SRR 115 The Resurrection: John Piper & the Decline of Sola Fide at Final Judgment (6)

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast.

Polemics, Justification, and the Battle Against False Teaching

The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the ear and combating the ear.

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 bashing is itself bashing. It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. 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.

Alright, it's time to battle. You're listening to Simple Riff around the radio, where the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is applied to all of life. My name is Tim and I have with me Carlos and Hiram Diaz.

So, I want to say what's up guys. Thank you for joining me today. You guys ready to get started?

Yeah, it's good to be back on the show. I know we've been on a hiatus. A lot of stuff has come up, so we apologize to our listeners for delaying our episode feed. But, we're hoping to get back on full swing here.

Looking forward to the episode.

Yeah, same here guys.

Alright, so today we are going to pick up on Fatal Flaw number 6. This is from Carlos' article. Carlos, it has such a long title and I haven't memorized it. What is the title of the article? I know it's When Protestants Error on the Side of Rome...

John Piper, Final Salvation and the Decline and Fall of Sola Fide at the Last Day.

There you go. It's a good title. It's just long and I haven't memorized it. But, I want to remind our listeners that this article was published on the Trinity Foundation. But, what happened is that the Trinity Foundation published part 1 of the article into a 2 part series on the Trinity Review.

So, a lot of people are mistaken into thinking that they've read both part 1 and part 2. And, maybe you have read both part 1 and part 2 on the Trinity Foundation. And, I think that covers up through Fatal Flaw number 3.

But, the whole article is actually a 2 part series on Thorn Crown Ministries which has 6 Fatal Flaws. So, that's what we're looking at. We definitely encourage all of our listeners to go back and read both parts on our network.

And, that way you can get the full article. So, we are going to cover Fatal Flaw number 6 today. But, before we do that, Carlos and I wanted to give a big shout out to Steve Matthews. And, a big thank you to Steve who recently flew down to El Paso.

And, actually hung out with Carlos and myself for about a week. He went on our men's retreat with the guys from our church. And, it was just a real delight to get to know Steve, to see him in person. He's an awesome guy.

Had a number of really great conversations with him. And, he actually went to Mexico with some friends of ours. He was doing some research, wanted to see first hand what it was like down here on the border.

Especially since El Paso, Texas has become such a hot bed for the immigration debate that's going on right now. So, Carlos do you have any thoughts about Steve's visit?

Yeah, I'm very grateful for his visit. He wanted to come down mainly to get a chance to meet us and hang out and had a blast with him. I really enjoyed talking to him. I got to pick his brain out for a whole day.

And, we also talked a lot on the trip, on the retreat and on the trip and everything. So, I had a really good time with him. Look forward to doing that again sometime. And, it was great getting to meet him personally.

One of my favorite lines that we were talking about is that he thought... We were talking about women and leadership and he said that he thinks Angela Merkel is a crackpot. It was good. We had a really good discussion.

Yeah, we did.

About a bunch of stuff.

So, if any of our listeners are ever in the El Paso area, just give us a shout out. Hiram, where do you live, man? I forgot.

I live in Lewiston, Idaho.

I guess if you're going there, contact Hiram Diaz.

Sure.

So, with that being said, I wanted to start off today's discussion. We are going to talk about John Piper. It's interesting that we've been talking about Piper a lot. There's so much to cover. Mark Jones recently just wrote another article in which he claims to vindicate Piper.

We're going to eventually get to Mark Jones and talk about Mark Jones' work and his perspective. It's interesting. This is a gospel issue. There are other things that we want to talk about. By and large, this is the most important thing that we are talking about right now.

If we only get the opportunity to record here and there, especially with me, we're trying to finish out this series. We are making this a series. We're trying to cover this from all of the different angles.

One of the things that Carlos' article does that I think is really great is that Carlos has looked at what are the logical implications of Piper's view and what are some of the things that we get with Piper's view.

So, if, for the sake of argument, we want to say that Piper's view is right, what are the implications? The implications, because it touches on justification, the implications are far-reaching. But there was a video that was going around recently that I wanted to address.

I'd like to get your guys' thoughts on this. It's interesting that this was going around recently. It's a video of Kevin DeYoung, I guess at a G3 conference. Kevin DeYoung, Together for the Gospel conference.

