SRR #50 | Answering Questions Christians Have For Other Christians Prt 2

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast.

Folks, these are wolves. Truth be told, I oftentimes lay awake at night trying to figure out how I can get rid of wolves.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as fashion is itself fashion. It's not hate. It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible. Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

As opposed to, blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

Part Two of Last Week’s Questions and the Email About Synergism

Alright, I want to welcome everybody back to Simple Riff around the radio. Basically, this is part two from last week and we are going to pick up with the video that we were watching last week. The questions that Christians have for other Christians.

And we're going to play that in a little bit. But we have Carlos with us who's able to join us from the beginning on this episode. Carlos is our other co-host and Joseph is our other co-host. They're both here with me now.

So, one of the things that I wanted to do with Carlos Montijo was read a couple of emails. So, we got an email from Adrian Clark. I don't know if that guy is related to Gordon Clark, but that would be awesome if he was.

I don't think he is because he didn't say anything about it. But he says thank you for your ministry. Greetings from Spirit of Life Church in Bristol, UK. So, man, I'm just so grateful and I thank God that we're speaking to somebody in Bristol, the United Kingdom.

I mean, that's pretty, I think that's pretty awesome. So, thank God for modern technology that can be used for the glory of God. We pray that this ministry would continue to do that. I'm very grateful for all of the contributors that we have on this podcast, all of the co-hosts.

You know, it's been a wonderful blessing. We are planning on doing an interview with Tom Geodatis from the Trinity Foundation. I hope that I said his name right. I may not have. And then I'm also hoping to interview somebody from the Berean Beacon, which is a ministry of Richard Bennett.

And we've talked about him in the past. We're hoping to get on some guys who do street evangelism and interview them. I think that's going to be great. So, we're really planning ahead and we're looking to promote other people.

We're looking to promote other ministries. We're just so grateful for what God has done. And so, with all that being said, we wanted to go ahead and read another email. Carlos, did you want to lead us into this?

Sure, yeah. I don't know why this is so hard. This whole synergism and monergism stuff, it shouldn't be that difficult. But we got, I guess, a sort of complaint email from Chris Harris of the Council of Google Plus about our comments on episode 47.

We were showing people, showing our listeners that Paul's statements about conversion being synergistic, being very misleading and just not a good way to explain things from the monergistic perspective, which is a Calvinist or Reform perspective.

And so, he kind of explained this in the email. So, I'll just go ahead and start reading it. So, he says, in your episode, number 47, recently you guys accused Paul Kaiser, who was from Conversations from the Porch, of putting forth synergism in the system.

I think he meant the Reformed Ordo Salutis. This was untruthful. I found it rather concerning that Carlos would continue to conflate the term synergistic with the system of synergism. Like when Carlos at the 103 mark in the episode suggests that to use the term synergistic in relation with conversion somehow would mean that one is affirming that faith precedes regeneration.

What? Paul never once implied the theological system of synergism. And again, I think, I don't know if, I'm just going to comment here, we can comment here, because the email's a little bit long. So, he said that I was conflating the term synergistic with the system of synergism, and that's actually, that was actually our entire point.

It's not me who was conflating it, it was Paul. First of all, anybody who knows basic English, and I'm not doing this to insult Chris or anything,.

But.

If you know and understand English, synergistic is just the adjective form of the noun synergism, so I mean, or synergist. So, I mean, I don't see what the point is there, because we made our point very clear that Paul was trying to describe the correct view, but using synergism to describe monergism is actually extremely misleading and inappropriate, because synergism means something completely different.

Right, yeah, it's pretty funny, because he put up a Facebook post, and he said, listening to SRR47, this was public, it was a Facebook post, and he says, you guys are at around the 54 mark to find synergistic with the theological belief of synergists.

Why? For the very same reason synergistic is just the adjective form of the noun synergism, and so I would submit that you would have to redefine synergism, or provide your own definition for synergism if you want to define it in a way that is different from what has traditionally been known as the theological system of synergism.

To me, it was pretty baffling, but.

He.

Did accuse us of twisting what Paul said. I asked him for a direct quote that would show that we did twist what Paul said. I don't think that we twisted what Paul said. I pointed out to him that you said, at the 59 minute mark, around the 45 seconds, you said Vincent put his finger on the problem, because he said, maybe we have a different understanding of synergistic, because synergism is the Arminian view.

