Abortion at the Vatican, Baptist Dogmatics

Alpha & Omega Ministries iconAlpha & Omega Ministries

38 views

Why would Francis appoint someone who is pro-choice to an official position with the Vatican? What does this tell us about how tradition can, and does, change over time? We started here, and then moved on to this article from (we think) Drew Sparks, reading and responding to it in its entirety. Very important discussion once again of Scripture, interpretation, and sufficiency.

Comments are disabled.

00:31
Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. Let's get to it today, let's cause all of you who complain about the first two or three minutes being not worth listening to, to miss something.
00:42
Let's just miss it today. I want to start off with a very useful thread on Twitter posted this morning by Brad Clausen.
00:52
In his refutation of Erasmus' claim that Scripture was obscure,
00:58
Luther also argues that the claim of obscurity is often made not in response to what Scripture says, but in response to what it doesn't.
01:06
Here, Luther makes a distinction every interpreter must heed. Scripture often tells us only the what, but not the how.
01:15
It tells us what to believe, but does not explain more. Taking matters into their own hands, the popes and the scholastics sought to discern and assert the how, and that only came through speculation.
01:28
Luther counters, to the extent, therefore, that God hides himself and wills to be unknown by us, it is no business of ours.
01:38
God must, therefore, be left to himself in his own majesty, for in this regard we have nothing to do with him.
01:44
Nor has he willed that we should have anything to do with him, but we have something to do with him insofar as he is clothed and set forth in his word through which he offers himself to us.
01:58
Luther recognized that the degree to which the speculation into the white spaces is permitted is the degree to which the authority of those speculating will be entrenched and ultimately equal or supersede that of Scripture.
02:17
Luther would have none of it. Well, we can all have an argument as to how successful Luther was, how accurate he was in the recognition in his own life of where he had been influenced, and all the rest of that stuff.
02:31
But the fundamental assertion that is being made here, I think, is absolutely vital, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that that which is necessary for the sheep of Christ to find peace in him and to stand firm in a very aggressive and hateful world must be that which finds its source, its origin, in the
03:04
Scriptures themselves. And insofar as we have obscured the teaching of Scripture with speculation outside of that which is found in its pages, we are not proving ourselves to be good servants of Christ in so doing.
03:26
And again, none of us do it perfectly, but it should be our goal.
03:32
And we're literally fighting a battle right now as to whether that should be our goal or not. That's, I think, rather important.
03:39
Now, I saw an article just last night, and it's from Powerline, safe from the sign of the cross, and it's speaking about—we're shifting topics here—it's speaking about the public spaces protection order in the
04:06
United Kingdom. And we're starting to see similar types of things here in the
04:12
United States as well. But there's this sign, and it marks off basically all of downtown in a particular city.
04:23
This is Bournemouth, and it says,
04:57
So from 7 a .m. to 7 p .m.
05:03
in this zone, This safe zone.
05:10
What do you say from? Someone praying. Now, here in the
05:17
United States, at least those of us who have been around for a while, we sort of have it ingrained upon us that this kind of tyranny, that this is tyranny because it's a denial of our free speech rights.
05:38
But we must realize, of course, that this at one point had been freest society that had really ever been known because of a recognition of the origin and source of human rights.
05:57
They're not to be found in written documents. They are found in the created order around us as it has been ordered by God.
06:06
And as we have rejected that foundation, we now see as a result, the inevitable abandonment and rejection of those very foundations and hence those rights such as free speech.
06:24
But it is an amazing thing to think about calling something a safe zone when in reality it is a no rights zone.
06:37
It is a death zone. When you are afraid of people praying, you have capitulated to the culture of death and the result is inevitable.
06:55
And so when you look at what's going on in Europe and what people want to have happening here and what they will promote if they are given any opportunity whatsoever to overthrow freedom of religion, freedom of speech, they will do it.
07:25
They have absolutely no qualms whatsoever. The leftists in the
07:34
United States are just as radical as the leftists brought about the Bolshevik revolution and everything else.
07:40
They're the same people, the same mindset, and it will have the same results just multiplied many times over as far as the number of deaths.
07:50
But the insane depths to which these people will go to protect the sacrament of the secular culture of death, that being the murder of unborn children, and now the exposure of born children to drag queens and grooming and mutilation of their bodies so they can never have children and have much shorter lives.
08:28
It's all part of the culture of death. It's all related, directly related, all of it together.
08:33
There's no way around that. In the midst of all this we have heard over and over again that there is one group that stands firm and that is the
08:50
Roman Catholic Church. The very phrase culture of death came from a pope and there is no doubt that Roman Catholicism was much earlier on the uptake in regards to abortion than Protestants were.
09:12
I mean, most people didn't even know what it was all about. And it has been admitted that prior to 1973 there were lots of Southern Baptists.
09:20
The Southern Baptist Convention itself seemingly was in support of abortion rights, but no one knew really what, had never really thought it through, and the
09:32
Roman Catholics had. And so for a lot of folks it's been like, well, you know, there's one group that will always stand firm, and I just go, really?
09:44
What causes, what could possibly, what foundation could be provided that would stand firm with anything coming at it, anything we see in this world?
10:02
It is not tradition, even the Roman Catholic tradition. And if you want to see a good example of this, and this is going to tie into a lot of what we have to say today, you see, tradition is not the preservation of a consistent objective truth over time.
10:29
When you look at the development of tradition in church history, what you see are fits and starts and bumps and dead ends that could have been different.
10:45
The dead ends could have been where the road ended up going, but didn't historically.
10:54
And what you see is a change in development over time. Again, this was not, at least amongst
11:02
Protestants, believing Protestants, a disputable issue until just recently, once Protestants started elevating tradition and redefining tradition and things like that.
11:17
But we recognized that, for example, Wycliffe has a great video.
11:28
We played it a number of times on New Year's Eve over the years. It's a great video.
