The Dividing Line August 5, 2008

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States.

It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White. And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning or whenever you happen to be listening. We know a lot of people listen on the podcast and sometimes people are listening, you know, months and even years later and they'll pop in the channel and say, hey, what did you mean when you said this?

When I said what? I said that? Really? Oh, okay, that's interesting. It's fresh on their mind but not exactly fresh on mine. So, you know, who knows? But anyway, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number 877 -753 -3341.

Saw some interesting stuff on YouTube earlier today and some of those folks may be calling in. I don't know, hard to see. We did have one caller or one individual who was in essence saying, he's over in the London area, he was in essence saying that no one before Augustine ever mentioned anything about election or anything like that.

And I just immediately popped in the channel some citations from Clement of Rome, one of the earliest post-New Testament writings, referring to the elect. And I think he actually just called a few minutes ago but didn't want to go on the air.

So, oh well, maybe at some other point that will take place. Who knows? But we do have a number of phone calls already and once we clear them, we may have... I remember last time I mentioned listening to Tim Staples talking about Islam and we never got to Tim Staples talking about Islam.

So, maybe we'll get to that. Who knows? But let's go ahead and I'm assuming this is the first one up. I don't see anything changing. The little green lights flashing, so I'm hoping that's the right one.

Rich is looking rather confused in there. Yeah, there's two people. They're both ready to go. Only one of them is flashing, though, for some reason. I don't know why. So, let's talk with Rob. Hi, Rob.

Hi, Dr. White. How are you doing today? Doing good. Good. Glad to hear it. My question today is about Romans chapter 13 and I know you have a couple... Yes, that's an area that I claim absolutely no special expertise in whatsoever.

There are entire books and schools of thought and everything else on the subject that I have not read and hence don't have any particular expertise upon which to speak. I think that all I can say in answer to a question like that is that it seems that the division that is offered by Scripture is that unless one is commanded to do that which is against his faith, his confession of faith, if he is commanded to engage in activities that are opposed to his faith, he is commanded to renounce Christ or to not obey God in some way shape or form, that one is to be focused upon one's Christian faith rather than upon the overthrow of that government.

I mean clearly during the days of the Apostles there were all sorts of things that the Roman government was doing that would be considered unjust on the basis of all sorts of political theories I would assume.

But the fact of the matter is that I see nothing in the New Testament where the Apostles instructed people to in some way shape or form overthrow that government. At the same time they, you know, you do have to slaves if you can become free, become free.

You know there's all sorts of questions about, you know, what can a Christian person do within the context of having public office or whatever and there seems to have been some Christians who had public office but most did not.

I mean the Christian movement was very much amongst slavery. But outside those general comments I don't have anything specific that's anything more than that that I could offer that's overly useful. I would imagine.

Okay, well, okay, I mean apart from that I guess... I know Christians who have said exactly that. But again, it's not an area of my study. I don't have anything... I apologize, not an area of my study.

It has nothing to do with Islam or Arabic right now. But the 4th of July was in reference to a claim in regards to the necessity of a government to be responsive to its people. That wasn't the Boston Tea Party or something.

So I think a person can be thankful for what God has done through the United States, the blessings he's placed upon the United States, but I'm not one of those folks that believes that somehow the United States is a Christian nation that somehow, you know, is almost like Israel or something, you know.

There does seem to be among some people the same kind of language you find in the Old Testament where the temple, the temple, the Lord would never allow the destruction of the temple, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And the fact of the matter is this nation will be destroyed if it continues to spit in the face of God and to coddle those who, you know, who hate his ways and so on and so forth. So I am concerned about those who do come up seemingly with the idea that nothing could ever happen here because this is the, you know, the great United States and that's just simply not the case.

So I don't think there's any question that any, that a nation as in a political state will be blessed when it recognizes God's law and seeks to govern in light of God's law and it will not be when it seeks to do otherwise.

So I think there's a direct relationship there and clearly this nation has in the past been willing to openly acknowledge biblical parameters. Many presidents up until this time period were willing to quote from the Bible and so on and so forth openly.

Now that's just simply not allowed. Now that's considered to be a terrible, horrible thing. And so, but does that mean that it was quote-unquote a Christian nation back then? Well, there's all sorts of different answers to that and I'm afraid I make no claims to expertise in that area.

