be part of the church,

I don't believe so Clearly there is the instance of unbelievers coming into the fellowship

But what was their role? What was their place? and What was their participation?

there would very clearly historically speaking there was not a Participation in the

Lord's Supper Baptism would be obviously not something they would be doing but it certainly might be something they could observe as a witness of faith

But What was the the real issue is? why have the

Saints gathered in the first place and This is an issue where many of my

Southern Baptist friends, I think have missed the boat there is a deep deep tradition that the church service is

To be focused upon the unbeliever It is a you know, it's it's a tradition.

It goes back to Finney primarily. It was pretty much unknown in history Until modern times, but that the church service is designed

To bring the message to the unbeliever to convince the unbeliever to walk an aisle shake a hand and You know, some people have tried to find a balance there and say we're gonna have an evangelistic

Service on such -and -such a day While still recognizing that it's it's painfully obvious That the description of the church the description of the worship of the church this is for believers

This is where the Word of God is proclaimed This is where there is confession of sin.

This is where there is profession of the of the gospel rejoicing in the resurrection This is where the

Saints are edified and look One of the major problems in modern evangelicalism are starving sheep

Well starving sheep combined with false sheep people who think they're sheep because they shook a hand who

Wouldn't understand the concept of repentance or hatred of sin or have never mourned over a sin in their life

But they've they've got their ticket punched there they're alright with God because You know on Sundays they do some religious stuff and then the rest of the week

You couldn't tell any difference between them and anybody else Um Where does this come from well

Finney and the revivalism of that time period

Led into this idea that well the church. This is what the church is supposed to be doing and it's like Where do you get that from the

New Testament? And of course Once they're challenged enough times eventually the response is gonna be we don't have to worry about what the

New Testament says Anyways, we've got freedom in Christ. We can do what we want and we're back to Once again, many of the issues that were hashed out long long ago

That unfortunately, it seems to me many people have forgotten what was accomplished in the past So In fact, he observed the

Church Corinth had unbelievers attending the pastors today It must be sure to conduct worship services in orderly and explainable way So it unbelievers don't think you are out of your mind first Corinthians 14 22 to 40.

Well, there is That discussion of and it's it's only in passing about the need for order in the church service in Corinth, but none of that changes the fact that the the

Focus of that worship is the proclamation of the Word of God to believers The the formation of disciples and the worship in truth of God through Jesus Christ by the

Saints, that's that's what the church is and Very important Dr.

Moore believes the North Point is out of balance that has weighted too much toward evangelism Well, I I would just say it's completely lost any meaningful definition of what church is actually

I Actually can't verify if he's right about that But he could be the many messages of Andy's that I've seen are nearly always biblical insightful and extremely practical when you say biblical

What do you mean? I I don't want to have to compare things but When you say biblical, there's one way of saying biblical.

Well, they're not blatantly contradictory the Bible that makes a biblical and then there's biblical in the sense of truly opening the

Word of God and and bringing the treasures the Word of God to the to the people of God and calling them to a higher level of understanding and a love of of the

Bible and and stuff like that that's a different kind of biblical But whether or not

North Point actually is successful making disciples, I honestly cannot say well, I think Stanley would say well We don't do that in the services

We do that in small groups, which means it's not being done by elders or by people qualified to be elders

I'm not there and discipleship is very difficult to measure in any church, especially a church of over 40 ,000 While there certainly is room the body of Christ for churches that lean one way or the other every church must feed the sheep to some extent to some extent

Jesus command us to make disciples not mere believers. Well, that's that's quite true, but this isn't an issue even of discipleship versus evangelism

Again, it's what's the church for what? Where do you get this theology of church that it's not the

Saints in the worship of God it's the Saints sitting by hoping that they dragged enough unbelievers in to get hit with a

Water down we want you to be comfortable with your in your lifestyle of gospel shot

Hoping to be able to fellowship them in friendship them in and then over time in small groups, maybe

You know, it's this incrementalism That is so common today. I Think Dr.

Moore is also correct that all pastors particularly pastor of Andy's influence must qualify statements such as Andy's we need to get the spotlight off the

Bible a Comment like that without proper explanation can lead down a dangerous path as Dr Moore observed and certainly going to cause some

Christians run for their pitchforks Just Google Russell Moore and Annalise Stanley to see the pitchforks for yourself Well, I'm not sure what you mean by pitchforks

Given that you cannot define the resurrection its meaning or anything else outside of Scripture It's a it's it's just simply a

Almost meaningless statement to make It's it it's based upon false distinctions as we'll see.

So, you know pitchfork all right, and he must go out of his way to explain exactly what he does and doesn't mean and in his defense the

Context that can't comment was made at a conference designed to reach a culture of unbelievers and a more complete quote was

We need to get the spot off the Bible and back on the resurrection because the issue for us is who is Jesus? Did you buy us from the dead?

I don't care what the context was because that statement is again incoherent

You cannot see Dangerous thing here is if you believe this the only light you're gonna be able to shed on the resurrection is naturalistic light historical materialistic naturalistic light

No supernatural light, which is what we need and I really think that those you who are defending any

Stanley and are presenting this mere Christianity perspective in the minimalist of argument You need to understand you cannot prove a supernatural resurrection from merely mainly his mainly reliable But sometimes not reliable historical documents you have a serious epistemological category error here

Merely historical documents do not give you the foundation for an authoritative proclamation of a divine work of God Do you understand why that doesn't work?

I realize that go it's going against your entire methodology, but theology determines apologetics not the other way around You've got to be willing to change your apologetic to fit a biblical theology

As I'll argue below the comment that comment can be defended in context But extreme clarity is critical especially when you're talking about something as important as at as should be as the

Bible without that clarity Dr. Moore is right to raise a red flag other similarly provocative statements By any Stanley have raised evangelical eyebrows including my own at least it's

I better understood the context Please understand that. I don't always agree with Andy. I agree with about 95 % of what he says I don't even agree with myself that much.

I also think Dr. Moore is correct about the need for pastors to address controversial moral issues from the pulpit that did come up Stanley says he won't talk about abortion.

That's something to be done in circles not in rows and things like that Although he's protested at abortion clinics

Andy stated that he has never preached a message on abortion Referring that and topics such as same -sex marriage are left to small groups in the church, which means you'll never have

Alleged elders. I you know, I don't know how seriously North Point takes the qualifications of elders and deacons

Or anything like that, but once you've got just small group leaders doing this So much for the authority of those that are supposed to be in leadership

Why would a pastor of unparalleled communication skills dr Moore called amazing Leave such delicate and important issues small groups issues that are literally life and death and cut to the heart of what people perceive to Be roadblocks to Christianity I'm convinced that so many people stay away from Christianity and often destroy their lives because pastors fail to tactfully present the truth on these issues time out

Theology matters again people stay away from Christianity because the Bible says they hate the light

They may make excuses But you need to understand the primary reason is because those who love darkness hate the light

That's that's Jesus is teaching. We've got to take this seriously You know all this stuff about will they stay away from Christianity because pastors this

I think hey I understand why a Steven Anderson, you know, the world looks at a Steven Anderson the guy

Does not in any way shape or form adorn the gospel by Consistency or behavior any of that kind of stuff

I get that But if you don't combine that if you don't recognize that the reason the world loves to go after Steven Anderson is not because Steven Anderson really matters look at the size of the church

But because and it's a small movement thankfully, I mean, it's all divided. I mean he and Sam Gipper Sending each other crayons and stuff like you know, whatever

The reason the world loves Steven Anderson is because It gives them a further excuse for their rebellion against the light if if you start with the idea that the lost person is a morally neutral Individual and not a rebel against God and a hater of the things of God You're never gonna make any sense out of what the

New Testament actually teaches on a consistent level You're gonna always be engaged in Subjugating a text over here subjugate, you know got to put these down to make your your system work in it

It's it's not going to work because you're not practicing both sola scriptura and tota scriptura If anyone could present tactfully and compassionately it is

Andy Stanley And you should take the lead on those issues instead of relying on less skilled and informed group leaders

Paul stated he did not shrink back from declaring to you the whole will of God acts 20 27 exactly. I mean acts 20 is

Neither should Andy or any other pastor those the tactical issues. I think dr. Moore got right now Let's take a look at the more foundational theological issues that dr.

