Jeff and James Compete, R. Scott Clark Decalvinizes Me, More of Leighton Flowers and Ken Wilson

Greetings welcome to the dividing line. It is a Tuesday. I believe it's hard to keep track of the days, but I know no

It's a Wednesday Yeah, it's Wednesday already. It's the third day. We've done in a row Wow look at that see

Well can't because I've got a flight to Las Vegas tomorrow gonna be driving driving some vehicle down on Friday as My daughter and son -in -law and my grandkids are moving back to Phoenix, and they're gonna be apart

The church and stuff like that so we have stuff going on Shall we say so that's that's why?

We won't be doing anything after this as far as the rest of the week goes don't want to leave you all alone

But I've been talking to a bunch of folks to say they're behind anyway So you know you got used to a certain schedule, and we've been just blowing that up So you know that's that's how that works so we got past Michael Brown It tightened up a little bit toward the end, but it was 64 36

I think on that one and so we're in the final four and in the final four.

I'm up against Jeff Durbin and so Assuming that that's what was what was going to happen we got together and Had a few

Had a few ideas many of the same ideas which was interesting, but we wanted to do something to you know

Keep the brackets interesting and and stuff like that so we put a little something together, and it dropped this morning

I don't know if you've seen it or not But you know what's what's it like when when

Jeff and I? compete with one another and so here's a

Little something enjoyable to start off with and and to record it on another another platform here's

Here's a little competition between Jeff and I for the for the bracket competition is going on right now

Check, huh What but you taught me

Well But I ain't dead yet Won't be long

The question is do you have a chin Oh three debates 174 debates

If I hit your face I win If I stick it in your beard

I win really

All Right you win ninja

I told you I told you Yes, mr..

Miyagi and Daniel son So that makes me mr.. Miyagi I don't look

I guess I look a little bit like he had hair though, and it's sort of Anyway, so yes,

I'm mr. Miyagi and right now. I'm doing pretty well, but Yeah Sort of feeling badly about that actually

Jeff sorry about that but a lot a lot of folks are distracted other things and so you can you can go on Twitter and you can vote and It's on the other side.

It's Jeff and I on this side, so you got two presuppositional reform guys on this side And then you got

Ravi Zacharias and Lee Strobel are The last two on the other side so neither one are reformed and neither one are presuppositional so You know the final brackets gonna be a traditional versus presuppositional matchup one way or the other and So there you go, we'll we'll see how that how that shakes out, and I I'm not sure

When the finals are actually I forgot to look because they're getting a little bit longer So because there's still two days left on Jeff and I so it's like a three -day thing

Which is good because I'm like I said I'm I leave tomorrow and drive back on Friday, and then have to help unload stuff on Saturday And and so I'm gonna be out of it into the end of the weekend so I'm not sure when the when the last round will be will be posted, but It's not like most of us have a whole lot to be doing right now anyways well unless you're in some of the

Industries that are just being beaten to death right now You know if you're a truck driver.

Oh my goodness. We should be doing six three hour programs a week just to keep you

Going with all that you have to do so but for a lot of folks It's sitting around for a lot of other folks is working hard difficult difficult days

Let me show you something that was that I saw This morning was was posted and the only the only reason

I I put this up is You know I expect to get this kind of stuff.

I don't know who this Genevan general guy is But our

Scott Clark we we know the good readout of redoubtable dr. Clark Someone referred to me as a

Calvinist Calvinist. He wouldn't he wouldn't be allowed at the Lord's table in Geneva and Then Geneva in general, and I guess one of the reasons

I didn't see this is because I discovered I had him muted so obviously this isn't the first time we've encountered his kindness

He'd be friends with surveyed us and yell at Calvin. Do you have 100 % perfect discernment?

