Open Zoom Calls on the Dividing Line

I've got to confess, it's two o 'clock in the afternoon. It's now that I'm in my next decade of life. It's it's time for a nap. We're going to we're going to have to change the time we do this. That's just genetically a two o 'clock in the afternoon.

It's just like, oh, time to time to hit the hay. We have open zoom calls today. We already have a couple of folks online. Rich says he's put all the links out wherever links are to be found, I guess. I forgot to tweet that we were live.

So the DL is on. Yay. OK. Tweet. Send now. There you go. So before we go to any calls, I walked into the office and I see this. Pile of boxes. And I go, what came? He says, I don't know. I haven't looked at.

So. He comes walking in. And there is a book, there's a box from Amazon. So someone paid to send all these books. Now, I just point out that. I have three of the four of these in my library and I've had them for a long time, though I do have a hardback copy.

So I have the little catechism of the Catholic Church right there. I've had that there. I had that one for years. And so now I have a new hardback edition. I wonder if this has the changes Francis has made, you know, the you know.

Now we have infallible guidance that that the death penalty is unjust, despite what the Bible says about that. Maybe a debate in the future on that. But anyway, there's there's a new catechism of the Catholic Church.

And then, of course, we have Jimmy Akins. The father is no best would have had for years and years. And he's wrong about so much of the stuff in there. Stephen Ray, who? Wow. Crossing the Tiber had we've done entire programs on these books.

And then what I didn't have the early church was the Catholic Church. Well, you know, I am I, you know, I teach church history and we've we've we've been dealing with this stuff for a long, long time.

So no one no one gave a there's no name with it. So whoever it was, I'm sorry you wasted your money on books that we already have and in fact have responded to in the past. I'm sorry that you're not aware that we've responded to these issues in the past.

But I would encourage you to take the time to maybe do some some searches and realize that there's a whole lot more than what these types of books will tell you. There's something in this shirt that's, you know, you know, something starts scratching your neck and just it's just enough to drive you right, right over the edge.

It's weird. Yeah, it's it's strange. But thanks to whoever sent them, you know, what is, you know, we're just looking at Francis making mincemeat out of all this stuff anyways. And then his who knows what his successor is going to do.

And it's just so strange that back in the 90s, early 2000s, that was one of my primary focuses was on Roman Catholicism. And I'm now watching the Gavin Ortlund stuff. And I look at the topics and I go, yep, and they're done that.

Just the preceding generation, you know, it's different names now. And you have the added element of the. Of the Internet, you know, I saw a meme last night that someone did with Gavin Ortlund and Roman Catholic apologists, and it was funny.

But we didn't have memes. When I was when I was taking on Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples and Jerry Madatix and Gary Machuta and Pat Madrid and Mark Brumley and Stephen Ray and all those folks for years and years and years and years.

The only thing we came even close, and it was unfair, we had the ability to do cartoons. We had Angel. We had Angel. Yeah, we had Angel. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know he does this stuff for Chris. Yeah. Yeah.

We had the great cartoonist Angel who would listen to the program. I don't know if he still does or not. I, I wouldn't blame him if he didn't, because I mean. Angel must know everything I know by now.

If I heard everything four or five times over again. But anyway, we're in the studio for the last time for the rest of this month. Unless I might sneak in at the end of the month if my travel plans get messed up because of weather.

So if some kind of big winter storm blasts into Utah and keeps me from being able to go up there for a debate that'll be taking place, I believe the 27th. Of February, my son in law is doing a debate on who is in the new covenant, and I want to try to get up there for that and do some stuff.

You know, while I'm up there, I'll speak for apology, Utah. It was so great. I saw a note in Facebook that from our pastor up there at apology, Utah, they had they had a we call them baby saves. If apology folks end up someplace, you'll find them outside of abortion clinics and praise God.

We live in a land where you can still do that. Remember, the the the land from which we allegedly learned. The idea of the freedom of speech. And things like that. The good old United Kingdom. You can be arrested for praying silently.

