Variety Jumbo Dividing Line

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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Mormonism and the Meaning of Being a Christian

And welcome to the dividing line today lots of topics to get to on a jumbo sized Edition of the dividing line. 90 minutes and when we do 90 minutes, we actually do 90 minutes. I've ever noticed how long an actual hour long Radio program is when it's a radio program when you have all the commercials and stuff like that You get a lot more for your money.

Oh, wait a minute. This is free. Never mind. Okay, we're best value in Webcasting or something like that. Anyhow this morning. I saw an article Over at Mormonism research ministries Mormon coffee. It's forbidden, but it's good the blog over there Bill McKeever and all the guys that do a great job over there at MRM and Sharon Lindblom Posted a very interesting blog article that I want to start off with today.

And then we have stuff from Tim Staples and getting back to our response to Calvinist calling day and all sorts of neat stuff so we've got a lot to do on the program today and This article posted today says what does it mean to be a Christian a Mormon Apostle explained?

Now what I really found very interesting about this article. Is it it really illustrates the the nature of the Mormon Church today? Which was not what the Mormon Church was when I first started studying Mormonism yay nigh unto 30 years ago.

Actually longer than 30 years ago. It would have been 31 years ago right about pretty much right around now right around now actually now to think about it. So Anyway What you have here is in October 2012 so at the October General Conference not quite a year ago Mormon Apostle Robert D. Hales Spoke regarding what it means to be a Christian he defined a Christian like this so here we have a quote here is Here is what he actually said to the Mormons in conference.

Now you need to realize I'm not gonna go back over this but the conference is considered to be a Really a time of revelation. It is a time when God speaks through his appointed Apostles and prophets by priesthood authority Etc etc.

So it is an important time. So what is said in conference is Almost always vetted very thoroughly. You'll may notice it's boring as all get out. But the reason for that that it's boring as all get out is because they're all reading it they're reading from teleprompters or scripts or whatever because what they're saying has been very carefully parsed and so the point is if if they're saying it it's representative of what the leadership of the church is saying so Quote a Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that he is the literal son of God Sent by his father to suffer for our sins and the supreme act of love.

We know is the atonement now I stop and I go when Mormons talk to Mormons. You need to know what Mormons are saying and When Mormons say that Jesus is a literal son of God, they mean that they mean that in the exact way That the Muslims think we mean it Okay.

They actually believe that God has a physical body and he has sex with females and has offspring and the whole nine yards so exactly what the exact mistake that Muhammad made is fulfilled 1 ,200 years after Muhammad's death by Joseph Smith and the and the Mormon Church, which is Irony in its in its fullest, I guess but anyway, so when you hear that then You need to understand literal son of God means them literally the Son of God continues on quote a Christian believes that through the grace of God the Father and his son Jesus Christ Which are two separate gods according to the Mormons I might mention we can repent forgive others keep the commandments and inherit eternal life.

I stop yet once again That needs to be understood as well now. There are more views of this within Mormonism today than there used to be. But the official view that has been around for a long time that is discernible in the LDS scriptures and certainly discernible in the writings of the general authorities of the Mormon Church is That when you talk about keeping the commandments, you really do mean that remember Second Nephi tells us that We basically have the ability we we we put out our best effort and Then God's grace meets us.

So this is I mean this is As close to fully plagian as you can get without being plagiarism. Yeah, grace is grace is necessary, but it only avails after you make a full effort. Which isn't even what our Semi-plagian friends actually get to but there you and inherit eternal life.

What is eternal life? Well, I'm not gonna take the time to go back through all these things we've discovered so discussed so many times before but Even eternal life means something different to the Mormon that it means to a Christian.

The entire vocabulary is completely different eternal life is actually eternal lives that is the ability and exaltation to procreate spirit children as a God on another planet. The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ.

We do this by being baptized and Receiving the gift the Holy Spirit the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding his priesthood authority and Who holds a priesthood authority only the Mormon Church only the Mormon Church?