Moore gets wrong and Andy gets, right? What dr. Moore gets wrong quoting the Bible is the only way to reach unbelievers.

I've never heard anybody say that There are a number of I think spins in this article and We'll note them

I think dr. Moore's mistake for suggesting the only way to engage unbelievers is by quoting scripture. I didn't hear dr

Moore say that what I heard. Dr. Moore saying is is that if we're going to present an authoritative message to the world the only authoritative message we've been given is the thus sayeth the

Lord of Scripture and For Andy Stanley to say well, I don't like saying that because you know, it bothers people today

What I want to say is you well, you know James James is a cool dude You would have liked James and James said this what that's done is that has removed

James from being an inspired author Into being somebody that you should listen to because you would have liked him or he was a cool, dude or he was

Jesus brother, so why don't you listen to what he asked to say as If that's somehow gonna get the unbeliever past their prejudice against the authoritative proclamation of the

Word of God It's not going to It's a trick It's a trick that shows a fundamental

Lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit of God to do what the Holy Spirit of God says he's going to do When the word is faithfully preached

He argued that Andy's apologetic approach is not biblical because Jesus quotes scripture people and said thus saith the

Lord It is true that Jesus did quote scripture with folks who already accepted the authority of the

Old Testament Time out. Yes, he did But he also said that they weren't believing it so they were only hypocritically

In fact, they weren't actually accepting that authority. They're overthrowing that authority with their own religious traditions

But here's where here's where the minimalists are gonna come in and say ah to see here's here's what you need to see is

That we get to do things differently in the Apostles because we live in a different day They didn't live among secularists.

So we need to do things differently and once again There is a line to be drawn there is truth and error to be seen

There is no question that we have to make application of the gospel in a context that the

Apostles Did not live in they did not live among secular humanists They did not live in an atheistic culture

All sorts of things like that But what the church has always believed as the gospel has gone out into all sorts of different cultures that differed in foundational ways from the way that the

Apostles from the culture of the Apostles encounter is that you take divine revelation and You make application to whatever culture it is

Recognizing that in any culture every man woman and child is made in the image of God You do not alter the message

So as to please the culture there will always be that clash Between whatever that culture is because the culture is in rebellion against God and will have many cultural norms are in rebellion against God There will always be that clash between the gospel and culture

It's just it's it's necessary. It is it is the very essence of what is Offensive about the gospel and necessarily offensive against the unbeliever in his autonomous rebellion against God very very important But when he spoke to unbelievers the woman at the well the rich young ruler pilot and the thief on the cross

Jesus wasn't firing Bible verses at them While assuming the authority of Scripture.

Oh, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa Where did Jesus say a word in any of those encounters?

Where he were the assumption of the authority of Scripture was not there The woman at the well, you really don't hear the echoes of the entire

Jewish Samaritan conversation All through that Of course, it's there.

Of course, it's there Thief on the cross this is the discussion that Today you'll be with me in paradise is a sufficiently long thing to Rich young ruler.

What what do you mean? It was all about Scripture The only the only one here that could even get close is pilot

And they weren't what what do you expect him to quote? I mean, he says my kingdom is out of this world

He who is he who is of me? He was of the truth. Here's my voice

But What in any of it in any of these was there some place in talking to pilot? You think he should have quoted some type of Scripture or something?

Wow, Jesus wasn't firing Bible verses at them while assuming the authority of Scripture Did a

Christian apologist just say that Jesus acted without assuming the authority of Scripture Frank really

Major failure on that one. I mean, wow, I would not want to have to try to defend that one in a debate.

Would you? Likewise Paul didn't assume the authority of Scripture or quote from it when speaking to the

Athenians But attempted to find common ground with them even quoting their own poets and recognized their unknown

God -beliefs in order to connect them with the true God and the truth the resurrection. Okay time out again I thought I you know,

I was gonna think I thought about doing this. I forgot it incredible discussion that I read years and years ago in seminary

I Actually know exactly what shelf these books are on. I was gonna get that out and maybe put a few

Marks in there and read a few things to you from somebody other than myself It is very common for the evidentialists and the minimalists to I think misunderstand

Acts chapter 17 While Paul does draw from what he sees around him, what did he end up doing?

Did he grant to the Athenians validity in their traditions

Or did he simply take the context he was in Demonstrate I know what you believe

But then knowing full well That he was about to do what they would find

ABS not only absolutely offensive But absolutely foolish like an arrow

He went straight to what he knew they would never accept he didn't say after quoting a few

Philosophers and I understand where you all are coming from what you know, we've got some small groups over at Jason's house and You know, why don't we?

You know, why don't you want to give us it? Why don't you give Jesus a try? we won't say anything more about Jesus right now, but Maybe you could

You know, we're planning on having one of the best Greek liar players

Next Sunday in in our in in our gathering why don't you come along for a free concert and We'll promise no prayers

We won't Jesus anything up But you all come along and then was his idea to sort of get the

Athenians to come along and go Hey, these Christians are pretty cool cats, you know, and and then get him into small groups and and then somewhere down the line

Somewhere down the line once you've got some friendships developed then you're gonna in a really nice way and in a really non -offensive way

You're gonna talk about God's gonna judge the world and He's gonna judge the world for their sins

And he's gonna judge them by a man Christ Jesus Who rose from the dead

Oh Rose from the dead rose from the dead

Got to turn it off rose from that see he automatically knows that as soon as he says that game over Is that how he did it?

No, he went straight to it first shot Straight to it first shot.

So if you think that act 17 is sort of a defense of the incrementalist

You know, let's let's get all this common ground stuff going. He wasn't finding common he wasn't saying that there is common ground between the rebel and And someone else that's totally against his theology

His theology is a God made everything Jesus Christ made everything. What's the neutral ground? See, I'm sorry

Frank you guys. I Pointed this out at SES and I I don't I just don't believe

I got a meaningful answer There is no other point of contact other than the biblical teaching that man is creating the image of God There's isn't a point

There is no neutral ground There is no common ground in that sense. The only commonality is our creatureliness and the very idea of creatureliness

Presupposes suppression of truth All of Romans 1 everything else. I agree with dr.

Moore. The quoting scripture is effective to bring some Unbelievers to Christ with the work of the

Holy Spirit, of course But that it's not the only way Some unbelievers have intellectual objections and often resist the

Spirit until they get answers theology matters Theology matters.