11:37
Wycliffe, I think it's called Wycliffe, the Morning Star of the Reformation, something like that. And one of the scenes, or a couple of the scenes in the video, portrayed
11:51
Wycliffe recognizing how the teaching of the church changed, and not all that long ago.
12:03
He recognized that the doctrine of substantiation was a doctrine that had been unknown only a few hundred years before his own time.
12:16
That was a very dangerous thing to recognize, but the development of tradition over time is well, well documented.
12:24
And so what happens is you will get certain individuals,
12:30
Augustine being sort of the prototypical example of this, but certain individuals who have a really outsized influence on the generations and centuries after them.
12:45
And they are imperfect individuals, and we may honor them, and we may think that they did a lot of great things, but the fact of the matter is they weren't perfect.
12:59
And a number of times, historically, it was the errors that they made that became elevated on the basis of their own personal accomplishments and name and become incorporated into, quote,
13:17
Christian tradition, end quote, even though their conclusions or their understandings were erroneous.
13:26
And the result over time is a movement of the center point of that tradition.
13:36
It is not merely the constant guarding of a historically same tradition.
13:48
We have a modern illustration that just came out. The Catholic News Agency has this headline.
14:01
Pope Francis appoints pro -abortion economist to Pontifical Academy for Life. The Pontifical Academy for Life.
14:11
Mariana Mazzucato is the pro -abortion economist.
14:19
Washington, D .C., October 18th. This was two days ago. One of the newest members of the
14:24
Pontifical Academy for Life appointed by Pope Francis is an outspoken advocate of abortion rights, having recently shared her opposition to the overturning of Roe v.
14:35
Wade on Twitter. Italian -American economist Mariana Mazzucato, known for her work promoting the public sector's role in encouraging innovation, was among seven academics appointed by the
14:48
Pope on October 15th to serve five -year terms with the Academy. In his 2020 book,
14:54
Let Us Dream, The Path to a Better Future, Pope Francis described Mazzucato's work as, quote, thinking that is not ideological, which moves beyond the polarization of free market capitalism and state socialism, and which has at its heart a concern that all of humanity have access to land, lodging, and labor.
15:15
The website Catholic Culture published on Tuesday links to recent social media posts shared by Mazzucato in which she tweeted and retweeted pro -abortion statements concerning the
15:26
Supreme Court's decision to return abortion law to the states. In response to a
15:31
Twitter post that featured commentary deploring the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Mazzucato tweeted, So good. Post included a video of commentator
15:39
Anna Kasparian condemning Christians for pushing their own views on non -Christians.
15:44
I listened to it. It was just pathetic. Classic example of what you could use to talk about Christian worldview issues.
15:58
And so, Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, a Catholic and outspoken advocate for the right to life, told
16:05
CNA that he is disturbed by the news of the appointment the Pontifical Academy for Life exists to advance the Church's mission to foster respect for the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family, beginning with the precious child in the womb.
16:18
Either one believes in this mission or one does not. If one does not, then why would one wish to be part of the
16:23
Pontifical Academy, George asked. And why would someone with appointment authority appoint someone to the
16:29
Academy? I can think of no explanation that is not shocking and scandalous, George told CNA.
16:36
And then there's a bunch of stuff she's tweeted, again, against Roe v.
16:43
Wade and overturning so on and so forth. This is also interesting.
16:49
The Pontifical Academy for Life was formed by St. John Paul II in 1994 with a pro -life mission to study information and formation on the principal problems of biomedicine and of the law relative to the promotion and defense of life, above all, the direct relation that they have with Christian morality and the directives of the
17:07
Church's magisterium. The Academy's first president, Venerable Jérôme Lejeune, established bylaws requiring members of the
17:15
Academy to sign a declaration stating, quote, Before God and men, we bear witness that for us, every human being is a person and that from the moment that the embryo is formed until death, it is the same human being which grows to maturity and dies.
17:35
In 2016, however, with the appointment of Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as president of the
17:41
Pontifical Academy for Life, Pope Francis approved new statutes that eliminated the requirement that members declare themselves pro -life.
17:53
However, the Academy's new statutes still require members to conform with Church teaching. Well, I would make a pretty strong argument, personally, that Pope Francis does not conform to Church teaching.
18:09
But then again, he's the Pope. And there's your problem. Because as long as you have the idea that the
18:17
Pope is the final arbiter of all these things, then the Pope gets to determine what Church teaching is anyway. See, the
18:26
Roman system has all these academies and the
18:33
Pontifical Biblical Commission and all the rest of this kind of stuff that has tremendous weight and authority and impact over Roman Catholic institutions and things like that.
18:47
And the Pope gets to assign people. And everybody knows that Francis has been elevating to the position of Cardinal men who have his views of theology and the world, which are very leftist, socialist, liberation theology, way left of center stuff.
19:16
And so how many popes does it take to have a fundamental impact?
19:25
I mean, let's just think. What if after Ratzinger, Boniface XVI, you had three more pontificates of conservative
19:43
Ratzinger -esque or even more conservative popes?
19:49
And then let's say, let's compare that with, let's say we have two more, at least two more
19:55
Francis -style popes, because there's really good chance. I mean, he's filled the
20:02
College of Cardinals with his own sycophants, his own mirror images.
20:12
So who are they going to vote for as far as the next pope? Should he die or, as he very well could, resign?
20:23
Go three popes down those two roads. And do you have the same body of teaching?
20:33
No, you don't. You've now had years and years and years of diverging teaching and application of fundamental aspects, of what
20:49
Roman Catholicism would identify as the Christian faith. This is how tradition changes over time.
20:56
And we are watching a situation where anybody with a scintilla of honesty knows that the current pope does not positively affirm and believe so much of what was affirmed and believed by popes 60 years ago, 70 years ago, 100 years ago.
21:30
And so when someone says, well, Rome will always stand firm on issues of human sexuality, abortion, marriage.