Then you went on to say, I do think Paul was perhaps explaining the right position but using the wrong terms to explain it. I tried to point out to him that we didn't twist what Paul said. The other thing is he gave us Berkoff.

He wanted us to read Louis Berkoff, because he thinks that Louis Berkoff supports the view that conversion is synergistic. What I got from that is that Berkoff actually doesn't use the word synergistic in support of the Reformed view, but when Berkoff uses the term synergistic, it's in the negative sense.

He actually talks about it being the Arminian view, if I remember correctly. You sent the quotes. We were reading through Berkoff and we even thought that Berkoff may have contradicted himself a little bit because he talks about...

We can read the quotes right now. We're going to read the quotes. Before we dive too much into that, I did want to say something more generally about this whole back and forth discussion. I'm getting a little bit tired of this.

I'm getting really tired of having to re-say or re-state what we actually said and people twisting everything that we're saying. It's getting very annoying and it's just sloppy for people to make these claims and these accusations that are not true.

I'm going to commend or I would encourage Mr. Harris to listen more carefully to what we're saying and to be more careful. If you're trying to address a concern from us, actually represent what we're saying accurately because that's not true.

Like what you just said, you gave the timestamps and you... We've made it very clear what our problem is. You should not use the term synergism to describe monergism. Plain and simple. We gave you the definition...

You should not use the term synergistic because you said synergism.

Yeah, it doesn't matter. You shouldn't use any of it to describe monergism or the monergistic view. It's the same thing. I think that's a word concept fallacy.

Actually.

Yeah, I know. I'm just... Oh man, it's so frustrating because it's like... I could just hear them saying like, you said synergism and we're saying synergistic and there's a difference. It's so frustrating and yeah, there might be a word concept fallacy in there.

That's actually... That's really good. I didn't think about that, but go ahead.

Because it's referring to the same thing and what the problem is that what Paul is doing, he's trying to redefine the terms outside of their historical and theological context. And so, even in the sense that you described, that he was trying to describe synergism, we do not cooperate with God in our conversion.

Plain and simple. It's not synergistic. Conversion is not synergistic because God gives us faith. He gives us repentance. Both are gifts from God as the Bible clearly states and we simply respond by faith and repentance because God gives it to us first.

It's not a cooperation. It's just not a cooperation in the first place at all. So, we will gladly take Chris to task on this. You know, and what's also a little bit irritating is that, you know, him taking issue with what we're saying and at the same time not really being at all concerned with the fact, with the false the twisting of my motives and false claims that I supposedly made that, you know, Pastor Paul and Ryan made about me and my motives and my...

Yeah, and I pointed that out to him. I said, you know, if you're going to be consistent and be griping about us, you know, you should also be, you know, pointing out what they're doing.

It's hypocritical.

Yeah, it is hypocritical. So, here's the thing.

It's not...

What did you say?

Just that we would submit that to, you know, Brother Chris, that is hypocritical to make that claim because what he's actually saying is false about us.

And not only that, but look, we actually provided the quotations of what they actually said and he's not done that. He's not provided the quotations. So, I was pretty irritated by that. So, the other thing is, it is very misleading for you to use the word synergistic and then find fault with us if we think that you're implying any form of synergism.

As if we are the ones who have the problem here. It's like, well, then don't use the term synergistic if you don't want it to be confused with synergism. And look, we don't think that Paul is purporting the Arminian view, you know, the whole system of synergism.

We think that he's trying to say the right thing, but he's using the wrong term. And here's the problem. If you're going to use that term, what do you think people are going to think when you use the term synergistic?

Hold on, just real quick.

Synergism. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, the words have meaning. And it's like, oh, we're at fault because you're using the adjective of a noun that you don't want us to use the noun. I mean, it's like, what are you doing?

You're making a mess of this. Just don't use that word. You're making a mess of this. Alright, so anyways, did you...

I'll keep reading.

The email.

So he continues and says, I too am a supralapsarian, that is, but would readily affirm that conversion entails an aspect of synergism. This view doesn't hurt Reformed theology in the least, nor does it entail that one holds to the theological system of synergism.