What did Peter say born again by the Word of God? That's the only way you're born again

No, it is the only way you're born again no one has ever been born again outside of the powerful

Administration of the Word of God which works within you read 1st

Thessalonians read 1st and 2nd Peter. It's Word and Spirit This was this stuff was settled a long time ago, unfortunately

You know When people ask is the Reformation over that the real the real response should be no we need another one

Because the vast majority of people who are not Roman Catholic Are not children of the

Reformation They're not this was the definition of the church in regards to the the ordinances of the church

Settled a long time ago not anymore Relationship of Scripture Spirit of God together as the single only power

By which the human heart can be changed settled a long time of not anymore now now we now we have we have

Intellectual objections and they often resist the Spirit until they get answers because they are all powerful the spiritually dead

Sinner all powerful spirit can't do anything about that. What's what says in act 7 don't give me the act 7 stuff

How about how about reading the specific teachings the didactic texts that talk about the

Spirit of God's Ability to bring us to spiritual life to resurrect us to raise us to spiritual life.

How about we look at Romans 8? Work through some of those texts Just that it's not the only way so there is a way outside of Scripture and Evidently outside of the powerful working the

Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit can be resisted Intellectual objections must be dealt with I see as soon as people hear me said go.

Oh, you don't believe in answering intellectual objections No, I do. I just recognize that if I answer a rebel sinners intellectual objections and They do not have the gospel and do not have the

Spirit of God working upon them All I've done is increase their judgment before God Do you realize that's what you're doing if you simply answer the intellectual objection without the rest of it

All you're doing is making them all the more guilty and turning up the heat on hell for them

Good job, and thought about that, huh? A lot of you haven't the only reason to apologetics is to bring the gospel if someone has an intellectual objection

Rooted in see the idea here is that people can have since they're morally neutral creatures

They're not rebel sinners that we can separate out their rebellion from the mind and That's why you know,

I'm not gonna do it again. Not now But can I remind you of Romans 1 I remind you of what it says?

their foolish hearts were darkened their Dialogues moist their their speculations became empty

Futile it is futile for the pot to bring up arguments against the potter there is a fundamental incoherence in this and so Answering intellectual objections.

I mean you never talk with somebody about the Odyssey. Sure. I will sure I will and I will make sure

To warn them that once they have an answer from what God has spoken.

They will now be held accountable for that. So you see There isn't a in Acts chapter 17

When Paul gets the point where it all goes You know where they are resurrection.

Wow And the vast majority say, you know, we'll hear you some other time But some believe

Right, he's getting there. What does he do? Does he do the now

I would like it. I Would like you to to think about the possibility

That maybe there's something to this Jesus thing No, he didn't do that He gave an authoritative proclamation that God was going to judge the world by the one who rose from the dead

Jesus the Christ That was an authoritative proclamation. He knew it was gonna offend He knew it was gonna end his opportunity right then and there and that's what he did.

Are you saying he was wrong? I think if you're honest A number of you evidentialist minimalists would have to say yeah, he learned his lesson, huh?

Shouldn't have done that should have gotten involved in small groups gotten to that If you even need to get to that because see they're in some theologies

You know you need to get that, you know, as long as you can just get somebody to shake the hand You know don't even need all that advanced stuff

Was he wrong? Where's the authority? because see if you treat the unregenerate man as Having the capacity to judge whether God's Word is true or not

Where what kind of authority can you have? What kind of authoritative? proclamation can you make

That really would be the question that really would be the question In fact if preaching scripture alone is the sole means through which everyone can be converted

Why doesn't dr. Moore merely read scripture on his podcast? Well, this is a standard canard

It's a standard misrepresentation and I think dr. Turek should apologize for this

Obviously Even when the Apostles Quoted from the

Old Testament in their preaching they made application It was the fulfillment of the promises of God No one is simply saying you sit there and you just read the

Bible though I know people have been converted that way. Thanks be to God, but no one is saying you simply read the

Bible What we are saying is my thoughts my methodologies are not what changed the heart the

Word of God is Now you can take that up with the New Testament writers if you want to Is it interesting that any debate we would have on this and I'd be happy to debate this subject

But a debate we have this will Fundamentally be a debate that keeps going back to the theology that gives rise to our apologetic methodology

I would think that we would have to have a debate on monergism versus synergism before even having the apologetic debate

Because it keeps going back to it Of necessity it must we must have it. We must have a debate on is man an autonomous creature or is he

The fallen son and daughter of Adam in rebellion against God and if you want to try to say he's both well

Good luck on that one but No one is saying this if the scriptures are all sufficient for evangelism

Then why is he wasting his time organizing a conference where he seeks any Stanley's insights and how to better preach to the culture

Wow So since it's not all sufficient for evangelism Then is your argument simply that well, but we need to talk about the

Bible. Is that really what you're saying here? Do you really think that when we talk about the sufficiency of Scripture?

That what we're saying is all you need to do is repeat it over and over again. I Found this particular argument extremely lacking

If merely saying thus sayeth the Lord is sufficient that evangelist should forego the hours of message preparation and simply read the

Bible The reason That we undergo hours of message preparation is so that we say thus sayeth the

Lord we can actually mean it and We haven't simply inserted our own ideas and our own traditions in the word the reason for preparation is to remove our

Ignorances our traditions our impediments so the sheep get the pure Word of God But it is not my preparation that that feeds the sheep they need

The pure Word of God Which is able to build them up which is able to give them life and The hours of preparation are how

I honor that word by removing me and Making sure that when

I say thus sayeth the Lord, I'm actually adequately representing What the

Word of God actually says It seems to me that a preacher can do three things with regard to the scriptures.

He can read the scriptures He can explain the scriptures. They are understood and applied Exposition he can he can support their veracity with evidence apologetics well,

I Suppose there could be other categories, but why wouldn't a wise pastor do all three?

Well, wait a minute there is a Smuggling in of a fundamental

Epistemological issue into number three Well, first of all

Who is the audience here? Goes back to what we view the church to be, you know, so on and so forth.

Who's who are we talking about? We talked about what a preacher can do three things regard to scriptures talking to whom?

To the redeemed doing evangelism Respond to the culture.

These are all different contexts. So it's going to change things He can explain the scriptures.

They are understood and applied Okay exposition exegesis systematic theology

He can support their veracity with evidence apologetics years and years ago

A brother -in -law Fellow who teaches logic one of my fellow elders now

He pointed something out to me that has stuck with me for a long long time and I explained this earlier

But let me explain it not in this podcast, but an earlier one When you make appeal

To demonstrate the truthfulness and veracity of a statement

You cannot make appeal to an equal authority to prove the veracity of this

You have to have a higher authority Upon which to hang the truth claims of a lesser authority.

So when it comes To that which is the Amnestos God breathed

What authority can establish the veracity of what God says?