21:39
How do you know that? If Pope Francis knowingly, not out of ignorance, but knowingly can appoint to something called the
21:55
Pontifical Institute for Life, whatever it was here,
22:00
I'm looking for it, pro -life mission, knowingly put people in this group that are not pro -life, that have supported sentiments of abortion rights and things like that.
22:26
If that can happen now, then why can't it happen in the next pope?
22:39
Why can't the next pope push that even farther and push that even farther and push that even farther?
22:47
And if you try to push back and if you try to say, well, but that's wrong, how can that be?
22:56
This is the very essence of my point. When you do not have an objective.
23:03
Sorry, the cameras shot off on me and I sort of like to have the cameras running, be able to see what's going on out there.
23:15
There we go. I figured that that truck could not have been sitting at the corner quite as long as it was frozen in place.
23:23
A little distracting, but hey, we have a WEF mayor in Phoenix and so we've become
23:31
Los Angeles East. So you have to keep an eye on things. This is the problem when you do not have sola scriptura.
23:42
Tradition develops over time, including within Roman Catholicism. And if you've just been sitting back going, well, at least the
23:51
Catholics will always be there to hold the line. Really?
23:58
Really? You're sure about that? I don't think that's the case.
24:06
OK. An article appeared yesterday in a website called
24:16
Baptist Dogmatics. And when it was first sent to me,
24:24
I made some inquiry as to. Who the author was and things like that.
24:35
And my sources of information came back and said it was written by Drew Sparks.
24:43
Don't know. That's just what my information says. That's all I can go with. I don't know these guys.
24:50
I've never seen the website before. So or if I have, I don't have any recollection of it.
24:57
And the article is one of what will be a number of articles, evidently.
25:10
A Trinity Christology and James White Methodological Concerns. And I want to respond to it mainly because it's one of the few that have not been just overtly.
25:28
Ungracious, nasty, just what we saw when the
25:36
G .B .T .S. journal came out. The kind of knee jerk and worse stuff was published later in the day.
25:46
There was there was one guy went after Dr. Johnson, especially. And it's just so so personal, nasty, inflammatory, divisive, no substance.
25:57
I have honestly, honestly, maybe it's out there someplace and I'm not seeing it. I've seen all sorts of people quoting portions of the articles.
26:06
Some of my articles on Sola Scriptura, on Thomas Aquinas and Sola Scriptura. Especially Jeff Morris' fine article on philosophy and Act 17.
26:18
Really, really well done. And I've seen lots of folks posting positive material from that.
26:25
I have not seen any of the critics interacting in any positive way.
26:34
Not presenting any kind of information, just dismissive, insulting, belittling.
26:40
That's all they've got, evidently. I've not seen anything. Now, some might say, well, it's too soon.
26:46
It wasn't too soon for them to blast the journal. They did that faster they could have possibly read it.
26:54
So, yeah, I get it. I would expect that if there was going to be a meaningful pushback, it would take some time.
27:03
They didn't take the time to avoid the kind of nastiness that popped out yesterday.
27:12
But again, just haven't seen anything at all. No one has pointed out where I am in error in my articles, in my citations of Thomas, in my discussion of Sola Scriptura, in the conclusion that I came to.
27:29
And that is that it's an anachronistic question to ask whether Thomas Aquinas functioned on the basis of our understanding of Sola Scriptura.
27:40
But there is still value in looking at some of his statements on the subject.
27:47
So anyway, with all that said, maybe one of the reasons I would want to respond to this is because it's not nearly as nasty as what we're used to.
28:02
So it's sort of like, oh, let's try to encourage that. Even though it's disagreeing with me, it's just so uncommon to find anybody in these days that does that without including all sorts of other stuff.
28:19
And so he says, We are compelled by the love of Christ to provide sound doctrine for those
28:28
God has entrusted in our care. Not only do we pastor Reformed Baptist churches, we are also aware that many brothers and sisters in our circles have benefited from Alpha Omega Ministries and the writings of James White for these reasons we thought it best to take up and write.
28:41
Over the next several weeks, we will write a fixed series of posts concerning these recent discussions, specifically as they relate to Matthew 24 -36 and the
28:50
Son's knowledge of the time of his return. White recently posted his thoughts on this topic here, gave reference.
28:59
And that, I would point out, that was just too long for a Twitter thread.
29:04
So that was where I was once again correcting misrepresentations, straw men, trying to get the topic back on the issue.
29:16
And the issue here in discussing the Matthew 24 -36 passage is, once again, the reality that it's a difficult text, and to come to that text with a preordained conclusion means you're no longer doing exegesis.
29:45
You can't criticize other people who have their own texts when they don't handle their texts correctly when you yourself are coming to your text with preconceived conclusions that limit what the text can possibly mean.
30:10
So it's the old consistency thing again. And that's what
30:17
I was trying to point out in the article. We do not desire to engage in a never -ending discussion or ongoing polemics.
30:24
That's good. Rather, we wish to offer a presentation of one methodological, two exegetical, three theological, and four practical concerns that will benefit our congregations and edify the larger body of Christ, God willing.
30:36
Our first concern, the focus of this article, so this particular one, addresses methodology.
30:43
The recent debate does not merely center around conclusions, but the way in which we arrive at our theological conclusions. Quite true.
30:50
White seems to understand this when he writes, and it wasn't just a brief little article, but I did 80 -90 minutes of the driving line last week as I was coming back on this very subject, this very issue, going rather in -depth into it.
31:12
The issue is the exegesis of a particular text of Scripture, Matthew 24 -36, that is very difficult.
31:19
This is me. Do we say its intended meaning, both as the author wrote it, as the original audiences read it, and as we read it today, is to be determined by one...
31:33
No, no, let's stop for a second. What am I saying? How do we determine the meaning of a difficult text?
31:44
Now, it is not a part of my discussion here to talk about whether this is...
31:52
I'm not going at the subject of inspiration, divine nature of Scripture.