Let's not conflate the term with the system. Did you know that classical Arminians would readily affirm that prevenient grace is a monergistic work of God? That doesn't mean that they affirm the theological system of monergism, it just means that even they would affirm that God works unilaterally at times.

It's like, oh, man, this was so bad. This is just getting worse. So we kind of already talked about this a little bit, but here... and this is why we actually took... we did take issue with what Paul was trying to explain or was trying to define because that is incorrect to say that we cooperate with God in our conversion.

We do not. We've made that clear already. Right. We cooperate.

With God because of our conversion. We do not cooperate with God in our conversion. Our cooperation of God is not what brings us through conversion. It is because of what God has done. He has given us the gift of faith.

He has given us the gift of repentance that we are then able to do these things and it is because He has converted us. So, this point needs to be emphatically clear. We cooperate with God because of conversion or as a result of conversion.

We do not cooperate with God in our conversion because we add nothing.

To it. Right. This is why it seems like he wants to be able to have his cake and eat it too. It's like a three-point Calvinist. They like the idea of being something of a Calvinist but don't adhere to all of it.

To say you cooperate with God in salvation in any way and then say that you're monergistic is just to contradict yourself. You can't say you hold on to both of those things about let's employ the laws of logic and the law of non-contradiction and then be done with it because what you're saying is contradictory.

It refutes itself. You can't have both. And so if you hold to that, you're not saying something that's true. You're just contradicting yourself.

Yeah.

I'm not sure I follow the point. The classical Arminianism would affirm that prevenient grace is monergistic. That doesn't mean that they affirm the theological system of monergism. It's like, okay, I'm not following you because despite the fact that they held to that, the Synod of Dort still condemned the Arminians as a heresy and they kicked everybody out or excommunicated everybody who held to it.

So I don't understand the point. I don't even know how that's relevant to be honest. It's like, it's very dangerous what they are doing and we're showing why. The Reformed theologians who they are trying to appeal to, none of them use the term synergism to describe their monergistic view and it's for a pretty good reason.

And we've pointed that out already. It's like people aren't listening to our show or it's like people just aren't getting it or I don't know what it is. You need to look at what this stuff actually means because when you start describing conversion as a synergistic process, you start to sound like Philip Melanchthon and his Arminian compromise that led to a very dangerous compromising form of Lutheranism that really affected them negatively because he basically claimed that there's three concurrent causes in conversion.

That it was the Word of God, that it was the Spirit of God and that it was human will. And that's essentially what synergism means. That your human will is cooperating with God in conversion and that's not true.

It's just not true. It's false. Stop saying that. It's wrong. You're wrong. So stop saying that.

Right, yeah. And also, you know, you said that Reformed theologians don't use the term synergistic and we would, again, just point out that even, or Chris was pointing out, pointing us to Louis Burkhoff, I don't see him using the term synergistic favorably.

Yeah, he only uses the term twice in his entire systematic theology and in both senses he uses it in a negative sense because he's attributing, he's using the term as it's always been understood in the Arminian sense which is what a careful theologian.

Does. Right.

So, I mean, it's kind of reckless to do that. To just pick up terms like that out of their historical theological sense, definitional sense and then try to redefine them.

To.

Describe the very view that's the exact opposite of what it's, it's the exact opposite of what the term means. You know, so. Right. I'll just finish reading the quote here and then we can get a little bit more into our arguments.

Yeah, so he finishes by saying your name implies that you are always reforming. Show that and look into this more. Dig into the implications in John 1 .11 through 13. John makes the clear distinction that between being born of God, 1 .13 and conversion, 1 .12 and that being born of God entails no act of man, no act of man's will, but that conversion, receiving, believing, is an act of man's will and as such entails a cooperative work in conversion.

That is a total contradiction. Because John 1 .13 actually specifically says that it was not by the will of man. And he actually misdefined conversion as well because he said receiving and believing. I'm not sure.

It sounded like he was trying to define conversion as receiving and believing, but the historical theological definition of the term means repentance and faith. So, I mean, we do not cooperate with God in our conversion.

That's not Reformed at all. That's not what the Bible teaches us. And John 1 .13 actually contradicts you. So, why is this so hard?