Well, there can't be any created authority We can talk about forever the consistency of What God has said in the scriptures with what he has created around us

There is everything appropriate about noting As I've It's one of my favorite illustrations, but the the complexity of biological life

The obvious reality of intelligent design the undeniability of these things but if I say the scriptures are right because of ID I Have now made

ID a superior authority To the scriptures if I say fulfilled prophecy make scripture true

I'm now arguing in a circle because the fulfilled prophecy is actually in scripture itself That's an internal proof

But it's a circular proof Doesn't mean it's an inappropriate proof because when we're talking about ultimate authorities

It's all gonna become circular whether it is circular in a meaningful fashion or not is the real issue Because there is something to the nature

I discussed this on the cruise There's a something to the nature of ultimate authorities. The ultimate authority itself must possess within itself the grounds of its own truthfulness

Which nothing in the created order? Can provide us there has to be something that comes from the creator into the created order to give us that kind of authority

But the point is when we say he can support their veracity with evidence If what you mean by support that is illustrate

Consistency, that's one thing But unfortunately, that's not the case with the minimalists and the evidentialists very often their argumentation

Subjugates the authority of scripture to the argument they make from philosophy history Whatever else it might be

Not recognizing that in the process They are committing epistemological

Harry Carey They're cutting off the very branch that they're sitting on once again, which is what

Andy Stanley has been has been doing Why wouldn't a wise pastor do all three pastors will reach and disciple a lot more people by using every tool available to them indeed

God makes his appeal through us and it's a deeper and wider appeal when we engage in evangelism and Russell Moore is not going to be disagreeing with that and it's a

Strawman to say that what we're saying is you just sit there and read the Bible There is a fundamental issue here

Andy Stanley is saying the Bible is not the foundation of the Christian faith the resurrection is and That incoherent statement is the issue not not this stuff here

Then we have of course the stuff on presuppositions Presupposing Bible is true rather than showing.

It's true. And here's where this is where I was just talking about Dr. Morris stance on coin the Bible and unbelievers seems to be the result of a presuppositional approach to apologetics

Which just presupposes the Bible is true There is unfortunately

Now I suppose it exists on both sides, but I in my experience it is A epidemic on one side and all and rare on the other

There is an epidemic amongst minimalist minimalists and the evidentialists in Ridiculously misrepresenting

Covenantal apologetics or what we call presuppositional and this is this is not even

I mean Same close and It shouldn't exist amongst

Christians do this kind of thing, but it's it's not uncommon Which just presupposes the Bible is true in doing so he is confusing knowing the

Bible's our authority with showing the Bible is our authority No Presuppositionalism, it doesn't just simply presuppose the

Bible is true and say ah, we're done It flows from the nature of ultimate authorities it flows really from a recognition of The reality that if what we're saying is true this necessarily flows from that I've pointed out many times for example that the evidentialist perspective when it seeks to create a neutral ground upon which we can reason

Let's let's come down here on this neutral ground and I will present you my proofs and you present me your arguments we'll talk back and forth and we'll we'll we'll we'll find a way to To move forward from here

That this is fundamentally contradictory to biblical teaching Why? Because the Bible says for by him are all things made whether in heaven and earth visible invisible principalities powers to me as authorities all things great by him and For him and he is before all things and in him all things soon as they can they hold together if that's true and If you join that with the message of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness

But to those who are being saved it's a very power of God You join that together with Romans 1 18 for the wrath of God is being present tense apocalyptic being revealed against all in God's demand who suppress the truth and unrighteousness

You put these things together and there is no neutral ground there's no neutral person to to to deal with first of all, just like there's no

God seeker Romans chapter 3 and Secondly, where is this neutral ground? I'm gonna identify this plot over here as neutral ground.

God made it. Oh Well, that's not neutral. Is it no because he defines it Let's try this one over here up same problem

If everything has been created by him and for him if everything is held together by him everything is an argument for him and That neutral ground will not even allow you to stand upon it and pretend you're doing it.

So Presuppositionalism is forced upon us when we actually do something that evidentialists normally are loathe to do and That is take a thought -through

Biblical doctrine of God man and the gospel and actually

Close to apologetics. Oh, no, I can't do it That's my experience

My experience is most evidentialist. They've got their arguments and they're they've got their quotes from Thomas Aquinas and man

They can go through the the the argument man They could someone can do the ontological argument let alone the cosmological argument and all the rest that stuff and I've got my my quotes lined up but that's over here and my

Doctrine of man is sort of wishy -washy over here and the stuff like that and I'm just not comfortable bringing them together

When you bring them together, I think you'll be a presuppositionalist because you have to Because of the very nature of the radical radical catch that radical claims of the

Christian faith and I I Absolutely admit the utter necessity of the

Spirit of God to be at work to convert someone to the gospel of Jesus Christ because the Claims are so radical

It's insane from the world's perspective remember first Corinthians one did it just a few weeks ago It's more on us.

It's insane to the world Of the God who created all this entered into his own creation as a peasant in They allowed selfie crews right across rose again, right?

Oh, yeah. She didn't even write a book. Huh? Sure, that's that's pretty silly Yeah to the world pretty silly in it without the work of the

Holy Spirit of God removing a heart of stone giving a heart of flesh which will naturally Turn to the one who gave it life

Yep, it's it's yeah impossible But your theology determines all these things so it's not just presupposing

Bible is true It is recognizing that if what we believe is true These things follow and therefore this constricts via the simple

Laws of logic that God has built into his system That is a part of the way he's created us it constricts what we can and cannot say if we are going to desire to be

Consistent and only saying what God says rather than coming up with stuff on our own It does and it it also functions on a biblical anthropology that is it recognizes that man cannot function as the center point of epistemology we can't have man the center and then

Truth love history science finances. Oh and God as Discrete packets of knowledge out here with man as the one holding it all together

That is chaos man's not big enough to do that and The Christian epistemology is what?

God's in the center. He defines all the rest of stuff and guess what? I'm out here And if I want to know me and if I want to know anyone else

I have to only know them as they relate To the one who is sufficient to tie it all together

And he's sufficient to tie it all together because he's the one who made it all and defined it all in the first place within Non Christian worldviews man.

The only way this to work is for man to be Omniscient because you need something in the center that can define all of this and we can't do that Christian worldview thankfully,

I don't have to be omniscient, but I do need to know the one who is omniscient and Isn't it wonderful that God has revealed himself to us in that way so we can know which is the whole message of the

Gospel and the fact that the son reveals the father perfectly and all the issues that come along with that This is also a fair distinguish between the ends and means dr

Moore and Andy agree on the ends. The Bible is God's primary revelation and authority to mankind primary

What's the secondary? Well, maybe are you are you talking about general revelation?

I'm not I'm not sure Primary relation authority to mankind is that dr.

Moore's ends. I don't think that's dr. Moore's ends This is confusing to me. However, the means of showing that are not presupposing.

It's true That's circular but the classical approach to apologetics that andy advocates

Which cites evidence for the events in the Bible and the reliability of the biblical documents from philosophy science and history

No, wait a minute. All right Showing that it's true showing to whom to the rebel sinner.

So the rebel sinner is put in the position of being the judge And he gets to judge that whether or not

The Evidence for the events in the Bible. Well, wait a minute. I thought

Andy Stanley was specifically saying Let's not worry about the Adam and Eve thing Let's not worry about the flood thing

Let's not let's not worry about any of the archaeology stuff Let's forget about all that Evidence stuff and just look at this evidence stuff.

Let's just look at the resurrection. Okay, you listen to Bart Ehrman recently You listen to James Price recently

How about Dan Barker? Come on, these are all names, you know, you and I both debate. Well, I'm not sure if you debated

Ehrman, but I We've we've debated a lot of the same guys They all they all use the same pitchfork to go after every one of these don't they?

