February 11, 2010

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.

Travel Plans, London Debate, and Upcoming Apologetics Work

And good afternoon welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon the last dividing line for a while because I I was thinking that I headed for London on Wednesday and I head for London on Tuesday.

So won't be doing the dividing line on Tuesday unfortunately. Because I need to go to the airport and fly across the United States and get another plane and fly across the Atlantic. So that's gonna be a long day.

So I Suppose, you know when I get over there, we'll think about it. I might actually be able to work something out from over there Depending on what kind of internet access I have at the hotel, which we haven't bothered to look at yet to find out.

We we got that place, but I don't know that we even looked at internet stuff so I really don't think trying to do the dividing line over my BlackBerry would be a really good idea, but You know, who knows but anyway, very very thankful that since we were last together a certain thing called a visa was inserted into my Passport and sent back to me and it is in my possession.

And so we are going to London the debate with Abdullah on the Lucy. I was listening to our encounter on the unbelievable radio program just today while riding and Then gonna be on unbelievable haven't heard back from Revelation TV yet.

Hopeful. Hopefully you'll be on there looking forward to a lot of wonderful and exciting stuff there going on in the UK so a good chance to get back and Be with the Saints there at Trinity Road Chapel in upper tooting of London.

I can guarantee you in almost any United States city that name would have been changed long long ago, but this is the UK so anyway Had lots and lots and lots of I've learned something. When I render video out of iTunes HD the old version, I'm sorry I movie HD I render it as an FLV not as mp4.

That will go straight up to YouTube and work just fine. I Wasted I don't know how much bandwidth and hours on that today, but Finally this morning around 1130 or so. We got the video up that I've been working on pretty much all day yesterday and I Have posted that it is a response to Eric and Kanner I had encountered a Discussion between an interview between Eric and Kanner and Brian Broderson, isn't that weird?

The same Calvary Chapel guys we've been talking about and I was just taken aback by by what Eric and Kanner said about himself and So I just just remind you if you have not heard it And you have not taken the time to listen to the just under 32 minute video That I posted just this morning on the blog Here is the section from the interview.

Let's listen to what? Eric and Kanner says in response to a question about debates. Debates are an important thing and Here's what he said you are you doing you're doing debates? Occasionally, I would imagine with imams or Muslim clerics or leaders or whatever.

You going on to university campuses and community colleges, and then I like very informal ones. Formal debates have been taken over a lot by um Myopic reformed guys. They try to turn it into these little Show ponies.

It's like the Jerry Springer show basically and there's really not any real discussion going on. It's rolling of eyes. It's huffing and passive-aggressive garbage.

Now I just realized I put theirs instead of it's so I'll have to maybe fix that. But other than that, I provide a good transcription of those comments. Myopic reformed guys have taken over the formal debates as if Ergon had been doing formal debates before that the fact the matter is man doesn't do formal debates and Talking to a Muslim student in the quad at a community college is not a debate and Yet if you will but go to his own website if you'll go to Ergon Kanner .com slash biography.

As of today it says a public speaker and apologist Kanner has debated Buddhists Muslims Hindus and other religious leaders in 13 countries and 35 states. Now the irony is I I looked back because I had looked at this before.

I looked back in October of this year remember we had a little bit of an encounter there and Back then he said 11 countries in 40 states, so he's lost five states. He's not debated in five states. It's made him before oh My.

Well the members of my church sent me some links and I didn't queue him up. But you can go online and you can you can find Ergon Kanner at one point saying that he was born in Istanbul and Then in the next link he will say he was born in Sweden.

Now Istanbul and Sweden are ways away from another. I mean there are a couple things I You know sometimes I say I was born in Minnesota sometimes. I say I was born in Minneapolis. I was actually born in a suburb.

But no one would have any problem with any of that. That's like saying you know people born in Peoria might say they were born in in Phoenix just because Phoenix is a major city, but Istanbul and Sweden Not even in the same continent.

No not not not going there. Yeah, so Just just just fascinating stuff. I just I can't begin to understand Why Ergon Kanner has to say the things that he does? But that's that's just the way it is so I posted that and hopefully you will find it to be useful I did have some theological conversation toward the end.

Where I responded to Statements that he made in in reference to the doctrine of particular redemption and I Do want to play one of the section if you want to hear an introduction To Ergon Kanner here here is an introduction he got At a youth thing and then just just listen to what again what he says about himself.

