Presuppositional Apologetics

The Priesthood, Rome, and *Sola Scriptura*

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.

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon totally Caller driven program today. Someone just kicked res via channel right as I was gonna do that I I why did why did why did we do that that I wanted to do that?

I'm gonna do it again right there there. I'd got to kick him out channel. Okay, anyway Totally caller driven program today. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one dividing dot line on Skype.

There has been a Twitter question that has been asked I think twice and I forgot to bring Twitter up last time. So I didn't see it and it had been asked previous to that so I thought I might as well start off with that and it basically has to do with the defenses that people like Catholic answers and others have produced in regards to the use of the term father being used of a priest and I Think you know, they go to like first Corinthians for where Paul says that you have not many fathers in the gospel.

But I begot begot you by the gospel some translations. That's actually say I fathered you. Really not what the verb says but be it as it may there are ways of coming up with. You know ways around Jesus's Prohibition if you ignore what it was he was talking about and the kind of attitude That he was speaking to he was speaking to people who desired Religious followers and the question is is that what the Roman Catholic priest desires when he is called father?

Well, I can guarantee you I've met plenty of them that that is an exact Representation of exactly What they want and exactly where they're going. But I think the focus shouldn't be on arguing those things where you can just go back and forth not accomplish anything.

I think the focus needs to be on the fact that there is no such thing as a New Testament sacramental priesthood. Period end of discussion. I mean that that is not a losable debate if you know anything about the New Testament and early church history and I would recommend that you track down the debate that I did with Mitchell Pacwa on that very subject and I think you will find that to be helpful.

Let me just remind you of the the words of James Cardinal Gibbons from back in 1876 just turn something on because I know how to have a high-pitched Squeal and it was right before that. Because I'm not using the computer today and I saw you hit something and then right right after you went point, right?

Thank you. Whatever that was. There's a high-pitched squeal on it. I'm not sure what he's doing in there sometimes I'm not sure he's sure he's waiting doing there, but it's there are many buttons to press and It must sort of like the Star Wars Death Star Fire on planet Alderaan thing going going in on there.

Whoops gone. Anyway, the words of James Cardinal Gibbons from 1876. The Apostles were clothed the powers of Jesus Christ. The priest as the successor of the Apostles is Clothed with their power. This fact reveals to us the eminent dignity of the priestly character.

The exalted dignity of the priest is derived not from the personal merits for which he may be conspicuous. But from the sublime functions which he is charged to perform. To the carnal eye the priest looks like other men.

But to the eye of faith, he is exalted above the angels because he exercises powers not given even to angels. James Cardinal Gibbons faith of our fathers tan 1980 page 317 and I have read it many times before.

But that's because it is so incredibly clear in in what it says. When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration He reaches up into the heavens brings Christ down from his throne and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

It is a power greater than that of Saints and angels greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time.

The priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar is the eternal victim for the sins of man not once but a thousand times. The priest speaks and lo Christ the eternal and omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to The priests command of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and vice-gerant of Christ on earth.

He continues the essential ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration atonement, which Christ offer on Calvary.

No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the crypt to the priest is that of altar? Christus for the priest is and should be another Christ. O 'Brien the faith of millions pages 255 to 256 now post Vatican to Catholicism.

Recognizes how Massively offensive that is. But if you listen to the EWTN that viewpoint remains. It's still out there and You see it practiced and that's that's what they need to be held accountable to.

That's what you need to press them on. In regards the New Testament, where are why is it that Paul could twice give us? The necessary qualifications of the elders. Discuss with us the qualifications of deacons and Never once say a word about a Christian sacramental priest.

Now once it's no wonder Rome doesn't believe in sola scriptura because if you believe in sola scriptura You will not believe a large portion of that which the Roman Catholic Church itself teaches and I think that's where the focus needs to be.

Regeneration, Sanctification, and the Meaning of Synergism

Let's go to the phone calls and let's Start off by going off to Florida and talking with Peter. Hi Peter.

Hey, how's it going, man doing good? I Can recommend any books for like learning Greek like an introduction to it.