They're punching holes in all this aren't they Yeah. Yeah, they are. So I Okay but the classical approach to apologetics that Andy advocates which cites evidence of the events of the

Bible and the reliability of the biblical documents reliability What do you mean by reliability how reliable and reliable in what sphere reliable in what sphere because see what you want to demonstrate is

Is Supernatural, I mean that is what the resurrection is, right? It is supernatural.

It's not a natural event. It's a supernatural event So it needs to be supernaturally Reliable, but you can't demonstrate supernatural liability by reference to merely historical events.

Can you? That's that's why I find this epistemology just Extremely suspect full of holes

And the reliability of the biblical documents from philosophy science and history so if the reliability of the biblical documents is proven from Philosophy science and history then philosophy science and history is an authority above the reliability of the biblical documents, right?

Is that the point and that is sounds somewhat like what

Andy's advocating? I'm not sure that's actually the classical Going back in history type idea, but there's lots of ways of defining these things.

It's definitely an evidentialist perspective Getting evidence of the New Testament events and documents is not circular

We are not presupposing the Bible is true as the presupposition listed No, you're actually presupposing that man is not suppressing the knowledge of God You are presupposing that a sinner can adequately

Evaluate the evidences and you are presupposing that our knowledge of historical events can be a sufficient foundation to base the authoritative divine proclamation of spiritual truths

Regarding the resurrection the meaning of salvation itself. That's what you're presupposing and Good luck with all of that.

Oh I would ask where the Apostles did that but we both know they didn't didn't do that in Acts 17

They did bring the Word of God to bear and they did say a God has spoken and they did say

God would judge and They didn't then present philosophical arguments as to why you should accept that they presented it as the reality of what actually had

Had taken place We are gathering evidence to find out what really happened. So I guess we didn't know what really happened before see

Dr. Oliphant Who has also addressed this subject Dr.

Oliphant Made a statement in Twitter that was very very important He said the resurrection of Christ is

Not merely probably true or most or most probably true.

It is absolutely certainly true one of the differences between a presuppositionalist and evidentialist is the evidentialist says

I mean think about what what's what's William Lane Craig's argument the preponderance of the evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of a

God Now to get to the resurrection. Can you stop there? No, you got to keep going and then the greater

Probability of the rest of the evidences is that this God is the Christian God and that there is more evidence that he then did the resurrection

You see what you've done here. You've put together a chain of probabilities and a chain of probabilities if it's 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % multiply them together and you end up with a well, there's about up to 10 % chance

That's the authoritative proclamation of the Apostles Really? No, no.

No, it's no it's not So So We are gathering evidence to find out what really happened and to see if the

New Testament documents can be trusted Which is what historians do when they investigate any set of historical documents or events.

So you're buying the Erminite view of history from a naturalistic perspective.

Well, we have to to compete in the Academy Which is why

Paul Did what he did in Acts 17 right to stay in the Academy he was standing in the

Academy This is where 1st Corinthians chapter 1 rears its head and says, oh no

Yeah for more on problems presuppositionalism and the merits of the classical approach listen to my recent interview with dr Richard G how which we actually played a portion of went

Hmm Actually, if you'd rather much better than that much better than that was the actual discussion that I had with dr

How which is on YouTube? Much longer. I don't remember how long that was if you've able to pull that up the

James White how HOWE SES be interested in how long that particular thing was

Um So you buy the idea then that The appropriate approach is the no

Supernatural level at all. You just you try to get that to eventually and I just simply say what foundation do you have for it?

What you winning with what you win them to? What? two hours and 22 minutes now,

I don't think There were there was Q &A There was Q &A and the

Q &A went off. In fact, dr. Turk asked about solace for turf. So We went sort of another direction and stuff like that.

So two hours and 20 minutes I'd say at least 90 minutes of that was specifically just dr.

Howe and I going back and forth on Epistemology philosophy

Things like that So I think you'd find that to be a useful In fact, the

Bible actually commands us to use reason and evidence in worship and in our defense of Christianity Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love the

Lord you got with all your mind with all your heart soul in mind the point is that it's the entirety of mankind and That is a really weak citation of evidence

We don't we don't believe That there's something wrong with using reason

And we don't believe there's anything wrong with using evidence What we do believe is wrong and using evidence is Using that to tell the sinner that he has the right to judge the

God who made him and made the evidence That's why that's why I've yet to see a meaningful argument as presuppositions

Mustard by you guys because you never represent us correctly because you don't understand what we're saying As most of time because you do not see the absolutely integrated

Integral connection Between our theology and our apologetic your emphasis is on the apologetic only secondarily on the theology our

Emphasis upon the theology and our apologetic flows from it It's one of the big differences

God speaks the prophet Isaiah says come now let us reason together and what is that supposed to mean?

Isn't that the same Isaiah where God sent Isaiah and what did he say to Isaiah?

I'm gonna make their Their hearts fat. I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna he's gonna judge them.

So they won't repent Seems to have something to do with mine. Didn't it doesn't sound like they were just free moral agents, huh?

with with neutral moral grounds to stand on Come let us reason together, but not on the basis of what

God had revealed the people of Israel weak weak proof texting here very very weak

Peter urges us to always be prepared to give an answer. Yeah First night on the cruise

First night on the cruise and that's still up there, isn't it? Did what do we do with that stuff? Can you? Is there some way to save those and move them over to YouTube's?

They're more accessible First night on the cruise first Peter 3

One of the most abused text by apologists and I confessed To the whole crowd. I've done it myself

I've done it myself One of the most abused texts and I've talked about in the program before so I'm not go back over it again the command of first Peter 3 is

To treat as holy Korean quoting from Isaiah When you look back at the citations from starting all the way back to Isaiah 7 8 9 10 11 the

Emanuel text the Sun given to us text it's a whole section of of prophetic revelation that the early church drew from Found Jesus in these things clearly came from Jesus his own teaching to them.

And the point is that the Korean Treat the

Messiah as Korean in your hearts that the Korean is a citation from the

Old Testament referring to Yahweh so it is a recognition of the ultimate authority of the

Incarnated Yahweh in the person of Jesus which orders all of our priorities which changes our life

So that as the text says and it's interesting that didn't get cited here Because it rarely does by apologists and I made this mistake.

I don't make it anymore but the text says Those asking you a reason for the hope that's within you not those that you're gonna go

Take your Bible and whack them over the head with it and say listen to me They are to ask you of a reason for the holes it why because by that obedience that command in sanctifying setting apart treating as holy the incarnate one in Your heart that orders all of your priorities so that when you respond the tragedies of life when you live your life people see you're different and therefore they come to you and they ask you what is the source of this hope that's within you and Then you are to be ready to give an answer a reasoned answer for the hope that lies within you yet with gentleness and reverence reverence toward God's message

Gentleness toward the person you're speaking. That was a very quick summary of a much longer presentation where I go through the text in Isaiah and we look at the

Emanuel stuff and I did this I first gave that presentation back at With Todd Friel at a wretched conference at a

Mennonite Church in Ohio. I remember that much I Don't know how many years ago that was but it's out there.

I've preached the sermon a number of times Paul commands us to destroy arguments that are opposed to the truth of Christianity.