And it sounds like you're pretty excited about it. He is the president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary He has the number one podcast that debates all kinds of people in the religious realm Arenas of life in different belief systems and He is.

Very smart. He's very funny. And he's very he's very.

Powerful might be and the thing that I know he's most proud of is that there is powerful. He's got a wife and two boys. His wife and one of his boys is here tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, please help me.

Welcome back. Well another year to this stage. Mr. Ergon.

Bet you didn't like the mister part. He comes out wearing a hoodie with a towel over his shoulder and jeans.

Hmm and I love you guys, this is huge. Ah, I am a former Muslim Turkish immigrant and None of that matters to me. I Am a born-again blood-bought believer in Jesus Christ. I Am I am a follower of Jesus?

Unapologetic People's telling you about my debates. I debate anyone. I Have a standing order that I will debate anyone anytime anyplace. Mm-hmm. Usually it's in universities and colleges.

The amazing thing is this was recorded after 2006 After the most elaborate attempt to save face while bailing out of the debate at Liberty University. Still has has the temerity to to say these things.

It is it is truly. I.

Don't know, you know what I'm talking about. The Community colleges state universities. A Campus crusade group will have me in and I will debate anyone any Buddhist. Mm-hmm. Every type of Muslim Sunni Shia, Alouie to bruise.

Hobby, I've never debated a hobby, but just about all of them. Taoists Shintoists colonists Confucianists anybody. Because I believe that Christianity has nothing to fear from any other world religion.

We are not a religion. We are followers of Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ alone is Lord and Savior. Now that may offend some of you in this room.

Now again, that sounds great. That sounds wonderful. If it were all true I mean if you actually, you know lived up to his own hype, but that's what bothers me about this people. Say why are you picking on Eric and Cantor?

Because there's such a thing as You know meaning need to be truthful in the apologetic realm especially in the apologetic realm and When you say I've done X Y or Z. It's a good thing to have done X Y or Z because someone might actually you know Look up and find out whether you did or didn't it's pretty easy folks to look up.

You know what books I've written the people have debated since the evidence is out there and available for everybody, but Dr. Cantor is trying to get people to enroll in his seminary and attend his global apologetics program and So that's why on the his website.

He says he's done all these debates and then when you ask about it what it is is well, you know I once asked a Wiccan student at Greenville Community College on the quad about his religion. Is that really what you think is Being said on his website.

I don't think that's what's being said when you go to my website and you go to my bio you will find the specific names and dates and locations and topics of Almost 90 moderated public debates. When they happened what the subject was who it was with and where it was located.

You will not find anything like that for Eric and Cantor. Now, I'm not the head of a theological seminary. I teach at one, but I'm not the head of a theological seminary so maybe there's a difference but that's what bothers me and When they then when dr. Cantor is then just simply dishonest as he was on the Calvary Chapel program.

Just dishonest about the reality. This is why I don't like those formal debates. Cuz those myopic reform guys have taken it all over and they act like Jerry Springer. He's the one who acts like Jerry Springer.

That's why I put the clip in there showing him getting tased in the Liberty Chapel. Yeah, that's a great thing to be doing in Chapel getting tased. Coming out in his hoodie, which what's Jerry Springer who's who's really doing the Jerry Springer routine?

Here is what I would like to know. So I'd love to hear what what dr. Cantor has to say, but I really doubt that I mean he's blocked me from Twitter. So I'm not expecting any Major contact anytime soon from from dr. Cantor.

We got a lot of things to get to today. I need to. I For some reason was thinking I'd have today and Tuesday to look at the Anthony buzzer stuff. I'm not gonna have a chance to I'll get to some of it today, but I'm not gonna get the most important stuff and It's almost like because I was waiting on that visa London seemed like it was farther away.

And now that I've gotten it It's like boom. It's Packed stuff up now get ready to go ma 'am. So we're gonna go ahead and take our first phone call and Then I need to get back to the Anthony buzzer stuff.

Particular Redemption and the Shape of God’s Decree

Let's talk with Aaron. Hi Aaron. Hi, dr. White.

I was just calling a really quick bait you recently had. I thought it was a great place for you to start be and the extent of the decree lab that you spent in.