Are you talking about doing this on your own or in a class? Yeah on my own. Well, I will be straight up front with you. I have known two people Who have actually learned Greek properly on their own? They were very disciplined.

One of them ended up going to master's seminary and doing two master's degrees in the time that most people do one. And I told him I gave him the same information. But I've probably given 300 people the same information and I know two people who survived it.

In other words it really really helps to have a class or to have someone you're working through it with or something along those lines because look life is busy and It's constantly putting pressure on us and there has to be accountability and regularity in your study of a foreign language.

That's just just the facts. But the the most useful easiest to use resource to learn Greek on your own is Basics of biblical grammar by William mounts published by Zonderman. There is a workbook that comes with it.

That is an absolute necessity and then dr mounts himself has posted online the audio of his lecturing through the material in the book as. Well as has posted computer programs to allow you to study the vocabulary.

Practice parsing stuff like that. That's as close. The last time I knew it was technia .com Tek and I a .com is the last time I knew but obviously if you just google William mounts that should come up.

That's as close as you're gonna get to a class basically. But that's the best material you're gonna go you go with.

How would I use that to convert like a tangible book like say Potter's freedom into a wave file.

The only way you could do that is if you had the electronic version of Potter's freedom. You have that. Not available online. No, well, wait a minute. Isn't is piracy them on Kindle yet. I'm sorry.

Yeah. You can convert it with that software.

No, it was on. If it was on Kindle your Kindle could read it to you. And then what I do any of my books that are on Kindle. You can just plug it in your computer, and it's a real-time recording so it's not fast.

I Have not tried doing anything with iPad along those lines. I don't believe that the software for Kindle in the iPad will read it to you at least last time I checked it couldn't. It's only the the Kindle itself that can do that but You have to be able to get hold of the book in electronic format either PDF Word format something like that and then you can drop it into text speech Pro and You can export as a wave file mp3 file whatever you want, and it normally does it very very very quickly.

In other words, it's while Kindle is real-time and hence takes you know all night to record a single book. Text speech Pro Will do large blocks of text in you know three or four minutes, and then export it for you.

The amount of obedience that we have a little proportional to the amount of grace that we have been given by God.

Is that directly proportional the amount of I I'm very uncomfortable with? Terminology where you you you sort of. Put put a number or an amount on grace. The obedience that we show is a representation of our level of sanctification and our love for God and that is a that is that is the result of God working his will in our life and bringing us through those trials and tribulations That caused us to be conformed the image of Christ.

And so the obedience the the how much I wish to obey Christ Is directly related to how much I wish to glorify him, and I recognize that my obedience is my means of glorifying him. The terms synergism and monergism should be limited to the discussion of the beginning of salvation.

The idea of applying them To sanctification creates all sorts of confusion. They're two completely different things so when you're dealing with the issue of synergy.

Yeah, but the concept of working together with God in a sanctification process wouldn't that be a technical proper use of the word synergism.

Like I just like I like I just like I just said. If you want to create lots of confusion sure I just don't want to create lots of confusion and therefore there needs to be a recognition that That term those terms monergism and synergism already have established Areas of meaning in regards to how salvation is brought about and if we import them into the subject of sanctification.

As I've heard a lot of people do you're dealing with completely different area there. You're not dealing with a dead rebel sinner who hates God and how a rebel sinner God hater is turned into a God lover now.

You're talking about the work of the Holy Spirit conforming us the image of Christ and On the quote-unquote technical level since we have been made alive in Christ that new nature. Desires to be conformed the image of Christ desires to hate sin.

Desires to give obedience to glorify God etc. Etc and as a result You you will have that cooperation because that's the that's the nature of the regenerate person. It's not the nature of the unregenerate person to be able to do that.

That's why I think it's best to differentiate and usage those words.

Okay, and so with regeneration, would you say that makes exercising faith possible to the believer saving faith? Yes. Yes, and does it only make it possible or does it actually shove genuine words of praise into that person's mouth?

I would never use terms like shove genuine words of praise into a person's mouth because obviously we're talking about the miracle of Resurrecting a dead sinner to spiritual life. And so I don't even know where shoving words in someone's mouth would come from because faith is the natural result of the reborn person.