Nobody else Holds priesthood authority, so if this is part of what it means to be a Christian then Here this Apostle is saying to the Mormons. Yes, we are the only true Christians because no one else could fulfill that.

A Christian knows that throughout the ages God's prophets have always testified of Jesus Christ this same Jesus accompanied by Heavenly Father Appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the year 1820 to restore the gospel and the organization of his original church.

In other words in Mormon Theology you have God the Father who is the father of Jesus Christ literally both spiritually and physically the father of Jesus Christ and you have the apostasy of the Christian Church and You have the first vision which has been demonstrated so very very very very very clearly.

To be a later development. It was not in fact part of the initial understanding of Joseph Smith. The first vision comes in much much much later than any of that. Don't know if we're gonna be taking any calls today.

Probably not probably not gonna be able to get the calls. But if so, it'll be well toward the end of the program and I actually we just won't we won't get to them. Sorry, I don't want anybody sitting on hold and thinking we're gonna get something when we're not so just I'd let you know about that.

Let's see here through the scriptures and the witness of Joseph Smith. We know that God our Heavenly Father has a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. Jesus Christ is only begotten Son in the flesh catch that in the flesh I'll emphasize that in a moment the Holy Ghost a person is a spirit whose work is to testify the Father and the Son the Godhead is three separate and distinct beings unified in purpose.

So you have three separate distinct beings exactly what the Muslims think Christians actually believe. Three gods became gods at different times received exaltation at different times are at different levels of exaltation and Despite the identification of this belief as a Speculation a 19th century speculation by people like dr. Peterson and others in the BYU hierarchy.

You still have the phrase Jesus Christ is only begotten Son in the flesh without sugarcoating this what this means is God the Father in a Physical body had sexual intercourse the Virgin Mary to create the body of Jesus.

Which means there was no virgin birth, but only a virginal conception, which is not a miracle. Document that fully completely without question in is the Mormon my brother from the LDS sources themselves as The teaching of the LDS Church from the beginning and here you have an apostle of the LDS Church once again Within the past year reaffirming this in the language whenever you hear the additionals those three words in the flesh.

That's they're talking about that's they're talking about. With these doctrines as the foundation of our faith. Can there be any doubt or disputation that we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints are Christian and Quote that's from the end sign.

Now of course can there be any doubt in light of the assertion of these heresies that Mormonism is not Christian. Christianity is not polytheistic Christianity does not have within it a concept of priesthoods of Temples of temple ordinances of God the Father having sex with the Virgin Mary.

Any of these things are not all of these are utter heresies in regards to the Christian faith and hence will always mean that Mormonism is separate from the Christian faith, but notice the clarity of the language when Speaking to Mormons in the general conference and when publishing this in a magazine that is subscribed to 99 .99 By by Mormons themselves.

But what is really interesting. Really really interesting is that as these this article points out. Well, let me just just read what What Sharon said here because it's it's very interesting. Therefore on the face of it according Mr. Hale's definition.

According Mr. Hale's definition only Mormons are Christians. Anyone who believes in the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity or chooses baptism in different church or dismisses Joseph Smith's first vision is not a Christian.

Some of know that this is this exclusionary list presented by a Mormon Apostle is an official in an official church setting is a bit Hypocritical and lay the usual insistence of Mormons in the Mormon Church alike that Christian must be very broadly defined.

They want it very broadly defined when we're using the term Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ the Son of God the Redeemer the role as a Christian regardless of differences in theology that seems to be What they would like you to believe.

Perhaps the Mormon Church has recognized that Mr. Hale's definition of a Christian tends to dismiss or diminish the validity of other people's religious experiences. Something the church on its website claims it does not do.

In The March 2013 issue of the ensign readers are encouraged to review the October 2012 general conference specifically noting Mr. Hale's address discussing. What does it mean to be a Christian. An edited quote from Mr. Hale's talk is provided and What is the edited version me say?