31:58
That's a given. Within this conversation, it's already a given that we're dealing with that which is
32:04
Theogonistos. And hence, as I have always taught, and in fact, the name, the dividing line, was originally in reference to those who believe that the
32:21
Scriptures are sufficient to know what God's truth is, and those who do not. That was the original dividing line. So, since the 1980s, that's been our focus.
32:34
And so, the issue is, how do you determine the meaning of a text in Scripture?
32:42
How do you come to know what divine Scripture that is God -breathed, what it's actually saying?
32:50
That's what I'm addressing here. And so, is it to be determined by its immediate context, its context in Matthew, and the context in the
33:01
New Testament, and in the Bible, first and foremost? Or two, to be simply categorized according to a theological paradigm that would have been unknown to the author and the original audience?
33:14
So, there's a specific context here. And that is, do you start with an honest analysis and appraisal of the immediate context?
33:27
Which I did, I think, while driving, where we talked about the verse before and the verse after.
33:39
And I think also, now that I'm thinking about it, I think I did in the article, too. So, immediate context, that's always the first thing you deal with.
33:51
Then, the context in Matthew. So, the use of the term son, huyas, especially when the term son is used in parallel or in the immediate context of the use of the term father, pater, or maybe even pneuma, spirit.
34:20
When the son is speaking of the son or as the son in reference to the father in Matthew, that is a vitally important category for any kind of meaningful interpretation of what is found in Matthew 24 -36.
34:41
Now, that is in, so, anyone who's familiar with the study of hermeneutics knows that what
34:47
I'm saying is close context, book context, authorial context, context of New Testament, Bible, first and foremost, not only, but first and foremost, primary, foundational, principia.
35:09
Everybody's into Latin these days, so, okay, I can do Latin, too. I just normally don't because it doesn't help anybody, but everybody's doing it today.
35:18
So, the principia, the principle, foundational, first element in doing what?
35:25
In understanding the content of divine revelation, what has been communicated to us by God in divine scripture.
35:37
That is a different approach to the other approach, which I'm contrasting that to, to be simply categorized according to a theological paradigm that would have been unknown to the author and the original audience.
35:54
So, I have seen that being done. I've seen people online doing this and assuming that Matthew is functioning with a post -Nicene dogmatic framework.
36:13
Now, some might argue, well, look, if Nicaea is true to biblical categories, then that is what
36:18
Matthew had. The questions being addressed by Nicaea are being asked within the context of the broader
36:28
Greek culture of the early 4th century and within the context of the theological developments that have already been taking place, especially in light of origins teachings in Alexandria.
36:53
So, there's already a different context than you would have in 1st century
37:01
Israel in the Gospel of Matthew. And so, if you're going to say they're the same context, that's going to be very,
37:11
I think, easily challenged by people outside the faith, which, again, unfortunately, most theologians don't concern themselves with that.
37:21
They don't concern themselves with the coherence of what they're saying outside of the narrow confines of the
37:29
Christian academy. And that's problematic. Okay, so I go back to the article now, not my quote, but White's presentation of the dichotomy raises several questions.
37:43
The dichotomy, by the way, was raised by the context of what I'm responding to.
37:49
There are probably hundreds of books on hermeneutics.
37:56
And once you leave conservative Christianity, and once you leave the context of inspiration, there are dozens and dozens of theories and methodologies that you will be exposed to in higher education, all of which,
38:15
I think, leave you with a befuddled variety of conclusions as well.
38:23
But I was dealing with a specific context here. White's presentation of the dichotomy raises several questions.
38:34
The first and most pressing is, who is the author? We agree with White that Matthew penned these words and that Matthew's Gospel may rightly be called
38:44
God's Word. We are grateful for the agreement we have with our brother at this point. Well, how could we not, in light of our confessional statements?
38:52
However, White's construction of the question lends itself to a heightened focus on the minds of the human author, the audience, and ourselves as contemporary readers.
39:03
Now, you know where this is going. Because this is part and parcel of the new hermeneutic, is to say that the historical grammatical methodology in some way de -spiritualizes the scriptural text.
39:26
And I simply reject the assertion. It's just not true. It's an untrue assertion. It may be repeated often enough, but it's just not true.
39:35
And so, there is a given, there is an absolute givenness.
39:44
In my, anything that I say about scripture is that I believe it is absolutely divine.
39:50
It is, how many times have we gone over Sola Scriptura?
39:57
And how many times, in my defense of Sola Scriptura, have I gone to Peter's words?
40:04
Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. So, what they spoke is from God.
40:15
It represents what God wants us to have. It is not an exhaustive revelation of everything there is to know about God, because it is not
40:24
God's intention that we know everything about Him. It was never intended to be that. But what it does tell us about God is exactly what
40:33
God wants to be revealed. And therefore, what is revealed is what is vital for us to know to worship
40:41
Him and to know Him aright. So, that's never a given. I'm sorry, that's never in dispute.
40:48
It is always a given. If I'm talking, if I'm presenting something, the foundational assumption is we're talking about divine scripture.
40:56
We're talking about something that has God as author. Men spoke from God, but it's men who spoke as they were carried along by the
41:07
Holy Spirit. And their words had meaning, and the objective element of that meaning was intended by the authors to be communicated to the audience.
41:18
Once you leave that, you no longer have objective scripture. You no longer have an objective revelation that can be passed on from one generation to another.
41:29
You no longer have any means of testing doctrine and theology. If you abandon that, it's over.
41:39
You will be forced over time to replace the objective truth of the revelation of scripture with some form of call it divinely ordained, spirit guided, protected by the church.
41:57
People have come up with all sorts of phrases to describe this, but you will end up with some form of traditionalism.
42:07
And you will no longer believe in soul scripture, because you're not practicing it. So, this is absolutely vital.
42:18
When Matthew wrote these words, they had meaning. And if you say that meaning could not have been known at the time, or develops after Nicaea, or whatever, you have left the realm of being able to claim that the
42:38
Bible is the source of your faith. That what you are communicating can be communicated to the next generation, and the generation thereafter, as objective truth.