Who is shown who Jesus Christ is? Once we are freed from the slavery to sin and we are given eyes to see We see the Lord of Glory and it is the nature of the work of regeneration To create in that new person that desire for Christ.

It's it's natural. Well faith isn't if faith isn't faith if it's not exercised, right?

But when you said that faith is exercise autonomously, there's still nothing.

I don't believe anything is done autonomously except by God. We are his creatures and we live under his control and his power. But it is something that I do. If that's what you mean God isn't believing for me.

But I have been but it is the natural result of the work of God in me in the freedom of my soul from slavery to sin and the reforming of my being into one who loves God so and believes in Jesus Christ.

Okay, and the last thing is about the whole Potter and the clay thing. If I were to mold something in my art class and I would have to mold something obscene I mean, I would I think I'd get in trouble for it.

How is that different when it comes to God? I Again have money. It's basically said that God how can you say to your maker? Why did you make me this way. Is that directly attributing to God what he has made in reference to Pharaoh?

Well the use of the term obscene. Again, I I don't know where in the world that's coming from. The context is talking about vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor that is vessels specifically made to glorify God and to Find a place in in his home.

Versus vessels of wrath that demonstrate his justice and his his wrath against sin which are for common use not obscene use. So the point of the of the Potter the Potter's illustration is God's sovereignty and his his Right to do with his own creation as he sees fit.

I don't think that there is a direct correlation to someone creating something obscene in an art class.

So when he says in Romans 920, why have you made me this way? Yes, someone who God made Pharaoh the way he is a wicked sinner.

The the actual objection there is found in Romans 920 where it says for who resists his will the objection is to the sovereignty of God and and the fact that he chooses to extend his grace and to free certain people and He does not extend that grace to others.

Pharaoh was exactly what God intended him to be and exactly what Pharaoh wanted to be. In fact God had to restrain Pharaoh from being worse than he was. And so there was actually an extent of what could be called in some ways a restraining grace or a common grace.

They kept Pharaoh from being as bad as he was. As he as he could have been. Let's put it that way but the the objection of Romans 9 is not so much to why am I a sinner as it is to why? Would one person be given grace and another person not given grace?

As if grace could be something that was demanded not the idea that well, we're all sinners. And God somehow forced us to be that way. No God didn't force Pharaoh to be a sinner he kept Pharaoh from being a worse sinner than he than he actually was but he did have a purpose in Pharaoh's life and he had a purpose in Putting him in the position that he did and that was to demonstrate his power and his majesty.

What will it be proper for say someone like Dawkins to walk outside lift his hands up to the heaven to say? Why have you made me this way? Would that be proper on his part?

What is proper for Richard Dawkins according to Romans chapter 1 verse 20 is to recognize that he has a creator and therefore He should thank him for the life that he has been given. Dawkins has no grounds upon which to question God on any other level because he is only held accountable for giving thanks and Recognizing the creator of the of the heavens above him.

Now whether Dawkins will go out and scream that is is another issue but he certainly would not have any grounds for doing so because the reality is that he is not owed anything by God and That if it were not for God's restraint, he would be a whole lot worse of a person than he is.

So he actually should be thanking God that God has been so patient with him. Because Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins if God wanted to just simply exercise his justice at one Spell swoop he could call either one of them out of existence at any moment and do so completely justly.

But he has not. He has extended to them life and health and Slowly taking that away from both of them since they're both aging and Christopher Hitchens has cancer. And they both are continuing in their hatred of him despite all those things.

Okay, so what would be a practical example would a dishonorable use or a vessel for dishonorable use? Is that like something evil? Is that a reference to an evil use?

Dishonorable use in Romans in Romans 9 is in contrast to honorable use. So in other words the difference between the beautiful piece of pottery that is in the king's house and the trash can that is in the Servant's house in other words God that the Potter has a right at his at his own wheel.

To make whatever he chooses to make it that that is his kingly, right? And that's God's right to do as he chooses With his creation which brings about his greatest glory. And the point that Paul is making is what if he chose to be patient?