But hey, thanks for your phone call, Rob. I appreciate it. Let's, we've got lots of callers here for some reason this morning. Sometimes Tuesdays, nothing, and then sometimes there's lots of stuff. I don't know.

Justification by Grace, Faith, and Boasting

Let's talk to Tim. Hi, Tim. Hello, Tim. How are you? Thank you. I think it's fairly fair to say is that the reason that there is no boasting is that it's it's uc ex ergo ergo and it's not from works. It's not something that we have done.

It is all in God's initiative. It is all God's work and hence any boasting cannot be in any accomplishment of our own but only in the accomplishments of Christ. I lost you when you said we have grounds of boasting in Ephesians 2.

Where does it say that? No, in Ephesians 2. But see, but see it doesn't say that. All he, all he says in Ephesians chapter 2 is that all of this comes from God. When he says not by works, that's the the human aspects and so all this comes by from from God then there is no ground of boasting outside of boasting in God.

I mean we do boast in God. That's that's that's 1st Corinthians chapter 1 says our boasting is in God. So in in both texts you're being told that there is nothing in and of ourselves that provides us with a ground of saying I somehow have done something that other people have not done.

As I've said many times in in heaven itself someday when we when we see the final decision, the final judgment of God, those who are in places of punishment and those who are in places of glory, the only thing that will differentiate both those two is the work of God.

It is that five-letter word called grace and so there's there's nothing about well faith gives you somehow since you can have it and somebody else doesn't have it gives you a ground of boasting. That's that's not the point that is being being made in each one of these texts.

The point is this is all of God. It is not of man and and it is not something we have done that causes us to differ from somebody else. It's God who's made us to differ and therefore all the boasting has to be in what he has done.

Yeah so I don't I don't see that the the hypothesis from Ephesians 2 actually stands. Well actually I mean the point that's having trouble is is when we when we say when we criticize like a synergistic or Arminian view of faith that in some way comes we say that that would be a ground for both criticized Arminians or say it would give us a ground to boast in our faith.

If everyone had that capability and we somehow were better than someone else yeah. So so what so then when I'm when I'm looking at Romans 3 it seems to even even deny the idea that that could provide a ground for it because if it's by work if salvation is by faith apart from work.

Well faith. The idea that faith would be an accomplishment that we could both under any view. Well there's there's again all that's being said in in each text and and you're trying to make the two texts address the same issue and that's where the error is coming in.

You're confusing context. Paul is not addressing the same issue in in both contexts. He's not using the terms in exactly the same way. You're assuming that making an assumption on one and then creating a contradiction that just just doesn't exist.

His assertion in Ephesians 2 is that everything in salvation comes from God not from works therefore no one can boast. In Romans 3 especially talking about Jews who would have reason to say they have a special relationship with God.

Instead he says boasting is excluded not by a by what kind of law by what kind of law of works no but by a law of faith. Faith has nothing in of itself that it can boast of. So the two aren't addressing the same issue and only by sort of trying to bring them together and force them to address the same issue do you create any kind of issue.

Okay. So in in in just the context of Ephesians 2 you conclude that that there Paul is would be asserting that thing that we consider work. We have to we have to be very careful again I have often asserted that everything in Ephesians 2 way it comes from God including the faith but that does not mean that Paul's specific intention in those words is to be addressing all the conflicts that we want to try to address.

We can we can look at what he's saying but you you only you can only hold Paul to be consistent for what Paul is speaking about. You can draw conclusions from what he's saying and if you have other basis for putting that all together that's great fine wonderful but he's not trying to talk about that he's simply saying everything that brings us into salvation the grace the faith everything comes from God it's a gift of God it's not of works it's not something we merit it it's not something makes us better than somebody else lest anyone should boast.

That's all he's that's all he's saying. So to try to go beyond that and say well you know maybe Paul's also addressing this. No you've got to allow everything to stay in context you can't necessarily be trying to go beyond that and I think that's I think that's what I'm hearing us doing here is is trying to make application beyond that.

I don't see any conflict whatsoever between what Paul says in Romans 3 and Ephesians 2. Okay I'll continue thinking about that. Okay. In light of those comments. Okay thanks Tim. All right let's move on and talk with Richard.