So Part of it's just humorous. I mean, it's sort of silly Especially because the one guy obviously really does believe what he's saying

I've not seen this Geneva in general guy out doing apologetics

I If he'd like to send me a picture of him being in the audience supporting me while I was debating

Yusuf Ismail in largest mosque in South Africa a few years ago defending the deity of Christ in the

Trinity In that kind of a situation and hence refuting surveyed us and his in fact

Depending on exactly how you interpret surveyed us I've probably debated far more people that hold surveys his position than this guy has ever even met in his life

But hey Keyboard warriors, you know keyboard warriors keyboard warriors The reason

I my attention was drawn to this is of course We've talked about our Scott Clark who has a very very very very very very narrow He's the essence of the

TR movement the truly reformed. We are the not Texas Receptus that gets confusing We are the truly reformed and no one except us we are the truly reformed

But what's really interesting and it's it's a good opportunity for education is the fact that a few years ago right before the 500th anniversary of the

Reformation or at least the traditional dating thereof We were in Berlin with our group that we took to various locations there in Germany in regards to the the

Reformation and the the first night at our hotel in Berlin I I Gave a talk

Extemporaneously, I think all of my presentations were extemporaneously on that particular trip And one of the things that I mentioned just to ask with you it wasn't a big element of what

I said but it's what people picked up on as I said now I'm well aware of the fact that Many of the men that we will be studying will be visiting birth places where they died where they minister and so on so forth would not have extended to meet the right hand of fellowship and in fact would have banished me imprisoned me or even executed me and That shocked almost everyone which shocked me that people were not aware of That historical reality.

One of the things we did on that on that trip was to demythologize the

Reformers and to put them in their proper context because if you do not

Put them in their proper context you will end up with a fictionalized Reformation. You'll end up with a cartoon version and unfortunately, that's what a

Lot of people had in 2017 and continue to have today is a fictionalized false shallow understanding of what was going on back then and Especially what as we stood in the

Vartburg castle Where Fritz Erba was imprisoned and where he died a lot of people had to struggle with the reality of what sacralism is and the narrowness of The thought that sacralism produces and produced at that particular point in time

And we had some people say I just I'll just never really Be able to honor the

Reformers if this is how they were and it's like well be careful. We're looking back

We have a vantage point. They did not have So let's let's be careful

As to what it is we're we're saying about them and And everything like that and Just be careful

Because if you apply too stringent a test, you're gonna end up with no Christians in history It's if you end up with no

Christians in history, you've probably gone just you've just missed it just a little bit so the point is that You know if dr.

Clark wants to say that I'm not a Calvinist I'm not Reformed, you know I'll You know

Lord bless him let him do his thing But There are many many many thousands of people around the world that we've had the opportunity of introducing to Reform theology and at least we have been able to do so in such a way that the foundation of their commitment is a

Foundation focused upon what really defines Reform theology in my opinion. That is your view of God and man and It's based upon Scripture It isn't based upon It takes into consideration the whole realm of history, but it can do so.

Honestly, it doesn't have to whitewash anything We don't have to make the early church fathers into Calvinists We don't have to we don't have to make

Calvin into the perfect person we can we can we can deal with with his issues and Luther's issues and Zwingli's issues and they all had issues and they

They all had beliefs that many Calvinists of whatever stripe would go.

Yeah, I'm not so sure That's a little weird, etc, etc So we can actually allow them to be who they were.

We don't have to play these games of well, you know they were these

Superheroes without any faults. No, they they had their faults And if you aren't aware of them, then when the enemy brings those things up, you're sort of left out much too much to say but What's what is interesting is

When you when you think about the Lord's table in Geneva the context over the conflicts that Calvin had

Regarding the Lord's table in Geneva were based primarily on the fact that Geneva was a form of theocracy and Hence I have

Partaken of the Lord's Supper in many a Presbyterian Church. I I doubt our Scott Clark would allow me to I Mean if he's consistent, he wouldn't he would be allowed to partake at our church

But A lot of the issues that were involved Where Calvin was very strong had to do with Submission to the church elders and the and the pastors and a lot of that just had to do with the fact that it was a a sacral city and so you just reality is you had a bunch of unregenerate people that you were trying to get to act like they're regenerate and We aren't in that situation

Thankfully and therefore we can have a I think a much more biblical and meaningful doctrine of the

Lord's table as as result, but Anyway, so I thought that was

You know, you see weird and strange things on on Twitter and Opportunity to point out and go hey, let's

Let's think about what that is. I obviously do not grant to dr. Clark despite his great exaltedness the right to define these terms and I'll continue using terminology and defending that term that use as I have in the past for years,

I've been saying that There are so many Presbyterians that I know of Who are considerably less consistent with Calvin's doctrine of God than I am that if you focus upon externals and Miss that Okay, whatever.