Romans nine hit him with Romans.

Yeah, a lot of you know that that's that's appreciate that you that you went to that issue and stress that first. But one thing that I've noticed is oh, yeah, we're gonna have him on the program here.

Great. Great. Maybe this may be the decree second cause a when he.

Yeah, I uh, I wrote dr. Brown. We're gonna have him on the program. I Just didn't think it was worthwhile to do it between that time and and heading to to England so probably next month when when he can work it out.

I mean, he's got a debate with Ermin coming up. He's got a lot of stuff and and of course I did those two debates the day before debating Tim Staples so I didn't exactly schedule things real well myself, but we're gonna have him on the program and.

So I wrote to him and I said, you know, let's pick some some text to look at. However What I really think is is a problem here is I I don't yet really understand what you believe. Concerning your statements that God is sovereign and yet.

God does not have a decree and You say that God will accomplish all his holy will but I don't know What you mean by what his will is how extensive is that? What what does it mean? Can you know does that does that how does that relate to?

Human beings there's just all sorts of stuff here that I I don't know where you're coming from. And so I said for example, I would in a theodicy situation in this situation I could point you to various books if you want to look at Robert Raymond's discussion of these things in His systematic theology or something like that.

I could point you to Material that would represent my understanding. Could you do the same thing for me? Could you give me a systematic theology a work on theodicy divine decrees something? That I could you know bite into and hold you to that because it's pretty obvious what I'm saying, but I don't get the feeling it's really obvious what you're saying and He said he would look for something like that because he honestly admitted He off top of his head.

He wasn't aware of Anything like that that he wouldn't necessarily say well this particular systematic theology gives my viewpoint here and So hopefully I'll be able to get something like that and and we need to discuss that first that needs to be the first area of discussion and then we can go the text, but yeah, I that's why I kept going there is because I wasn't getting the kind of clarity that I needed to get on that subject and My criticisms of his responses when he was then alone was he was saying no, it's not what he means.

It means this. But then there weren't specifics as to why he was saying that I don't have the framework To fit the statements into to be able to determine consistency. And that's that's what we need to do so hopefully we will we will Have that kind of information before we schedule those programs and then I'm just gonna throw it out to.

I need to I need to blog on this, but basically we need to find a Pretty large church somewhere in the United States that would say yeah. We would like to host maybe one or two debates, maybe a two-night situation.

Where we would split it up between? Let's say sovereign decree. Depravity and election one night and atonement and irresistible grace the next night something like that. And do some some real major debating in public because he wants to do that.

I want to do that as well but we need to have a Fairly decent location to have that happen. So if there are any elders of fairly decent sized Churches out there that would be interested in hosting something like that.

Let us know because I think that dr.

Brown would be quite interested in scheduling that broach in that in that. Okay. Thanks Aaron. Thank you. I got blessed by that.

Yeah, I was I was I was listening to Dr. Brown dealing with the Kermit czar Lee and with Anthony buzzard and And again, I you know Dr. Brown and I would make an interesting traveling debate team. Because there are a number of subjects where he and I could be a two-man debate team against somebody else.

Where we could debate we could defend the Trinity and the deity of Christ and the resurrection and things like that but then we could also then turn around and illustrate how to debate other issues particularly this one and Of course my hope and desire over time would be that we wouldn't build it anymore because eventually Michael go man.

Of course, it's right there. They make a great great team doing that but I really like Michael Brown and You know, I do hear his his frustration when he talks about Arrogant Calvinists and in fact, I got an email from somebody who was sort of beating on that particular drum.

I've seen arrogant people who believe every kind of theology in the world but there is no theology in the world that should be more inconsistent for someone to hold in the midst of their arrogance than reformed theology and That's why I highly recommend to people if you have not read Albert Martin's Wonderful, it's a it's a booklet.

It's not a full-size book. It's a booklet published of a banner of truth. And as soon as I said that the practical implications of Calvinism is what's called the practical Implications of Calvinism if you haven't read that and you have embraced reformed theology, please read it.

So that you know, I I'm not sure if I coined it, but I certainly have used it. There is a term that I use In reference to Young people who embrace the reformed faith and tend to be overzealous. It's called the cage stage and That is those people who?

