May 11, 2004

1 Peter 3:15 and the Need for Gentleness in Apologetics

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line. It is the 11th of May and This is gonna be the last dividing line. We should be able might be able to work it out. Hopefully can work it out. To where we might be able to do the dividing line.

Next Tuesday. Because I don't have anything specifically planned that day when I'm in, New York and so I should be able to get on ye olde digital phone and Make the phone call back here my voice. I thought I was doing fine.

But now I try to use it and it's messing up on me. There's the use of the cough button anyway. We'll see but Thursday we will be on our way out to New York and then the. The week after that the Thursday after that will be the debate on Long Island.

In fact the normal time that we start the Thursday night edition of the dividing line Thursday afternoon here. It'd be the time that the debate will be starting at the Huntington townhouse in Long Island.

I'll be debating Gary Machuta on the subject of the Apocrypha. And I'm looking forward to that debate and to my time there on Long Island. I'm gonna be flying out then whipping back for my son's graduation and then flying back out again.

And so the calendar page has been updated for those of you back east might want to check that out and What is that? It's almost sound like there's another microphone on some place or something. That's odd.

Anyway. What would that be. I have no idea anyway a couple things before we get started today. Eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty-one just. Probably oh. Even if my door was closed I'd hear that one good grief.

That was a sneeze and when some people sneeze they put their whole bodies into it. That's something I can hear when I'm next door with the windows and doors closed anyway. Just a couple of reminders. We generally don't talk about things like this and there's actually no particular Reason for this the moment other than simply to remind folks since we have new people who listen all the time.

This is not a mega sized ministry. This is a small ministry and we are dependent upon those who listen and who? Partake in the ministry work for our support. We don't talk about money very often. But we do accept donations.

That is how we get the work done. And so we want to remind you of that. Sometimes people forget about that. For example right now the free Archives the program are not available the reason being we store them at the leisure and the service and ministry of straightgate .com and The proprietor of straightgates very busy with other things and We can't get hold of him and the sites filled up and there's nothing we can do about it.

And it's always amazing when folks will will call or write or make comments about how? How terrible you all aren't giving us our freebies. Well, just so you remember there are mp3s available on our website for a whopping buck as I recall and If what we do isn't worth a buck and we really can't you know.

Well, why why in the world are we doing this anyways. So as long as those, you know, the freebies aren't available and we'd like to have the freebies available. But there's nothing we can do about it right now.

So if if you want to listen to the program you might have to put out a whopping dollar to grab that thing and That's less than half of a gallon of gas anymore here in the Phoenix area. It's up to like 219 in some places and so anyway Keep that in mind.

We are a small organization and if you are looking at Helping to support a ministry. We certainly could use your assistance. There's many things we would like to do. I Just this morning was mentioning a fairly major project to the powers-that-be which is just the other side of the wall there's only two of us and So your support would be greatly appreciated.

Lies, Rumors, and Misrepresentation in Theological Controversy

On another issue. It's it is truly amazing. It's been a fascinating insight into human nature of late. I Don't know if I were told the program at the the story on the program, but the great debates on Long Island Almost never got started and The reason I almost never got started was because of lies lies rumors when people cannot deal with your Argumentation what they do is they they attack you as a person now.

We know this is how things work in Politics we see this every day and and and the real fact matter is we we become jaded to it. We become accustomed to it. It's something that is just so common and so regular that we don't we don't think much about it.

Unfortunately when we see it in theological realms we tend to think of it almost in the same way as as political realms and In essence what happened is back on Long Island. There was a Roman Catholic gentleman who would have theological dialogues at his home.

And he was bringing Jerry Matitix in and he he said to Chris Arnzen who as you may know Chris Arnzen is the the gentleman who works so hard To put together the debates on Long Island. He said to Chris Arnzen.

He said look I'm bringing this Jerry Matitix fellow in you find yourself a local pastor and this this Jerry Matitix will wipe the floor with him and so Chris began looking around and he eventually spoke with Bill Webster and Bill Webster said look if you want somebody to debate on Roman Catholicism then contact James White.