I was briefly looking at a Video clip

That Is of a he's now an

Eastern Orthodox priest but He studied under a number of Reformed guys and what was interesting was

He made reference to PC USA. Well, okay. In fact

The argument that he put forward first for his reason for converting to Orthodoxy Was that he could see?

that 20 years from now 30 years from now 40 years from now The organizations he was associated with would no longer believe the things they believe today and so he wanted something as he put it why should

I raise my children in a faith that they will not be able to have 50 years from now and Of course a reformed person would say well that's that's externalized the

The the true Church of Christ is going to be here 50 years from now and The the name on the door might be different but the worship is going to be the same and the consistency is found in You know, it's it's like defining apostolic tradition or apostolic succession in the early church you can either externalize that and Connected to sources of authority or you can say the best way to stand an apostolic succession and succession to the

Apostles is to Believe what the Apostles themselves taught So it's an apostolic succession of truth and the same way

We we see that as far as the nature of the church concerned, but the point was this guy

One of the main reasons that he leaves and ends up in the process. Well, it'd be interesting

I don't I didn't watch a whole lot of it didn't have time to watch a lot it would be really really interesting to see what kind of a amalgam in soteriology

That man has how much as has he brought in and how much did he have to get rid of?

when it comes to the issue of Soteriology and because he said he studied under Sproul and Gerstner and a bunch of other people

So anyways, the the point was he was saying that He could see

That part of his reason for you know, reason he left was this malleability this change ability and this was all amongst

Presbyterians and Here I am using you know You know, we're in a confessional church way.

I teach the Catechism in each service. We do a Catechism question in every service and We're it's

Keach's Catechism. It's called the Baptist Catechism Keach's Catechism but it's you know, it's the one Spurgeon used and it's based on the

London Bapst Confession and it's right now we're dealing with the offices of Christ and and and so Who has had more

Fracturing and splintering toward liberalism Pato Baptist or non

Pato Baptist Who are covenant theologians? Throw that one in there because obviously you've got

American Baptists and you've got all sorts of Baptist is not nearly It isn't it weird just thinking here thinking about it

Baptist and Presbyterian What do those describe? Isn't it odd that some of the names that we have really don't they almost assume

The core and then have these external descriptions. So I mean, what does Baptist mean?

What? How Baptists understand baptism is very wide very very wide and there have been tons of heretical groups that have believed in credo baptism tons

Just have been tons of heretical groups have believed in Pato baptism. I mean the form of baptism just you know does tell you something, but it doesn't tell you a whole lot and Presbyterian form of church government elders,

I mean that doesn't even There there's all sorts of variations within that. It's it's strange that the the words that have ended up being attached are

Frequently not all that useful in defining what the real issues are it's

It's interesting to consider some of those those aspects. But anyway so if you if you have been

Concerned that I've been accused of being a Calvinist you now have Reason to not worry about that because our

Scott Clark has has said I'm not a Calvinist So so all those all those accusations down through the years you can just now

Dismiss them and and not worry about them at all. And I think that's that's a good thing.

So Anyhow, let's get back to our our audio here

And If you if you if you notice

I'm slightly distracted I have

My daughter's undergoing a medical procedure right now and Waiting to get good word from that.

And so if you don't mind as stuff comes in right now The The apologia guys are chatting it up on our whatsapp thing so that's that's not it but I'm just sort of watching for you know, the little text that says she's out.

She's good. Everything is okay, you know that that helps you to Take a deep breath and and move on from there.

So I would hope that you would grant me that That opportunity.

All right, so I had somebody tell me yesterday and he'll know who he is, excuse me

That I froze their brain yesterday Look I understand that Sometimes the discussion of church history can get rather deep and I understand that if you are

Just trying to keep house and home together And especially if you are

Wasting away in Panicsville, that was you know, but you know waste away in Margaritaville and Panicsville The last thing you want to think about is

Manichaeism or Docetism or Gnosticism or Stoic philosophy though Stoic philosophy actually has a few things to say to the current situation if you're familiar with it

I get that at the same time. There are other people that are sort of like man It's nice to have something to think about that has some eternal value and isn't all about the same stinking thing

You know if people just sitting around watching television watching the news Wow, is that that no, that's a no bad bad bad idea get out take a walk

You know, if you see a drone coming, you know, you might want to hide behind a tree or something in certain states or Nations as they are in in the

UK but It's getting warm here in Phoenix could be in the mid to upper 80s this week

So, I mean, there's just no better place to be Virologically speaking

Then out in the warmth. I mean that stuff doesn't like ultraviolet radiation. So that's best best place in the world to be

Despite the fact that the government says don't go there. It is the best place in the world to be Well, some of our our government is of many minds so who knows but Yeah, don't sit around listening to that stuff

But if you do want to listen to something, hopefully this will give you a lot of interesting information now Sometime over the past number of days, maybe all the way back on Monday.