With vessels of wrath. Vessels that he is having to restrain. That he is having to hold his power back from punishing. That that experience Great things in this life from his hand even though they do not deserve any of it and they hate him and they spit in his face.

And they they live their lives and direct rebellion to him. What if he does that so that he might demonstrate? his wrath and his power in their eventual judgment and In the glorification of those vessels of honor that in this world seems so despised by the world.

But in that final judgment will be shown to be the heirs of grace.

So in Romans 9 22 the what-if is that a hypothetical or is that actually what God does?

No, that's just simply demonstrating in in Romans 9 22 the fact that he's he's. Well, let's let's read it for folks because.

What if yeah desiring to show his wrath To make known his power has endured with much patience. It sounds like a hypothetical by the what-if, right?

Well, not not that's that's that's his whole point on the contrary. Who are you. A man who answers back to God. The thing molded will not say the molder. Why'd you make me like this? Will it or does not the Potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump?

One vessel for honorable use and another for common use. There's the usage things that I was talking about. What if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known Endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy. Which he prepared beforehand for glory even us. And so Paul is is is saying this is what God has done. And and here is the the reason that he has done so so that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy.

So that basically saying if he didn't endure with much patience for those vessels that his riches in his glory wouldn't be able to be.

Made known it wouldn't. Well It wasn't. The point is that it would not be what he has Determined to do that that the reason he has chosen to do the things that he's done in the way that he's done. It is so that the entirety of his attributes might be demonstrated.

That is if there was no demonstration of wrath and justice If everybody was saved then you would not have a full a full Revelation of God's justice is wrath against sin, etc. If nobody was saved then you wouldn't see his mercy and his love, but the fact that you have his him patiently enduring vessels of wrath Allows for those of us who by his grace are vessels of mercy.

It's not only praise and worship him for what he has done for us But in the final judgment his justices is seen in how Patient and enduring he was with them and then in the final judgment of them. That glory is revealed to those of us who will see this in its entirety.

Who will surround the throne and worship him forever? I might say Peter. I think you now hold the record. For the most questions asked on any single dividing line program. I'm gonna go back and count them.

But I think you now hold the record. I think we ought to send him something. What should we send Peter? Should we we need to send Peter?

You know, there's a lot of people who want to do that. I can guarantee you something but honestly Peter.

For for coming up with so many good questions at one one time. I'm gonna put you on hold We're done here and I'm gonna have I'm gonna have rich Send you a copy of the debate that I did with David Silverman on Is is the New Testament evil?

How's that? I love you even more now. All right, I'm gonna put you on hold Peter. Thanks for calling today. All right. Thanks. Yeah. All right. All right. Yeah, I think I hope got him on hold there. So Someone needs I did I'll go count the number of questions there I mean I'll go since he's sort of like Google should be able to just Just do that and tell me exactly how many questions are just.

But that is definitely the record I'm certain of that now, I think I'm making rich Multitask here, but I want to get to Landon in Orlando. So Landon. Are you there? Hi, dr. White. I can hear you just fine.

All right. Thanks for taking the call brother. I really appreciate it. Yes, sir I had a quick question. I don't have any extensive formal Education or a degree or anything, but I means you think more clearly than most people do.

Yeah, I don't know about that. But um, I had the opportunity to go to the International Academy of apologetics and straw sport Led by dr. John work Montgomery. I don't know if you're familiar with that.

Oh, yeah. Sure. I am. Okay well, one of the things that they taught us was The primary goal of the apologists is to get the pagan to the cross as quickly and efficiently as possible. So we took the idea of a Christ essential Christ a centric view with the positive affirming evidence of life death burial resurrection of Christ and You're you're kind of instructed in the legal aspect of it where we deal in probability as as they illustrated You know, we don't we're not really certain of anything.

So you orchestrate the data and you create Probability based upon, you know beyond a reasonable doubt. Yeah, that's that's John Warwick Montgomery and William Lane Craig and and the classical evidentialist Perspective is that the greater preponderance of the evidence points to the greater possibility the existence of a god.