Well when he said that Chris's response is well, I don't know. I've heard some bad things about him and Bill said well, what do you mean? What what have you heard? He said well, I've heard he's pretty mean and You know, he won't shake his opponent's hands and I don't want that.

And Bill said and where did you hear this? Well from a Roman Catholic magazine. And Bill started laughing is it and you believed him. Now the funny thing is what eventually happened. Was Bill gave him number but what he didn't tell Chris was that we had just changed that number.

There had been a a Catholic apologist well sort of a pseudo Catholic apologist who had been calling us and they calling me and just and just wasting my time and we finally just had to change the number to get rid of the guy and.

So one of the very first calls That I get I pick up the phone and hi my name is Chris Arnson from WMCA in Long Island and da-da-da-da-da-da and The first words I ever said to Chris Arnson were how'd you get this number?

Now realize he's already a little bit worried that I'm just mean terrible horrible nasty guy. And it took a little while for me to win old Chris over but we finally did now. How did that rumor get started?

I mean we could provide we could go back through our videotapes and we could provide all sorts of video of my Shaking hands with people with with Muslims and with Jehovah's Witnesses and with Roman Catholics and with Mormons.

We have still pictures. We have video. We have all this stuff. So where would that come from? Well, it came from one debate one time in. One debate it was the debate with Art Sippo at the end of the debate.

After the most egregious public behavior I'd ever seen in my life. After at the end of that debate, I did not shake hands Art Sippo now, there may be some other debates were like My opponent was immediately surrounded by people and I was immediately surrounded by people and somebody left and it was just you know.

We never saw each other again and never spoke to again. There may be something like that but in The only time that I simply would not shake a person's hand was Art Sippo one time and I had a reason for that.

And so you take that and then you just repeat it over and over and over again there's someone right now that I mentioned on my blog fairly regularly and despite the fact that I have corrected him repeatedly and have Explained repeatedly where he's wrong he insists on taking a segment from a sermon that I preached a number of years ago at our church in Which I explained and I've explained this many times before.

The experience that I had many years ago Recognizing first coming to recognize how the differences that a reformed Baptist has with a Pato Baptist whether it be a Presbyterian or or another reformed group in regards to the nature of the New Covenant and the argument that I use against the Roman Catholic Mass and that Being look the the mass cannot be The sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It cannot be the Representation the sacrifice of Jesus Christ why because the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Perfects all those for whom it is made and I go to Hebrews chapter 10 and I walk through the whole chapter and I well Not the whole chapter, but the beginning chapter through verses 10 and 14, and I I say look the sacrifice of Jesus Christ perfects all For whom it is made and if you continue in verses 15 through 18 you have the repetition of the Jeremiah 31 passage about the New Covenant.

Well, I was talking about in this sermon in my own church to my own people about when I realized you know what because of the differences that we have on the nature of the New Covenant a Presbyterian would not use the same argument that I do they would believe what I do believe about the They finished work of Christ and the perfection of the work of Christ.

But because that one issue they would not be able to use the same argument that I use In regards to the demonstration that cannot be the same sacrifice. They'd have to approach them different perspective.

Well this particular individual who's gone way off into the ozone on a number of different things. When people lead you know they were once you know your ally but then they turn against you it's amazing how all of a sudden their memory of What you used to believe it gets really bad.

You notice that some people say well You know look at these Roman Catholic Apologists who used to be Protestants and they say they used to believe this and they say they used to believe that and you just go.

No, they didn't believe that for example Chris Aronson himself Caught Jerry Matta ticks in a situation like that. He was listening to a tape Jerry Matta ticks had done on the issue of the perseverance of the Saints or quote-unquote eternal security and the way that Jerry presented it was absolutely laughable as to what Protestants believed and the reason that Chris caught him on it and and caught it brought his attention to it Was that Chris had talked to one of Maddox's old seminary professors and The Seminary professor had mentioned to him that Jerry Matta ticks when he was at Gordon Conwell had written a what the seminary professor called a classic paper on.