42:49
You can't do it anymore. You don't have a divine source, unless you try to elevate tradition to a divine source.
42:58
And that's my whole point. While these minds are important, they are secondary.
43:07
God, indeed, the primary author, is absent from White's construal.
43:15
Okay. Unless this is corrected, the rest of these articles will be utterly irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant.
43:25
Because we're not even addressing the same issue. We're not even talking on the same plane. They'll go off and do their thing, and we'll be over here doing our thing, and nothing's going to come of it.
43:34
So, an immediate retraction and correction has to be provided, or the rest of it's just worthless.
43:40
Guys, it just is. Let me explain why. You are hitting a category error yet once again, despite what
43:51
Dr. Van Cleeg thinks. The issue is not whether God is the author.
43:59
And the issue is not the mind of God. We believe that Scripture is a revelation of the mind of God, insofar as God chooses to reveal what
44:15
He wants us to know about His mind, His purpose, His being, so that we may worship
44:23
Him right. It is not an exhaustive... We do not have independent access to the mind of God.
44:33
The only thing we have in natural revelation is that He exists, He's good, and we should give thanks to Him.
44:38
That's it. That is the absolute limitation. Everything else is found in Scripture itself.
44:47
And that means God delimited it. It is the result of a purposeful restriction and limitation by God as to what we need to know for His purposes, for the accomplishment of His goals,
45:07
His will in this world. But we do not have access to the mind of God outside of Scripture itself.
45:18
So to say that God, indeed the primary author, is absent from White's construal is to completely misunderstand the entirety of what we're talking about.
45:32
The entirety of it. Or, even worse, it's the idea that you can put
45:40
God's mind on the same level as man's mind, as just one of the building blocks we're dealing with.
45:47
This leads... Well, as we're going to see, there's going to be a number of texts that are going to be cited.
45:55
And the exegetical, hermeneutical methodology for the application of the meaning of the text is mine.
46:03
Not theirs. That's what made me chuckle. Because the assumption is, we can cite
46:10
Scripture for each other. Well, why? Because if what you eventually get down to is some type of spiritual discernment of the mind of God, then what if the
46:25
Spirit leads me to understand those texts to something different than you? Because we can't go with grammatical or historical interpretation.
46:33
We can't have a consistent methodology of interpretation if we're going that direction.
46:41
So why cite texts of Scripture? Assuming that they would restrict me, that their authority would have something to do with me.
46:50
You see, there's... We can't escape it. No matter how hard we try, we can't escape it.
46:59
So, God, the primary author, is not absent from my construal. It's the foundation of it. God is the primary author.
47:08
The reason that we can... Well, look at my statement, and I'll prove it. That's why y 'all just need to stop right now, stop writing, and start over again.
47:20
Because you missed it from the start. All due respect, you missed it from the start.
47:26
Look at my own statement. Number one in my statement, I said,
47:33
It's immediate context. Why would that be relevant? Because I believe Scripture is consistent with self because it's God speaking.
47:39
It's context in Matthew. Why would that be relevant? Same reason. The context of the New Testament.
47:45
That means multiple authors spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. That's God.
47:52
And then the Bible itself. The entire biblical context. That is completely missing from modern liberal interpretation of Scripture.
48:03
It's what's rejected. I've been fighting that my entire adult life. So, central to my assertion was
48:12
God as author. And you missed it. I don't know how. I don't know why. It just strikes me that this would not have happened 10 -15 years ago.
48:20
These categories that have been brought in from the outside are creating this kind of stuff.
48:26
I don't know why. But I'm just telling you. Stop the presses. Because if you don't fix that, you have nothing else worthwhile to say.
48:34
Because you're starting off with a misrepresentation. It's just plain as can be.
48:43
But I've saved you a lot of effort. Stop. Fix it. Try another approach.
48:49
Because that ain't working. Okay. White will later state in what sense he believes the primary author's intention bears on the text and its interpretation.
49:01
Hopefully, there is more common ground than we realize. But the statement as it stands neglects the importance of the divine mind.
49:06
Untrue. Misrepresentation. If there is no withdrawal of it, then it's a strawman.
49:14
If there's a withdrawal, then it's like, okay, yeah, you're right. We didn't really think that one through. We'll fix it.
49:20
Great. All right. These starting points are different, hence, in our estimation.
49:26
These starting points are different, hence, in our estimation, the reason for the divide in recent discussions.
49:35
Well, I guess that's the assertion that you all are starting with the mind of God. You haven't told us how you know that outside of Scripture.
49:44
If you say, well, you know it by Scripture, then you have to tell me how you know what the words of Scripture mean, and we're right back to where we start. Let's not assume that we engage in mere theological speculations.
49:54
We have good biblical warrant for seeking to understand the divine mind as primary and human minds, even an author such as Matthew, as secondary.
50:05
Well, it's God's Word. Men spoke from God as they carried along by the Holy Spirit. So it's not an issue of primary -secondary.
50:12
It's divine Scripture. So obviously, its divine nature is first and foremost. But that's not addressing the issue of the interpretation of a text of Scripture.
50:26
First, the minds of hearers often fail to understand the mysteries of the faith. Irrelevant.
50:34
Utterly irrelevant. Has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not saying
50:39
Matthew misunderstood anything. I'm not saying there's error in the human mind.
50:46
I'm saying men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. And therefore, there is an objective meaning that was expressed by Matthew to his audience that continues to be relevant to us today, and that if we don't start there, then we are no longer dealing with Scripture.
50:57
That's my statement. That's where I stand. And I've not seen anybody even get close to even starting to overthrow that assertion.
51:08
So, the minds of hearers often fail to understand mysteries of faith. Irrelevant. Consider the mystery of the resurrection of the
51:14
Messiah. After proclaiming that he would raise up the temple in three days, Christ was mocked. John 2, 19 -20.