One a Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to a Christian believes that through the grace of God We can repent forgive others keep the commandments and inherit eternal life. Three the word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ.

We do this by being baptized receiving the gift the Holy Ghost for a Christian knows that God's prophets have always testified of Jesus Christ. This edited list as Sharon notes this edited list has lost every Mormon Distinctive that is found in mr. Hale's original.

No mention of Jesus being the literal Son of God. No mention of priesthood authority. No mention of Joseph Smith's first vision. No mention of a father God of flesh and bone. No mention of Jesus being the only begotten in the flesh.

No mention of the Godhead being comprised with three gods. As she concludes the Mormon Church seems happy to recognize non-mormons as Christian per the broader more inclusive definition found online and in the March ensign.

But to be a Christian Christian well that appears to be another story altogether. What this reminded me of was what happened a number of years ago when we were still going up to the general conference Before the King James only fundamentalist Baptist shut all that down and I remember standing outside the conference listening as Hinkley Addressed the issue of the central aspect of Mormon theology in regards to the exaltation of man the status of a God.

God heaven was been a man live another planet cetera cetera. And He had said in secular interviews. Well, we don't know much about that, but then he says in the general conference the Mormons well, I Think I think we know about who God is and there's a sort of ha ha ha ha chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle so you've got the inside conversation and the outside conversation and they're not the same thing and They know that there is a language difference between Mormonism and biblical Christianity has to be and They will utilize that ambiguity and that language difference to their advantage when it so pleases them and so here you have a Mormon Apostle and He has remember when we we played the Zondervan debacle just a few months ago Where the former president of Fuller seminary? joined together with a Mormon to bamboozle everybody thankfully there were people there who knew better and Nailed them to the ground appropriately and properly with the facts and Exposed them as the deceivers that they are but that's the stuff that's going on out there.

That's the stuff that's going on and the Mormon leadership is in on it. They're in on it. They really are and This shows it so that was a very excellent article at the Mormon coffee blog this morning, May 30th by Sharon Lindblom you might want to take a look at even though I've read the vast majority of it just now so You might not need to do that, but but there you go there there it is all right right before the program started I Was sent some sound files.

Sound files are always a scary thing to send. Right before a program starts because it makes me change everything I was going to be doing, but I did want to play these. These are from the May 21st Catholic answers live program and The first one will go through fairly quickly.

I'm not I can't spend too much time on it because the other things I need to get to today, but it is the old consensus of the father's argument from Tim Staples. Now I don't listen to Catholic answers live all that often once a while if I'm out and about.

It sometimes is the most interesting thing on radio at that particular point in time if it's a choice between. You know sometimes Michael Medved has a really boring guest on or something like that, or I just get sick and tired of listening to all the insanity of a corrupt governmental system and the abuse of power and everything else is going on and all the scandals and everything else and sometimes it's interesting to call you know tune over and listen to that instead, but I'm not generally out and about that time of day at least in a car, so I Don't listen all the time.

So I don't know if if Tim is still making the claim that he made years and years ago. About the subject of the consensus of the father's. I've heard him claim a consensus of the father's on a wide variety of things including.

Making the outrageous claim that every single early church father agreed with Rome on Matthew 16 18 which to anyone with a Even the slightest knowledge of early church history is a laughable claim. But it was made in all seriousness by Tim Stables.

I don't know if he still makes that claim. I wish somebody may it would maybe call in and ask him you know Tim you used to say that. That all the other church fathers agreed on Matthew 16 18. Do you still make that claim being one of the foremost biblical scholars in the world according to Catholic answers?

But I guess that would make you one of the foremost patristic scholars, too. I don't know. But be that as it may it does strike me that the only example that they like to give because they know it's their safest.

One is the concept of baptismal regeneration, which even then is highly disputable. Especially from the earliest sources, but that's where they want to go. They you'll never hear them make this kind of claim the consensus of the father's for stuff such as.