As I recall it was John Owen's Doctrine of perseverance. He said it was a tremendous paper. So Maddox knows The best but he doesn't present the best all of a sudden. He's presenting these caricatures the the worst-case scenario rather than the best.

Well, it's the same type of thing that that I experienced with this particular individual. This is someone who surely has to know what I actually believe On on all of these issues surely has to know that it is a lie and that's the only way to put it.

We're not talking about a slight misrepresentation. We're talking about a lie, especially since I've corrected him over and over again. He continues repeating in any ways that it is a lie To say and this is what he's saying.

In fact, he said this within the past couple of days. In fact, I think I have it. Let me see if I've got the exact. Oh, yeah, there it is exact words here. Here it is. These are men who forget reading this directly.

These are men who for example believe that the perfection of Christ Atonement Necessitates such a radical opposition to means of applying the Atonement. They feel driven to say pedo-baptism ultimately commits the same error as the Roman Catholic Mass.

I have never said that. Nothing, you cannot find anything even remotely like that. But when people lose their their footing and and they they turn on you. Then they can hear anything they want in your words and they'll repeat lies.

Even when you you correct them even when you say I never said that listen to what I said. Listen and be fair. They will not be fair and so this is how lies get started and they get repeated and they take on a life of their own and Just go on and on and on and on and so the moral of the story is.

When you hear somebody say such-and-such a person said such-and-such a thing. It's real easy for us all especially when we don't like that person. We don't agree with that person's theology. Whatever it might be.

It's so easy for us to go, you know what that I bet you they did say that I'll bet you that sounds like you know, and we all do it. We you know that we're all guilty of it one way or the other but you know as one who experiences it all the time.

It's at least when I put quotes around somebody's words, they actually set them. Unlike the same individual who created a quote for me that had nothing to do with anything I believe and you know, I know I know people say but wait a minute.

Listen, if these people have to continually misrepresent you it must mean they have no real response to what you're saying. Right, and the answer of course is yes, that's right. They don't have any real response and and they're just in essence trying to make themselves feel better by by handling it in that way now yesterday I was on my way out to give my Finals to my victims of class students and Even they said it was very fair and very easy finals.

That was they're very straightforward and You know, I'm I'm really gonna miss some of the students that are graduating and I'm really bummed but I'm gonna be back in New York at graduation for the current Golden Gate class and that really really bums me out because.

Some of my absolute favorite students are graduating this time around. Andre Mooney is graduating and Josh McClellan. I'll tell you there's there's a guy Josh McClellan. The poor man I failed him because he never ever really did get I need verbs down.

I taught him Greek, but let me tell you something. There's there's a young man who has just grown and matured and has such wonderful insights. And congratulations to all the graduates and everybody who's graduating my son's graduating from high school and and Josh and Andre and the others graduating with her their MDiv's and and.

So congratulations to all of our all the graduates out there for the hard work you've put in. But anyway, I was going out to do that Last night and it's a long ways out of the campus. It's on the other side of the valley from from where I live.

And I was listening to the Bible Answer Man broadcast and as soon as I turned it on a fellow from I believe it was Sacramento called in Caleb I think was his name and Caleb was very concerned because someone in his church was a Calvinist and.

Matthew 23:37 and the Charge of a Wrathful God

So the couple things I want you to hear in this clip. Well, I'll probably start and stop it. I want to go ahead and respond to this but there's nothing really new here. Except listen to what Caleb says and I'm thankful you got to give.

You got to give Hank credit here. Because as soon as Caleb said what he said Hank tried to correct him. Because it's very clear that Hank Saw exactly what I saw and that is this guy's going. Oh, is this Calvinist?