51:20
The temple that was to be destroyed was built over 46 years. The scholars exclaimed they failed to understand that Jesus was speaking in the temple of his body.
51:27
We ought not to expect the mocking minds of the original audience to understand and appreciate the deep things of God. Utterly irrelevant. I'm sorry, guys.
51:39
There's just a real level of confusion here. Okay, unbelievers mocked
51:45
Jesus, and that means we should not give consideration to what
51:51
Matthew intended to communicate by what he wrote. So, since you guys have written emails to people that were misunderstood, we should not expect to be able to figure out what you intended in writing this article, right?
52:05
Because people misunderstood your emails. In fact, you've written to people who didn't like you, and they mocked your emails, and therefore, we can't have any idea what you originally intended?
52:15
Really? I don't know where this is coming from. I really, really honestly,
52:22
I could not imagine encountering this kind of thinking, like I said, only a short period of time ago, amongst
52:31
Reformed Baptists. I've just never heard anyone speak like this before, until recently.
52:42
So, first example, irrelevant. Second, the minds of the believers often failed to understand
52:48
Jesus' words. We ought not to assume that regeneration immediately solves the problem.
52:54
Jesus' statement about his body was remembered after he rose from the dead, John 2, 22, which implies the apostles did not understand the weight of Jesus' statement when originally uttered.
53:05
Okay. And scripture tells us that. But when these words are inscripturated, that someone speaking from God, in human language, is being carried along by the
53:17
Holy Spirit. How is any of that relevant? I could see how this would be relevant if you were trying to argue against inerrancy and inspiration, because this is how leftists argue against inerrancy and inspiration.
53:28
But I have no idea how it can be relevant in this context at all.
53:35
Their misunderstanding about the resurrection is apparent in Luke 18, 34, which reads, but the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of the statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.
53:45
Quite true, has nothing to do with the subject at all. A complete non -sequitur. A complete non -sequitur, unless you are going to argue that Matthew didn't understand what
53:55
Jesus was saying. And that's an argument against inspiration and the consistency of scripture. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that I was saying, and the topic of the interpretation of Matthew 24, 36.
54:08
Third, regenerate believers living after the day of Pentecost did not fully understand the claims of the human authors of scripture.
54:14
Peter admits that some of the things Paul says are hard to understand, even though he says it's untaught and unstable men, by the way, in that passage.
54:21
Peter also affirms that the unregenerate audience distorts Paul's writings and the rest of scripture.
54:27
While there is a contrast between Peter and the untaught, Peter maintains that his mind struggles to understand the things written by Paul.
54:35
So what? So what? Utterly irrelevant. Unless you're arguing against inspiration, which you're not.
54:44
So what does this have to do with what I said? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
54:51
Unless you're just arguing that looking at Matthew's intention, Matthew's intention could be wrong, and therefore we need to have the mind of God.
55:02
I... I... Sorry. Don't see how it's even slightly relevant.
55:13
Fourth, the minds of the human authors do not fully understand those things about which they wrote. Peter indicates that prophets made careful searches and inquiries as they sought to know the one of whom the
55:22
Spirit testified. That's because revelations haven't been made yet. Did the Spirit know? Yes. Did the prophets know? No. No question about that.
55:29
Has nothing to do with the point. Thus, we have warrant to go beyond the limits of the prophets' reasoning because we know that...
55:37
we know the one after whom they searched. And how do we know the one after whom they searched? Scripture.
55:45
Scripture or revelation. Right? Or is this just a... Did you... Do you feel?
55:51
Is it... Is it spiritual burning in the bosom? What is it? I don't know. You don't say. Because I don't...
55:59
I don't know the point you're making. We do not leave the text of Scripture to do so.
56:07
Rather, we put our ear closer to the text to learn the rules of reading and receive the conclusions given by the one who did not need to search or inquire because he knew of whom he spoke.
56:27
Now, there's... That's obviously going to be unpacked. But I'm hearing echoes of the new hermeneutics here, right?
56:41
We need to interpret Scripture like the apostles did. Like we're inspired.
56:48
Or something along those lines. Which, again, I keep hearing people talk about this but I never see them applying it in any way that can be tested.
57:00
Now, I... We've over and over again on this program looked at the definition of great tradition exegesis and so we've gone into people like Thomas and we could go into Bonaventura and we could go into Anselm and we could go into all sorts of folks in that time period if you want to and look at how they handled
57:21
Scripture and find place after place after place after place we've already documented over and over again and nobody, no one on the other side that I am aware of has even tried to defend.
57:34
For example, and I use this example because I've put it out there and it's like, this is real important, this is real central there's no question that Aquinas wrote this and so, answer this, and nobody will it's just like, let's just ignore it, hope nobody notices it
57:54
Romans 4 Does Romans 4 have... Can we determine what
57:59
Paul intended to communicate in Romans 4 about justification? Or do we need to put our ear closer to the text?
58:09
What does that mean? What does that... We need to know objectively what that means
58:14
I need to know this with such clarity that I can teach my grandchildren how to do it, right? Right?
58:20
That's what we need to do? Agree? We need to put our ear closer to the text to learn the rules of reading.
58:31
I thought that's what we were doing You know, when you look at something in immediate context you know, how the author is using words that's what we're doing and receive the conclusions given by the one who did not need to search or inquire because he knew of whom he spoke
58:49
It sounds like there's a special spiritual meaning I'm wondering if origin has snuck into the back door of the
59:00
Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors Conference because we know historically how that worked the literal surface meaning that anyone can determine is the least important then there's the moral and ethical meaning and then there's the spiritual meaning and only the truly spiritual understand the spiritual meaning and that was the death of the
59:27
Old Testament as a meaningful source of objective revelation until the
59:32
Reformation itself I hope that's not where this is going but it does make you go and receive the conclusions receive receive how?