Hi Richard. Hey Dr. Wade how are you? Doing all right. Good. I used to be a reformed person actually I've followed you since I was in high school but I've come across a lot of middle knowledge literature and I know that you have quite a bit of disagreement with that system and so I wanted to get your thoughts on a few things to maybe discuss some of it.

I don't claim to have enough knowledge to debate or anything like that but I do appreciate your advice. Are you aware of Bruce Ware's work on that? He's a guy I believe at Southern Baptist University in Kentucky.

Yeah Southern Baptist Seminary actually. Seminary yes and he holds to middle knowledge but from a reform perspective and before I do anything else I just want your thoughts on that first if you have any.

Well that would be the first time I've ever heard Bruce Ware called a mullinist. That would be deeply disappointing to me if that were the case because I think for the listeners we need to define mullinism.

Mullinism is a Jesuit theology developed specifically in response to the Reformation. It's an anti-reformation philosophy that was created by the Jesuit theologian Molina de Molina in response to the call by the founder of the Jesuits to find a way to blunt and to deal with the proclamation of the gospel by the Reformed Churches and he developed this philosophy and it is primarily a philosophy.

It is interesting to note that as you know I'm not sure if you're the one who wrote this but I had a note on my screen I think someone had sent this in to the to the website it specifically says mullinism isn't a parlor trick I believe it's the clear teaching of scripture.

Well evidently the first person to come up with that didn't come up with that until the late 1500s and so 1500 years worth of Christians had missed the clear teaching of scripture. I believe that mullinism and the attendant theologies attached to it is an external philosophy forced upon scripture.

It was never derived from the exegesis of the text of scripture in any way shape or form. It is a philosophy that is meant to find a way to maintain the necessary assertion of free will so the Roman Catholic sacramental system can remain the Roman Catholic sacramental system that was the great problem that Rome had with the proclamation of the sovereignty of God and salvation is that if that is the case then then Rome's entire religious authority is based upon the sacramental system and the control that that gives her over the grace of God and hence over the people who come to her to obtain that grace of God and so there was a deep necessity to find some way to reestablish this kind of libertarianism so that the sacramental system could survive.

Now the irony is that mullinism has primarily died out in Roman Catholicism and has primarily been reputed within Roman Catholicism but it has now been picked up by Arminianism and turned into an entire system bereft of its historical connection to the historical context out of which it arose but now it has has become the darling of the Arminians as a means to try to hold together the concept of libertarianism as well as a concept of God's sovereignty through this promulgation of a theory of a kind of knowledge that God has in a very meticulous control that in essence God has the has some type of ability to know what men will do given certain circumstances and so he works the circumstances so that they do what they desire to do freely but the results are still what God wants to do etc etc and so that's mainly for the listeners.

I would imagine that you're aware of its historical background and its origination and the essence of its of its assertions. Yeah I'm aware of the historical background of it but and I don't mean this is a an attack on Calvinism.

I have a deep respect for it but for example P .E. I'm not aware of anyone in the church teaching clearly on P .E. before Calvin and so I don't have a problem with it as long as it's on the script. I'm assuming you're referring to perseverance of the saints and you would be of course incorrect about that because anyone who is familiar with Augustine knows that Augustine did believe in the perseverance of the elect not of those who were non-elect and many in the early church did not even address the issue.

But there's no question there's absolutely no question that the vast majority of writers throughout church history have exceptionally some biblical theologies on all sorts of things that doesn't change the fact that when it came to this issue which was an issue that we discussed many times this particular concept is not exegetically driven you you can't possibly be asserting that you read Isaiah and you come up with middle knowledge.

You you read John and you come up with middle knowledge. This is this is a a concept that it has to be created outside the text of scripture and then certain texts are read in its light and then those very strong texts on Providence are then subsumed under this overarching system.

But you're never going to come to that simply by the exegesis of the text of scripture. You have to create that externally and then it has to become your guiding parameters of interpretation. That's certainly been my experience with all the Molinas with I've had conversation is when I say okay I see you applying it to a text here applying it to a text there where do you derive it from.

And it's it's it's always driven from philosophical considerations. It is not derived from any kind of biblical presentation at all. Okay if you could just give me an example in first Samuel 23 6 through 10 in that general text area that would be one example where on this derive the idea.

Right. And that's and that's the point immediately any any overarching doctrine of God that has to start in first Samuel. Doesn't that immediately ring bells. I mean we're looking at it we're immediately skipping past all the huge number of texts where you see historically Christians have derived their theology from the text the Bible that are specifically teaching it.