Yeah, but he didn't use What what did he use to destroy those arguments? Did he did he did he destroy those arguments by granting

Autonomy to the unbeliever or do you destroy these arguments to the work of the

Holy Spirit and the proclamation of God's truth? And he declares that Christianity is false unless the resurrection of Christ is historical fact.

No question about that No one's questioning the fact that Christianity is a historical faith and that I teach church history love church history

It's very very relevant But history outside of Revelation is not enough

It's not enough he even names living eyewitnesses the resurrection in effect daring his readers to fact -checked him by asking them no question about it

What does that have to do with anything else? What does that have to do with the supernatural basis of the faith being found in Scripture?

those those eyewitnesses, but Matthew tells us some of them doubted Some of them doubted so This I just see all sorts of confusion here as if you're just grabbing a bunch of texts and putting them together rather than having

A coherent epistemology that's derived from the New Testament. I have to wonder. Do you believe you can derive a coherent epistemology from the

New Testament a lot of people wouldn't He did not say believe that Jesus rose from the dead because I'm writing the

Bible and the Bible is the authority Wow He did not say believe that Jesus rose from the dead because I'm writing the

Bible and the Bible is the authority What was the most basic? Definition of the gospel game

For I delivered you that which I also received Remember Talking about the passing on of the gospel message

Jesus Christ died According to the scriptures

According to the scriptures according to the scriptures according to the scriptures. How do you miss that? How do you not hear that of course not everything a scripture can be supported with evidence

But as Andy and classical apologists maintain once we've established that Jesus actually rose from the dead and is therefore

God You really think you can do that?

without a supernatural revelation really Impossible Absolutely positively impossible

I Can blow so many holes to that it's not even funny. It's like it's like a

Sherman tank trying to take on a tiger You know anything about World War two? Couldn't have couldn't have not possible.

How do you how do you how do you demonstrate? Now It's so painful.

I've heard this so many times and I've I've had to apologize To our

Muslim friends when they encounter Christians who argue like this. The resurrection of Christ is not proof of his deity

Was Lazarus God he rose from the dead The wit the the widow's son widow of Nain's son see

God he rose from the dead People have risen from the dead God's done that once in a while were the

Saints in Matthew 27 were they God No without scriptural

God breathed revelation you can not prove that Jesus is

God. This is not possible I don't think anyone in church history believed ever ever dreamed that it was until we started thinking we have to somehow pander to lost folks and rebels and Come up with something that makes them happy You can't do it, sorry

Once we've established well, I've never seen you do this The Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Well, you can make a historical argument But It's not a proclamation of the truth and is therefore

God Wow Jump over the Grand Canyon Big jump of the

Grand Canyon then whatever Jesus says and teaches is true Since the evidence shows and New Testament documents are reliable as you interpret it within a

Christian worldview, by the way Which again shows the presuppositional nature, but you can't avoid no matter how hard you try then we know

G is taught that the Old Testament is God's Word as Is the coming New Testament? How do you know

G is taught the Old Testament is God's Word Well, the New Testament writers quote him as such the very same people that you point out are picking at stuff

Everybody else they pick at that too They go with that just as hard.

You're just ignoring it You're right back where you started You've got the exact same problem now that you had at the beginning and thought you were getting around it

But you didn't get around it. I Agree Jesus taught that the

Old Testament is God's Word. No question about God speaking and The old and that's exactly the foundation of authority the

New Testament Church continuously referred to Every apostle every writer it's right there.

There's no question about that That's why you didn't need to be running around these circles in the first place It is on the risen

Savior's authority that we believe all the scriptures are true Even those events and scriptures that we can't independently verify independently verify

So you believe that the stuff you think you can verify historically is true because history tells you so what a hodgepodge of authority and so very very susceptible to all sorts of Potshots no question about Dr.

Moore seems not to acknowledge the indispensable role of natural revelation and understanding

God's special revelation to us I keep saying seems about Dr. Moore's beliefs because I'm basing all this on an interview and his 22 -minute podcast

They may not be understanding his his beliefs completely or accurately Well, there's lots of books on this subject that we've written on the subject

But God has actually written two books the Bible special revelation and the book of nature natural revelation

Both are necessary in the life of the believer unfortunately when some Protestants today talk about the sufficiency of scripture or Sola scriptura, they often make it sound like we have no need for any truths outside the

Bible That's not true for several reasons. Here are just two. I'm pretty used to people

Misinterpreting misrepresenting and misdefining solo scriptura because I Bill Webster might have debated as many

Roman Catholics as I have on this subject. I don't know of anybody else has So I'm Been there done that first debate.

I did August 1990 Jerry Matitox Roman Catholic Church in Long Beach, California solo scriptura misrepresented straw man, that was 26 years ago over a quarter of a century

Um, yes doing the math here on the fly and that amazing sharp as a tack Pretty easy with a 90.

It's you know, 10 20 whatever They often make it sound like we have no need for any truths outside the

Bible that's That was all scripture is about So scripture is the belief that the scriptures are the sole

Infallible rule of faith for the church and one of the most common Roman Catholic misrepresentations is this one so You're not talking about Protestants here unless you're talking about people who hold to solo scriptura

Which is a modern term that was made up for people who? You know, maybe that's what you're describing here.

But even then this is very troubling first Especially by the way you say this First Wow, is it 225?

Yeah Sorry, but I've yeah, there's there's still some stuff here.

I I can't I can't I can't stop First one can't even understand the Bible or any communication without first understanding truths from outside the

Bible Aspects of the natural revelations such as philosophy logic and consistent cause and effect

Here's the here's the issue and this is this is you'll hear this come out with dr It is absolutely necessary for the minimalists and for those who engage in synergistic

Evidentialist apologetics To in a sense

Deny a part of natural revelation. What is part of that version that man's made in the image of God and When God told

Adam you shall not eat of this tree Adam didn't go.

Excuse me. I really can't follow that because Yeah, so busy with the animals and stuff like that that haven't had time for the philosophy classes

Linguistics classes and that science thing is really I'm having a little trouble with that And so could we just I can't really understand this idea of what you're saying to me linguistically speaking

I Need to do a little more Study first God made man fully capable of receiving his revelation

Understanding his revelation and being held accountable to his revelation when we talk about epistemology and I've already criticized

Dr. Turk's epistemology a number of times Are you gonna argue? Well, so you talk about epistemology.

So you're being inconsistent. No epistemology describes How God has made things that is it's a discussion of how we know things

The fact that we can discuss how we know things does not make that prior to God's revelation is the foundation of his relationship with his people and the basis upon which we will be held accountable

It is simply a looking backwards. We can describe God made man in this way.

He holds him accountable to what he says Therefore man has this communicating capacity and we can actually build an epistemology

We're limited as to our epistemology pre -fall because we have so little scriptural revelation but we have a huge basis for creating a post fall epistemology how man knows what he knows and so it is

It's a game when the minimalists and the evidentialists

Try to say well you see our philosophy our logic stuff is prior to revelation and therefore is

Adam did so you're wrong This is all descriptive of what this is laid out as to God's purpose time

Who's? These things we are observing these things about God's creation that does not make them prior to revelation

Just doesn't in other words in order to get anything out of the Bible you need principles or keys of Interpretation from outside the

Bible to access it much like you need your keys to unlock your house to get anything out of it Well, what's the outside of it?