59:48
Spiritually? As in revelation? As in illumination?
59:55
I don't know, we're not told These four lines of reasoning do not allow us to turn
01:00:00
Scripture into a wax nose. Well, we would hope not Theological reasoning is not an act of understanding our own mind or even the mind of the greatest scholastics
01:00:08
Rather, it is an attempt to understand the mind of God as has been revealed by the omniscient spirit in the canon of Holy Scripture We may say with William Perkins, the father of the
01:00:21
Puritans the principal interpreter of the Scripture is the Holy Spirit He who makes the law is the best and highest interpreter of the law
01:00:27
We are compelled to ask, how does the spirit interpret this text? We do so even if human minds fail to grasp the spirit's intended meaning and how does the spirit of God communicate the intended meaning of the text?
01:00:45
Isn't that by the very form he placed it in in the first place? By the choice of the words by the choice of the authors, by the choice of the context which can only be known one way can only be known one way because what
01:01:02
I'm concerned about hearing what I don't want to hear here, but it may be coming is that we have a better understanding of Matthew 24 -36 than anybody in the first century could have had
01:01:16
Now, some people might be confused because I've said that in our day we have more information about the text of the
01:01:23
New Testament than any generation before us. That's not the same thing
01:01:28
I'm talking about the historical transmission of the text of scripture over time. That's not the same thing as some idea of the spirit's intended meaning.
01:01:40
How does the spirit communicate his intended meaning? Well, he does so by the way he initially inspires it.
01:01:50
That way it can be the objective source of truth for generation after generation Right?
01:01:58
If it's something that develops over time if it is, as certain people today have expressed it, if the doctrine of the
01:02:05
Trinity only really became fully known in its final perfect form in Aquinas and was not known in a perfect way until him then to call yourself a holder of sola scriptura is just mockery.
01:02:21
You don't. You cannot say that and hold the sola scriptura. It's not possible.
01:02:27
You believe in some form of continual revelation or necessity of divinely given tradition growing over time something like that.
01:02:39
I hope that's not where it's going but if it is we need to find out pretty quick We need to find out really, really quick.
01:02:49
I think that's that would be important Thus, the first and most pressing question has been answered.
01:02:58
Who is the author? It is the primary author of scripture. As a consequence, our theological reasoning should not be confined to what the secondary author and original audience did or did not know, for their minds may have missed what the spirit says of the churches.
01:03:10
Okay, this is a massive category error, fundamental foundational error needs to be refuted and exposed needs to be refuted and exposed.
01:03:20
This is dangerous stuff. Very dangerous stuff and let me explain why.
01:03:27
Listen again to what it says. Primary author of scripture, spirit of God.
01:03:33
That's a given. We all, I thought agreed with that. Everyone should have recognized that in what
01:03:42
I said that is absolutely foundational. It's in every book I've ever written, every debate I've ever done. There's no excuse.
01:03:48
None. That first misrepresentation, no excuses guys. None. Sorry. But notice what it says here.
01:03:58
Who is the author? It is the primary author of scripture. As a consequence, our theological reasoning should not be confined to what the secondary author and original audience did or did not know for their minds may have missed what the spirit says of the churches.
01:04:16
Now, that sounds extremely pious, but it has nothing to do with Matthew 24 36.
01:04:22
I hope you recognize the reason for that. Take that sentence and go, how does this directly relate to understanding what the words of Matthew 24 36 says?
01:04:38
How does it relate? And you'll see that they're addressing different issues. It's supposed to be addressing the same issue, but it's not.
01:04:48
So, the question is, what is the meaning when Matthew writes for us
01:04:54
Jesus's words? No man knows they are not the angels in heaven, nor the son but the father alone.
01:05:05
Okay. When you say their minds who are their minds?
01:05:16
Well, certainly the original audience could have misunderstood Jesus's words. Are you saying that Matthew's mind misunderstood what
01:05:26
Jesus was saying? Because I'm not saying I'm not saying I know what Matthew understood.
01:05:32
That's not the point. The point is, what did Matthew communicate? We cannot have a discussion of Matthew 24 36 if you're going to move the meaning of his words off into some sort of spiritual woowoo land where we have to have warm feelings with one another.
01:05:50
If you're going to tell me there is no objective way of knowing what those words actually mean, then why are we wasting our time?
01:06:01
Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. We have no reason to be having any of these conversations. None. And what the spirit says to the churches
01:06:10
Okay, when has the spirit given an inspired interpretation of Matthew 24 36?
01:06:20
That had to have happened after the apostles were gone. So now we have inspired revelation after the apostles.
01:06:30
Is that when it happened? When does it happen? Did it happen in a council? See, I've been hearing from folks for a long time now that will tell us
01:06:41
Well, the Spirit of God has told us this. The church has testified of this. And I go, when and where?
01:06:48
Who did it? Dr. Van Cleek tells us that the church has accepted the textus receptus.
01:06:54
Well, when did that happen? What was the vote? What council was it?
01:07:00
And there is no answer to any of that stuff. We wish to raise a second question.
01:07:10
Is it possible that Matthew understood partitive exegesis? We have not been given reason to believe otherwise.
01:07:20
Well, what's partitive exegesis? Well, as it's being used here, the idea of assigning a statement by the incarnate
01:07:36
Christ to either the human or the divine nature. Partitive.
01:07:42
Recognizing who Jesus is. And so, partitive exegesis. Well, how do we know
01:07:48
Matthew didn't understand that? The issue is the point is when
01:07:58
Matthew says, Son the Son's speaking if you are going to say, and many people have and I said in the article,
01:08:11
I've said over and over again, lots and lots of people have come to the conclusion that this somehow is to be ascribed only to the human nature of Christ.
01:08:26
Okay? Because the Council of Chalcedon says it. And I say, stop. The truthfulness of what the
01:08:35
Council of Chalcedon said is based upon its consistency with Scripture. Not the other way around. The Council of Chalcedon cannot function as your lens to read
01:08:43
Scripture. And if you're doing that, just give up on the Sola Scriptura. Just be honest. Just be honest.