In other words I have often used the analogy that if you want to know about the lights in your car you get out the owner's manual and the first thing you do is you look up lights. Now the lights may be may be mentioned in all sorts of sections.

It might be mentioned the electrical section might be mentioned battery maintenance. It might be mentioned in the safety section. That's fine but you start with the section on the lights and then you interpret everything else in light of that.

And what I see happening here is that the those who promote middle knowledge what they do is they'll go to specific historical incidences and they'll take this external thing which again I keep going and where did we get that from the but it's actually been created outside the Bible they bring it in say see this might work in this historical text where there might be some questions about what someone might have done rather than going historically as Christians have done up until the Jesuit creation of this concept.

And that is they've gone to those texts where God is demonstrating that he is God and he is demonstrating that he is God over against false gods and thereby he's saying here's what the true God is like and this is what false gods can't do.

And so you go to the the chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter of discussion of the nature of God found in the prophet Isaiah and where he is contrasting the true God versus the false gods.

And that's where you find God saying tell me what's going to happen in the future and tell me what happened in the past and why it happened and so we can look at that and we can then encounter those texts to talk about how God interacts with Cyrus and how Cyrus is going to let the people go.

And you have the whole concept of prophecy and the fact that God says I know what's gonna happen the future I can tell you what's gonna happen future and if it doesn't happen to them that proves that the person claiming this isn't a true prophet and so the future becomes something that is fully and completely known to God and that reveals the accomplishment of his purposes not merely a cooperative effort etc etc.

And so that's where you go first and you drive your theology of God and then apply it to historical situations that are not specifically written to address those things. But again if you start with an external system and bring it in then you can apply it to anything and and make pretty much almost any type of system work that way.

The problem is I challenge someone to demonstrate that this system was derived from the exegesis of the text of scripture and not the other way around. If it's external then go ahead and admit it and say well you know what no one really had a clue what was going on in these in any of these texts until the Jesuits figured it out as a response to Reformation in the 16th century.

And if you know if someone wants to be straight up front and say that cool then then they can go ahead and say that and I think that most people will immediately go oh wait a minute that that doesn't make a lick of sense.

But I you know do you really think Mullenism derived its origination from from someone coming to the Word of God saying this is the inspired utterances of God and I am going to to be limited to its revelation.

For what I conclude about the nature of God is is that how you think Melina got that? I would be hesitant to throw out the baby with the bathwater just because you know he's Catholic. Or might have come with a wrong approach.

I think no matter who it is if they come up with something that is valid scripturally and does not go against what the Word of God says that we should be at least open to its priesthood. But do you see the difference.

Did you see the difference there. Because you see there's a vast chasm between well something that's valuable scripturally and doesn't go against scripture is a very different thing from saying something that was derived from scripture.

This was not derived from scripture. Well he is the originator of it. And I'm just and I don't I don't care. Ok let's forget about Melina. William Lake Craig. It's still an external concept that is being used as the interpretive grid over scripture but it itself does not derive from scripture.

That is to me the great danger because that's not the only external philosophical system that people have developed to smooth out the things that they don't like about what the scriptures state. You know the open theists do the exact same thing.

He talks a little bit about that in Ian Moreland's book The Philosophical Foundations for Christian Worldview. But I was curious what would you classify the knowledge of God that you wouldn't classify as a middle knowledge where he states you know if this would have happened if I had had these circumstances you would have done this.

It was not actual. I mean this happened. So how would you classify that knowledge. Well I don't know what terminology to use. You know God can interact with us and deal with us in such a way as to accomplish his purposes.

I like to try to stay biblical on these things because once you start down that road of trying to create all sorts of categories for hypotheticals that you then apply to scripture. I just haven't found the people who do that to be overly committed to the authority of the text or the knowledge of the text or the defense of the text just hasn't been my experience and so I am very very concerned that when people start going down that road the functional result is that the clear statements where God says I accomplish all of my will and I change the hearts and I take out hearts of stone and I put in hearts of flesh and I the Lord do all these things become completely transmuted into an assertion that in essence well I do what I am allowed to do and I micromanage events so that like rats in a cage you do what I want you to do but it is only because I micromanage the physical world so that you are placed within particular contexts that you will do these particular things.