He thinks God's wrathful and it's like well. Yeah, the Bible does talk about the wrath of God. But what I wanted to raise aside from we hear doom from the womb and and all the libertarian stuff one of the passages that cited is Matthew 23 37 now those of you who remember the debate back in December.

I briefly addressed that I have addressed The exegesis of the text, but I've never ever heard anyone Dave Hunt utterly failed to even begin to try to respond to it. Dr. Geisler's never deemed it proper to do so.

I've never heard how anyone responds to this and So when I hear it being presented and you can tell if you listen carefully to the way that it's cited exactly what the application is when you look at the text that application simply can't be there and So I would think you know if this guy called up and this guy said, you know this I'm talking to a friend at work he's a Jehovah's Witness and I want to talk to him as a as and I want to share the deity of Christ with him and If Hank were to say or anyone any apologist were to say well read him John 1 1.

Well, you know what the Jehovah's Witnesses are gonna say to John 1 1 right and so you prepare the person you you go. All right. I'm an apologist. I know where they're coming from and therefore When you if you're gonna read John 1 1 be aware, this is what they believe.

This is how they interpret and this is how you respond to it, but isn't it odd? That when you hear Non-calvinists and I was about to say Arminians, but there's so many people don't like I'm listening just started listening to the the debate from last year between the two Asbury theological seminary professors and and the two Southern seminary professors and Thomas Schreiner Bruce where and They call themselves our minions.

And so that's why I was saying when you hear an Arminian say that but you know. You just got to be careful because people get so offended. But anyway, when you hear these folks and I was listening to the opening presentation from the Arminian side in that debate.

There they go. First Timothy 2 for a second Peter 3 9. That's 23 37 the big three. They've got to know what the responses are to those so why don't you hear when I Present passages I do so in such a way as to provide an answer.

For those who are gonna automatically have a you know, some type of response that's what you do as an apologist, isn't it? Well, anyways, let's take a listen to this call.

Hey, I have a quick question for you. I Have a really close friend who we were talking the other night and he teaches in our church really awesome man of God and we got to talking about predestination and He strongly believes that God is Predestined to each of us to go to either heaven or hell and that God shows this or does this to show his justice?

My question for you is Where does this come up in Scripture if at all and how do I attempt to humbly kind of enlighten? These scriptures to him because he firmly believes in this major wrathful element of God.

Well, you know certainly I think that you don't have a full orbed concept of God if you say God is a God of love and you don't recognize that God is also a God of justice whose eyes are too pure to look upon evil who cannot tolerate wrong so God is a God of justice.

And the thing that you want to make sure you maintain in the debate is That you maintain the sovereignty of God the justice of God and then genuine human moral culpability. So God doesn't predestine us to hell arbitrarily.

So what you're arguing with is the idea that's communicated in Calvinist circles oftentimes That not all are created on equal terms but some are pre-ordained to eternal life others to eternal damnation and Accordingly as each has been created for one or the other of those ends.

We say that he has been predestined to life or death. Or as some would put it including Calvin that you were actually arranged Before you were born to either go to heaven or go to hell apart from any human volition or will.

So as I think Calvin put a God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel in such a way That that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb to certain death. Predestination is biblical and you have to start with that premise the Bible teaches predestination.

Predestination in Christ and the Meaning of Election

Yeah.

I was researching this the other night and because it was really laid heavily on my heart and I Tried to reference almost every scriptural piece throughout the Old and New Testament and it's very clear.

I'll just use Paul as a reference, but he talks about predestination in Christ that will predestine. Christ talks about it. Well, yes. Yes.

And in fact in Ephesians He uses that very language where he says praise be to the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us in In the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ for he chose us in him Before the creation of the world to be holy blameless in his sight in love.

He Predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ. So the point here is not whether or not the Bible teaches predestination. That's not up for grabs. The Bible does teach predestination.

The point again becomes what do you mean when you use that term? Everyone that's a Christian believes in predestination or the subset election. The question is on what basis are you elect and. And some say that God elects us by his own pleasure his own Predilection or purpose apart from our will playing any factor in the process.