01:08:51
Step out and say, we were wrong about that Sola Scriptura stuff.
01:08:56
And you know what? The Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, they're watching this and they know. They are seeing it.
01:09:03
I'm seeing the comments. They know you are on their side. They see it. You may not see it.
01:09:10
I have sources. You don't. They're just like, oh, look at that.
01:09:17
And they know who's being consistent and who isn't. They know. They see it. So, what the
01:09:26
Spirit says to the churches. Partitive exegesis. Can you defend?
01:09:33
You said, we have not been given reasons to believe otherwise. That's not a proper statement.
01:09:41
If you're going to say this is what Matthew was doing, then you need to prove it. That means you need to go into Matthew's utilization.
01:09:48
Matthew's language. That's why I looked at the immediate context. Remember? We talked about what's before and after.
01:09:56
And that's not what you'd be led to by the before and after. And again, with all due respect, you guys don't take this stuff out to the people who would be pushing against you.
01:10:12
Who have other beliefs. And when you have to take it out there, which is what
01:10:18
I do, that's why I have the concerns a lot of other people don't. A lot of other people don't.
01:10:27
It's because of what I do. When White asserts that we operate with a theological paradigm that would have been unknown to the author in the original audience, he operates under the assumption that Matthew neither understood nor held to part of exegesis.
01:10:43
We contend that White's line of reasoning begs the question at this point. No, you're begging the question. You're going the exact opposite direction.
01:10:48
If you're going to say that Matthew understands part of exegesis, prove it. Because if I'm going to go into a debate with someone and make that statement, then
01:10:56
I need to prove it. And here again is our situation. You don't take it into those places.
01:11:03
So you can just make assumptions and run with it. I can't. I can't.
01:11:12
This first post sought to outline the methodological differences between James White and his interlocutors. By no means does it settle the exegetical and theological questions surrounding
01:11:19
Matthew 24 -36, which we intend to address. However, it does explain why individuals have reached different conclusions as well as highlight how those who come to different conclusions approach the text.
01:11:29
Well, somewhat. But guys, you've got to do major work right there because that was not coherent.
01:11:43
It's not coherent. It's not only misrepresentational. You've got to fix it. But maybe in your defense you would say, we're going to lay out exactly how the
01:11:57
Holy Spirit has revealed the mind of God as to the meaning of Matthew 24 -36 outside of the words of Matthew 24 -36.
01:12:05
I just don't necessarily want to see that because I know the only way to go to get there.
01:12:16
And it is a fundamental abandonment of soul scripture. It's the only way you can go.
01:12:25
Historically, when this has happened, there's always been a redefinition of the doctrines before there's an abandonment of it.
01:12:32
The redefinition doesn't work. And so eventually it's like, just throw it out.
01:12:37
That's what's happened historically. I'm hoping and praying that won't happen here.
01:12:45
But you're going to have to A. Fix misrepresentation. God is the author. No one's arguing that.
01:12:50
That's just straw man. You blew that point. But secondly, if you're going to be saying, well, yes,
01:13:00
Matthew understood this, then you need to prove it. And thirdly, when you talk about the spirit speaking to the churches, then you need to explain, if that's not determined by the very words of scripture, then how is it determined?
01:13:15
After the correction article, that needs to be the next article. That really does. Now, I want to note to everybody what we just did.
01:13:25
I did not say these men need to be canceled. I did not say that they are starting a cult, as people said about us recently.
01:13:34
I was strong in my response, because it's vitally important. But you notice what
01:13:40
I did? I read every word they wrote. Because if you love the truth, you don't have anything to hide from.
01:13:50
So I read everything they wrote. I read the entire article. Now, I don't always have the time to do that.
01:13:57
It wouldn't have been bad if I just focused on it. But it was short enough that I could do that. The point is, compare and contrast how we engage these topics with how the others do.
01:14:13
They did quote me. I appreciate it was a brief quote, but they did quote me.
01:14:19
I hope it stays that way. But that has not been the standard approach of what we've been seeing in this dispute for the longest period of time.
01:14:34
Just one thing before we wrap up today. Next week is going to be a little weird, because right now we are scheduled.
01:14:49
You seem to have already known this. Yes, I was already making plans within plans.
01:15:00
I had that discussion with a young man yesterday. Next week on Friday at 1 .30
01:15:13
our time, which would be 4 .30 Eastern. It's not going to be a live show.
01:15:19
We can't do a live show. We have to record it. We're not live.
01:15:25
You're not that good? I don't expect the internet to be that good. If it is,
01:15:30
I can make it happen. But this is a hotel.
01:15:38
That was a big old honking. We've been in hotels before and they like to clamp down on the internet streaming.
01:15:47
We will take a look. It may not be live. ReformCon is next week.
01:15:53
Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. Joe Boots is going to be there. I'm going to be there.
01:16:02
We're going to be doing our thing. We're going to try to do a dividing line live from ReformCon with a live studio audience.
01:16:12
I guess it wouldn't be a studio audience, but a conference audience. That would be on Friday.
01:16:19
I don't know what that's going to mean. I don't even know what my schedule is as to when
01:16:25
I'm speaking. I'm speaking on where have all the presuppers gone.
01:16:33
All these people who three years ago called themselves presuppositionalists and now that they've discovered classical theism whatever that is from their perspective they've jumped ship.
01:16:47
We're going to be talking about what has caused that and what that tells us about what they initially believed and provide a defense from Romans 1 and other texts in regards to a presuppositional methodology.
01:17:02
That may have some impact on the scheduling of the whole week is basically all I was trying to get to at that point.
01:17:09
We will see how that all works out and we will go from there. Thank you for listening to the program today.
01:17:16
I hope it was challenging and helpful. A wide variety of subjects as well. We'll see you next time on The Dividing Line.