Maybe it's last week. I forget Rich was telling me that the Lutherans were all mad at Wilson now

Which Wilson? I'm like, okay. What did Doug do now to get the get the

Lutherans mad at him? And it wasn't Doug Wilson. It was Ken Wilson and The Lutherans the

Lutherans are mad mad at the Wilson ins and then so I'm like, what are you talking about?

and so he sent me this thing over and There were some Lutherans one in particular

Who were really going after the stuff that has been said in this particular book right here and I got in touch with the fellow and He Set me up with hours worth of stuff to read

Just in what he sent me yesterday afternoon into this morning Which I haven't had time to do so because of everything else going on and won't have time to for a while But you know, he's been working on this subject for months and he's sending me pages of Ambrose and origin and Jerome and saying hey look

Now his focus is much more narrow than mine is his focus is in What we're sort of hearing

Wilson saying right now Ken Wilson saying right now in regards to Augustine's doctrine of baptism and how novel and new it ended up being and He's saying

Not only is that? transparently untrue and here's the documentation But he's saying and look these references came straight from Ken Wilson's book

Here's the actual page he's either left part of the quote out or gave you the exact opposite what the quote actually said and He's going this is this is just really bad.

And so I've been looking at something going well You know, I want to be able to verify all that stuff and And and check it all out, but there's some folks doing some digging going uh -uh and obviously

If the statement is made look no one understood John 3 5 the way Augustine did before Augustine that is transparently untrue that Everybody should know that But anyway, so once we get into reviewing portions of the book itself

That will obviously come to play there, but we are listening to an interview that took place in 2018 and The reason we're listening to the interview is it's easier to do in the book actually and it also establishes what the actual thesis of the dissertation is because the interview was written before this book was written in Fact from what is said in the interview this book had not been thought of yet So if Ken Wilson says

X in this interview and X is here Then there is a direct connection established and you can't you can't go.

Well, you can't review that book That's I just doesn't really represent the other book. Well, actually it does So that's what we're listening to.

So let's get back into where we left off Listening to the 2018 interview

Leighton Flowers and Ken Wilson And so he said what's the difference between the two?

It can only be the providence of God. Okay, I'm sorry So he's he's talking about two children

In Augustine's teaching one is not One dies before baptism the other is baptized before death one goes to heaven one goes to hell

That's what he's saying is is Augustine's Context of his argument and so he said what's the difference between the two?

It can only be the providence of God Then God decides whether a baby is saved or not saved on Based on whether that baby gets to the pot and he's the one who controls the circumstances

Therefore it's not the human will that can save you it only appeals for good or only appeals for evil

So God is the one who decides it has nothing to do with the human person And that's the way he justified his argument was through infant baptism now

The connection between Augustine's doctrine of baptism and those who went before him is important because what he's saying is

Augustine is developing his doctrine of baptism Having gone back to Manichaeism for his interpretation of all the rest of stuff specifically divine determinism

Etc, etc and that this is seen in what prompted the argument with Pelagius in regards to the subject of baptism therefore if In fact you can demonstrate that there were people before Augustine that had the same view of Baptism that Augustine did that you're not claiming were

Manichaean and you can't establish any type of relationship between themselves and Manichaeism Then obviously the thesis fails at that particular point is is basically what some of the discussion going on is all about Huh, so the the debate wasn't really about so much about Calvinism Arminianism as we know it today, obviously because it's obviously

Achronistic and in the sense of that's not until years later obviously, but the whole debate did he say achronistic?

Okay. All right. It's anachronistic, but I Huh? Oh, okay.

All right. Well we have with Tulip the sociology That's not really what

Pelagius and Augustine originally were debating. They were really dealing with the issue of Corruption of the of the nature of the child from birth

And and what to do with the corrupt nature and whether you baptize them or not So it seems to be

Pelagius therefore regardless of what we think about plagiarist today or what we believed. He was actually siding with many of us who hold to credo baptism today or to baptism of believers today

No No, he no he wasn't I I Again have not read too much on the subject of Pelagius's doctrine of baptism, but it was

It was not Baptist in the modern sense of Baptist and in fact, there's a fair amount of discussion concerning Pelagians and their perspectives and the fact that after the days of Pelagius they

Were forced to agree because they believe in infant baptism, but they were forced to agree after Pelagius's death with the idea that Baptism was for regeneration

So they They were not doing the southern Baptist way of baptism.