And when I first saw this video, I thought this was a very recent Together for the Gospel conference. But what's interesting is that this was actually from 2016. And so, this sort of changes the narrative here.

A lot of people, when I saw this, I missed it. It says Together for the Gospel 2016. This actually was Kevin DeYoung before the controversy erupted. And so, in every controversy, there's a catalyst. Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the church door was what sparked the Reformation.

And John Piper's article in 2017 is what sparked this controversy, really, for a lot of people. Although, a lot of people were onto Piper way before that. I think Pied Piper, written by John Robbins, was published in 2002.

But I want to play this because a lot of people were putting this up on social media, via Twitter, via Facebook. And it's really interesting because a lot of people take this as, see, the big guys at Together for the Gospel, they get what Piper's saying.

You guys are misrepresenting him, you guys are straining a gnat, so to speak. And a lot of people really felt vindicated by just this little clip. Let me go ahead and play this for you, and then I'd like both of you guys to weigh in on it, okay?

Without holiness, without some evidence of grace having flown into you, of God's love transforming you, without that union with Christ, whereby we receive the double gift, Calvin calls it, of justification and sanctification, we ought not have confidence that we are on our way to glorification.

So how would you answer the question, are good works necessary for salvation? I would argue, as reformed theologians have, they are necessary for salvation, not according to the necessity of merit. Good works are required as the means, not as the grounds.

As John Piper has said many times, as the fruit, not as the root. Not as the cause of new life, but as the necessary effect that life has been wrought in us.

And then it says, entrusted with the gospel, and that's the clip. But a lot of people were taking this as a vindication or affirmation that Piper is right. I'd like to get your guys' thoughts on that.

You want to go first, Carlos?

Sure. I think, well, first of all, that's not what Piper is teaching. Because Piper is teaching that our works are forensic evidence in God's courtroom. So that's not what he's teaching. And I noticed that he didn't seem to quote a single reformer or Protestant in his favor.

He just kind of assumed it. I don't know if he does later or before in the sermon. But that's a big issue here that people don't really know what Piper is actually saying. And it seems to be a big problem because he is talking about forensic evidence in God's courtroom.

And so that is talking about justification of the final judgment.

Yeah, something I noticed when he was talking was that he says that, well, he equates necessary evidence with means of obtaining salvation. And that's messed up right there too as well, if you know what I mean.

Instead of saying that the good works are the fruit of salvation, he says that they're fruit, yeah, but they're evidence. And then he equates evidence with the means of obtaining heaven, which is like John Piper as well.

Right. And Piper is plainly teaching that our good works are the means by which we get into heaven. I think the clearest passage, if you understand it correctly, the clearest passage in scripture is the one where Jesus himself refutes Piper in Matthew 7, 21 -23.

Because in that passage, Jesus says, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven on that day. And so Jesus is talking about the same thing that Piper is talking about, on that day, the final day.

And he says, On that day, many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? Now take notice of what these people are appealing to.

They're appealing to their good works on that day. This is exactly what Piper advocates that we will do, that we should do, that we're going to have to do. And Jesus says, And then I will declare to them, I never knew you.

Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. And so, you know, it's interesting. I don't know where Kevin DeYoung would stand on this controversy now. I mean, I'm sure he hasn't spoken out against Piper.

So, you know, I can sort of guess as to where he's at in this whole debate. But that brings up another issue that's come up, and I just want your guys' input on this. Because it's really interesting to see how this discussion has progressed.

When the controversy first erupted, a lot of people were saying, Well, I'm not really sure what Piper's saying or what he's trying to say. Now, if you're a Piper fan and you're a Piper defender, it seems like a lot of people have the same argument.

And one of the arguments is basically that Piper is talking about salvation in a broader theological sense. That the Bible speaks of salvation in two different senses. One is in a way that is synonymous with justification.

And so when it speaks of salvation in that sense, it always is by faith alone. But there's another sense in which the Bible speaks of salvation, and that is within the broader theological sense, which includes all of soteriology, which is justification, sanctification, glorification.