Anywhere near the high temples of the culture of death. We can still proclaim. And so you I saw a note from just I think it was yesterday that we had a baby saved and. Yeah, you know, I wow. I was just thinking, yeah, you know, it was on Janet Mefford's show.

She would probably not want to admit this, but it was on Janet Mefford's show on KPXQ. I don't know how many years ago this was now, at least 10. Yeah, maybe eight or nine. Anyway, I. Filled in for her.

And my interviewee was Jeff Durbin on an abortion now, and it was on abortion ministry. And when I think of how many thousands of little ones have been saved since then. It's really amazing thing. And in fact, this is called cross-contamination or something.

But I think right now. Apology Radio is on. And I don't know why we do this, but why we do this? Well, we're all on the same time. You know, it's all being recorded, so you can watch one. Then the other one doesn't matter.

But there's an ERLC article. On abortion. And as soon as I saw it, I sent it off to Jeff and Luke and Zach. And so they are covering it today. So I don't have to cover the ERLC thing on abortion because we have other people to do that.

So anyway, there you go. There's there's stuff going on there. One other thing. And I only see we've got just three. OK. All right. So we got three calls. So I've got enough time to do this one other thing before we go to the calls.

Oh, by the way, sorry. I was saying we're in the studio for the last time. That's one of the reasons I decided to do some calls, because I'm thinking maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm thinking it's easier to do calls when I'm in studio than when I'm one of the people that's online.

Sort of like rich, rich going. No, it's just as easy for me as anything else. Just easy peasy. You are the one sitting there when you walked in there. You're going, I hope I can remember how to do this.

So I heard you. I my my short term memory is really bad now, but it did. It did catch that. So don't don't give me that. So, hey, that I from what I just learned, that means we can do zoom calls while I'm on the road.

And I'm not going to feel at all guilty if I decide to do that, because Rich just went. It's easy. Reminded me of an old friend of ours that has gone to be with the Lord and let it be said, let it be done.

Oh, no, that was 1990. Nineteen ninety one. January of ninety one. I remember driving me and Kelly and George Nalin Bono in his Cadillac. To the airport. And for some reason, we had horrible fog. You know, that's pretty unusual.

And I mean, flight delay fog. And that was the morning we flew over to Southern California, and that was when we did the debates with Mitch Pacqua. And that's when I had my encounter with Scott Hahn, the mad Scott Hahn.

He was an angry man. Anyway. Just get used to reminiscing, folks. It is our 40th anniversary year. We we need, by the way. Where is the where is the bug? Do we still have a bug bug? You know, on the screen, I don't see a bug on the screen.

Oh, they they see it. Do we have a 40? Do we have a 40th anniversary bug? By the time we get done, it'll be the 41st anniversary bug. If Josh would hurry up. Josh. What, dude? I mean, Rich, I only have so much time left.

You're young. We're not. OK, so let's let's get to it. OK, we need a 40th anniversary bug for the screen because it's our our 40th anniversary. And so as we go past that, moving toward 50th anniversary, you just have to get used to the fact that we're going to sit around and reminisce a lot because that's what old people do.

It's just remember. Oh, yeah. The exciting part when you get old is when you have memories. It's just you're you're not just in this constant state of forgetfulness. You go, oh, wow. Something that that brain cell just popped up and just went, whoo.

And it's it's great. OK, anyway, real quick here, because the the the calls are lining up now. Um. So Trilogy 101. Hey, Leighton, you said I should unban you. You you may you may rethink the wisdom of that request.

You really you really may. So yesterday we have this tweet to show partiality and judgment is not good. Proverbs 24, 23. OK, that's a commonly repeated frame that there needs to be in human judgment in Mishpat, the Hebrew term for judgment.

There it needs to be based upon what? The the reality of God's law. Now, of course, God is the source of God's law. So God always acts in accordance with his law. And the judgment that's being done here is by limited human beings based upon the evidence presented to them in light of God's law, which, of course, means we're not talking about.

God's freedom to work with his to give his grace as he sees fit or his judgment as he sees fit. Totally different context there. But anyway, quote, explain how predetermining one twin to go to hell and the other to heaven before they do anything good or bad as Calvinism's application of that text is applied, isn't showing partiality and judgment.