Yeah. Right. Okay. Now my question is. And I'm not anti presuppositional by any stretch. I'm trying to grow in my knowledge of all the perspectives I listened to your podcast a couple months ago. You referenced Greg Bonson and RC Sproul debating.

I actually purchased that debate and listened to it and there was one thing that dr Bonson said that I've had trouble wrestling with and that is he kept stating that we need to be certain We need to be certain of the things in Scripture.

And I think the thing I'm having trouble reconciling is Since we're leaving probability and dealing with certainty. Would that force us to be either a King James only advocate or some form of TR? Advocate in that we have to be certain of every single yacht or tittle meaning if if the Holy Spirit Commissioned and moved along a writer We need to be certain of every single thing written or how can you be certain of something that we're only?

Probabilistically Possessing. No. No, I I think you're missing the point that Bonson was making because Bonson certainly wasn't a TR or King James only a stand of course a claimed certainty that has no historical foundation is not a certainty at all the certainty that the Greg Bonson or Vantill or Frame or anybody else would refer to is the certainty that God has in fact spoken in Jesus Christ First and foremost and that he has spoken in the Word of God.

It is not a textual certainty of I'm absolutely certain that the original reading of Romans 5 1 was echo men versus echo men. That that's that's not what Bonson's referring to if you were to ask Bonson I think and he's in glory now, so can't answer these things, but I did know him and I would assume That his response that question would be that no the certainty of which he was speaking is the certainty that God has indeed spoken and That there are absolutely non-negotiable truths that have been revealed by God that are absolutely necessary For us to stand upon and that it's not merely Probably true that Jesus Christ lived and died and rose again.

It is absolutely true. It is necessarily true and it is not just probable that a God exists. But it is absolutely necessary that the triune God exists before without that triune God There would be no basis upon which we could even be having this conversation.

No basis for the regularity of nature laws of nature laws of logic or anything else. That's the certainty that he's talking about he's not talking about a a textual certainty regarding any any minor variant that one might pull out of the NTTs Apparatus or something like that he's he's talking about the absolute certainty that comes from the fact that God has testified that he is the Creator and That he has spoken with absolute assurance in Jesus Christ and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And there's no question that God as creator Jesus as God the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ. None of that is in any way shape or form dependent upon any textual variant. So that's that's not even that doesn't even enter in at that point the the book.

Well, if I I'm sorry if I could ask real quick before you keep going How can we be certain that he spoke through Christ if we don't have a certain written record Detailing explicitly everything he fulfilled and everything he lived well that the epistemology of that of that assertion is is something you really need to Consider very very carefully because what you're saying is unless you have a photocopy of the original.

You can't know that God has done anything that that's Bart Ehrman's position. You just you just Enunciated Bart Ehrman's position that if there is a single variant anywhere that we cannot have any certainty whatsoever and.

Well, that would that would basically mean that God could not speak in a written format before 1949. Because in 1949 the photocopier was invented till then even printing I mean if you go out right now to your local Christian bookstore and By three or four Thomas Nelson published King James versions or New King New King James versions Bible I will be able to guarantee you that you will find variant readings between Those Bibles published same translation published by the same publisher.

I can guarantee you you'll find variations between them. Same thing in the King James. You have the Cambridge King James. You got the Oxford King James. They're variants between those those two as well.

So printed edition can't do it the only way that you could possibly have absolute fidelity in reproduction is photographically and. That wasn't that technology did not develop until 1949. So in essence, you'd be saying God could not reveal himself in a scriptural fashion until 1949.

But doesn't the necessity of certainty no demand that back. No, it does not as I just said reconciling is. You know being instructed I guess and all this probabilistic we live, you know, I'm I go sit down in this chair I'm 99 probably sure it's gonna hold my weight, but I'm not a hundred percent certain I don't go up and check all the screws and things like that.

And I think they're Simple question for you Landon. Where did the Apostles ever present the deathbed resurrection of Jesus Christ as a probability. No, right? Okay. No, I see I agree with that aspect of it I guess I'm just having trouble with.