You know? Yeah. So, Carlos, I think that he's caught up with the idea that Birkhoff says that we cooperate with God in our conversion. We wouldn't agree with that. And we would actually say that Birkhoff contradicts himself because he says that man is passive.

I'm looking for that quotation. If you have it, that would be great. Do you remember we talked about that? I'm trying to look it up right now.

Yeah. Let me just... Actually, Tim, if you want, if you can finish reading his email and I'll.

Look for the quotes. I actually don't know where you left off. Okay.

I found the quote. Yeah. Let me just... I'll just finish reading it. Okay. So, he says, this in no way entails that man adds anything to his conversion because we readily agree that faith is a gift of God.

Okay, so then stop describing it as synergistic. Because if you say that we cooperate in conversion, then that does describe some level of merit or credit or necessary act from man in order to get to conversion.

Again, the Reformed faith does not hold to a synergistic view of conversion. That's just simply wrong. Anyway, so he continues, we simply affirm that man exercises this gift of faith. He is not a robot.

This same view is played out in sanctification in that we perform the works, although the works are not wrought from within ourselves, which entails a synergistic aspect in sanctification. And again, this is why we...

If you go back to episode 47 and listen to what we actually said, we describe that that chart, that little chart that Pastor Paul had brought up, was actually very misleading because it shows God and man both under conversion and sanctification as if it was sort of in the same sense.

And that again, it's very misleading. It's false and it's not the Reformed view. It's not correct to say that. To say that in the same way in our sanctification, we're cooperating with God to be sanctified just as in conversion, we cooperated with God to get to conversion.

Okay? And that's not what he's saying, but it's a contradiction. You can't use it in the same sense at all.

Right. What I find sort of difficult to hear is that we're saying that this is not the Reformed view. And then, Chris, I thought he was an NCT guy.

Yeah, he sounded like it to me too. I was.

Surprised. And then he says, no, I'm Reformed Baptist. And I'm like, oh, well...

You could have fooled me,.

That's for sure. Yeah, and not only that, but it's like, well, just because you're Reformed Baptist doesn't mean you're accurately representing the Reformed position on this. So... Right. Some people might be tempted to say, oh, look, we found a Reformed Baptist who, you know, a Reformed guy who agrees with us.

It's like, well, so what? It's, you know, false appeal to authority there. But, oh, let's go ahead and dig into that little inconsistency that we.

Found. Even though we still stand on everything that we said, and we did our homework, and we presented the arguments very clearly, very plainly, and there is no question that Reformed theologians do not use the term synergism to describe the Reformed view.

Okay? And even in the sense of sanctification, it's misleading. Because it implies that we're cooperating with God to sanctify ourselves, but really, it's God who sanctifies us, it's not us. So that in itself is misleading.

Even in sanctification. Because sure, the Bible says to exercise yourselves into godliness, so there is a level that we, you can say in some sense that, yeah, okay, we should practice ourselves into godliness or into sanctification, because what we do does hinder our sanctification.

It can hinder or it can be an aid to that, in the sense that, well, yeah, if you don't read your Bible, you're not going to get sanctified by God. But the sanctification is not from us, it's from God.

So even then, it's misleading. Because we are not cooperating with God on the same level terms. It's just, it's not appropriate to use the term synergistic or synergism in any one of those levels. Whether you're talking about conversion, or whether you're talking about sanctification.

But even though we already did that, and we made our case very clear, and we still stand on everything that we said, we still went ahead and did even more homework. So, Berkhoff starts off by, well, he makes a distinction between active and passive conversion.

And here's his definition. He says,. And this is exactly what we've been describing. That's why it's not synergistic, because God causes us to believe. We do not cooperate with God to get to our conversion.

It's a result. It's a response to God giving it to us. And so, but here again, so, Berkhoff, he continues by saying, later on, I think, that in addition to that, he says, section F, he has a whole chapter on conversion.

And so in section F, which is called The Author of Conversion, says,. This is a clear teaching of Scripture in Psalms 85 .4. The poet prays, Turn us, O God, of our salvation. And in Jeremiah 31 .18, Ephraim says, Praise, turn thou me, and I shall be turned.