Well, this takes us back to Romans chapter nine, and it would be wonderful if we could have a debate where each side exegetes Romans chapter nine and then discusses it directly in debate. Yeah, we tried that once.

And I'm the one that provided the exegesis and the other side debated another topic, and that's just the way that it is. And despite standing on your head and and pointing toward the north and eating asparagus, it doesn't change any of the reality of what actually happened.

But once again, what you what you have from latent flowers is another example of his inability to understand or accurately represent what the issue really is here, because notice that the framing predetermining one twin to go to hell.

So you have one twin who has fallen in Adam and he will receive justice. And you have another twin who has also fallen, Adam, and he will receive grace. And what's being said is God can't do that. That is partiality in judgment.

And again, grace. And mercy transcend the categories of judgment. Judgment is either condemnation. Or a statement that one is right in light of the law. The only way that one could be right in light law because of our fallen Adam, which is what these people don't believe.

They don't believe Romans five. That very clearly they do not. The only way to be made right in light of God's law is by the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is done gratuitously. So grace and mercy and God's freedom to act in grace and mercy just aren't even not even a part of the thinking.

And it's it's sad, because again, here's someone. I was a Calvinist and I did this. OK. All right. What do you say? Before we go to our first call, I am tired. I've got Twitter set up to where it refreshes every little bit.

I'm tired of seeing AOC's crazy behavior. Did you see the AOC video? Oh, you'll see it. The the the communists are here. That's just for people my age. Who can still remember diving under your desk? In case of a nuclear attack.

Having communists in the in the legislature and in the government is. Highly troubling and basically makes you go, wow. Those people we thought were really weird, really weren't weird. They they they were right.

What they said was coming has come. And there they are. There's there's your your Communist Workers Party person right there. Um, and so I hope it refreshes soon and gets her off my screen. It did. Thank goodness.

Oh, it just moved her down my screen. Oh, well. OK, let's let's start taking some of our phone calls. And as they came in, well, not they're not technically phone calls. They're they're Zoom calls. They're Zoom connections.

They're they're stuff we could not do. Not very long ago. Let's put that way. All right. Let's let's talk to Jake. The first Jacob, Jacob on John chapter 15. Hey, James, can you hear me? I can.

Thanks for taking my call. I appreciate it. I had a question in regards to John 15 to specifically a translation question. OK, so I have been reading through and it talks about, you know, Christ being divine and the father being divine dresser.

And it goes on to say every branch in me that doesn't bear fruit, he takes away. And those who do bear fruit that he prunes so that they produce more fruit. And I had noticed in my Greek and English lexicon that I have.

I have one by a Bowerd Ingrich. And I guess to preface as well, I am a Calvinist. So when I read through that, it had different translations for that word takes away in the Greek. And I noticed that I think three of the four kind of gave you this idea of lifting up or bearing up or carrying.

Yet all of the translations, pretty much every single one of them use that the fourth definition, which is more of the idea of taking away. And from a Calvinistic perspective, how do you think that we come to that conclusion of the takes away translation?

Is it contextual? Do you think that they're the same group as in verse six? Because as I was looking at verse six, I feel like I can make the case that it says those who do not abide at me. He also picks up, carries away and tosses.

Do you think it's contextually or is there something in the Greek language? Because I'm not familiar with Greek that gives you the idea that it would be takes away as the translation.

Well, yeah, a couple of things. It probably is primarily being translated within the context. And hence the rest of the story, the branches being cut off, gathered together, burned fire, things like that are that is influencing the translation of Iroh.

Iroh is a is an old a Greek verb, and it simply means to take up. And so it can be to lift up. Some people have interpreted that way. But to lift up. In reference to a vine, I suppose you could make yourself think through, well, you know, lift it up so maybe it gets some more sun or something along those lines.

But generally, if you're lifting up a branch, vines don't go anywhere. So if you're lifting it up, you're taking it away. And so it's a pruning action. And in the same way you have in verse. Well, the important part is, and by the way, there's an article somewhere at AOMEN .org on the vine, the branches, where I walk through this whole section.