Okay did the Landon did the Apostles have a single perfect text that had no variations in it. The ones that they handwritten I would assume were perfect. Well, wait a minute. The the fact the matter is the Apostles the vast majority of citations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Greek Septuagint and The Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ quoted textual variants in the Greek Septuagint where it varied from the Hebrew.

Did you know that? No, I didn't know that extensively. No. Yeah, so if you if you work through the book of Hebrews, for example, he was chapter 8 key text and there is a fascinating textual variant where In the book of Hebrews, it says I did not care for them and the Hebrew says I was not a husband to them.

Now the Apostle quoted the textual variant from the Greek Septuagint. And we believe that that was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So What is the logical result from that that the assumption that's being made that you have to have some type of?

Mechanically photocopied original is not something that the Apostles functioned on. It's not something that the New Testament writers functioned on. And it it misses the connection between what I said earlier and that is there is absolutely positively no probability there is absolute certainty that the scriptures in any Version and any translation Thereof that it isn't a cultic translate I'm not talking about the New World translation some silliness like that or Reverend moon or some something like that, but they teach That God is the creator of all things in Hundreds if not thousands of passages.

That Jesus Christ came from the father that Jesus Christ died buried and was risen again in other words the Aspects of the faith That are non-negotiable and that we must press upon the unbeliever and that we cannot pretend our matters of probability Are not subject to textual variation for their foundation in any way shape or form I mean name me one of those things where it's based on only one text and there's a variant there.

Well, what is the let me ask the question this way. What is the textual command that we are only to have certainty in that and not have certainty in every yacht or tittle? Well again, every every jot and tittle as God inspired it is going to be fulfilled that is not the same thing as some type of promise that every scribe who copies the scriptures is Going to be perfect in his copying that and that's not that's not promised in Scripture anywhere, correct?

No, it is not and the reality of history is is is very clear testimony to the fact that the early Christians for example tended to be from the poorer classes and Even when persecution wasn't taking place.

Many of the papyri manuscripts we found are not by scribes that were overly well trained if they were trained at all and yet Christians wanted their scriptures to go out to everybody. So you have a choice.

I mean if they took the perspective of well, we have to have absolute certainty we have to have the best scribes world doing this then you wouldn't have had the gospel going out to all the known world and.

Yet that's exactly what we find out happened and I'm awful glad that it did because the Roman Empire then persecuted the Christians and destroyed thousands of copies of the New Testament and the Bible as a whole as well.

And if there had not been this massive copying enterprise going by people who love the Word of God. Would we even have it today now, obviously, I believe the sovereignty of God we would but that was the mechanism he used to preserve it.

But part of the preservation involves the wide distribution of it which involves the minor textual variants. But that's where the actual preservation takes place land and is that there when people come along and say well You don't know that the the original writers actually believed in the deity of Christ.

Maybe that's been inserted. We can absolutely prove that that's not the case. Because we have such a wide distribution of the New Testament over such a wide area. No one ever controlled it. No one could ever edit it.

Now the minor textual variation and it in comparison any other ancient work. It has the the least amount. It's the purest text we have from antiquity. But that minor textual variation is the result of the methodology that God used to actually preserve the text.

You might want to go on my youtube channel and go back to November of 08 as far as the date goes and I posted up there my presentation at a church in as I recall, North Carolina. Where I went through the transmission of the New Testament text and why we can trust the New Testament and stuff like that that might be something to be Really helpful to you, right?

Right and again, I don't I didn't have any contention with our understanding of textual criticism. This this just threw me for a curveball this one aspect of the certainty. It was a great conviction I needed to be challenged on it, but these were things I was wrestling in my mind.

I'm not really understand I'm not trying I'm not trying to get to get on you Landon I'm just trying to point out that I I really do think that some of the thinking of that evidentialist school sometimes is really hard to to get around and and it really concerns me because Fundamentally, it is a an apologetic system that leads you to only being able to Argue for the greater probability of existence of a God rather than to proclaim with power the existence of the triune God of Scripture Who will judge every man at the coming of Jesus Christ by his death burial and resurrection?

There isn't the authority in That kind of apologetic proclamation that there is in the apostolic proclamation and that's what concerns me, right? Right. Well and and just real quick. I had even asked in class.