Quite simply lack the Maturity to handle the subjects that they're addressing and they want to get on their pony and write off and convert everybody to Calvinism. Without recognizing that especially, you know that subject requires the work the Spirit of God to open someone's heart and to and to quell the rebellion that remains there.

That causes us to dislike God's sovereignty and you can't shove that down someone's throat. You can defend it. You can teach it as I have done many many times but you can't shove it down somebody's throat and You got to be very very careful when you get to the point where you start saying well If someone doesn't agree with me on this, I'm just simply going to assume that they're not a Christian.

Be very very careful when you start demanding perfection of theology on every single point as the definition of what it means to be a Christian. Yes, these are important issues relating to the gospel.

But it takes real maturity and balance to not Turn a perfect understanding of these things into a requirement for someone to be a Christian just be very very careful about that. Well, we're never get anywhere if I don't stop preaching on this particular subject.

We are picking up With sir, Anthony buzzards comments. I doubt we're gonna get to the key issues. We're get to some important issues. But I doubt we're gonna get to the key issue I wanted to get to which means that if sir Anthony is listening and I think he probably is Then he's just gonna have to hear this when we we might get to someone ten one today.

I don't know. We'll see. But I did not queue up. The specific statements that sir Anthony makes on Hebrews 110 and if sir Anthony is listening We're gonna go there on the unbelievable radio program. We have to go there I really think if we do hear the Psalm 110 thing.

That that's extremely important. So let's pick back up where we were. This was quite a while ago now if you weren't listening before but let's listen to sir. Anthony buzzards subordination.

The Eternal Son, the Trinity, and the Problem of Unitarian Reading

God is always Superior to Jesus. He's the head of Jesus. Jesus is son of God's all sons are younger than their fathers. Again, I have to make an extraordinary language leap to believe that a son Is the same age as eternal as the father.

That's an extraordinary language leap.

Well, I think applying any human language to God requires an extraordinary language leap. There is so much any language of God's activity in time is is going to stress human language. There are so many basic things of God's existence that we struggle to express even in human language that to say that human language should have an easy time a simplistic time in.

Discussing the highest level of God's revelation strikes me as a very very odd thing.

Extraordinary. I already mentioned it was beginning to bring into existence.

Notice beget means to bring into existence among creatures. Yes. But basically you need to hear what's being said here is that we cannot use any of this language of anything But creatures that's what in essence is being said.

And and as a result you are basically left saying well, even if God were to condescend to give us information Concerning the eternal state that which even existed before creation then we just have to close our mouths and we just have to close our eyes and not listen to what God says because there's a danger see that we might be foolish enough to Insist upon inserting into that human language creaturely categories rather than recognizing That we need to be thinking in divine categories and That's just Again it.

I think because sir Anthony speaks a wonderful British accent people just allow that to go flying by rather than saying wait a minute.

Why are you assuming these things. You've really got to satisfy yourself that eternal begetting is a genuine biblical idea in order to get the Trinity started. Because and I would.

Eternal begetting simply is talking about the relationship that has existed between the Father and the Son and that it is a relationship that reveals to us a means by which we can differentiate between the divine persons.

In other words in the economic Trinity that is how the divine persons have chosen in the eternal covenant redemption to act and what roles they've taken in the self glorification of God the redemption of a particular people in Jesus Christ.

That's one way that we recognize the difference between father son and spirit is. Economically by what they do. The son does not do the exact same thing the spirit that the that the spirit does the same thing the father does.

The son has a very unique role. The spirit has a very unique role. The father has a unique role and they differ from one Another. There are things the son does this the father's never done the spirits never done.

But when we talk about for example begetting We're no longer talking about the economic Trinity in the sense of what they are doing that we can see in creation we're now talking about the actual internal relationships of The Father Son Holy Spirit, and how they are differentiated from one another.

Without that there really is no Trinity.

And I'm rather impressed in and I do recommend it if you're taking this study seriously. In the months ahead you really should get the book by Millard Erickson Who is evangelical isms? splendid Proponents of Trinitarianism, but he really works at it very hard and very thoroughly.

And he says in that book in that book that he doesn't believe in the eternal generation of the son. He can't find that He believes in the Trinity still so he believes in three pre-existent Somethings, but it isn't the son that's generated.

Apparently he's given up that argument. That's a considerable move in the direction of Unitarian theology.