I forget. Now, it was like 15 years ago. What exactly? Maybe 20 prompted the particular discussion. So I may be responding to a particular interpretation that someone gave. I don't remember now if that's the case, but there is a lengthy discussion of it.

But yeah, in in 15, six, if anyone's not abiding me, he is thrown away. So so that's that's Balo. So that's a casting away. And as a branch, it dries up and they gather them to cast in the fire, so on and so forth.

But then the other is you have this cleansing katharizzo so that it would bear more fruit, which is what we have in verse two. Cleaning it is is katharizzo, which would be sanctification things along those lines.

So I would assume that to translate it in such a way that you would you would understand it to take away as in remove from the vine is just doing this within the context of an understanding of what vine dressing would involve.

Now, if can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would not be a sort of like a remedial attempt to save a branch by lifting it up and giving it more sunlight and stuff like that? I can't I can't disprove it.

But I just don't see where that is picked up on at any later point. The the point that I see in John 15 is and it's the same point that you, I think, carries over into the sower and the seeds when when the seed is sown.

The only place where there is life is where there is fruit. So in other words, when you have the thorny ground and the shallow ground, you have growth, but you have no fruit and it withers and dies. And so the the evidently in Jesus's horticultural examples, it is the possession of fruit that is the indication of spiritual life.

And so I wouldn't want to look at verse two and go, yeah, there is this group that does not bear fruit, but they're lifted up so they can get more sunlight, so they can bear fruit or something like that.

I wouldn't be able to defend that against someone who would be saying, now the consistent way of looking at it is to see it in this way in the horticultural sense. So so, yeah, the answer to your question is, yeah, I think they're looking at the whole the whole context and going, this is the same thing as cutting out the branches and gathering them up and they they dry and they're burning.

OK, do you think that that in me is not? So would that not be very similar to like in him?

When it's used? Well, well, again, it would seem to me the same context as the as the sown seed. So you have seed that goes into the ground and it does sprout up, but it does not have any root in itself.

So there, you know, we could. And there are other places I think it would be better to do this from. But we could be seeing this in the context of. The same the same struggle that I think Jesus is preparing the disciples for in the parable of the sower and the seed, and that is, man, think about how many times I know now that I've been in ministry for four decades.

There have been so many times that you've seen this sudden growth and the leaves shoot out and you're you're you're so encouraged. In our days, it's so easy to be encouraged. When you see something, you see someone, it looks like they've been converted and it looks like there's really something happening in their life.

And then. You know, two years later, they're not even making profession of faith any longer. And as I look at the parable of the seeds, it's really it's it's really the parable of the soils. That should be the better way.

It's identified the parable of soils. As I look at that, I see Jesus preparing the disciples for what ministry is going to be like. And the same way in John, Chapter 15. If if you do not, if you are not truly attached to the vine, if you're truly attached to the vine, you will bear fruit.

That's his statement. But there are a lot of people that look like they are. And man, do we see that today? Big time. So many people use the name. So many people that claim spiritual experience and fidelity to Jesus and everything else, but no fruit.

And in fact, everything but that. So I think both of them are warning us about the same thing that we're going to encounter that and not to be unduly discouraged by it, because I've seen a lot of people that do get really discouraged by it.

OK, well, I really appreciate that, James, and I really appreciate ministry. It's been a huge help over the last few years.

And God bless you. OK, thank you. What you're doing. Appreciate it. Thank you, Jacob. Thank for the call. God bless. All right. OK, we actually have more than one Jacob today, which if you understand, Jacob and stuff like that could also be said to be James, because that's how the name is translated.

Let's talk to another Jacob. Hi, Jacob.

Hi, Dr. White. How are you doing? Pretty good. Good. I recently graduated from Midwestern this past August. And I've noticed, obviously, over the last year or so, you've been talking about the great tradition and Thomas and Midwestern and obviously Matthew Barrett coming out of that.

Yep. If if you could, this might be an impossible task. It's kind of sum up the main issues you have with that. And really, is your concern with the with the system of thinking, or is it with, you know, the possibility that people might be going Roman Catholic?