Okay to try to say yeah he was actually on our side with all that is again to engage in a

Extreme level of anachronism and transportation of context that is highly invalid

You're exactly right. So Augustine's the one that came up with baptismal regeneration that that is self -evident for them

Nobody else before then really articulated that way. Okay, then that's what

The Lutherans are taking apart. I've already read enough to realize well knew this already especially look at John 3 5

That that's just simply I Don't even know where you get that. I I don't

I suppose I could see how you get a THM and Not have really dealt with church history enough to know one way or the other on this but there are so many references that Once we get into it in the book if we you know get that far in the book

Can be provided that demonstrate that that's just simply not the case Not even not even close and but dr.

Wilson is very very very confident about his statement And so you're right playus didn't understand

The baby being born as damned. He thought that they went to heaven because they had not sinned and so Everybody else believed that too.

He had some other issues, but at least he was right on that that aspect See that and the thing that should be catching our attention.

The thing should catch your attention is When someone says and everybody else believe that too, this is not how serious historians speak

Just just go listen to There's some there's some great church history series is that you can go listen to and a a serious historian will say things a a

Serious historian siri serious, yeah see Turned upside down the problem is it upside down that I can't see which what yours yes

I yours if you ever say something about Google it will so yeah Yeah, that's right well, it's listening to you all the time anyway, so don't worry about what were we talking about a serious historian

Will be very careful To say that something along the lines of As far as Extant records indicate the majority of contemporary writers

Seem to view this subject in this way while this writer seemed to take another perspective. So that's that's the balanced careful way

What you get with? This material is everybody This is brand -new no one had ever thought of this before and when you use that kind of language you're begging for refutation

You're begging for someone to come along and say well look at what origin said back here and look at what amber said over here and Now, you know since you've laid it all out that way

You you end up getting refuted. And so one must be very careful with one's language but What this does is ends up forming?

an argument from authority because of how the interview began and What you what you really have going on is well this guy went to Oxford everybody goes

Oxford's really really brilliant well That's not actually the case any longer.

It never really was fully the case, but it's certainly not the case any longer Unfortunately, I wish

I wish that it I wish that it were but anyway from Adams decision in the garden

Would that be an accurate assessment? Exactly laden and that's the Manichaean view it came right out of Manichaeism That's not a

Christian view and Augustine with his ten years picked that up and brought it into Christianity to fight the plague

I from I must have I'm sorry. I must have Messed up the color -coding there.

Let's see what the context was there because it's important because here is now Wilson saying this is the

Manichaean view has been brought into Christianity So remember Manichaeism Fundamentally dualistic no single deity who's the creator of all things a mixture of Buddhism Zoroastrianism Gnosticism and Christianity a true jumble of of things and So let's let's see what the context was here.

They are of an age where they can give an account They are responsible which means there they have the ability to respond willingly or unwillingly to God's appeals

And therefore they're held responsible for their choices. That's what I mean about it. That's what most people Generally speaking intuitively would think of the word is responsible, but yes and I got an

Augustinian as taught by Him later in his life Or a Calvinist says well no no no late

We believe men are responsible to they don't mean that what they mean is that men can't respond willingly or positively to God's offers

But they're still culpable or held guilty because of the imputed guilt

From Adams decision in the garden would that be an accurate assessment? Okay now that this is important Because this gets us to Romans chapter 5 it gets us to federal headship

And this is a discussion of Christian theology. This is talking about how

God deals this creation There is no way to address that particular subject within Manichaeism because you don't have a single

God You don't have the one God who creates all things just like you don't have one

Jesus. You've got multiple Jesus's okay, so Maybe this illustration will help

When we go out and witness to Mormons as we have done for decades We sometimes would discuss

Issues like the first vision we ever gonna see those first vision tracks. It's not like we really have to rush them right now, but Bound touch is good

We would have tracks on False prophecies of Joseph Smith or the first vision or things like that But we recognize that those were issues that we're trying to use to get back to the key foundational issues and when you talk with Mormons you want to talk about who

God is who Christ is and what the gospel is, but even then What we realized was when you try to get around to the gospel with Mormons and they have a

God Who is an exalted man from another planet? The biblical gospel is too big

For a God who's exalted from another planet That that's that's an insufficient basis for grace.