A similar prayer is found in Lamentations 5 .21. In Acts 11 .18, Peter calls attention to the fact that God has granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto life. A similar statement is found in 2 Timothy 2 .25.

There is a two-fold operation of God in the conversion of sinners, the one moral and the other hyper-physical. In general, it may be said that he works repentance by means of the law, Psalm 19 .7, Romans 3 .20, and faith by means of the gospel, Romans 10 .17.

Yet we cannot separate these two, for the law also contains a presentation of the gospel, and the gospel confirms that the law also confirms the law and threatens with its terrors, 2 Corinthians 5 .11.

But God also works in an immediate hyper-physical manner in conversion. The new principle of life that is implanted in the regenerate man does not issue into conscious action by its own inherent power, but only through the illuminating and fructifying influence of the Holy Spirit, John 6 .44, Philippians 2 .13.

To teach otherwise would be Lutheran and Arminian. So then he continues in section 2, I think, Man cooperates in conversion. I think this is what Brother Chris was referring to with respect to Lewis Burkhoff saying that conversion or implying that conversion is synergistic.

So, man cooperates in conversion, but God only is the author of conversion. It is of great importance to stress the fact over against a false passivity that there is a certain cooperation of man in conversion.

Dr. Kuyper calls attention to the fact that in the Old Testament, Shub is used 74 times of conversion as a deed of man, and only 15 times of conversion as a gracious act of God, and that the New Testament represents conversion as a deed of man 26 times and speaks only 2 or 3 times as an act of God.

It should be borne in mind, however, that this activity of man is always a result or results from a previous work of God and man, Lamentations 5 .21.

So,.

This is pretty much what we've been saying, that man is really a response man's act of faith and repentance is actually a response and a gift of God, not a cooperative process to get there, you know, somehow requiring something from man to get to conversion and repentance.

But it actually, it kind of sounds like, what's his name, Berkhoff might be contradicting himself there, because he actually said that conversion is passive, whereby we, through the grace of God, turn to God in repentance and faith.

So, here it sounds like he might be contradicting himself a little bit, but he's trying to affirm that man actually does something, which is what they are also, with Chris and Pastor Paul trying to affirm as well, that man is not a robot and God does not mechanically have faith or repentance for him.

But still, that's again, that's not actually, that's a little bit misleading, and again, Berkhoff never uses the term synergistic to describe the monergistic view, the Reformed view. So that's still wrong on their part to do that.

And I think here are some quotes where he actually does use synergistic later on in this systematic theology. He says, "...after calling attention to the many weaknesses and failures of the children of God declare, but God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from his own people, even in their grievous falls, nor suffers him to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification, or to commit the sin unto death or against the Holy Spirit, nor does he permit them to be totally deserted and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruction.

The Arminians rejected this view and made the perseverance of believers dependent on their will and to believe unto their good works. Arminius himself avoided that extreme, but his followers did not hesitate to maintain their synergistic position with all its consequences.

The Westland Arminians followed suit, as did several of the sects. The Reformed or Calvinist churches stand practically alone in giving the negative answer to the question whether a Christian can completely fall from the state of grace and be finally lost.".

So there you go. He's describing synergistic Mr. Harris to the Arminians. That's what he's referring to. This is not that hard. This is really not that hard. We're being tongue-in-cheek here and we're not trying to be disrespectful, but we're just pointing out the fact that what they're saying is simply wrong.

We're not the ones that need to reform ourselves or that we need to do our homework. We're doing our homework and we've been going a step further. And I think I think he actually this is the second time where, that's the first time where Burckhoff refers to it.

This is the second time. And section F called the efficient cause of regeneration. There are only three fundamentally different views that come into consideration here and all the others are modifications of these.

Number one, the human will. According to the Pelagian conception, regeneration is solely an act of the human will and practically identical with self-reformation. With some slight differences, this is the view of modern liberal theology.

A modification of this view is that of semi-Pelagian and Arminian who regarded as at least in part an act of man co-operating with divine influences applied through the truth. This is a synergistic theory of regeneration.

Both of these views involve a denial of total depravity of man. So plainly taught in the Word of God, John 5, 42, Romans 3, 9 -18 7, 18 and 23 8 and 7 I'm sorry, Romans 8, 7 2 Timothy 3, 4 and of the scriptures and of the scripture truth that God is who inclines the will, not man to conversion or to regeneration.