And in our sanctification, we are not sanctified by faith alone. And so, because we're not sanctified by faith alone, and sanctification is part of the broader aspect of salvation, in that sense, we are not ultimately saved by faith alone.

So when Piper denies that we are saved by faith alone, that is what he's talking about. As a matter of fact, this is even the response that I got from Phil Johnson when I sent some stuff to Phil Johnson.

And he criticized me in my letter for this exact point. He says, I was only able to scan your critique. I sent him my letter. He says, I was only able to scan your critique, but there are significant problems with the way you make your case.

And he says, the first one, sola fide is a principle that applies to justification, not every aspect of soteriology. Faith is the sole instrument of justification. You can't say that about sanctification, which necessarily entails works that we do, but you use the word salvation as if it were synonymous with justification.

And what's interesting is, I was pretty perturbed by this. It's unfortunate that Phil was kind of triggered, not triggered, but I shouldn't use that word. Phil, one of his concerns was the fact that I'd used John Robbins in my article.

And he's not favorable to John Robbins, so I think that might have poisoned the well. But this was something that we've addressed in the past, and I think that it needs to be addressed again. Do you guys have any thoughts on this particular argument that's sort of being used to give Piper a pass?

I don't think it's legit. I think it's committing the fallacy of equivocation. And the reason why is because there are two sentences in which we can speak of salvation broadly. Like they say, salvation standing for justification by faith alone.

And then salvation meaning the entirety of justification, sanctification, glorification, the whole package. But there's another sentence in which we can talk about salvation as something that has been accomplished already.

Or something that is being accomplished in time. If that makes any sense. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does. That we are saved and that we're being saved.

Yeah. And there's a distinction there, right? Because our salvation is complete in Christ. Ephesians chapter 2 tells us explicitly that it's not by works. It excludes works altogether. And it's not talking about just justification in Ephesians chapter 2.

It's talking about salvation broadly. So to conflate the process of being saved right now in which the aspects of our salvation, sanctification, and so forth are being worked out in time. With the actual achievement of salvation which Christ alone accomplished for us and that we obtained by faith alone.

That's where I see a problem. You see what I'm saying? John Piper isn't saying the things that these people are saying. He's actually stating that we're saving ourselves. As much as people want to say that he's not saying this, because of the fact that he views works as forensic evidence that's going to be used when Christ returns.

To determine, I guess, our state of holiness before we enter heaven. Because he views them that way, we're working towards salvation. See what I'm saying? So it's not what they're saying he's saying. What they're stating is orthodox.

What he's stating is not. You know what I mean? And they're doing so on the basis of an equivocation when it comes to the word salvation.

Right. And Carlos, you and I were talking about this on the phone the other day. And I'm hoping that you can relay to our listeners what you relayed to me. And so, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Yeah, well, in case you haven't been tracking with us for the past, what is it now, five episodes. And, or read the article, we've been showing already five fatal flaws with Piper's view. And we're showing, I think very clearly, that Piper is not orthodox with respect to justification.

And we don't have a problem. I don't think any of us have an issue with saying that, yes, there is a sense in which salvation is referred to generically and specifically to justification. But that's not what the issue is about.

So that's not even the issue, first of all. It's kind of a red herring. It's irrelevant. That's not what the issue is. And we don't have a problem with making that distinction ourselves. We were saved, we're being saved, and we will be saved.

But the problem here is that Piper is elaborating a doctrine that includes the final judgment with respect to a believer being judged and being weighed forensically, his works being weighed forensically at the final judgment to see if he has enough holiness to get to heaven.

That's talking about justification. That is 100 justification. That's a final justification. All the heresies before him about federal vision, they're all basically saying the same thing. This is talking about justification.

That's why we've been sticking to that issue. It's not talking about salvation in a generic sense. He's talking about justification. And we've quoted numerous passages, Bible passages, numerous Protestant authors, disproving Piper's view and showing that he's completely at odds with the established Protestant and biblical view of justification.

Yeah, I really appreciate that. And so what I wanted to let people know is that in my letter to my former church, to the members of Horizon Christian Fellowship, which sadly they were instructed not to read because it was divisive.

But in that letter, I used the word primarily saved. I didn't use the word justified. But we have already belabored this point that Piper is speaking of being saved in the sense of being justified. And so a lot of people are making the word concept fallacy.