We're made in the image of God. It's it's part of our created nature It's not some these aren't just sources of information out here that therefore become prior to and more important than and above the revelation of God Without keys of interpretation outside.

We would never be able to unlock the Bible and learn what's in it Well, we often take those keys of interpretation for granted We get them from the book of nature and the principles of human communication including language and grammar

No, we get them from the fact we're created in the image of God All the rest these things are merely descriptive sometimes we even use what we learn from nature of philosophy to overrule

What appears to be the clear reading of Scripture? This is what really got Dangerous the rotation of the earth around the

Sun is one such example to overrule what appears to be a clear reading of Scripture.

Hmm So it sounds like we're saying is who are we glad we've we've got science because We might have thought that you know, the earth rotate that the

Sun rotate around the earth because of the use of Our everyday life is today still in fact, you can go on any website a weather website and You know weather underground any of those places guess what they will list for you

Sunrise Well, it's Sunday Another is the immaterial nature of God Yeah, the

Bible doesn't tell us what another is the material nature of God We use the book of nature and the principles of human communication to realize the

Bible uses Observational language to describe nature and metaphors describe God's attributes. He has eyes arms legs, etc it also says that he fills the universe and and It's not like us.

So While the Bible does say God is spirit. The only way to resolve the apparent contradiction

With several other verses that suggest God as body parts is through philosophy That was rich passing out outside the window.

You heard that bump. I think you'll be okay I'll get a nice pack and we're done It's not through philosophy unless you want to say that the process of reading

Scripture Differentiating between genres of Scripture Allegory versus didactic.

Well, it's all philosophy. No Philosophy is our Observation of how God has made us to communicate with one another and how

God and a Christian philosophy will be based upon how God has communicated with us There's a backwards prioritizing here unfortunately

Before you object to the use of philosophy the Apostle Paul never prohibited its proper Use that would be a philosophy to not use philosophy, which would be self -defeating

Philosophers sometimes really Get themselves into binds.

They don't really need to get themselves into There is a consistent

Warning in the New Testament against a philosophy that is based upon man's natural reason a philosophy that does not begin with the fear of the

Lord this philosophy does not begin with the revelation of God in Scripture and A philosophy it does not begin with the recognition that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Jesus Christ And there is no question of that The vast majority of references to philosophy are negative

There can be a Christ honoring God honoring love of philosophy but any

Christ honoring God honoring philosophy philosophy will unashamedly

Reject the priority of the natural man's reason and the thinking of the world

That's what first Corinthians 1 and 2 says That's what first Corinthians 1 and 2 said. It's just that's inarguable

That's inarguable the vain philosophy to which Paul was referring Colossians 2 8 was legalism infecting the church

Really that's what he was objecting to I Thought it had a great deal to do with the idea of Jesus being

Less than the actual creator and the worship of angels and in other words proto

Gnosticism Why does Paul emphasize the fact that by him were all things made in heaven or so does that have something to do with legalism in the church

I'll be perfectly honest with you. I am very concerned William Lane Craig here.

Dr. Turek their handling of exegesis is often very troubling and Again, it illustrates it illustrates

You start with your philosophy and your apologetics and go this direction. Then you use scripture as you need to That's dangerous

That's dangerous. Um That is not legalism infecting the church

There's much more the context of Colossians chapter 2 then legalism infecting the church in fact, this is the very context

Can we look at this a second? Sorry Great can we look at this a second because I think this is

I think this is important Well while you're saying that I'm wondering how that how these guys would tangle with an

Alma Allred or a Van Hale on the issue Of God having hands and I mean he they would tie him in a knot

I don't know As you have therefore received christ jesus the lord

So walk in him Having been rooted and Being uh, and it's oika de meo to to to establish to you know

To build up a a house or a building or something like that Having been rooted. Uh Same you know, it's almost a farming type term, you know rooted deeply built up in him

And established in the faith just as you have been taught Abounding therein in eucardistia in thanksgiving

Okay, so there's This is talking to the christians You've been established

You've been firmly established in him And As you walk in that way

See to it that no one

Takes you captive through taste philosophy us Philosophy is just simply a transliteration of philosophy us

Chi can ace apotes So philosophy and empty deception

So it it claims to to have substance, but there's no substance to it according to and here's the philosophy of you're warned against according to The paradis in tone anthropon, it's human

It's it's focused upon man Is that not what the vast majority of philosophy is if you try to introduce?

A christ -based philosophy in almost any philosophy in any philosophy department Even in most christian universities today

You will be laughed out the door You laughed out According to the elementary principles of two cosmos.

It's it's rooted in the world Rather than not it not according to christ

What does that mean Any philosophy That is to capture the heart of the believer must be kata christen

Tell the world that and you're out of any department you're in And you know it

Why hati en auto katoi kai ponta play roma taste the yateta somaticos

Because In him is dwelling all the fullness of deity in bodily form

That's why because the incarnation Because he's still the incarnate one because he's the one that defines all things.

That's a radical claim I know it's a radical claim and it's not a claim that if you read the bible You'll be able to do nuclear physics either don't even go there

But the only reason you can do nuclear physics because jesus is consistent in his creation The reason is because in him not in anything else not in the book of revelation in the sense of general revelation

But in him is dwelling all the fullness of deity and bodily form

The vain philosophy to which paul was referring colossians 2 8 was legalism infecting the church.

Where did you get that? Okay While one can use bad philosophy to interpret the bible

It's impossible to use no philosophy This is a matter of perspective

One looking at it from the centrality of philosophy I'm saying you describe how god has created things and you can identify the philosophy

Of how we know how we make decisions how we relate things law logic everything else

But it flows from the way god created things. It's not some external thing that orders everything else

God's the external thing that ordered everything else Christ that's the whole point of colossians 2 9

In his new series who needs god and he highlighted a second reason that truths outside the bible are critical truths outside of the bible got christianity started

Before the new testament was ever written thousands of jews and pagans understood the truth of resurrection christianity

While those early believers didn't have as much information as we're privileged to have now they knew enough to transform the roman empire

So this again is the Completely Wild -eyed idea that the early church

Didn't have a bible. Well, it didn't have the new testament But it certainly had a bible um, you know,

I think of roger beckwith's book the old testament canon of the new testament church and not only is it just so painfully obvious That the writers of the new testament

Specifically Quote as authoritative the tanakh But the early writers did too clement ignatius

That's why I said when I was listening to him making those statements in that sermon And I and look

I had a bunch of people in dallas say hey our church history professor was great We don't know where this guy's gotten this stuff. Okay, I get it

But I said the church history professor was who whipped with a wet noodle. It was meant to be humorous um

You you cannot have First -hand exposure to patristics

And make the argument. Hey, these folks didn't have a bible just because the term bible is used later on They had the thus saith the lord of the scriptures and very early on Had at least a partially primitive

Canon, I mean the gospels Right right off the bat

Are being quoted as authoritative and not the gospel of thomas or any weird weirdness like that andy's point in reaching unbelievers today

Is that unbelievers in the mid -first century were never asked to become christians through blind faith

In an authoritative new testament that didn't exist blind faith In an authoritative new testament that didn't exist

They were asked to believe that the apostles and prophets had prophesied What had come to pass and that was the very basis of believing the resurrection in the first place

Wow Have you not read the sermons in atlas? Have you not read justin martin?

ignatius any of them Sorry, i'm sorry.