And I'm talking about now, and this is not number of years ago, but Uniquely Roman claims certainly for the Marian dogmas, and you know what I'll take that back sometimes. They do make that claim now.

I think about it as absurd as it is and as utterly outside the realm of of Being able to be demonstrated and or I guess I should put it so easily demonstrated to be false. They will make that kind of claim, so here's here's a clip of of Tim Staples on the consensus of.

Of the fathers. Anyway guys my question today is I actually on Mother's Day I was meeting one of my good priest friends God's son, and we were having a Scottish roast. He and he actually learned that I was entering seminary this fall and basically he gave me some advice.

And he said Matthew I'm sure you've touched the tip of the iceberg in Patristics and the early church fathers, which I have I haven't dived in as much as I would like to but basically he was saying I'm just remember oh No, there you go look up the consensus of the fathers and learn it know it and live it.

And it will change your life, and I was wondering um what is that exactly and why is it so important?

And yeah, well since we just learned now that you're entering the seminary. We offer your prayers and congratulations Matthew. Well what it is is the the Council of Trent defined infallibly that whenever the fathers of the church have a genuine Consensus with regard to a particular teaching on faith and morals it is ipso facto by that very fact Infallible can't be wrong.

This is a not analogous to The teaching of the church that says if the entire body of Christ Now this is hard to actually you know Determine, but the church has said the entire body of Christ holds to a particular teaching it would be impossible For it to be wrong why.

Because it would be impossible for the entire body to defect from the head right. Well the fathers are sort of in microcosm a Representation of the entire church, and so you have if you have fathers east and west and a great example of this Matthew.

And by the way, I'd recommend you get a hold of Jimmy Akins Book which I think is a masterpiece. I Honestly Patrick. I can't think of a book on the fathers on a popular level that that can touch Jimmy's book.

But his book on the fathers of the church that we have available at our website he goes into this, but you a classic example of this is baptismal regeneration you have Unanimously taught by every father of the church that spoke about it now.

It doesn't mean that every single father the church has to speak on it and by the way It doesn't mean that there has to be a strict Mathematical consensus as in you know every single father the church has to agree now, and and I should add there That's that's a a question that many believe needs to be further divine, but defined by the church, but in the case of baptismal regeneration You have unanimity east and west and therefore by that very fact that is an infallible teaching of the church now the church has Since defined it and defined it and defined it and the Council of Trent in fact Defined it infallibly as well, but but it was infallible by By the very fact that there was a consensus of the fathers.

Would that be something somewhat analogous to and all Jerusalem or all Israel will be saved. Doesn't numerically mean 100 exactly that's right. It's not a strict Mathematical as in because a lot of folks think you know when you think of consensus.

Hey, we were all 100 unanimous everybody that's breathing, but it's not exactly that. But again, I like the case of baptismal regeneration because there you do have a strict mathematical consensus. There's absolutely no in it it.

You know it's amazing. How you have folks who will deny it is Even Luther himself still believed he still held the baptismal regeneration and when Ulrich Zwingli his father rejected of course Luther hit the roof along with the real presence for our Lord in the Eucharist.

Because in you know in the case of we just mentioned passing the sound that you're hearing is Zwingli's spinning in his grave.

At being identified in that way baptismal generation you have the consensus of the fathers. So when you read the fathers of the church and And you and you you get something that is in consensus like this.

You know this is the faith of our fathers. This is the Catholic faith.

Matthew God bless you man, so Consensus Functionally for the Roman Catholic becomes whatever the church tells him the consensus is. Remember how many times I have presented? The statements of early church fathers to Jerry Matta ticks and others who Catholic answers.

You know Jerry who never never heard of that guy Jerry. I've never Jerry Matta Matta. How do you spell that? Anyways and and he simply dismisses them as not being church fathers as being their own personal opinion.