They're saying, you know, it's like, oh, he doesn't use the word justification. Well, that's the word concept fallacy because the concept is there. It's identical. So we've already established that Piper is speaking of being saved in the sense of being justified.

And Carlos, we've pointed this out. His view of the final day, the last judgment, undermines every legal status that the believer has in justification. It's an attack on justification. This was the first point that we made in our article that I made.

Actually, Tim Kaufman is the one who made the point in the article that I published with him on the Trinity Foundation that when Piper says final salvation, he really means final justification. This is why he has no problem signing his name to Tom Schreiner's book, who uses the terms synonymously, final justification and final salvation.

We've pointed that out repeatedly. This is why in the material that my church was using, it says with reference to Piper's favorite passage in Hebrews, I think it's Hebrews 12, 14. It says, this is not the holiness that we have in our initial justification.

Well, again, if you're speaking in terms of an initial justification, what does that mean? That there's a future or final justification. This is exactly what Rich Lusk teaches, who is a federal visionist.

The argument falls flat on its face. Carlos, you had something else that you wanted to say before we jump into your article?

Yeah, I'm glad you brought up your old church because, man, they remind me so much of the papacy. Rather than telling people why your article is wrong, they just say, don't read it. They put you on the banned book list, just like the papacy does.

My wife actually brought up a really good point when we did the interview about you leaving the church. Because in the same way that they basically kicked you out when you had already left, that's almost the same thing that the papacy did to Wycliffe when they exhumed his dead body, dug up his bones and burned them.

It's a total power trip, and it's pathetic. It's an anti-Christian way, it's an unbiblical way of addressing issues and controversies. That just says a lot about how they do church and how unbiblical it really is.

I'm very disappointed by that behavior.

Well, I am too. It's going to be awkward the next time I run into them.

To say the least.

It's interesting because not only did they do that, they said, don't read his article. They said, go and read John Piper's article from 2017 and then listen to his clarification video. And I was just like, oh my gosh, you've got to be kidding me.

Because I actually referenced those two things. Well, obviously the original article, but I referenced his clarification. And in my article, at the end of it, I added links, a bunch of links. And two of the links that I added were one from Paul Flynn from Megiddo Radio and the other one from Pastor Patrick Hines from the Protestant Witness, both reviewing Piper's clarification.

And so it's absurd that they would actually do that. It's a control factor. That's what cults do. And I'm not saying that they're a cult. I'm not saying that they're a cult. I'm not saying that. I'm saying this behavior is exactly what cults do.

Yeah, no, it's funny. Don't listen to the Protestant. Don't listen to the Reformer. Follow the magisterium that we give you. It's so like Rome, it's ridiculous. It's a shame. It's a shame, but yeah, it is what it is.

Deadening the Resurrection and Glorification

So yeah, I guess we can jump on to the fatal flaw number six now. So let's get into that. I called it deadening the resurrection. And as you kind of alluded already, Tim, we're talking about how, in the article, I'm talking about how Piper undermines so many things in the believer's legal status and positional status and just life.

Everything. He destroys basically everything that the believer has won already in Christ. And another one of those things that he completely screws up is the resurrection. And so let's dive into that now.

So all of this is connected as we've already kind of been showing. This is all connected, tied together. And continuing from the previous flaw where we talked about Piper basically kicking everybody out of heaven and putting back in the judgment line when the final judgment comes.

And as if that wasn't bad enough. So he actually affirms that when believers, that when Christ comes back, we will receive our glorified bodies. He says that very clearly. He says, when the church in Thessalonica lost believing loved ones, the main comfort that Paul offered was not that they were with Christ, as true and wonderful as that is, but that they would be raised bodily from the dead in time to participate physically in the coming of Christ.

So he affirms that the first thing, basically the first thing Christ is going to do is bring us all back from the dead, believers. And so he says, we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.

And so he's affirming the right thing there. But then the problem becomes when he tries to reconcile this with believers facing Christ, the final judgment, this is where he makes the fatal, another fatal flaw.

And he says, and I think we've already, I've already quoted this before. But he says, before we enter the final state of glory with our resurrection bodies on the new earth, we will stand before Christ as judge.