Romans 9, 16, Philippians 2, 13. So those are the two senses. Those are the two times where Birkhoff uses the term synergistic or synergism and it's in a negative sense applying it to Arminians which is what any responsible or careful or anybody who's actually read where synergism comes from would understand this because it's not referring to the Reform view at all.

So there you have it. Pretty simple.

And that's basically what we did. We tried to lay out why we think that it's problematic to use that word. We think that it's misleading. We think that it's confusing to use that word. So, you know, look, I think I just want to leave it there.

Like you said, I'm tired of this. I'm tired of this myself. But, you know, I would submit that Birkhoff agrees with us and at least to the point where we don't we do think that he contradicted himself a little bit but, you know, we wouldn't agree with that.

So, yeah, I mean, find me where Birkhoff uses synergistic to support the Reformed view.

Yeah, and you know what? Just to put a little cherry on top of this, I also consulted other works and one of those is Michael Horton's Systematic Theology which is I think called, I forgot what it's called, The Christian Faith or something like that.

But it's funny because Michael Horton actually he uses the term synergistic or synergism about 30 times and guess how many times of those 30 or 29 are negative in being applied to the Arminian view. Anybody want to take a wild guess there?

All of them.

Every single one of them.

Yeah.

So, yeah, go ahead.

Here's the thing. We stand by what we said in that episode with regards to this issue. This is not the Reformed position. I don't care if you're a Reformed Baptist. This is not the Reformed position. If you think it is, I think you're confused.

And, you know, we've debated whether or not we should ask Chris to come on the show. I don't really want to invite him on because he's accusing us of twisting what Paul said while ignoring the fact that they twisted what we said.

And, you know, it's like, hey, if that's the level of your, you know, if that's where we're at, like, you know, and if you're going to say that we're twisting what they said without providing quotes, look, we've shown ourselves to be correctable, teachable.

If we did misrepresent and twist him, twist his words, we would be happy to correct it. But, you know, we're not, and here's the other thing, we firmly believe that these guys are brothers in the Lord.

We are not calling them heretics. I need to make that very clear. We are not calling them heretics. I don't want to be accused of saying that, you know, they're heretics or that they, you know, that is not what we're saying.

We just, you know, this is an in-house discussion, and here's the thing, this is not the hill that we want to die on. So, at this point, I'm perfectly fine with just, you know, I'm perfectly fine with letting it go.

I'd rather move on to other things, other topics. We have so much to talk about that I don't... Yeah, even right now. Yeah, I don't want to be here all day talking about this.

I agree. You know, if we want to, we will. If we don't, we won't. So be it, whatever. But I do, I want to give this admonition, this making it seem like we're the sloppy ones or that we're the ones that are not doing our homework.

Again, you know, we're going to submit this once again as an admonition to both Pastor Paul and Chris Harris from Council of Google Plus. You guys are the ones that need to consider this more carefully, and stop using terms out of their historical, theological, and definitional context, and you guys are the ones that are completely disregarding Reformed theologians and not being careful with your arguments.

So, we submit this to both of them and to whoever agrees with them on this, and we also want to point out the fact that there's this twisting of our motives and of what we actually said that people have yet to apologize for publicly.

Not that we care. You know, we're over it, but again, as Christians, we should be discussing things more carefully in the spirit of brotherly love and recognizing that when you're wrong, you're wrong.

We just want to submit this admonishment to them and move on because we're not wrong on this. I'm sorry. Plain and simple.

Yeah. Alright. So, let's go ahead and play a commercial, and we will be back in a minute, and we'll wrap up these questions from this video that we played. We'll go ahead and play the video again for this week's episode, and we will wrap it up.

Okay? Alright. Be right back. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Logical Belief Ministries podcast. Well, welcome to School of Biblical.

Harmonetics. Welcome everybody to Rappling with Theology. What is going on guys? Shaina's Lights coming at you. Well, welcome to Slick Answers. Good evening.

And welcome to Conversations from the Port. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Bible Thumping Wingnut podcast. The Bible Thumping Wingnut Network. Ten podcasts, one network. Check them out. BibleThumpingWingnut .com.