Consensus is whatever Rome says consensus is. That's that's really that's really The the takeaway at that particular point, but the other one that was sent to me was one that will allow us to transition back into where where we were in our discussion in our reviewing of Reform theology and the Calvinist Collins show on The line of fire you may recall that the last subject we were addressing before we broke off our response To the Calvinist Collins show was a subject of prevenient grace and we had heard You know Michael was asking a question.

How does this matter? Why does this why does it matter is does it does it have an impact and one of the things I said was yeah it does Michael and I could not debate a Roman Catholic together especially on soteriological issues.

We might be able to do something on Mary or Something along those lines, but that would be an area we we could not team up and so hence it matters and You can blame whoever for that. But the reality is it does create a division and here's a good illustration of it and that is The last section that we had been listening to Michael had talked about how faith is granted to every man That by prevenient grace every man has the ability to accept God's You know offer in essence.

Well on May 21st Tim Staples, that's where the last one was from by the way is May 21st program May 21st here is Tim Staples and.

See if this doesn't sound really really familiar. Church now. I try to get him into conversation. And about a week ago. We were talking he's coming from more of a predestination. Point of view. Yes, when I came out with the statement in our sort of, you know, little bit tense conversation.

That God gives everyone enough or everyone's sufficient grace to say yes. Yes to the gift of faith. Which I believe is a Catholic teaching I just couldn't point to anywhere in the Bible because he always then goes where's that?

Where's that? Because you know the Bible's.

Sure, no, he sold script. Torah now got it. Well, I'll tell you out there. It's in many places.

But the ones that I find to be most now now here Tim Staples Roman Catholic has just affirmed yes, faith is given to everybody and Now he's going to affirm his understanding of prevenient grace.

Here's where he's gonna drive it from Scripture. Listen to what verses he uses powerful are the ones where God wills. In other words, it's implied in text like first Timothy 2 for God will. Again that's first Timothy chapter 2 verse 4 God wills all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth first Timothy 2 for and then second Peter chapter 3 verse 9 God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and Then add for the trifecta Matthew chapter 23 beginning at verse 37 where Jesus and in fact in Luke's version of this he weeps over Jerusalem and he says Jerusalem Jerusalem now that kill us the prophets.

How oft I would have gathered you as a hen doth gather her chicks. But you would not. Right. So and by the way, that was one if if you read Luther responded to the one effect I had a blog post on this a little while ago in our blog said it's called error begets error or I talked about Luther on this point, but Luther's sort of exegesis of that text because you know, you have to say or if God wills all to be saved.

Well, if he doesn't give them Sufficient grace to get to heaven. Well, then he doesn't will them to go to heaven. Well, guess what? That's exactly what Martin Luther taught. He said God does not will all to go to heaven.

He will some to go to hell. John Calvin taught the same thing. In fact Luther in his his so-called greatest work Of bondage of the will. He says that that's the human Christ that is saying that he wills all to be saved.

Right. God Doesn't. I mean he's got the human Christ pitted against the divine Christ, which I found to be quite disturbing from her.

Well, you know obviously what most people in my audience found to be quite disturbing is to hear someone misquote Matthew 23 37 yet once again. It is it is absolutely amazing how many people simply Cannot quote the Bible accurately.

Because of their traditions we've listened to Norman Geisler do it and we've listened to Dave Hunt do it and we've listened. How many people have we heard? Slaughter Matthew 23 37 and say how often would I have gathered you but you would not.

That's not what it says. That's not what it says, but did you all notice Tim Staples quoted the big three Twelve years ago. I wrote a book Called the Potter's freedom. There's an entire chapter called the big three.

What are they first. Timothy 2 4 2nd Peter 3 9 and Matthew 23 37. And how many people have provided a meaningful? Interactive refutation of my exegesis. Very few. Very few have even tried. In fact, I don't think I've ever had anybody say well your interpretations impossible.

I just couldn't beat you you're wrong about this or you're wrong about that. It's always well I'm not sure I take it that way and la la la la la. But there you have Tim Staples misquoting Matthew 23 37 and making the necessary synergistic Argumentation now, I know I know I know Immediately gonna have people saying you shouldn't be playing a Roman Catholic and making it sound like all the Armenians are Roman Catholics.