The deeds of this life will be the public criteria of judgment in the resurrection because our works are the evidence of the reality of our faith. And so this blew my mind when I, when I read this, when I kind of read this again, because we started talking about this in the fatal, in the previous fatal flaw, it made me realize something because I said, I wasn't sure if Piper really knew what, what, what he was implying, that are you really saying that you want to take people out of heaven, kick them out of heaven, put him back in the judgment line, everybody, we're talking everybody, Moses, Paul, and everybody else who is already in heaven and put him back in the judgment line to be evaluated forensically for their works, to see if they have enough works to get back into heaven.

I thought Piper hadn't really thought that through. But after reading this quote, it kind of, the concern just skyrocketed even more because it seems like he actually does know what he's, he knows, like he's actually thought this through.

And that's what makes this so much worse because he has thought this through. He's literally saying, before we enter the final state of glory with our resurrection bodies on the new earth, we will stand before Christ as judge.

So it seems to me like Piper has actually thought this through. He's actually saying that, yes, when the final judgment comes, everybody in heaven is going to get kicked out and you're going to get put back in the judgment line.

And you're going to have to face God and prove your works to see if you have enough to go to heaven. And when you tie this together with what he said before about some of them, some believers not making it because they failed to love their fellow believers, you have zero hope of ever getting back in, even if you are already there.

And see, and this is what people don't understand. Like we're quoting to you Piper's own words. And he went back and said this, you know, that thing about fellow believers failing to love their fellow believers and going to hell because of it.

And so now you're getting this, where Piper is literally saying without any reservation apparently, that he has no problem saying that, yeah, everybody who is in heaven right now is going to get kicked out and put back into judgment line from Moses, from Abraham, all the way to the last sheep that gets saved and dies before Christ comes back.

It's astonishing. He's actually thought this through. This is what makes it all the more concerning. Because I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. But now it seems to me like he's talking about the final state of glory.

So he's saying, you know, it sounds like that's what he's saying. You know, believers in heaven have glorified spirits, but they haven't been fully glorified yet. And so it's like, I can't believe this guy.

He has no problem saying that. I don't know what to say to that.

Yeah, I was going to say, I think part of the, you know, we talked about this a little bit too last time or in the fifth one. Something that we talked about was how some guys are given a pass because, well, because they agree with a lot of people on other topics that are not related to the one thing where they're really, really messed up at.

So we talked a little bit about Doug Wilson and how, now with the whole social justice warrior thing going on, how Doug Wilson is anti-social justice and people give him a pass. And there are tons of people saying, well, federal revision is not heresy.

You don't know anything about federal revision. And you'll get this constant shifting of the goalposts in order to justify their liking of this individual. When you point out that they're unorthodox when it comes to the main thing, which is not social justice, which is not complementarianism, right?

That's the thing with John Piper, complementarianism. When it's not, you know, take your pick. The main thing, those aren't the main things. The main thing is the person and work of Christ. And I think that's something that we see with the Piper incident.

It's like, Piper is clear, clear enough. And if he's not clear enough, he's confusing. And both of those are really bad. But I think once, like you've done, once you do the research on Piper, you realize that he's clear enough with the fact that he's being unorthodox, but people hear what they want to hear because they admire him for whatever reason.

And I don't think it has anything to do with, really with what he's teaching in the most important area, the person and work of Christ. It has to do with something else. Like I know people that love John Piper because he is complementarian.

Or because he's one of the first people who introduced him to, let's say somebody like, you know, introduced him to Calvin or introduced him to, who's the person that he really likes? Jonathan Edwards, right?

And so they have this affection for him for some other reason. But it's like, he's clear enough on what he's saying. And I'm saying this in relation to what you said, how people don't see it. Because I think they hear, well, he said X, Y, and Z, and that's good enough for me.

You know, like with Doug Wilson, people saying, well, Doug Wilson says he affirms justification by faith alone. That's good enough. And it's like, that's not good enough because he redefines the terminology.

And when you look at what he's really saying, he's affirming a false gospel. But sadly, people hear what they want to hear. You know, they have itching ears.