I have a feeling that Miller Erickson would not appreciate The spin that Sir Anthony puts upon such things. To be honest with you. I think that and I haven't read Miller Erickson's comments on this particular subject but my assumption would be That he is talking about Not trying to prove this in a biblical sense saying that it's a biblical revelation But that it's a Descriptive issue.

That's my assumption is what he would be saying. But I I don't think that he would in any way shape or form appreciate someone stating. Ah, this is a move toward Unitarianism. That that that that that strikes me as something he would chafe under just a little bit.

I should remind you that people like Adam Clarke the Methodist expositor said I find this idea of an eternal generation son very dangerous and anti-scriptural. Because to generate needs to bring into existence.

And of course when we recognize that's not what we mean by it.

Then it doesn't and you're going to talk about generation of the Sun. You are immediately giving up the Trinity because it means that one Has been brought into existence and was not brought was not in existence before that time.

So these are major. Have you noticed that there's crickets in the background of this? Now either they were outside or You know like like in a amphitheater or something. I don't know. Or or maybe that's something that the the proton.

Maybe somebody is using a program to record this it inserts that because he didn't register it or something. I I Don't know but I I know that the first time I was listening to it was listening to it. We're all writing and I'm outside.

I got wind noise and stuff like that, but everyone's while I go really sounds like there are crickets out there. Sort of wonder why that is we're gonna go ahead and skip the skip the break because I I'm gonna get a little enough of this in.

You certainly could not mount Much of an argument if any for the Trinity in Matthew Markman. I've already suggested you can't mount any argument from the elders and many scholars would agree with that.

There's our many scholars quote I Matthew Mark and Luke Here's where again we have a book in the in the library library in the bookstore that you really need to get called The Lord of Glory by B .B. Warfield, he really takes this kind of argument apart he really really does and In fact, I just noticed and I again We got to get somebody in here.

It actually works. I have not blogged. The fact that we now have RC Sproul's commentary on John in he also wrote us a second commentary. Did we look at that one? Okay but RC Sproul's It's not. It's an expository commentary similar to John MacArthur's materials rather than an exegetical commentary, but RC Sproul's put out RC is just a great writer and so people who want to you know, catch this stuff And prefer that kind of writing will find this to be very useful.

Yeah, we're working on getting it into the bookstore. We haven't set that up just I thought we had cuz I saw him on the close.

They just came in and then we need you to do a commercial for them in your best British accent. Oh, okay.

Well, I'll wait till I come back and I will have been amongst the Brits and it always Results in an improvement because right now the last people I was amongst were the Aussies. Yeah, and so it could be really ugly if I if I tried to do that right now, that's true.

But we have learned that theology.

Sounds so much higher. Yes, it does a British accent. It does. There's no question about that. I don't know what it is, but That's I mean I would I'm gonna be at a real disadvantage In London because I'm just the Yank and sir, sir, Anthony.

I mean, he's got a hereditary title So I have to call him. Sir. Anthony during the unbelievable radio program. So I'm gonna disadvantage from every which direction so Don't think that's actually got me worried at all.

But anyway, we could say.

From Dr. Sanders remarks earlier that perhaps he doesn't base the Trinity on the Old Testament at all.

No, I mean aside from those references messianic references to the deity of Christ things like that. Let me mention once again emphasize. When is the Trinity revealed is revealed in the incarnation of the Sun and the outpouring of the Spirit?

When does that happen between the Testaments? Between the Testaments and. That's why the New Testament is such a Trinitarian document. That's why it is so soaked in Trinitarian language. Because its authors are experiential Trinitarians they have experienced think of Peter.

He has heard the father speak in the mouth transfiguration. He's seen the Sun transfigured. He's now in dwelt by the Holy Spirit. He knows Those divine persons. He's an experiential Trinitarian. That's why they can speak so easily in Trinitarian categories.

You have the Trinitarian benediction in 2nd Corinthians. You have this language just it soaks the entirety of the New Testament because they are experiential Trinitarian.

In the New Testament. But if you look at the synoptics, you'll find that Gabriel Is quite precise in this issue of the Son of God. In Luke 135 He says to Mary Holy Spirit will come over you Mariana and the power of the highest will overshadow you and for that Reason precisely your son will be the Son of God.

Did you hear that? Now notice what he did there. Now, I'm I.