Is it both of those things? Yeah. So that's pretty much it. Yeah. OK.

I will need to see if I can find something here real quick. I didn't have this queued up, but I wanted to find a book from a number of years ago. There it is. And maybe maybe if I grab it on. Yeah, here we go.

Let me. Have you heard of a book called Evangelical Exodus? No. OK. Evangelical Exodus, Evangelical seminarians and their paths to Rome. This was a book that came out. Let me see if I can find the the date here.

Oops, I do not want accordance Bible software in my thing there. I need a contents forward introduction. No, I didn't help me any at all. There we go. 2016. OK. So in 2016, this this book came out and it is edited by Douglas Beaumont, has a forward by Francis J Beckwith.

Do you know who Francis Beckwith is?

I've heard the name. I don't think I've read any of his works.

Beckwith, Francis Beckwith, not Roger Beckwith. They need to be differentiated one another. Very, very different. Francis Beckwith was once president of the Evangelical Theological Society. And then reverted back to Rome.

He had been a Roman Catholic and then evangelical and then converted back to Roman Catholicism. And so he writes a forward to this this book. This is a book written by former staff members and students of Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Now, SES is just a shadow of what it once was. It was never all that big, but I mean, it's really not any longer. It was founded by Norman Geisler. I don't know the details about how he ended up leaving there and going to California toward the end of his life and stuff like that.

Politics that I'm not not familiar with and not get into. But anyway. SES is still known as being deeply wedded to Thomas Aquinas. I was only there once. I did. That's where I debated Michael Brown on Reformed Theology and did sort of a mini debate that no one told me was going to take place.

But it took place anyways on presuppositional methodology. But everything there was about Thomas Aquinas. I mean, Geisler was a huge fan of Aquinas. And SES to this day is still deeply focused upon Thomas Aquinas.

And this book is by, I think, I think it's like 12 former staff members and students who've all become Roman Catholics who all went to SES or taught at SES. And it's fascinating because there is such an interesting discussion in the book about what it's like to.

Be told, on the one hand, that Thomas Aquinas is that just this massively important person and just so deeply gifted and insightful in in so many things. In fact, Aquinas, his name appears 90 times in a relatively short book.

And. Yet to then go, well, you know. Well, let me let me just read you something here. Let me see here. Go back one page in the chapters that follow. You'll be introduced by way of their personal journeys to some very impressive young men, all of whom are connected by their association with Southern Evangelical Seminary as either students or members of the faculty.

You may be thinking, how is it possible that such an august group of Catholic converts can arise from one small evangelical seminary and one geographical region in the United States over only a few short years?

One of the reasons, and certainly a very important one, was the type of theological formation that drew many of them to SES. As well known, the evangelical world, SES founder Norman Geisler is a self-described evangelical Thomist, a follower of St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most important Catholic thinker of the second millennium.

What Geisler found in St. Thomas was a theologian whose views on God, faith and reason, natural theology, epistemology, metaphysics and anthropology were congenial to his evangelical faith. Although Geisler, of course, rejects those parts of Aquinas' thought that embrace distinctly Catholic doctrines, his love of the angelic doctor inspired his students to investigate St. Thomas's body of work with greater depth and less antipathy to Catholicism.

What those students discovered is that Aquinas' Catholicism was not some time bound product of the medieval church, but a wealth of theological insights in perfect continuity with his predecessors, such as St. Augustine and with his successors, such as the other Council of Trent.

I obviously would dispute that, but that's the assertion. What they also discovered is that one cannot easily isolate the evangelical friendly Aquinas from the Dominican friar St. Thomas. There is exactly where we are today.

There is exactly my issue with what's going on with Matthew Barrett at Midwestern. The books that are being promoted, the seminars that are being done. You can't you can't follow. Well, I can't follow Barrett's feet anyways, because I've been banned or blocked, but it's still possible to do so.

And I have plenty of other people who do that for me. You can't follow his threads, his tweets without going, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas. It's all Thomas 24 -7.