Please try to think clearly. Please try to think logically do not make connections that I do not make. I Really really really wish that in public education or in any education today people were taught The the art and craft of logical thought.

Unfortunately, that's not normally what happens. What I am saying is that synergism as a perspective has certain necessary Ramifications. You have to adopt certain perspectives to maintain Synergism. Now is synergism.

Is it wrong to talk about synergism? Well, Michael thought it was let's let me play these two clips. And then respond to him. Brian here's my problem right off the bat and we'll stay with this until the break.

I absolutely reject some of my Calvinistic friends using derogatory terms and. And Describing another belief system in derogatory terms so as to argue against it. I might as well call Calvinism semi robotic theology.

How would my Calvinist friends like that? So you say well, it's a semi plagiarism. It's it's semi self-saving. I'm not saying you're making that accusation, but those who do that's completely apparent to me completely apparent completely divisive and utterly inaccurate and.

Then a little bit later after the break. So anyway, yeah. So the point I was making before the break is that it I. You know, I've debated people and they say okay, let's debate monergism versus synergism.

I said, okay. Well, what do you mean by that? Well monergism that God saves synergism that that it's God and man save it's like well you're using that already to set up something that's negative and you're thinking and You know, even when I debated my friend pastor Bruce Bennett We agreed after going back and forth for a while on a title who makes the final choice in salvation God or man?

But my my premise was God has chosen to give people a choice and. And to paint that in negative terms when it's clearly throughout scripture. Choose choose choose choose and then God responds based on our choice.

He's grieved based on certain choices. We made he commends us based on other choices if it was all what he had preordained. Then I understand why some would say it just seems like a divine charade. So I'll respond to that element of it in in a moment, but here you have the assertion the historical The the church the terms that have been used in the history of the church inch in the study of church history to identify soteriological positions based upon Pelagian ism semi Pelagian ism Augustinian ism.

These are divisive. If you use terms like monergism and synergism you're stacking the deck and I simply say no you're describing positions nothing more. It's not a stacking of the deck. Monergism means that there is one power That brings about salvation and it does so without any necessary addition to it.

Synergism means that there is multiple powers at least two and they must cooperate and Michael's the one saying That Calvinism is saying that God does not try to save everyone and I have affirmed that's exactly right.

Because when he tries to save he accomplishes his will. Whatever he does in heaven and earth God Accomplishes his will now. I know there are many people there says it. No God does not come as well. He oftentimes his will is thwarted oftentimes, you know, he says for the first the Pharisees Yeah, you you refuse God's will for you, etc, etc, etc Ignoring the context that the will of God is revealed in the law of God that's his prescriptive will over against his decretive will if you don't if you don't allow and I I Think I established very strongly in our debate the absolute necessity of recognizing the difference between the prescriptive will of God and the decree of God and In the audience question or in the cross-examination, I think you will hear Michael having to admit that that's the case.

He may not like a terminology, but you have to recognize that that is an absolutely valid absolutely necessary distinction. That you cannot even begin to attempt to synthesize the entire teaching of scripture in this subject.

If you do not recognize that difference, it's just it's just not possible and so The terms monergism the synergism are Perfectly valid. They are not insulting. They are not stacking the deck. They are descriptive and Appropriate and probably the best terms that we have.

The issue of Pelagian ism yet. Well plages with a heretic. So you're you know, semi semi plages I mean semi heretical the the point is to describe the relationship in the system of theology between Grace and to define the kinds of grace we're talking about we have this Nebulous unbiblically defined Only implicit definition of prevenient grace.

We heard Tim Staples using it. Michaels used it. But I've never seen an exegetical foundation of it. Every single one of those verses that Tim Staples quoted we have we have you know, he does he have a response to the exegesis?