You can't talk about grace if you've got a God who Himself had to be the recipient of grace at some point in the past and So there's there's was even a hierarchy there

You've got to talk to the Mormon about who God is you've got to present them with the the God who who created all things and so in the same way

Since since you need to have that foundation to give meaning to the discussion of soteriology

In this situation You have to have the one true God of Scripture to give meaning to a discussion of such things as Adam, Adam's nature, federal headship, the application of God's law

The whole concept of Guilt All of these things are being used in a

Christian context a monotheistic Trinitarian Christian context You cannot transfer that to Manichaeism Because everything ends up becoming redefined just as in Mormonism all the language that we use is

Redefined by the polytheism of Mormonism and the fact that God's an exalted man that we're all the same nature as God That results in a redefinition of what eternal life means what exaltation means what glorification means it changes everything

Because the foundations are different well the foundation of Manichaeism and Christianity are completely different So if you just pick up The terms out of a

Christian context and then try to map them over to Manichaeism without changing the language

You're you're you're gonna be twisting everything. There is no basis in Manichaeism For the demonstration of the glory of God Through The creation of the cosmos and the redemptive process and the vindication of God because of the incarnation and there's

You can't put that into a dualistic worldview along with Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, okay?

So if you just pick that stuff up so a careful scholar should hear Leighton flower is saying all of that and Should say no, this is this is not

Okay, she's out ready to come home. Yeah That's good. That's good to see This is not this is not a valid question

Because we're crossing categories that should be the response to Leighton flowers here should be

Leighton You're you're you're you're mixing categories. You're mixing language. It's it it will inevitably create confusion

That's not what you get because Leighton's confusion has been created by reading Ken Wilson's book Because it's

Ken Wilson who has the same confusion And that's what we that's what we hear here Exactly Leighton and that's the

Manichaean view. It came right out of Manichaeism That's not a Christian view and Augustine with his ten years picked that up and brought it into Christianity to fight the plague so There's your assertion.

I This is the only gentleman I know of who has this theory this thesis

All the serious historians I know recognize the need for having categorical thought and contextual thought and a recognition that You you just can't this is invalid transfer of terminology

But there you go There's there's there's what we're looking at now.

I've often argued that Pelagius is kind of become the boogeyman of of the deterministic

You know line of Christian thought in other words Those who have kind of lined up with Augustine have done a really good job at painting all of us

In the really bad a really bad light maybe even maligning a little bit of what Pelagius himself taught

Based upon some of the readings I have from him he does say that we need divine aid that we need help of God and This is a whole long section of seeking to rehabilitate

Pelagius I'll just leave that out there. Let you go now, let's

Let's be consistent. I have pointed out the fact that That We can there is serious discussion

About Nestorius in church history Nestorianism is considered a heresy and once something is attached to someone's name

Then the tendency of history is not to read That Person's material fairly or even allow it to survive

Actually, so a lot of heretics. We only know What their heresy was not all but a lot of heretics

We only know what their heresy was by secondary sources now. I don't know about you But would you want to be defined by how people represent you on Twitter?

me either so there is There is good reason

To consider the possibility that Nestorius was not actually a

Nestorian and That the heresy is an imbalanced application of concerns that Nestorius had

Related to Christology and specifically the term Theotokos The same thing may well be true of Pelagius There is no reason

Because look reformed people believe what they believe because they exegete the Bible consistently Okay And so that would be demonstrated by a debate

Between myself and Ken Wilson on the doctrine of election in the Bible okay, so we could do that one first before we get in the weeds of other weird stuff and I I'm confident what the outcome of that would be.

We are reformed because Not because we there is such thing as a Manichean interpretation of scripture because we don't have a

Manichean interpretation None of us are influenced by Zoroastrianism Buddhism and Gnosticism as the foundation of a historical grammatical

Interpretation of the text of the Greek New Testament So that's

You can put off to the side And not worry about that But what we're

What we're hearing here and let me let me just Remind you of why

I stopped right here. He does say that we need divine aid that we need help of so Pelagius says we need divine aid

Joseph Smith did too But in what context See when you try to determine

Joseph Smith's understanding We have so much more So much. I mean, we've got a ton because we're nice and close and he lived during a period of documentation

What we know about Pelagius Really depends upon epistles and letters and you might say well, those are those are helpful.