I shouldn't I I just At times i'm just left stuttering

At where this is going Uh contrary to what some skeptics assert the new testament writers did not create the resurrection the resurrection created the new testament writers

The new testament writers are writing after the events of redemption

Just as I have often said the doctrine the trinity is revealed between malachi and matthew because it's

It's fundamental proof is in the incarnation of the son the outpouring of the holy spirit And all the new testament documents begin to be written after the redemptive acts

Okay but This is creating a false epistemological dichotomy between the authority of the resurrection as an act

And the authority of that which is the anustos. This is what god did to redeem us This is what god gave us to know he redeemed us right

How do you know what the resurrection means? How do you know what happened? How do you know it's a fulfillment of scripture of prophecy?

How do you know? Well, there was this really nice guy named peter and he said this one time.

But how do you know he said that? So christianity would still be true

If every bible and manuscript in the world were destroyed So how would anyone know what it was supposed to mean frank

Frank You're trying to defend a faith founded by a guy who said my words will never pass away

And you use an illustration like that Why? Why?

Fact is that the resurrection would be true if for some reason god allowed every bible to be destroyed

But god's not gonna allow that to happen because He has promised the same one who said i'm gonna rise in the dead also said my words will never pass away so How do you why why make a

Dichotomy doesn't need to be made. What's what's driving this? Let me sum up this important point another way the ontological foundation of christianity

Is not a collection of ancient writings. We call the bible The ontological foundation of christianity is the reality of god and the historicity of the biblical events including the resurrection of christ

In fact, the new testament wouldn't exist unless the resurrection occurred So while we need all the bible to more fully understand god and live the christian life

We don't need all the bible to understand its most important message the gospel Wow Okay, um

The most important message the gospel what is it frank and do not use the bible End of that argument

I don't And no the early christians always used the bible when answering that question, too

And it was called the tanakh. I am offended personally

At the description of the bible by a christian as collection of ancient writings. I don't see the apostles ever doing that I don't ever see the apostles doing that.

I don't see jesus doing that Have you not read what's spoken to you by god saying in this collection of ancient writings?

Hmm That was andy's reason for saying let's get the spotlight off the bible and back on the resurrection not for believers, but for unbelievers so for rebel sinners

This bible thing isn't really necessary. So You know once the holy spirit of god actually starts working in someone's life

You know what they want They want a sure word from god They don't want probabilities

They don't want possibilities they want to know what god says And Christians down through the centuries have been able to say right there here.

Here it is. Let's say it the lord now because humanism and secularism

Is on the rise We're like, ah, hey, you know, let's let's pander to you

I ain't going there Y 'all go ahead I ain't going there can't

Can't do it um anyway,

I Wow, there's Okay One more thing here using the incorrect definition of soul scriptura

The final mistake is related to the last dr. Moore and several reformed internet critics Internet critics where might there be internet critics reformed internet critics

Hmm Seem to be charging andy with denying sola scriptura

But andy doesn't deny solo scriptura What he denies is their erroneous definition of that doctrine

Okay, solo scriptura was cited by the reformers to correct abuses by the roman catholic church

It means that the bible is sufficient for the faith and practice of a believer as opposed to the scripture plus Church tradition plus church councils plus the statements of the pope and so forth

And his critics seem to think that solo scriptura denies the role of natural revelation including reason in theology

But as we have seen such a position would make understanding the bible impossible Without natural revelation, we couldn't understand the bible or anything else about reality

Even martin martin luther realized this point. He didn't dismiss reason He said he would only recant if he could be proven wrong by scripture or reason now

Uh, I don't know who he's referring to Andy's critics seem to think that solo scriptura denies the role of natural revelation including reason in theology

Well, what is that supposed to mean?

um Calvin didn't deny Natural revelation.

What do you mean by reason? Do you mean unfallen reason or fallen reason do you mean man's heart is darkened by sin or not darkened by sin?

Do you recognize that what man is held accountable on the basis of natural revelation? In romans chapter one is to give thanks to god and recognize he exists and nothing more than that What is the basis of this reasoning?

Are you recognizing that man's basis of this reasoning is rebelling against god and therefore is incorrect and therefore has to be corrected by the written word of god

Solo scriptura says that the sole infallible rule of faith of the church Is the scriptures the only thing that's been given to the church, which is theanustas is the scriptures

Are you saying there's something in natural revelation is theanustas? Will you defend that? What is it you're saying?

Because if it leads you to believe that when andy stanley says We need to get our focus on the bible on the resurrection that that actually makes sense

It doesn't It's self -contradictory. It's irrational So, what do you mean by reason?

It's ironic that a tradition has risen in reformed christianity that distorts the original meaning of solo scriptura

You don't you don't want to go there The very doctrine intended to correct the erroneous traditions that had arisen in the roman catholic church roman catholics may nullify the word of god

When they add traditions to god's revelation But some protestants are nullifying it when they subtract from god's revelation

We shouldn't add church tradition to god's special revelation But we also shouldn't subtract natural revelation either. It's from god just as much as the bible

So are you saying that natural revelation is theanustas? Is it god speaking? In what way

What are the limits of natural revelation according to romans chapter one, what are the limits? They're plainly laid out for us

But that same chapter says that man's heart is darkened And his speculations become empty and futile.

Do you believe that? Do you approach man from that perspective? These would be some of the questions that inquiring minds

Would like to know Ironically, it turns out that in several important ways.

Andy stanley is more in line with all of god's revelation than russell moore So if anyone needs to make substantive corrections in his theology apologetic method and approach to unbelievers, it's not andy stanley

It's russell moore I don't expect our pitchfork bearing brethren on the internet to agree with me.

Excuse me Why aren't you a pitcher what you just said Is not only something that you could never

But why isn't that a pitchfork? Why is it? Is given a pass as the d

Pitchfork guys. Why is that? I don't get it. It seems to be a Christianity presuppositionalist

I'm, sorry, that's just so Hard not to laugh um Not like You you're right now.

Okay This is a lighter and we're gonna

Of the day award For canard

Listen to his debate of solomon Right there we've both

That is a self -refuting statement self -review state hell -bent

Out of context, which is why we play the whole It's pretty serious there.

Dr. Turk. Why pitchfork who's been dealing with Really that?

That i've got to get Oh, these programs are really getting long.

I'm, sorry But you see I have some people that listen while they're on the treadmill So i'm just helping them get in shape for entire marathons

That's just that's just all that's going on here uh, just entire Marathons worth of stuff is what we're what we're working for here

Uh, this stuff's important it really really is and I There is just so much stuff here.

There's there's uh Stuff going. I I won't even go there.

We're we're pretty much right at two hours. That's about as Someone someone on twitter says

My apple tv is going bonkers and won't stop looping on pitchfork bearing brethren. Is it on my end?

Yes, yes it is yes it is on your end most definitely there are other things to be talking about we will try to Bring them all then but I don't know how we can get much more foundational than this because this is talking about why we do

What we do how we do it It's bringing it all together. I hope it's educational for you um,

I don't necessarily like having to address it and having to disagree with fellow christians, but um

It's necessary to do and that's what we do on this program. So thanks for watching the divine line today.