And I don't even begin to profess to understand how that could possibly work and it would seem to me. That's right. Does that make sense? Or Wayne Lane Craig or any of the modern proponents of this system and gone what?

Are you seriously thinking that someone would have to have that level of in depth philosophical knowledge to have some remote concept of what I have been about in this world which would mean that the vast majority of humanity would never be able to really understand any of this stuff.

I just don't see any reason to believe biblically in this system. Every attempt that I have seen to establish it involves the utilization of text that are clearly not even starting to address that. It's just well notice it says this so maybe if this were the case then possibly we could extrapolate this and etc etc again showing its external nature and I don't see those texts that are specifically on this subject that are specifically on the nature of God.

In any way shape or form pushing us this direction and evidently nobody did during church history either even those who would have had reason to try to come up with that kind of a thing I did read somewhere and I'll have to get back to you on this because unfortunately I didn't have time to prepare this before I called and it gets things on the gifts of perseverance.

Apparently there is a section that touches on this idea and I can't verify that again. I don't want to say that. That would be something that if I could find I would love to call back and interact with as well as I just got Bruce's book on his book called God's greater glory and it specifically touches on the reformed middle knowledge perspective and so perhaps I can give you a call back.

Well I'm familiar with that book. I'm just not familiar with the identification of it as being mullinism in that context but maybe I need to take a look at it. I think there is a difference between just the idea of middle knowledge and with the entire system of mullinism.

I think mullinism is generally associated with the Arminian approach and I disagree with calling himself a mullinist but I think this point is that he says ok well in scripture it says that God knows that if these people were in these circumstances that they would do this.

That didn't happen yet. God's knowledge is not a false knowledge so we must classify this as something that is not simply a way of speaking but it is an actual knowledge of God. So how do we classify that as knowledge?

Well and again we can speculate about how to classify elements of God's knowledge but historically the utilization of this system has been to blunt the reality of God's freedom to act as he will and to establish man's ability to have a quote unquote libertarian free will even though some would argue and I think effectively that to micromanage the context around the free will so that it always does what you want it to so that your system holds together is in some ways more offensive to the libertarian Arminian than even the sovereignty of God would be in a reformed sense.

But be that as it may the functional result of all this has been to reaffirm the fact that man's will is not in slavery to sin and that to me is the greatest danger and anyone can see the vast difference in the apologetic result of the application of these systems.

If you look at you know and I don't remember when I did this last in the program but it wasn't that long ago just a couple weeks ago where I presented William Lane Craig's presentation on the subject of what you prove in a debate with an atheist and that is that there is a preponderance of evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of God and that of the reformed perspective that says you cannot even begin to explain the existence of the world outside of the Christian God not just a God not a bare theism but Christian theism itself.

The two systems have very very different results and I think a lot of that goes back to this resulting denial of the true slavery of man to sin. So it has a lot of ramifications and I think those ramifications again are primarily biblical in nature.

Unfortunately what we see in the academy today is a massive distinction between the two areas and very few of those who live their lives in philosophy ever become serious exegetes and vice versa. I think the biggest problem for me is the fallen nature of man and how monism reconciles that within their system and that's one of the reasons that I'm not fully committed to it.

I do think philosophically it is sound but like you point out philosophy doesn't necessarily equal good biblical exegesis. Yeah. And think about this too as well. I wonder how within a monistic universe within that kind of a construct when it is asserted that man is free and yet fallen.

If man is a rebel against God then will not man even be self destructive and go against what would be best considering his circumstances to maintain his freedom. I think there is an unbiblical optimism.

I don't think that Craig and the others have been able to rid monism of its Jesuit roots because there is a fundamental flaw in Roman Catholicism regarding the depth of the depravity of man. I think that is one issue that needs to be very seriously considered and thought about.

From what I understand they would use I believe it is 2 .11 and claim that all men are at least given the ability to be. I don't know if they would call it enabling grace but I think they would at least say that all men are elevated from their depravity such that they are able to have these free choices and that's where grace starts at that point.

And then for what they might call the elect he gives further grace that no one is below that after God gives them that grace and that they all start dead and they would affirm that but that God elevates all men.

That would be the only way I can foresee. I haven't read enough on their response to that but that's what I would imagine. Yeah that certainly would be a text they use. The problem is again it's so rather grossly isogenical at that point because it says the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for all people.