Some say God looks down the Ford or corridor of time sees what we will do and Chooses us on that basis. And some say the emphasis really isn't on the individual. It's on Christ. So there are various various views on predestination.

So it's a matter again. The question is on what basis are we predestined. And we say that our Will is involved because God chooses us as volitional beings. So God puts a high priority on the will and if you look at many of the passages that I'm so Gratified to hear you looked up in the Bible because if you look at the passages in the Bible, then you get the full Lord picture.

Well, let me just comment before we continue on because we're about to hear Matthew 23 37. You'll notice the the regular elements here we are chosen as volitional beings as if being Coming from the Reform perspective.

We're not volitional beings. We don't have a will. The idea of an enslaved will means no will at all. Well, the scriptures very clearly teach that man's will is enslaved to sin. That men are not able to do what is pleasing to God.

All the rest that kind of stuff and so all of all of that stuff we've addressed many many times in the past, but we hear that and and and we've Responded to it and it's a part and parcel that that then provides a background to them the the use these passages and listen.

Which passages are used. You don't compromise anything? That's essential to the process. A couple of verses that come to mind. Matthew 2337 which is a you know, sort of the prologue to the famous all of it discourse where Jesus says Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you.

How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you were not willing. Well, that's not an arbitrary.

Or singular verse there. Now notice what said there you were not willing. Well, of course, they were not willing. But what does the passage say they were not the ones that Christ was seeking to gather the normal application?

Of the passages Christ was seeking to gather them. But they were not willing and therefore Christ failed in his desire to gather them. But that's not what it says. This is addressed the Jewish leaders it differentiates in the text between them and those who are under their authority and It says they were not willing that Christ would minister to the people those who are under their authority.

Same thing Matthew 23 I believe it's 13 It talks about how they they will not lift a finger to help anyone who's going in the kingdom. Same type of concepts going on Here. This is a judgment passage. Why why not say and the reason that's wrong the reason this actually teaches that God's will in salvation is Resistible is for the following.

And that would involve establishing that Matthew 2337 is even addressing The issue of God's desiring to draw his elect and save his elect that this is a Soteriological passage in the first place and then dealing with the differentiation the Jesus Christ himself makes between the Jewish leaders and Those who were under their authority, but I don't hear anybody doing that.

The same thing is gonna happen the next reference the next reference. You're gonna jump over to Acts chapters 7 and 8 you go to Stephen. You're always resisting the Holy Spirit. It's really funny a that has nothing to do with saying well, and you're resisting the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit seeks to bring you to salvation as If that's the only ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Which it obviously is not and as if Paul himself would say Oh, I could have resisted being knocked off my horse. I could have I could have stand the horse if I had wanted to. Of course not but it is interesting if you're gonna Take it that way.

It says you are always resisting. So if you're gonna say that human beings have been given this libertarian power To overthrow the grace of God if they're always resisting then why in the world you preaching to them?

Why in the world even pray for them?

An amazing Inconsistency from my perspective. Or many other verses that are communicating the same thing. For example the idea that you can resist the Holy Spirit. You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears.

You were just like your father's you always resist the Holy Spirit. Or a dr Luke where he says the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves because they had not been baptized by John so they reject God's purpose.

Or Jonah is a good example where Those who cling to worthless idols Forfeit the grace that could have been theirs.

Not now did you catch that and I'm gonna go ahead and stop there because we're coming up on our break, but Jonah 2 8 the only passage the only only Version that is being made reference to there is the NIV.

The NIV says there those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs. Let's let's see if that concept Emphasized even the reading is found in any other translation. The New Revised Standard Version says those who worship vain idols forsake their true loyalty.

The New King James Version says those who regard worthless idols forsake their own mercy. The New American Standard says those regard vain idols forsake their faithfulness. The ESV says those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.