I Could roll this back, but it's a little bit difficult in this program to do. I could roll this back. I think he said Holy Spirit will overcome you not the Holy Spirit. Maybe I just missed it. But he doesn't believe the Holy Spirit's a divine person.

So that would sound like the Jehovah's Witness Holy Spirit God's act of power. So that would be interesting to discover. I would imagine that that is the case because he is a Sassanian. But then notice that the what was what was said there the angel answered said to her the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you and For that reason the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God now.

He said for this very reason and he's trying to say this is this is why he is. The Son of God is because of his supernatural birth not. Because of this the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God because remember for him.

This is this is where Jesus comes into existence. He does not exist prior to his birth in Bethlehem. He's but a plan. He's not even a he it is a plan. That's why he emphasizes in John 1 1 that should be all things are made through it instead of him.

This becomes the the plan then becomes a man. Which raises all sorts of problems because he loves to go to John 17 3 as well as all Unitarians do but I've never heard him go to John 17 5 9. I need to look at his book.

I'm gonna have to drag that along with me. I imagine across the pond, but I would like to see how each attempts to respond to John 17 5. Because it is so plain and so clear in its assertion of the pre-existence of Jesus.

So I'm sure it's addressed there. But you would think every time John 17 3 was mentioned that he would he would mention that but that is for that reason precisely.

Consequence upon This miraculous event in the womb Mary, that's why he's the Son of God. That's what is miracle about Jesus. He shall be called the Son of God.

Not that's what makes him the Son of God's a huge leap. From saying to be called something means that that's what constituted you as the Son of God.

That's why we can speak of his divinity if you like. The fact that he's been miraculously conceived. That's what Gabriel said. And I would put it to you that Gabriel was not a Trinitarian. He knew nothing about the pre-existing.

Son as if you can even Come up with any of that. From these words of Gabriel. There's nothing here about the pre-existence issue at all. I mean, that's you're inserting something in here. Obviously if the of all the biblical texts that clearly present the pre-existence of Christ mean what they say.

Then Gabriel well knew the identity but that's not what he was addressing. So to try to force that into this text again is is a tremendous example of Isaac Jesus.

Dr. Sanders in our discussion before we began. So right now he said this is really an argument about the nature of the Sun. We're all agreed that the father's God. No disagreement on that, but we're going to get as we move into the rest of our debate.

We're going to be talking more obviously about the nature of the Sun. I'm suggesting to you then the Sun comes into existence in the womb of his mother Luke 135 and the parallel text Matthew 120 and finish with this Joseph is told that which is forgotten in her Is from the Holy Spirit that is which is brought into existence.

There's no pre-existing son here and most scholars would agree with that. So you could take that into your. Into the data that you feed into the arguments as you make up your mind.

Yeah, I have this this most scholars would agree thing really gets boring after a while personally. Do not fear to take Mary as your wife for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit that so so again notice the assumption the assumption is that there is nothing before this and That this is just a natural birth in the sense of a creature Who has been created at this point in time, but if Jesus pre-existed, how would the angel said anything differently?

Because that which was conceived in her is human and Our assertion is the humanity of Jesus didn't pre-exist. So you see how that wasn't even an argument. It's actually not even relevant. It sounds like an argument people go.

Oh, I know and thought about that until you stop for a moment go Wait a minute, then what he's actually arguing would have to require me to believe That the flesh of Jesus pre-existed his birth and we don't believe that.

So the text is not addressing the issue at all. This is classical. This isn't so much is a Jesus as it is sort of tricky unfair argumentation and I've said many many times when you listen to one-disc Pentecostals when you listen to Muslims when you listen to so Sinian's as few of them as there are and Sir, Anthony buzzard being probably the most popular or well-known today.

You are listening to people who assume Unitarianism they never prove it same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to your door. They're gonna pull the same stunts or all the subordination is they're all gonna do the same thing.

They are going to assume Unitarianism and then use that as a bat over which to beat you with the over with with which to beat you over the head. And you must challenge it over and over and over again.

It's really Involves handling the text of Scripture, but also recognizing forms of argumentation and where they are foundationally flawed in other words logic and. That's why these people get away with so much of what they get away with because people generally do not think logically they don't recognize bad Argumentation, which is why so many of the people who get elected get elected in our country.