The books that are being written, the new organizations being founded and the PhDs being done and everything else. My my argument has always been Thomas Aquinas would never have allowed for the distinction and the division of his theology the way that it's being divided up so very conveniently there, and it simply doesn't work.

So as it as here is a convert saying what they also discovered is that one cannot easily isolate the evangelical friendly Aquinas from the Dominican friar, St. Thomas. There was no historic Thomas with Catholic barnacles.

There was just St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic priest. There was, however, more of the students being drawn to Catholicism than just accepting a collection of compelling arguments and historical insights.

It was, you should see about something alluringly evangelical, so on and so forth. So he goes on to tell the story. So my concern, obviously, is that I am when I see people fundamentally attacking the phrase Biblicist, redefining it, repainting it, and then talking about the great tradition.

I've I've been dealing with people and the subject of tradition for a very, very, very, very long time. And when I see Craig Carter talking about the great tradition and great tradition exegesis, have you heard his definition of great tradition exegesis?

No, and it was I was suggested, I think, to his books, interpreting scripture with a great tradition. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

So that's where he'll talk about that. Yep. Yep. In fact, I should probably just have this on my desktop so I can just pull it up all the time. Tradition Dropbox, let's see if it comes up real quick. I can grab it for you real quick.

But man, it's really close here. There is if you have. Nin, nin, nin, nin, nin, nin, nin. See, I see great, great tradition popping up here on my screen all over the place. I don't know if you have that book electronically.

Yeah, I have it on Logos right now. OK, I'll look up. Great tradition exegesis. Let me and I'll I'll do the same thing here. And recent, of course, I'm not in Logos, I'm in. Kindle, which doesn't move quite as fast, and I'll see if I can pull it up, too.

But if you can find great tradition exegesis, I typed it out and I have it somewhere on my system here. But I apologize for not being able to pull it up as quickly as as I. Logos is indexing, so it's not.

Well, you know, anytime anybody asks me, so what's Logos doing on your system? The answer is indexing. Yeah. Why is your computer going so slow? Because Logos is indexing. That's back back in the days of like a Pentium chip.

It was just go go eat dinner while while Logos is doing its thing. That's just sort of how it worked. There it is. Interpreting description of great tradition. And yeah, let's see if it's there. And sorry, everybody, but this is this is worth worthwhile.

And exegesis. Well, if I get here faster than Logos does, you're going to be really that's going to be really embarrassing. Yeah. What's happening here? Yes. So there is one of them. Exegesis, great tradition.

Boy, that happens a lot, doesn't it? There is there is a lot of great tradition exegesis in this book. But yeah. All right. If I if I can't pull it up. Got it. Got it. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. It says page 111 of 280.

I have unfortunately discovered recently that Kindle's page number stuff is not necessarily overly accurate.

Here, let me read it for you. 111 on here is the heading is a great disruption.

Bing, bing, bing. Right. OK, so you make sure that I read this correctly because that's where you are. The great disruption exegesis, scripture and modernity. The great tradition was a three legged stool.

Made up of spiritual exegesis, Nicene dogma and Christian Platonist metaphysics by pressing deep into the meaning of the text. Contemplatively, spiritual exegesis yielded the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas, which in turn generated certain metaphysical doctrines such as creation, ex nihilo and the reality of the spiritual realm.

Metaphysics then created a hospitable context for further spiritual exegesis in which the interpreter penetrated through the literal sense to that to which the text referred the spiritual or heavenly realities that led upward eventually to participation in the divine radiance.

It was all based on a sacramental ontology in which creaturely things, words were taken up into the vine and made into signs which conveyed the reality to which they pointed. Great tradition exegesis was and is a profoundly spiritual and moral act in which the interpreter who succeeds in grasping the true res or subject matter of the text is irrevocably transformed.

The process sanctified and turned into one who possesses eternal life. Now, I've walked through this in the past early on in this dispute because. I've done more debates against Roman Catholic apologists than anybody else alive right now, to my knowledge.

I mean, if I'm wrong about that, just point me to who it is, because I'm not sure who it is. But I've spent years and years and years. You know, someone just sent me another copy of the Catechism. Um, so I know Roman Catholic phraseology and terminology.