That's a good point. That's exactly what Mark Jones does too. He's Piper's biggest defender and he keeps quoting, he keeps using Puritans and these other reform guys to interpret Piper. And it's like, why are you doing that?

Piper's teaching is very clear and it's not the same thing, you know? And I think you're right. That's a very big problem where people keep assuming that this is what he, he means what these other guys are saying.

And that's not what he's saying. It's not what he's saying at all. So hopefully people will see.

Yeah.

I was going to say another person that I brought up was Richard Baxter. And it's the same issue. And Richard Baxter has been popular for hundreds of years now. You know what I mean? Since the Reformation era, a little bit after Calvin, if I'm mistaken, like in late 1600s, 1700s, somewhere around there.

I forget exactly what he was writing, but even John Owen knew that Richard Baxter was a heretic. But to this day, Richard Baxter's works are being promoted and he's being, you know, people have mixed opinions.

There are no mixed opinions to have about the guy. He taught justification by faith and works. He was a heretic. But because he wrote a book on, what was it? On practical living as a pastor, yeah, the Reformed pastor.

And because he has these little phrases that sound good, and these sentences that sound good, people cling on to him. And, you know, they hear what they want to hear. And they ignore the bad stuff. And people do it with other guys too.

You know, like C .S. Lewis. That's something that John Robbins helped me see in his, when he, you know, in the paper that he presented, Is C .S. Lewis in Heaven? I think it's the title of it. You know, it's something I didn't really pay attention to until he brought everything together.

It's like, this is what he really teaches. He might be good in explicating philosophical ideas. He might be good in presenting general arguments for the existence of God. But, here are all the heresies that he believes.

Wholeheartedly. But people hear what they want to hear.

Well, and that's exactly what people are doing with Doug Wilson right now. I mean, you have a lot of people like Jeff Durbin and James White who are defending him. And, like you already said, you know, he says, I believe in justification by faith alone.

But he redefines it. And it's like, that's exactly what they're doing. But going back to Mark Jones. I was going by his Facebook page and I just wanted to read my favorite Mark Jones quote to you guys.

He says, Almost finished a chapter on good works in relation to salvation. So he's apparently writing a book. And he says, John Piper is more reformed than the allegedly reformed folk who criticize him.

So, yeah, I guess denying the covenant of works and then turning the covenant of grace into a covenant of works makes you reformed. So, that is by far my favorite. He's more reformed than us guys even though he denies the covenant of works.

You can't be reformed and deny the covenant of works and then turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works.

So,.

That's our quote of the day from Mark Jones who, by the way, we had asked to discuss this. I think Pastor Hines had offered to debate him. Mark Jones said no. We had asked him to come on to the show with us.

He said no.

So,.

You know, we don't have doctorate degrees. Mark Jones's reply to me was, he says, Yeah, I've published a lot in print on this. So I'm probably not going to get involved unless it was a top reformed scholar.

But I can't think of a single reformed scholar who would differ from my view, which is the classical reformed view. So, that's when I talked to him.

R. Scott Clark?

No, apparently R. Scott Clark is, you know, a lot of people are saying, a lot of Jones fans are saying that he is not an authority on this.

Yeah, that's retarded.

Of course, and they say the same thing about J .B. Fesco and everybody else at Westminster, California.

Yeah.

And they've been saying that since, what, the 1970s, 1980s since the Norman Shepard controversy.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Yeah, that kind of response, though, honestly, it's pitiful. I'm sorry, it's just reprehensibly pitiful. It's like, that's like you inviting someone to a party and they say, well, I'm not going to go unless, you know, unless all of the elite rugby players are going to be there.

Like, really, dude? As a Christian, really?

All right.

This is something I wish people would get through their heads. It doesn't matter how many PhDs you have. If you're saying something that's self-contradictory, you're wrong, period. And it just doesn't matter how many PhDs you have.

So for him to say, well, I'm not going to go unless there's a top reformed scholar there. First of all, are you a top reformed scholar? If you are, so what?

You know?

And secondly, if you're contradicting yourself or if your doctrine contradicts itself on the basis of scripture, which is higher than all the PhDs that you have and all the letters you have behind your name, you're wrong and I don't have to listen to you and I can point out that you're wrong.

And that goes for the whole body of Christ.

Yeah.