They are But One thing is for certain most of the time

When we are reading epistles and letters from people, they're they're brief and Very often and the author is assuming that the reason the person's writing in the first place

They've already read some of the other their books, which mean that we may not have anymore so You know, we have an entire collection of Calvin's epistles and letters as well

Great insights into building a historiography of that particular individual that that's important stuff but Calvin himself made it clear if you want to know

I believe you read the Institutes first and then you interpret everything else my commentaries my sermons my letters in light of What I have written in the

Institutes Not not everybody was quite that nice and straight up front and helping us to do that kind of thing

So is it possible? That Pelagius was not as Pelagian as later

Generations would say it is and Is that worthwhile looking into if you're doing church history and doing a

PhD in Pelagius? obvious But that's not And the problem the problem is when people do when people look into church history and Don't have access to a lot of the original

Well, not not an original sources very very few people have access to original sources as in the

TLG or Patrilogia Latinae or whatever else it might be the writings the early fathers in Latin Greek and then

Even then some of that stuff has not been translated into English and and some of it hasn't been collated.

So But even if people have the the English translate the shaft set

The the 38 volume set from used to be from Erdmann's now is from Hendrickson That's still only a window that's still not a that's still not everything

By and and I don't know of almost anyone who's actually read all of it. There are there there are some

That's just what they do. That's they they don't do anything else. That's what they do is they sit around reading literature writers

And that's great that's fine but the the reality is we

Only have a certain amount of information that's why we have to be so careful And so we don't have to defend the idea that Pelagius was

Identical to what was I attributed to him 300 years later. That's That's not why

I believe what I believe So you can be open to You know, maybe maybe

Pelagius had some other perspectives or something The issue is the guy who just who's saying this

Has written an article saying you don't even need to have prevenient grace

That you are capable just the way you are without grace to be able to respond responsibly

To the gospel, that's really where the issue Should be joined very frequently isn't but again more thoughts to help us have a balanced understanding of Church history and Several of his teachings and so I've always been taught that Pelagius believed that he was we were born

Good and without any problem. We don't need any of God's help and that we can do all these good things But reading

Pelagius he never at least from what I read he never said that and it seems as if the common practice of that day is if somebody was deemed a heretic or Whatever they would they would often burn you and your your writings and so much of what we have from Pelagius didn't survive

And so it he seemed to become this boogeyman almost like Hitler's a boogeyman He's a bad character

And so like in the political world if I can link Donald Trump to Hitler if I can link Barack Obama to Hitler Then I can make a case look that guy said something that Hitler said once he's a bad character

And we can do the same thing to Pelagius. We can say look at what Pelagius believed He was a bad character and those dirty

Armenians or those dirty provisionist of those Southern Baptist traditionalist those grace guys over there

Those those those guys are teaching things that sound a lot like what Pelagius taught

Therefore they're Pelagian or there now I just we know what Layton's complaining about here

But did you catch the the groups he put together there? There was there was one

Part there that I wanted to catch did you catch he said the grace guys Do you know who they are?

because remember Wilson teaches for a Seminary that is that was marked by Anti lordship no repentance

And they call themselves the grace guys or you know free grace we call a cheap grace, but anyway

So he's there there the provisionists are are making allies out there

Which would require them I guess to be friendly toward the idea that yeah repentance is not

Actually a requirement of Salvation I'm wondering

How that fits there's a lot of Southern Baptist to buy that stuff. So I you know, maybe maybe demiglage and if nothing else

They're bogeymen Could we not turn that around? I mean legitimately could we not if we were practicing the same principle?

Could we not call them semi Gnostics? No, you couldn't not logically Because one's doctrine of God is

Fundamentally definitional of everything else that a person says and this again is where Some experience outside of the

United States with world religions would be helpful In the context of recognizing

How vastly different it is to deal with a polytheistic religion than is deal with a monotheistic religion that that will change definitions of absolutely everything that you're talking about and so to Take a

Form and again Gnostics Wide variety of beliefs no systematic theology if you can even meaningfully discuss the idea of determinism as a

Gnostic Idea. Well, for example Part of the argument of Wilson's book is the

Stoics the Gnostics the Manichaeans were all determinists What does that mean? the problem is while the

Gnostic and Manichaean Concepts will be at least somewhat related because Manny is plainly drawing from Gnosticism, but then modifying that stuff

The Stoic understanding of determinism and the Gnostic understand are not the same.