In fact, Craig Carter knows because look at the next sentence to some Protestants, all this talk of sacramental ontology and Trinitarian dogma may sound vaguely Roman Catholic and therefore suspect. Yes, it does.

And guess where Craig Carter did his Ph .D. work at a conservative believing Roman Catholic institution. Oh, sort of like Norman Geisler did. So I'm sitting here going, I know this language. I've read this language in book after book, after book from believing Roman Catholics.

And so when I hear people attacking, quote unquote, Biblicism, attacking the idea that you need to first determine what the author intended to communicate to his audience, you start there in exegesis.

And here you have you have Aquinas's. You know, when you read Aquinas's commentaries, you know, you can be reading along going, uh-huh, OK, yeah, OK. And then all of a sudden, boom, he's off to the races someplace else.

And you wonder what happened. It's because he like everyone after origin until the Reformation was deeply infected with this multiple levels of meaning in the text idea. And that's what we got rid of in the Reformation.

Or at least we thought we did. And now there are people going, oh, but we actually can do that stuff, too. And so my my concern is real simple. You can't separate Thomas Aquinas out. You can't dissect the man.

And when you get into how he used scripture, it's highly problematic. I've given numerous examples. Nobody on this side has even tried to touch. The examples of completely blown exegesis that I've provided from Thomas Aquinas that is based upon his view of scripture as scripture.

No one's even tried. And I wrote an article for Pro Pastor, the journal for the seminary that I teach for. And I dealt with did Thomas Aquinas believe in sola scriptura, which, of course, is an anachronistic question because it wasn't even an issue at his time.

And I went through the fact that he was does not hold the sola scriptura as we do in the Reformation, but he also didn't hold the same view that Trent would eventually hold to and that modern Rome holds to.

No one, aside from just simply mocking us for even addressing these things, has refuted any of that either. They just sort of ignore this kind of stuff. My concern, therefore, was how Aquinas used scripture.

And therefore, when you talk about theology proper and when you talk about the origins of Aquinas' metaphysics, they do not come from a person who believes the first and foremost source of Christian information and Christian revelation is scripture itself and only scripture.

He is clearly bringing Aristotelian metaphysical categories into the interpretation of what scripture says on the nature of God and therefore limiting the range of what scripture can say to those categories.

That is a deep concern. It is a concern that I think is completely valid. And I don't understand why a Southern Baptist institution would be promoting the not only the writings of Thomas Aquinas. I teach church history.

Read Thomas Aquinas. Great. Put him in context. But what's happening is it's his modern interpreters within Roman Catholicism that are being set forth as people who have a better grasp on the doctrine of God than you could have if you're following the Reformation and if you're following an understanding of Biblicism.

That the Bible just isn't enough. That's extremely problematic. And it's going to you know, I don't want to see Evangelical Exodus, volume two, Midwestern version. OK, I don't want to see that. But my question is, what's going to stop it?

Where is the balance? I don't see the other side. I don't see the balancing side at Midwestern right now. If you're changing the entire Ph .D. program from systematic theology to philosophical theology, where's the balance?

Whereas there wasn't any balance at SES, you've got Evangelical Exodus. So where's the balance? And I'm seeing this at other institutions as well. It's this is going to burn itself out because Thomas just isn't all that exciting.

And once you get past the first few doctoral seminars and it starts getting a little bit on the old side, the fascinating thing is I've talked to so many Roman Catholics, including Roman Catholic priests, and they had to spend years on Thomas.

And they're like, they were wasted years of my life. It's like, I know, I get it. They just don't. I've talked to Roman Catholics, and I'm sure one of them's listening right now. And they're like, oh, yeah, y 'all are getting into Thomas.

Good. Well, we'll get the homecoming party ready for you. You know, you'll be you'll be welcome in. Just just let us know, you know. But I it can't last forever. It just it's a it's a new, exciting thing.

The attraction of scholasticism. It hits it hits every generation from different directions. But I'd hope by now that we had a more solid base so as to be able to recognize these things and not not fall into this kind of stuff.