Love to have him on and we'll do another program. Another debate on that particular topic and Catholic answers that can then make it available immediately now they have mp3 capacity. And to make those things available but anyway Those Texts do not present prevenient grace.

They don't I nowhere see God's salvific grace defined as God trying to save and yet in every single situation He is dependent upon the creature, you know, Michael says well God has chosen to allow a man to choose.

But combined with that his assertion. Yet he is trying to save every single person equally and I said last time he was not trying to save Every single Egyptian in the same way. He was trying to save the children of Israel.

He was not trying to save every single Amorite that he then brought the people of Israel in to wipe out man woman and child. He was not trying to save every person in Babylon, he was not trying to save every person in Assyria in The same way he was trying to save the people of Israel because he accomplished and even at that.

Even at that you have to recognize in the Old Testament That amongst the people of God God says I have reserved for myself 7 ,000 the remnant is Reserved by God and Here here's one of the one of the problem the most serious problems from my perspective again as I was listening to this.

When I was writing on Saturday as I was listening to this this really pains my heart. Because Michael and I would answer these questions very very differently. But what about the remnant in in Israel?

Why were they there and My greatest fear and I didn't get a chance to ask this and so I'll ask it now and maybe Michael will respond. I don't know if he's gonna listen these programs or not. He's a busy man.

So as am I but I hope he will. How is the remnant defined my concern. Because Michael has made some hopefully unguarded statements in the past on this is That these were people who were particularly sensitive to God's Spirit who were particularly concerned about holiness, etc, etc, and It sounded to me like he was saying that the remnant is defined by the actions of the remnant itself.

And I say to you the remnant was reserved to God by God himself he by his grace kept for him a remnant and that clearly is the teaching of Paul as well when he discusses that and I brought that up in the debate and.

And Michael did not dispute that in the debate if you'll take a look at it. He did not that's why I was pressing a very Specific area, you know, some people were disappointed that well, you sound very philosophical.

I wasn't being very philosophical I was I was addressing a biblical issue and The biblical issue does touch upon such things as how God knows future events and things like that but in this case The remnant is reserved by God for himself and If it's actually up to us if it's a synergistic thing, then God could not say I'm going to reserve a remnant.

He can only do that in saying well a remnant happened to stay faithful to me. And I looked down the corridors of time and saw that was going to happen. But it could have been just as equally possible that everyone apostatized and God to be left without a remnant, right?

No, of course not. Of course not so. This is this is an area of real concern to me. Because it does fundamentally provide a light upon the dividing line between synergists and monergists and That is a very stark difference now just before these comments about Pelagianism and semi-plagianism and This sort of ties in with what Staples was saying in the previous clip.

I guess it sort of helps to put all this stuff together as we transition here is a comment about Augustine and Church history check check this out. Yeah. Yeah, I appreciate the quote. I agree with a lot of it, but absolutely disagree that Augustine is in harmony with Scripture here.

There's a reason that you don't find his position Articulated among any of the other leaders the the disciples of the Apostles and their disciples, which I disagree with. There are it's not that that's that's not the primary subject and There are many sub.

I mean when you start thinking about The Apostolic Fathers and the writings Epistle of Barnabas things like that. There is a lot of sub Biblical soteriology that even Michael would have to admit is sub biblical soteriology in that you know I don't look to a consensus of the early Church Fathers, but I also do not say that Augustine's views were unknown especially when you look at Clement's Frequent references to the elect and issues like that Diognetius Actually mouth they taste writing to Diognetius Has strong Language in regards these issues as well.

So I I disagree that Augustine just popped out of nowhere. That none of this had ever been seen before or even understood before. But this was the first time that there was a considerable dispute on that subject and debate will bring much stronger Statements on issue because you're having to clarify you're having to start delving into something that up into that point in time has not been dealt with to that level for several centuries the views that are spoken of as Calvinism today or that we look at as Augustine a Strict Calvinist would have to say he rediscovered what Paul taught.