I mean if you're gonna be honest if you're gonna be scholarly if you're gonna be accurate if you're gonna be contextual then you have to recognize there are differences and that what that would then force you to do is to recognize the universe of difference between the concept of God's sovereign decree and A mechanistic determinism as you have for example in most of the major forms of Stoicism and then even then now you're gonna have to distinguish greatly between that and the

Essene community at Qumran You'll see why

I'm emphasizing that later That is seen in Book of Discipline and the other other materials from Dead Sea Scrolls which plainly is deeply influenced by something called the

Hebrew scriptures and Hence is not mechanistic. Now. What's it? What's a mechanistic concept of determinism?

Well, it would be something along the lines that there are laws of cause and effect that rule the physical universe and And that since everything is cause and effect and these laws determine what which way things are gonna go then

It's not that there is an external mind That is revealing itself and ordering things it is the nature of of the created universe itself

That contains within itself Immutable laws that make it deterministic

So there are scientists today who are deterministic in that sense they may be atheists, but they're determinists because they believe that what we're gonna do or gonna be is completely determined by our

Material surroundings because there's nothing else to determine by anyways Okay that is

Again a universe removed from the

Christian doctrine the biblical doctrine That God works all things after the counsel of his will

The God who works all things after the counsel of his will that's personal That is self revelatory

That is self glorifying that involves the incarnation That involves the outpouring of the spirit

That involves the demonstration of the Attributes of that personal triune

God to the creation None of which has any correspondence to either the

Stoic system or To Gnosticism because you don't have a God who can do any of those things in Gnosticism So if you're trying to make a connection

That is meaningful. You're not going to be building it here. It's just simply not possible, but that's exactly

What we're encountering that's exactly what we're dealing with in this kind of Assertion being made by Ken Wilson repeated by Layton flowers and becoming a evidently of an essential part of the definition of Provisionism whatever in the world that is the current form of We can't argue reform theology on the text and so we'll introduce this guy's now so Hopefully you're starting to see hopefully

I'm Communicating to you the importance of Being able to see context and to keep proper categories and to be accurate in your representation as best you possibly can be even with people you disagree with and Not make these types of invalid connections believe me apologetics books are

That this is one of the greatest problems with apologetics Quick illustration, we'll go a minute or two over Illustration of this we have

For Decades Unfortunately Been separated

From other ministries some some other ministries not all some other ministries Because we have insisted upon This concept of being accurate in your representation and accurate in your use of language and so When The second

Godmakers film came out we were a tiny little ministry

I mean we couldn't really even stand on our own two feet But We were committed in principle to accurately representing what

Mormonism says and There was stuff in the second film that just wasn't accurate and we came out and said it and made ourselves pariahs for so doing

Because you can't provide a truthful critique of Mormonism when you're being untruthful in the arguments that you're using

Or you're using double standards so that when the smart Mormon comes back at you and comes at your faith

Using the same type of arguments you're using against theirs You know, you see how that works.

And so we've attempted to be very very consistent about this all along Apologetics books do very often contain argumentation where you take

Language is defined in one context and You artificially apply it to another context and create a false

Connection a false synthesis and then make an argument based upon that that unfortunately is something

That you do find in apologetics works and and if I've done it, I apologize, but I'm not aware of it

There's something I have always sought to not do and to model for others not to do the same thing

Because it's the only way to be consistent and careful and accurate and We want we demand that of others.

We say to others you need to be accurate and Therefore we have to do the same thing.

All right, so with that as I said Normally there would be a program tomorrow and so on so forth, but we're not gonna be able to do that this week

So the plan would be to be back with you as quick as we can Next week something tells me that something's probably gonna happen between now and next

Monday that the you know Just at least one thing at least one thing is gonna happen between now and Monday I mean when you have the government literally saying

That you're going to have 100 to 250 thousand deaths in the next two weeks

Something's gonna happen. Yeah, something's something's something's gonna take place But hey

We continue to serve the Lord who is on his throne and none of this has taken him by surprise took us all by surprise at least the specifics of a one of many kovat viruses, but still