And then what. Training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and live self-controlled upright and godly lives in the present age. The idea that this is a peanut butter grace that is just sort of a general enlightenment that releases from the depravity of sin or something like that is not even close to the context of what we're talking about here.

And that again is the kind of stuff that Melina would do and that Roman Catholics continue to do this day read the encyclicals of the popes and the various statements of the cardinals and they will constantly not only be repeating very similar themes but also be treating scripture in that way where it's original context and original meaning doesn't really matter very much.

It's that. Well there's an overarching theme here and we the infallible church can see it. Well that works for Roman Catholics doesn't work nearly as well for Arminians because they don't have the associated infallibility of the church to fall back on at that point.

But I think it's one of the main issues there is that it always has to be a system that is seeking to make man something that biblically he is not. And I know all the reasons why people want to go there because the biblical teaching about the depravity of man will never ever be popular.

But I really would point out to folks that before the apostle Paul said a word about the good news he spent quite some time talking about the bad news and it is just there that we can trust the Holy Spirit of God to bring those words to come alive in people's hearts.

And so yeah actually I've asked one of our bloggers on the team of Paul Aguillon he's already been working on a basically taking Francis Turretin's discussion of Molinism and Middle Knowledge which is very difficult very in depth gave me a headache the first time I worked through it.

There's no question about it in his Institutes of Atlantic Theology and I've sort of given him the very high task. And it is a high task. It's a difficult task of not so much translating it but making it understandable in our modern context.

I know he's already begun work on that so it should be on the blog before too long. I don't know if portions of that are available online too because I read something by Turretin in response to that. Maybe it was in a response by another apologist against Molinism.

But I was wondering if I could either email you or another one of the staff there at the ministry the portion from Augustine if I could find it and if you have time if you could address that in your blog.

I don't want to monopolize your time right now. But well we'll see. Interesting it's not the same thing as a fully developed system such as Molina presented. I just don't think anyone before Molina it's not that anyone before him had not speculated about such issues.

It is the creation of a system with a specific intention of using this as the means of dissipating the tension between the sovereignty of God and the will of man that is unique to him and is unique to that particular system.

Anyways feel free to send it along that would be fun. Ok. And one last thing could you recommend some resources for both me and whoever else is listening that may have been exposed to Molinism from any you know any apologists for that whether it be Wayne Lane Craig Planting or just any good stuff that's out there not necessarily on Molinism itself but maybe perhaps on different elements that you feel are most at odds with that system.

Well I'll be perfectly honest with you my biggest criticism of all the big names you just mentioned is real simple and this is why I'll never be one of the big guys and I'll never be one of those top dogs at the big conferences.

And it's because I'm far too simple to get past a rather basic thing and that is as I this past Lord's Day morning was preaching at our little Reformed Baptist Church. I was preaching through the 17th chapter of John.

I wasn't obviously attempting to cover the entirety of it because it's so deep you couldn't even begin to do that in that context. But there is this statement about half way through where the Lord says sanctify them in the truth.

Your word is truth. And my primary criticism of the philosophers of the world even those who call themselves Christians is that I do not find that their work demonstrates a recognition of the primacy of the exegesis of the inspired word over the application of philosophical categories.

My biggest problem and again it just makes me sort of backwards and stuff and that's ok I'm quite happy being backwards is that I read the text and it talks to me about the fact that what is found in God's word is ultimately so different than the thinking theories and words of men and it is the Anustos it is God breathed it is life.

We are to be sanctified in these words and men spoke these words they are carried along by the Holy Spirit. And the fact of the matter is most of these folks are not exegetes and they certainly will cite the text but very few of them are actually overly conversant in the biblical languages and in the issues related to that.

And the sad thing is many others then will combine a far less than conservative view of scripture and hence it's consistency with itself with their philosophical speculations. And so honestly for me it's not so much finding philosophical criticisms like Turretin offers as it is just simply stating the first question that I challenged you with and that is and exactly where does scripture come up with this.

Because when someone calls in here and says to me they challenge me on the Trinity or predestination or issues like that and says where do you derive that from scripture? Katie bar the door. I'm going to have all sorts of responses to that kind of thing because that to me is the very essence of meaningful biblical theology and meaningful biblical apologetics as well.