The American standard says they that regard lying vanities forsake their own mercy. The term is chesed and it is Simply means to forsake to abandon their chesed and. And so it is a Interpretation and a stretch of interpretation To render it as the NIV does here, but it is a interpretation Not really a translation of that particular text.

Eight seven seven seven five three thirty three. Forty-one is phone number. We have one person online. And that means there's room for you and a question to answer from the channel to in regards to Newman's Development hypothesis, we'll do that after our break.

We'll be right back.

Ministry Support, Book Ads, and Debates on Calvinism and the Federal Vision

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In Their book the same-sex controversy James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about Homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

In a readable and responsible style author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .aomen .org.

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free. A new cult. Secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called Extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org.

Welcome back to the dividing line. We've had one caller on hold for quite some time. So let's go ahead and talk with Jeff. Hi Jeff. Hi, dr. White, how are you doing good?

Dr. White. Yes, sir. Okay. Didn't know if you could hear me. Yes, sir.

I had a I was. I've been thinking for a little bit of time about your upcoming debate with On the justification controversy. Uh-huh. Or the Auburn controversy.

Well, yeah, okay the the current terminology that is Generally being used is the federal vision movement or federal visionism. And it's the topic of the debate. Of course is our Roman Catholics a part of the New Covenant?

It's dealing with the the issue of the objectivity of the Covenant sign, etc, etc. Yes.

Obviously, I know in the debate you're probably going to have to it's going to be Galatians 2 verses John 15 sort of understanding kind of thing.

Maybe I I mean, I I know what passages he's going to be using. That's certainly going to come up. It's certainly be a part of my presentation that the New Testament recognizes and that the the explanation of false brethren used by Mr. Wilson and others does not comport with the exegetical presentation there.

I suppose he may wish to Present numerous apostasy passages, but that's going to take us then into the nature of the New Covenant as well.

Well, one of the things I'm I'm kind of curious about is In in a lot of these I'm not think that was Wolfman's typically but that there's a lot of claims about the you know, you and others and you know, pseudo Presbyterians have kind of a enlightenment bias and I kind of see.

First of my first question would be like I'm kind of confused as to what exactly your enlightenment biases and what they say it is and the second thing would be I kind of see a an Idealized view of the magisterial reformers and don't get me wrong.

I love the magisterial reformers. But they don't they seem to kind of assume The matter what what they want out of the magisterial reformers without kind of telling me why I think why they're that that bias is better than say some Enlightenment bias or what?

Well, I don't know that I can answer those questions for you because I I don't find a whole lot of consistency in those who would go so far as to attempt to say that for example the Presbyterians who are friends of mine and who would actually put up with me are not truly Presbyterians because they don't take the same viewpoint as these particular individuals, but.

You know if those folks would make themselves available For dialogue and discussion one-on-one then you could call in and ask them. But while we have invited them to do so they won't do so so. Possibly that will come out in the debate but you know a debate is always very limited as far as the number of topics you can address but.

The constant deny you have an Enlightenment era by it. Well, you know.

You have to you have to ask for some specifics there and that's where you get into a problem. From the very beginning of of this conflict, especially probably in regards to one person you're talking about.

You know I've tried to take it into the text of Scripture and it is that very attempt to take it into the text of Scripture that has resulted in that accusation that well. You know, you don't seem to understand the the relationship Of your presuppositions to exegesis and all the rest of stuff and that's a bunch of baloney.

I do. I'm so I'm fully aware of all that stuff. However, I don't believe that That means that the text as it was written in the first century requires it to be read through a filter of the medieval period or Aquinas or anyone else.

Have I been have I been impacted by Aquinas? Yes, I have. Does that mean that that impact precludes me? From Understanding the text as it was a written originally written in the context of Galatians or Paul.

No and yet the irony is here the is the is the utter hypocrisy of this because I've been listening to Douglas Wilson's sermons on Galatians and you know what I disagree with some of the things he says, but he uses the same methodology of exegeting the text of scripture that I do and That's why I can have a conversation with him is.